One of my Kurdish contacts in the AKFL, received this email from an old friend regarding Iraq, what went wrong and what will happen.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Bushies were giving a lot of attention to the Israeli advice and political opinions of the middle east and their suggestions as to how to fight the Saddam machine…………….And then they promptly ignored all of the Israeli recommendations.
The Israelis said that there were two priorities:
-
1) was to seize and impound all arms and armaments; and
2) was to seal the border with Iran to stop the exodus of Shiites for training in Iran and the import of Shiite fighters and war materials.
The Americans did neither.
Six months after the invasion, the Israelis told the Americans that they had already lost the war, and that their incompetence was too overwhelming for the Israelis to risk their men and intelligence assets.
The Israelis promptly stopped working with the occupation troops and pulled all of their men into the Kurdish regions of Iraq, where they remain today. The Israelis work very closely with the Kurds (who are the only non-Arab peoples in the middle east) and they share intelligence and military planning. The Israelis use Kurdistan to launch raids into Iran and to support anti-administration groups in northern Iran, where there are many armed and unarmed peoples outside of direct government control.
If you read the news closely, you will see that Iran already sees that the conflict is coming to an end, and they are anticipating the withdrawal of the U.S. forces. The Sadrists have recently assassinated several Shiite leaders who led factions not loyal to Sadr and to Iran. Right now, they are consolidating control and command of the armed Shiite militias which can take control of the oil fields in a matter of days, without any local strong men getting in their way. The effect is going to be an essential breakup of the country.
The south (where most of the oil is) will be a theocratically controlled Shiite country, heavily dependent on Iran politically, and with a significant contingent of Iranian guard contingents. Iran, being what they are, will see their influence wane over the following few years, as the south becomes its own theocracy, and a rival with Iran in the oil for power middle east wackiness.
The Shiite control will extend to Baghdad, which has already been mostly ethnically cleansed and is now about 3/4 Shiite.
The eastern deserts, without any oil to speak of, will be the redoubt of the Sunnis who will survive on Saudi handouts and who will run a guerrilla war that will last for years, thinking that they somehow will regain their country because they believe they are simply innately superior. Essentially, they will be fighting the Shiites as Saudi proxies to provide a buffer against Iranian interference in Saudi affairs.
The Kurds will establish an autonomous republic, but will never achieve independence. Remember how Bush #1 sold them out after the first Iraq war, and how Kissinger sold them out under Nixon. They got slaughtered both times, having relied on American assurances. They will not do that again. Turkey has always been more important than Kurdistan to the U.S.
However, the American troops will establish their bases in the Kurdish region and try to create a democratic state their, even if it is a de facto state. The result will be a strong state (not really a democracy, although we will call it that) allied with Israel and the U.S. This is the best result that we could hope for out of this debacle. But watch out for some vicious fighting over Kirkuk, where the Kurds will expel the Sunnis who have been resettled there by Saddam and watch them regain control of the northern oil fields. You will notice that lately there have been Sunni terrorist activity in Kirkuk where there was none before. This is the Sunni attempt to maintain this area and its oil in the Sunni area of control. They will not succeed.
This process is happening as we speak, and when the U.S. forces start winding down in another 9 months or so, all hell will break loose for a year while the populations retire to their natural redoubts. The result, unfortunately, leaves a more powerful and aggressive Iran with more financial resources and an intention to dominate the middle east and to marginalize the Sunnis. Jordan is in big trouble and you can expect Iranian undermining of the odious authorities in Saudi Arabia, whose leaders have already begun to move their money into Europe and the States.
There you have it. My predictions of the near-term future of this region. I think it is as clear as day that this will work out, because it is all taking place now, and because it puts into place the natural order that was destroyed by the British after WW I when they drew national boundaries to create Iraq with the intention of pitting 3 natural enemies against each other so that the Brits could control the oil.
If you think some other result is more probable, I am prepared to make wagers on this outcome.
“diplomatic cover within the US” should have read “diplomatic cover within the UN.” I apologize for that error and for the spelling errors through out the post.
Ted
I think what you lay out for the future middle east is very plausible. Things could very well turn out the way you and your contact from Kurdistan lay them out. As such, I would not want to wager with you. With that said my considered opinion is that by July 31, 2008 US and allied troops will be completely out of Iraq. In other words there will be no American military bases of any type any where in Iraq. This includes Kurdistan.
If American troops are left in Kurdistan, there is a tremendous risk that they would eventually end up being involved in a military confrontation with Iran or Turkey. As it stands right now, the domestic American political situation will not allow for this. As such, for better or worse all American troops are coming home. If I turn out to be wrong and American and allied forces are still officially in Iraq after 7/31/08, I will come here and admit it.
It is certainly plausible that the US may operate covertly with Kurdish forces, however, I do not believe their will be an official American presence in Kurdistan.
Also, America post Iraq will likely be a far different country. It will likely be much less influential in world affairs. As I see this, there are upsides and downsides to this for Israel. The primary upside for Israel is Israel will be able to operate more independently from the US. The world community will not be able to put pressure on the US to pressure Israel, as the US will no longer have the influence over Israel. The US has often acted unwisely to restrain Israel. Since the Americans will have less influence, it will be less complicated for the Israelis to act more decisively in the defense of their country should they choose to. The primary downside for Israel is they will be less able to rely on the Americans for military supplies or to provide diplomatic cover within the US and elsewhere. Also, Israeli officials will no longer be able to blame American pressure for any failed policies. America will no longer have the world wide influence that it currently has. Personally I think, for Israel, the upsides of this situation out weigh the downsides.
