Menu
Paynal © 2008
A Mainstream Dose Of Reality On Iraq By Jacob G. Hornberger!!
(2017-07-17 at 17:28:16 )
A Mainstream Dose of Reality on Iraq by Jacob G. Hornberger
Ever since the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, we have been hit with a multiplicity of bromides, myths, falsehoods, and deceptions by United States officials and the mainstream media. "Saddam was coming to get us with his Weapons of Mass Destruction." "Mushroom clouds were going to start appearing over United States cities." "The troops in Iraq are defending our freedoms." "The troops are bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq." "Occupation Iraqi Freedom is going to produce a paradise of freedom and prosperity."
And then every once in a while a small dose of reality about Iraq creeps into the mainstream media, which is what happened in the July 15, 2017, issue of the New York Times.
The Times article pointed out what we here at the Future of Freedom Foundation have been saying about Iraq for the past 15 years: that the winner of the United States-Iraq War in 2003 was.. Iran! Yes, Iran, the country that the United States government ranks among the top of its official-enemies list.
The title of the article says it all: "Iran Dominates in Iraq After United States "Handed the Country Over.""
Of course, that title implies that if the United States government had not exited Iraq in 2011, Iran would not be "dominating in Iraq." That is ridiculous. Iran has been dominating in Iraq ever since the United States ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003.
The Times essentially acknowledges that central point:
When the United States invaded Iraq 14 years ago to topple Saddam Hussein, it saw Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East, and vast amounts of blood and treasure - about 4,500 American lives lost, more than $1 trillion spent - were poured into the cause.
From Day 1, Iran saw something else: a chance to make a client state of Iraq, a former enemy against which it fought a war in the 1980s so brutal, with chemical weapons and trench warfare, that historians look to World War I for analogies. If it succeeded, Iraq would never again pose a threat, and it could serve as a jumping-off point to spread Iranian influence around the region.
In that contest, Iran won, and the United States lost.
This is what most Americans have avoided confronting ever since the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ever since then, Americans from all walks of life have blindly thanked the troops for their "service" in Iraq, without giving any thought to exactly what such "service" consisted of.
The automatic assumption has been that the "service" consisted of defending our rights and freedoms here at home. But there is one big problem with that assumption: It has been manifestly false from the get-go. Iraq never attacked the United States nor ever threatened the freedom of the American people.
Such being the case, what exactly is the "service" for which Americans have been thanking the troops in Iraq for the past 15 years? The service consists of installing an official Islamic Shiite regime in Iraq, one that is loyal to and aligned with Iran, as the Times article observes.
That is the reality that Americans have simply not wanted to confront for the past 15 years. Many still do not want to confront it. The Times article helps them to do so.
The troops in Iraq were never fighting to defend our rights and freedoms. They were fighting for a regime change, one that ousted Saddam Husseins Islamic regime, which was Sunni, and replaced it with another Islamic regime, which was Shiite.
Take a wild guess at what type of regime Iran is. You guessed it! A Shiite regime, one that has been closely aligned with its counterpart in Iraq ever since the United States government installed it into power in 2003.
To put some context to the matter, let us go back to the Iraq-Iran War during the 1980s. That was when the Saddam Hussein Sunni regime was killing Iranians, who were predominantly Shiites. United States officials were aligned with Saddam during that war. They were helping him to kill Iranians.
As an aside, notice the following phrase in the Times article as to one of the ways that Saddams forces were killing Iranians: "with chemical weapons."
But notice something else important: The Times failed to mention where Saddam got those chemical weapons. He got those Weapons of Mass Destruction from his partner and ally, the United States government. (See "here" and "here".)
The dark irony is that the Bush administration later used those same Weapons of Mass Destruction - the WMDs that the United States government had furnished Saddam in the 1980s so that he could kill Iranians with them - as the way to scare the American people into supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq, telling Americans, falsely, that Saddam was about to use those United States-furnished WMDs on the United States. In actuality, he had destroyed those United States-furnished WMDs many years before, as he consistently maintained.
Why were United States officials partnering with Saddam to kill Iranians? Because the Iranian people had had the audacity to oust the Shah of Iran in a revolution in 1979, whose tyrannical regime the Central Intelligence Agency had fortified with its regime-change operation in Iran in 1953. To punish Iranians for ousting a United States-supported dictator, United States officials decided to help Saddam kill Iranians. That is why they furnished him with those chemical weapons.
Now fast forward to 1990. The United States government turned on its partner Saddam with the Persian Gulf War. At the end of that war, United States officials encouraged Shiite factions within Iraq to initiate a violent revolution against Saddam. Thinking that the United States government would come to their aid, the Shiites did in fact initiate a revolution, which Saddam put down violently by killing thousands of Shiites. During Saddams massacre, United States troops stood by and let it happen. Feeling betrayed and double-crossed, the Shiites never forgot what the United States government had done to them.
Now fast forward to 2003. United States troops invade Iraq and oust Saddam Husseins Sunni regime and replace it with a Shiite regime, which consisted of many of the Shiites who had revolted against Saddams regime in 1990 and who felt that the United States government had betrayed and double-crossed them.
Ever since the United States invasion of Iraq, Iraqs Shiite regime has used United States troops as pawns to maintain its hold on power, especially as ISIS, which included many people from Saddams old Sunni regime, tried to regain power in a civil war.
But the entire time that Americans were thanking the troops for their "service" in Iraq, the Iraq regime has been loyally aligned with its Shiite counterpart in Iran, not the United States.
Whenever the president of Iran flies into Baghdad, he can feel safe staying in Iraq several days. Whenever a United States president flies into Iraq - which is hardly ever - he can only stay an hour or so and then must flee the country because it is just not safe for him to stay much longer than that, much less overnight.
For that matter, I am willing to bet that more than 99.999 percent of Americans have not chosen Iraq to be their summer vacation destination despite Operation Iraqi Freedom and "mission accomplished" in Iraq. I am also willing to bet that no members of Congress have ever chosen Iraq for one of their infamous vacation fact-finding junkets.
Rather sad and pathetic, I would say, considering 4,500 United States soldiers have been killed in Iraq and more than $1 trillion in United States taxpayer money were spent on the invasion and occupation.
I wonder how many Americans realize that United States troops are now back in Iraq, helping to fortify the Iran-aligned Islamic regime they installed and protected for 8 years?
How can anyone in his right mind still be an interventionist, especially after the United States interventions in Iraq .. and Libya .. and Syria .. and Iran .. and Iraq .. and Afghanistan.. and Guatemala .. and Chile .. and dozens of other countries?
Printed here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!