Yesterday, I commented in a few diaries about how Iraq, if plunged into civil war, serves the Bush administraion and the neo-con minions very well. In fact, I'm proposing that it was their plan all along.
Ghali Hassan from the Canadian Center for Research on Globilization puts it this way:
As the pretexts to justify the illegal war of aggression against Iraq started to collapse one after the other, the Bush Administration, its vassals and the mass media adopted the cliché of "democracy" to justify the invasion and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. However, from the outset of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the U.S. objective was conspicuous; to destroy Iraq, install a puppet government and pillage the nation's resources.
Follow me after the jump
Hassan continues:
Knowing the full consequences of it action, the U.S. Administration deliberately dissolved the Iraqi army and security forces and replaced them with sectarian-based militia groups. The Iranian-trained Badr brigade, the Israeli-trained Kurdish Peshmerga, and other U.S.-trained and armed militias constitute the new Iraqi army and police. Their lack of loyalty to the Iraqi nation, rivalries and hostilities are exploited by U.S. forces and used against each others. They are deployed to fight their Iraqi brothers in different ethnic areas, and in the process foment civil strife. It is a U.S. policy of creating sectarian violence which eventually will lead to "civil war".
Of course, the ongoing Occupation is justified not only "to spread democracy", but also as necessary to prevent "civil war". Nothing could be further from the truth. Evidence shows that the U.S. and its collaborators are behind every step leading to violence and "civil war". "[W]e have widespread evidence that the outside forces are attempting to instigate a civil war here and Iraqis are conscious of that and have made determined effort not to respond to it", said Dr. Saad Jawad, a political scientist at Baghdad University.
I didn't have much besides this arugably biased artile to back up my pet theory, until I caught Tony Blankley on Hardball last night, talking out of school.
On the question of the US taking sides in Iraq's civil war, Tony Blankley lays out the cards.
BLANKLEY:Yes, the leadership in all the camps are trying to tamp it down. The question is whether this is going to get--they're going to get dragged into it. If they are, we have a couple of choices, and everybody has been talking about being an honest broker, but there's another choice, and that is to be a participant on one side, with the Shias and Kurds against the Sunnis. The Shias, while they are a bigger number of people, they don't have the experience that the Sunnis have, but if you combine the Shia numbers with our technology and our support, technical support, we could in fact get a second best--not what we wanted, which was a government that was genuinely democratic, but perhaps a friendly, semi-theocratic Shia government that we had put in power by helping them win a civil war. That's not a wonderful choice, but it's a lot better than turning tail and leaving.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a moral question, Tony Blankley. Should Americans operating in a foreign country, for better or worse, do we have the right to kill anybody on one side of a civil war, just because they're taking the side we don't like?
BLANKLEY: I don't think right comes into it. I think...
MATTHEWS: Why not? We're killing people.
BLANKLEY: Because it's a question of our national security.
Civil war fits in nicely with the neo-con agenda, whose aim has always been to be the last one's standing in the "new world order." So we'll get behind the Shias and ramp up the bloodshed in Iraq, exploit their sectarian divides, and install a puppet government once the country is utterly destroyed and the oil is all ours for the taking.