The strange case of false flags in Iraq

From Random Hipatia

Every effort seems to be made to make it “necessary” to maintain combat operations and American troops in Iraq. A billion dollars worth of funds for military equipment for Iraq’s new army disappears under the nose of American administrators. Of course one day we will no doubt hear people speak about “Bremmers Billions”, which is the real scandal, rather than the small scale amateur league stuff of the food-for-oil program, the latter of which incidentally seemed to also have U.S. involvement, at least in terms of where the Iraqi oil was sold…

But digressing for a moment, then we have the appearance of false flag operations to stir up a near civil war. I had always pondered why and how the shia and sunni would choose and then somehow conduct coordinated and often matching attacks on each other’s clerics and civilians. For two groups that supposedly now hate each other, they seem to have been able to get together very well in these attacks. The obvious answer is that a third outside group is responsible, but whom…?

Naturally if the number of foreign fighters are as small and the few there are largely acting on their own individually, as evidence suggests, then such coordinated attacks require a bigger footprint and organization, someone able to coordinate and act in several geographically disperse areas in a highly coordinated way. The possibilities are limited…

The U.S. of course would like us to believe it is Osama’s “man” Zarquari. He seems to have enough trouble keeping himself alive. And is himself, assuming he is still alive, just one in a large sea of resistance groups and causes. If he really had a very large group, I don’t think he would be able to operate without being caught, unless, of course, every effort were made covertly to enable his freedom to operate.

With all the talk of a growing silent peace movement, a slow kind of waking of the American public, and one that focuses on the idea of immediate withdraw, in direct conflict with the architects of Pax Americana (pnac), what better way to make it necessary to maintain troops in Iraq than to create conditions making their withdraw completely impossible? Perhaps, the war servers other critical interests? What if more than even oil were at stake?

Another result of the continued war in Iraq is perhaps to wear down and effectivily destroy the idea and concept of the current volunteer military. Rather than assuming this is an unfortunate consequence, what if this was a deliberate policy goal? Some of course believe this would create conditions where it became necessay for a draft.

But let’s assume, as Rumsfield has always said, that he wishes to “completely reorganize” the military, and has no interest in a draft, which, incidently neither matches his ideology, nor his vision for a “new” military as he does not wish to oversee something made up of a mass of people who do not wish to be there. What are our other choices then for this form of demand destruction? What about instead creating the conditions making privatization of the military necessary? And why would this be so important to accomplish?

This brings us to the one thing that does make American soldiers unique; much like militia organizations, they pledge their loyalty not to a government, or leader, but rather to the constitution. How would one use such troops to prop up leaders who engage in further illegal and unconstitutional activities? Now imagine a wholesale privatization of the military, and hence the replacement of a military who’s primary oath and loyalty is to the constitution, with one who’s loyalty is to the dollar? The latter would be much more useful to have to later maintain order at home in a more fully fascist America. That goal, rather than maintaining control of Oil, which could have been done with a lighter hand through “Iraqification” of the conflict, would require Iraq to remain particularly violent and deadly to occupy, but yet require the conditions making occupation necessary to continue to do so.