Jerry
You ask why the Americans did not take the advice of the Israelis. I think this may be because many Israelis like many Americans had different ideas about how we should proceed. For example, I was told the Israelis told the Americans to find a “nice Mubarak” to govern Iraq and leave as quickly as possible. In other words, the Americans should not plan for a long range presence in the country. The above advice seems to indicate a plan for a long range stay in the country. With that said I find the information that came from the Kurdish person to be more credible than the “nice Mubarak” comment. That particular account was from an anti-American lefty. Frankly, if it were not such serious times, the notion that Mubarak is “nice” would be laughable. The point being that not all Israelis or other allies had the same ideas about how things should be done. The Americans and other coalition partners operated in a manner they thought best.
Clearly some things worked well and others did not. For example, the operation to oust the regime baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was flawless. It was probably one of the most well executed military operations in history. What came after that has not gone so well. It could have gone worse but it has not gone well, however, there has been some progress of late in places like Anbar Province.
Another possibility is the US did try to follow this advice. Clearly the goal of the US, for better or worse, was and is to create a free society. As such, all guns cannot be confiscated. Law abiding citizens need a way to defend themselves from criminals, however, the weapons caches should have been seized and kept out of the hands of criminal elements. The problem was and is a lack of good intelligence. Also, the Americans and their coalition partners may have and may still be trying to halt the flow of men and weapons from Iran. This enemy is very, very powerful. They will adapt to what we are doing. We also need to adapt to them.
If this account is correct, it is disheartening that the Israelis decided to give up after only six months. The biggest problem has been a lack of actionable intelligence. We sure could have used the serves of those men. I think we still could, however, Israel is a sovereign ally and their decisions like those of the British or any others must be respected. They must act in ways that they think best represent their interests.
There is clearly much we can and should learn from Iraq. Sadly, in our toxic political climate, I’m not sure the lessons will be learned. I hope and pray we do learn the proper lessons, however, it is hard to be optimistic. The primary military problem seems to be we did not use enough men for the invasion and the subsequent period, however, even if we had used more men there is no guarantee that that would have made things any different. This enemy is very powerful it adapts to what we do. We need to adapt to them and ultimately to defeat them.
As stated previously, there is much we can and should learn from Iraq, however, I have a major concern with labeling the American and allied military planners and other government officials as “incompetent.” This over estimates the capabilities of the American armed forces and it under estimates the capabilities of our enemies. There is no guarantee that the strategy proposed by the critics would have worked any better. This is a VERY, VERY powerful adversary. This enemy can and does adapt to our strategies. We need to adapt to theirs and ultimately we need to defeat them or at the very least contain them. It is very likely that the survival of our civilization depends upon defeating or at least containing this enemy. What is needed is less personal attacks and more working together by all of those in positions of leadership to find and implement policies that can be implemented and have a reasonable chance of working.
Zionsake
I use the same approach as you do when trying to determine what will happen. Find out what the scriptures say about a situation and work from there. From the maps of the ancient empires, Assyria appears to be in northern Iraq. This area may include Kurdistan. In any event, Iraq will probably be divided up into its primary ethnic groups. There appears to be nothing in the scriptures that would prevent this from happening.
I also agree with you about Russia. Without Russian support Iran would be far easier to deal with.
I have learned to find out what the Bible says about the final outcome of situations and then to work backwards to try and figure out how we might get to the final dispensation.
The final word about Iraq is:
We also know that Messiah will rule from an Israeli home territory that “shall be ‘from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.’ Zech 9:10 (Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates River – basically the dynasty of king David, in whose royal line Messiah will be the final David). Israel/the Messiah will probably rule over this whole area, but Iraq and Egypt might be confederate states.
Obviously, Islam and its moon god Allah’s enslavement of people will be at an end and there might not be many Arabs left.
I think the destruction of Damascus in Isaiah 17 will bring about this change. Aroer in Jordan will also be emptied out of people – that probably refers to all of Jordan and perhaps even most of Saudi Arabia further south. As we saw in the last days, the IDF is already preparing for a scenario in which the Hashemite Kingdom has been sunk.
Removal of Damascus will disable Iran’s proxy war against Israel via Syria, Hizballah and the Muslims in Israel. It will also be a setback for Russia’s growing influence in the ME – Russia is probably a bigger danger to Israel than Iran. (They will only probably try to make a comeback in the Gog/Magog/Persian/etc. war in Ezekiel 38)
Syria seems quite ready to launch a missile attack on Israel that will necessitate the destruction on Damascus as in Isaiah 17 – to stop the barrage of missiles that will kill thousands of people due to the poisonous chemicals that will be released. Israel will face annihilation if this attack takes place while the anti-Jew Labor Zionists are still in power. Hopefully IDF field commanders will again take the initiative to destroy the enemy as in the 1967 war – causing “unwelcome” gains from the perspective of the NWO Laborites.
Israel will not be destroyed due the covenant that guarantees her an eternal existence – the only nation in the world that has this guarantee. Some general will therefore give the order to destroy [nuke?] Damascus that will make her uninhabitable as we see in Isaiah 17:1
Ted,
Perhaps you would like to comment upon why the Americans did not follow the Israeli advice?