Cross-posted from Counterpunch
"It is no longer plausible to argue that ISIS was a result of unintentional screw ups by the US. It is a clear part of a US strategy to break up the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah alliance. Now that strategy may prove to be a total failure and end up backfiring, but make no mistake, ISIS IS the strategy." ~~ Lysander, Comments line, Moon of Alabama
"US imperialism has been the principal instigator of sectarianism in the region, from its divide-and-conquer strategy in the war and occupation in Iraq, to the fomenting of sectarian civil war to topple Assad in Syria. Its cynical support for Sunni Islamist insurgents in Syria, while backing a Shiite sectarian regime across the border in Iraq to suppress these very same forces, has brought the entire Middle East to what a United Nations panel on Syria warned Tuesday was the "cusp of a regional war."
~~ Bill Van Auken, Obama orders nearly 300 US troops to Iraq, World Socialist Web Site
Barack Obama is blackmailing Nouri al-Maliki by withholding military support until the Iraqi Prime Minister agrees to step down. In other words, we are mid-stream in another regime change operation authored by Washington. What's different about this operation, is the fact that Obama is using a small army of jihadi terrorists -- who have swept to within 50 miles of Baghdad -- to hold the gun to Mr. al Maliki's head. Not surprisingly, al Maliki has refused to cooperate, which means the increasingly-tense situation could explode into a civil war. Here's the scoop from the Guardian in an article aptly titled "Iraq's Maliki: I won't quit as condition of US strikes against Isis militants":
"A spokesman for the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has said he will not stand down as a condition of US air strikes against Sunni militants who have made a lightning advance across the country.
"Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, on Wednesday made a public call on al-Arabiya television for the US to launch strikes, but Barack Obama has come under pressure from senior US politicians to persuade Maliki... to step down over what they see as failed leadership in the face of an insurgency...
"The White House has not called for Maliki to go but its spokesman Jay Carney said that whether Iraq was led by Maliki or a successor, 'we will aggressively attempt to impress upon that leader the absolute necessity of rejecting sectarian governance.'" (Iraq's Maliki: I won't quit as condition of US strikes against Isis militants, Guardian)
Obviously, the White House can't tell al Maliki to leave point-blank or it would affect their credibility as proponents of democracy. But the fix is definitely in and the administration's plan to oust al Maliki is well underway. Check out this clip from the Wall Street Journal:
"A growing number of U.S. lawmakers and Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are pressing the White House to pull its support for Mr. Maliki. Some of them are pushing for change in exchange for providing their help in stabilizing Iraq, say U.S. and Arab diplomats." (U.S. Signals Iraq's Maliki Should Go, Wall Street Journal)
Pay special attention to the last sentence: "Some of them are pushing for change in exchange for providing their help in stabilizing Iraq." That sounds a lot like blackmail to me.
This is the crux of what is going on behind the scenes. Barack Obama and his lieutenants are twisting al Maliki 's arm to force him out of office. That's what the Thursday press conference was all about. Obama identified the group called the Isis as terrorists, acknowledged that they posed a grave danger to the government, and then breezily opined that he would not lift a finger to help. Why? Why is Obama so eager to blow up suspected terrorists in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan and yet unwilling to do so in Iraq? Could it be that Obama is not really committed to fighting terrorists at all, that the terror-ruse is just a fig leaf for much grander plans, like global domination?
Of course, it is. In any event, it's plain to see that Obama is not going to help al Maliki if it interferes with Washington's broader strategic objectives. And, at present, those objectives are to get rid of al Maliki, who is "too tight" with Tehran, and who refused to sign Status Of Forces Agreement in 2011 which would have allowed the US to leave 30,000 troops in Iraq. The rejection of SOFA effectively sealed al Maliki's fate and made him an enemy of the United States. It was only a matter of time before Washington took steps to remove him from office. Here's a clip from Obama's press conference on Thursday that illustrates how these things work:
"The key to both Syria and Iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country, working with moderate Syrian opposition, working with an Iraqi government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism platform that gets all the countries in the region pulling in the same direction. Rather than try to play whack-a-mole wherever these terrorist organizations may pop up, what we have to do is to be able to build effective partnerships."
What does this mean in language that we can all understand?
It means that "you're either on the team or you're off the team." If you are on the US team, then you will enjoy the benefits of "partnership" which means the US will help to defend you against the terrorist groups which they arm, fund and provide logistical support for (through their Gulf State allies).
If you are "off the team" -- as Mr. al Maliki appears to be, then Washington will look the other way while the hordes of vicious miscreants tear the heads off your soldiers, burn your cities to the ground, and reduce your country to ungovernable anarchy. So, there's a choice to be made. Either you can play along and follow orders and "nobody gets hurt, or go-it-alone and face the consequences.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).