Iraq, as the inheritor of Mesopotamia, is a country of extreme contrasts and confusion. Lying between Persia and the Arabian peninsula, it has been run over repeatedly by conquerors seeking empire for glory and plunder. Its modern incarnation dates to the close of WWI, when Great Britain was still building its global empire or colonies. At the time, the Kurds were promised an independent homeland in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, a promise which was broken by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. Consequently, the Kurds have been fighting virtually non-stop for their own destiny, being thwarted by Turks, Iranians, Syrians and whoever holds sway in Baghdad. The American imposition of a "no-fly" zone enabled the Iranian Kurds to realize autonomy after Bush I's "Desert Storm" liberated Kuwait and the defacto civil war between Shiites and Sunnis that followed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has enabled the Kurds to maintain their experiment in self-rule. Any future resolution to the internecine fighting in Iraq will require a firm commitment to Kurdish self-determination, as attempts to stymie the Kurds in Turkey and Iran have only stoked violent insurgencies.
The violence in American-occupied Iraq has been caused by many factors. First of all, the US chose to dismantle Saddam's large military forces and his Ba'ath Party, without consideration for what those million plus persons would be expected to do with themselves. Although al-Qaeda was non-existent in Iraq prior to the 2003 American invasion, the bogus claims by President G.W. Bush of links between Saddam and the 9-11 tragedy and al-Qaeda as justification for the action naturally caused reaction both within Iraq and in third countries. Being unjustly charged of attacking America and in effect being punished for something they did not do, caused the ex-Ba-athists to distrust America's motives and to welcome willing al-Qaeda recruits from abroad to fight the foreign invaders. Meanwhile, festering ill-will between Sunni and Shiite tribesmen resulted in a virtual free-for-all war in which nobody knew how many separate forces were involved.
During the reign of Saddam, his brutality is beyond doubt, as he used violence as his method of control of the country. Saddam initially attacked Iran in a 8-year vicious and bloody war that ended without enlarging Iraq's borders. America was involved behind the scenes on both sides, although officially neutral. That is when Oliver North's "Iran-Contra affair" occurred under the guidance of President Ronald Reagan. Still hungry for conquest, Saddam invaded Kuwait ostensibly to stop the poaching of Iranian oil under the desert sand and to incorporate it as a province. In fact, Saddam had asked for America's opinion about his planned adventure and was assured by American diplomats that it was of no concern. Thus, America had already double crossed Saddam twice in both of his wars, when George W. Bush decided to blame 9-11 on him and claim he was plotting to use weapons of mass destruction against the US. It would appear that Saddam has been the favorite enemy of Republican presidents to trick, blame and fight, if by proxy. Perhaps, the belief was that keeping the Iraqis fighting in the Middle East kept them from fighting in America, but there has never been credible evidence that Iraqis ever had the ambition to strike at America. That appears to have been a neo-conservative excuse for foreign intervention in Iraq.
After several years of al-Qaeda terrorists fomenting intra-Muslim bloodshed in Iraq, where Shiites outnumber Sunnis by more than double, the Sunnis grew tired of the violence against innocent compatriots, something that Mohammad had strictly warned against. Concurrently, the American people had grown wise to the deceit of George W. Bush and his cabal of neo-cons and Zionists, who salivated at the thought of controlling Iraqi oil riches. The majority of both Iraqis and Americans wanted the US to depart from Iraq by the 2006 mid-term elections in the US, but Bush refused to admit his lies about 9-11 or the failure of his Terror War policies.
Finally, Senator John McCain and others prevailed in insisting that America had too few forces to control the country, so a "Surge" of troops was combined with General Petreas' counter insurgency policies, including the paying of Sunnis to protect their neighborhoods. In combination with the decision of the Medhi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr to recognize a cease fire, increasing combat competence of the new Iraqi Army and the willingness of the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister al-Maliki to accept responsibility for areas of the country, the violence within Iraq has begun to subside, albeit not to the level under the oppression of Saddam.
The American Democratic Congress took power in 2006 with promises to end the war, yet when faced with approving Bush's budget requests or being blamed for failing to support American troops at war, Congress continued to give Bush whatever he requested to fight in Iraq. However, the Democrats continued to pay lip service to ending the war and Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for president based on promises for change and to end the war within a first term. By the time Obama visited Iraq, al-Maliki was under growing internal pressure to put a time limit to American combat troop deployments in Iraq and Bush and al-Maliki agreed to remove the American GIs by the end of 2011. Senator McCain, the Republican nominee for president, had suggested troops could remain 100 years or longer, but he has been quiet about the Bush/al-Maliki agreement. If McCain is elected, would he abide by the Bush agreement to withdraw? Ironically, that timeline is consistent with Obama's strategy.
