How far in Tal Afar, or Is the U.S. conspiring in Genocide?

I originally wrote this in response to Gareth Porte’s article posted by Anthony Lappe (it can be viewed here ), because I believe it is misleading, as I do not believe that it is a lack of foresight on the part of the occupiers that is fuelling a civil war. Yes Iraq is sinking into what could be termed a civil war, but to say it is Shia against Sunni, and to think the country is overrun with foriegn terrorists, is a little off, and to overlook the tactical importance and historical use of ‘civil war’ by the United States to further its empirical goals is to miss what is key to understanding the escalation of violence.

Firstly, the Shia majority is not the singular group often depicted by an oversimplified media. The differences between Al Sadr and his Mehdi Army (whose base of support is made up of the Shiite poor), and Sistani’s Badr Army supported mainly by the wealthier Shiite land owners, is real and ongoing ( no love lost as seen by more than one recent violent clash between the two).

Although Shia and Sunni are disengaging from each other, which is definitely scary (I have recently been informed by a Sunni Iraqi friend that all the Shia folks that have always lived in his niegborhood, have packed up and left to live across the Tigris in the more Shia dominated areas of Bagdad), symbols of Iraqi are still occuring, although definitely being downplayed by a sensationalized media. The fact that Sunni mosques close to the scene of the tradgedy on the bridge the other day, opened their doors to help the victims of this disaster, went all but unreported, as did the heroic actions of the Sunni teenager, Othman Ali Alobaidi, who drown while trying to save the seventh Shia civilian he was pulling from the Tigris (he had already saved 6 other people that had fallen from the Al A’emma bridge the day over 1000 civilians were killed).

This is a created civil war, created for the purposes of long term occupation (anyone here recall how US involvement in Vietnam started?), and to deem this a policy flaw on the part of the Pentagon is to suspend an understanding of Historical US tactics.

It is interesting Sunni cities in the so called ‘triangle’ are under the gun of an Occupation hell bent on pushing through a new constitution, when noting that the Sunni population could clearly trounce any attempt by the U.S. to impliment this ‘constitution’, making them a dangerous impediment to U.S. policy. It has been the U.S. pushing this thing along a U.S. created timeline from the beginning, and the only thing that stands in the way of this, is if Sunnis hit the poles and defeat this constitution. Best way to avoid that is simply to terrify the Sunni population, and best way to do that is kill them (or have them killed) in large numbers.

If Shia militia are roaming the streets killing Sunnis with impunity (as did christian militia in lebanon under the watchful eye of Ariel Sharon), it is hard to believe they would stand around in huge polling lines all day during the ‘election’. This of course, would be greatly helpful in allowing this ‘constitution’ to be pushed through, and would work much in the same way the use ‘civilian contractors’ has in Iraq so far; it’s a farming out of the dirtiest work that forwards the US agenda without dirtying its hands.None of this was happening before US involvement in Iraq, it is the US that is pushing the timetable, and it is the US that will gain the most in the situation of a civil war (it weakens all the key players, which of course strengthens the US comparatively).

Yes, it looks like Iraq will fall into civil war, but who created it, and who stands to benefit? If Iraq does develop a civil war, Iraqi’s will start dying in much larger numbers, with many of its leaders will be killed, leaving it in an even more maleable state.

The idea that the ‘government’ of Iraq works seperately to the desires of the Occupiers is kinda silly (did the Vichy or Saigon governments have authority beyond those mandated by their occupiers?); to think that the tacit government approval being given to these Shiite militia in their attacks on Sunnis is anything other than an implimentation of US policy, would take a suspension of history to accept.

Finally, the point in Porte’s article with relation to Sistani holding the US administration over a barrel with regards to elections seems a little odd. Was it not Sistani that left for the UK for a relatively minor operation, while AlSadr (another Shiite leader) was being hammered by US forces? just imagine how that played out in Iraq. Sistani leaves for an operation in the occupier’s country, while Shiites are hammered at home. An operation in a highly guarded facility which allows no visitors wandering eyes to view what’s going on: an excellent place for high level meetings with the occupiers, which is what I have been told by my Shiite contacts, is generally believed to have happened. So again we have an Iraqi face responsable for a move in Iraq (elections), when everyone really knows the pressure to push these things through is coming from the US.

These are not strategy failures, they ae implimentations of well thought out plans to throw Vietnam, er, I mean Iraq into a civil war in which the US can arm one side and sit back and watch the killing (they called it Vietnamising the war back then)...

A few days ago, a friend in Iraq who works with relief for civilian victims of this illegal occupation, told me of around 600 Sunni families on the road in northern Iraq. It seems that “Iraqi forces” had destroyed their village, and they had fled with only the clothes on thier backs into the desert. He was on his way to find them and bring them water, blankets and whatever medical help he could muster.

I am writing about the destruction of this village because of a story I saw on the yahoo homepage yesterday, with regards to the US ‘mulling over’ the idea of a full siege on the town of Tal Afar. This behaviour constitutes a war crime, and is clearly being done by the occupying forces. It’s no coincidence that this is a Sunni area being attacked by US forces in a time in which Sunni’s are coming under heavy attack from militias backed by the US.
Of course this is meant to intimidate Sunnis in the pre-referrrendum run up, and this seems to indicate that this is infact an implimentation of US policy, rather than incompetance on the part of the occupiers.
“In Tal Afar, coalition forces and members of the Iraqi security forces are preparing a possible military operation to rid that city of insurgents,” Major General Rick Lynch told a news briefing in Baghdad.

“As we speak, operations are ongoing to evacuate civilians from neighborhoods targeted by the insurgents.”

neighborhoods targeted by insurgents??

He said U.S. forces were encouraging the evacuation so a possible military strike would avoid civilian deaths.

“If indeed decisive military operations are required, we want to ensure that the attacks take place to kill the insurgents without collateral damage in killing innocent civilians.”

He said U.S. forces had “indications” that insurgents were living in Tal Afar, and intelligence reports suggested some 20 percent of them were “foreign fighters.” He did not say where they came from.

What indications? And how are civilians being ‘encouraged’ to leave their homes (so US forces and Iraqi allies can raze their town Falluja style)? Are refugee camps being built? Are compensation packages being created for those about to lose everything? Or are these people simply being told, like in Falluja, leave or die. It is a war crime to target civilian populations, and all the U.S. is offering as reasoning that there are “indications” that the resistance is using this area (drop a bomb on a Detroit nieghborhood because there are some criminals there).

“We have now sufficient assets available between the coalition forces and Iraqi security forces … to leave behind a robust security presence so the insurgents cannot return.”

So U.S. forces that want to see the upcoming referrendum go through so they can impliment a new constitution, will leave the folks in charge of security that just destroyed the place, to ensure what? To ensure that the Sunni majority in this area will feel secure enough to participate in this vote?
What you are seeing is the manufacturing of consent.
What you are seeing is consistant with the claim that the U.S. is involved in the terrorizing of Sunni Iraqis in a bid to push through a constitution that looks to break up Iraq.
Civil war is not a byproduct of a incompetant US Occupation, it is the objective of a well organized, heavily researched US Occupation, who learned much from earlier ‘adventures’ in Vietnam and throughout the world, excepting the fact that in the end, US Imperial aspirations have always failed, leaving America and Americans more isolated and less secure with each attempt.
“the war on terror is not going to end”-w

Posted by pumo
filmaker, activist, visual artist, and now unfortunately, hollywood whore