The neo-con and Zionist pressure groups have meanwhile been advocating pre-emptive, unilateral strikes on Iran, based on innuendo and fear of Iran following Israel's example of surreptitiously developing nuclear weapons capabilities. Iran is perhaps the Iraqi government's closest ally after America, despite the historical US-Iran antagonism. Israel bombed a nuclear power plant being built in Saddam's Iraq and another rumored project in Syria, both apparently without repercussion to itself. However, Iran vows to punish Israel mercilessly for any military strikes it sustains. The Israelis debate use of nuclear weapons against Iran, based on purported Iranian threats that amount to mis-translations. Since Iraq lies in between Iran and Israel, it feels that it would be pulled into any such conflict and unlike the Israelis, Iraq has no taste for more war. America has assured Iraq that it will not sanction Israeli use of Iraqi facilities or airspace to attack Iran.
In June of 2008, the Israeli Air Force conducted a training mission of approximately the same distance as Iran lies from Israel and press reports indicated that it was a practice drill for pre-emptive strikes. Then, in August, Russian intervention in the Georgian attempt to exert control over South Ossetia, resulted in Russia invading Georgia proper and causing damage to two air fields that had been prepared for use by Israel, potentially to strike Iran, a de facto ally of Russia. In America, although the mass media has quieted its speculation for an October surprise, the alternative press on the internet continues to warn that the risk of unilateral strikes on Iran before the US 11/5 election remains high, particularly if Obama continues to appear likely to win. Although support for more military adventurism by "W" is strongly opposed by two thirds of Americans, the history of use of "false flag operations" makes it a real possibility. Bush has used 9-11 to build an imperial presidency and he feels bound by no law or moral force. His historical legacy is the only real impediment.
As recently as early 2008, V.P. Cheney privately discussed use of American troops to impersonate Iranian forces to create a "causus belli" in order to justify attacking Iran. How different things can look with a new job. While C.E.O. of Halliburton, Cheney ignored executive orders of President Clinton and sold centrifuges for nuclear enrichment to Iran. At the time, Cheney publicly and privately advocated elimination of government prohibitions on commercial trading. However, after his election, Cheney has been a vehement proponent of embargoing Iran and attacking it. In both situations, his retirement benefits stood to benefit from increased business for Halliburton. Is that his abiding motivation or did he have a change of heart consistent with the neo-con strategy of foreign military intervention? Or did Zionist ambitions for a Greater Israel impact his actions? Regardless of the true motivations of the American Republican leadership for the last 30 years, it is clear that wars in Iraq and the Middle East have been an abiding strategy, pursued with Democratic acquiescence. It is the American and Iraqi people who have effectively been their cannon fodder.
As long as Israel maintains control of America's Middle East strategies, Iraq and its neighbors will be subject to attack and intervention, based on flimsy or no rationale. Although AIPAC works "hand in glove" with Israel and together with others, funnels enormous financial resources into Congressional campaigns to ensure that only Israel-friendly candidates are elected, it does not register as working for a foreign government. In effect, Israel receives carte blanche support for virtually anything it wants, even above the support given by Congress to Americans. Although this fact is unnatural and cannot stand indefinitely, the tremendous power of the Israeli lobby remains unrestrained. It even managed to prevent Jimmy Carter, one of only two living Democratic ex-presidents, from addressing the 8/2008 party convention. These are open secrets which show how even America is being subverted by a foreign power, due to an institutionalized "fifth column" that exists within both major parties. That Iraq has been occupied under false premises is beyond dispute. That it could continue or happen again is manifest by the circumstances surrounding the current occupation. A similar story exists for American involvement in Iran and many other countries. It should be no wonder that some foreigners could be so incensed by such imperialism that they try to strike back at America. Fortunately, America shares few borders and is a large country with abundant resources. Or perhaps that is why we Americans accept our legacy of lying and thieving governmental leaders who promote war for no identifiable benefit to our nation.
The likelihood is that America will not return to occupy Iraq again anytime soon after we withdraw our troops, particularly if Iraq remains on friendly terms with us. America has not returned to attack North Korea or Vietnam, since the wars there. Americans have a tendency to shrink from returning war where we have had painful war experiences. History shows that it is where America is able to engage with minimal or no casualties that the American people countenance continued interventions. Our people desperately want to believe that our national motives are good and that our leaders would not take advantage of international situations for ideological, political or economic advantage. Unfortunately, most of America's interventions have had their basis in just such base motives. Hopefully, that legacy can be broken soon so that America stops inflicting suffering needlessly on others. Of course, America is not the only country to have this type of problem, however we are probably among the loudest in proclaiming the innocence and beneficence of our motives. May Iraq develop itself and progress peacefully without foreign interventions!