Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Still Believe Iraqis Hate Each Other?

Because that's what you're supposed to think; US troops are embroiled in a hotbed of Iraqi insurgents who randomly and repeatedly blow themselves and their fellow Iraqis up for now good reason, usually missing any occupying troops. It must be because them Godless ragheads are just too darn dumb to realize what the damnation they're doing! They'll blow up their own Mosques, kill their neighbours, and who knows what else?! (They probably eat their babies and sacrifice them to their false-idol God!)

I hope you don't believe that nonsense. Here's a neoconservative (I mean fascist twerp) describing what's really going on:

In an article posted on the Hoover Digest website, Henriksen “explains how to adapt [subversion and deception] to the war on terror, exploiting the ideological and religious differences of our enemies,” in other words implementing the dirty work of P2OG (Proactive Preemptive Operations Group), a psychological operation designed to “stimulate reactions” on the part of “terrorists,” in this instance the Iraqi resistance struggling against the illegal invasion and occupation of their country. “In the current anti-terrorist campaign,” Henriksen writes in an appropriately entitled essay (Divide et Impera, or divide and conquer), “small groups of Special Operations Forces (SOF) will continue to find themselves up against insurgents in societies marked by tribal and sectional differences that could be turned to the advantage of the special forces,” a situation “ideally suited to the world of stealth and counter-subversion,” or killing Iraqi patriots opposed to neocons and neolibs destroying their country.

Mr. Henriksen writes:

Sowing divisions among enemies is as old as warfare. By the time Niccolò Machiavelli cited the ancient political maxim divide et impera, the strategy of dividing to conquer had long been accepted in statecraft and warfare. U.S. military forces have not ignored the tactics associated with pitting one enemy against another. But those tactics have often been subordinated to the American way of war that relies on massive firepower. The global struggle against violent extremism is a highly political conflict where overwhelming combat “punch” is less applicable. By the same token, the extreme ideological and political divisions among the terrorists and insurgents open chinks to savvy and adaptable forces. [...]

“From the founding of the United States, the federal government has relied on subterfuge, skullduggery, and secret operations to advance American interests,” Henriksen notes, dispensing with the normal neocon tendency to avoid history or at best gloss over it. “Even in the midst of World War II, America’s greatest conventional war of the twentieth century, the United States resorted to cloak-and-dagger missions under the Office of Strategic Services.

While Henriksen is being pretty open (for a neoconservative, that is), he fails to mention a few things, as Nimmo points out:

States considered “hostile” (or had their own ideas about how to run their countries) included Iran, Guatemala, Hungary, Laos, Haiti, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Greece, Bolivia, Cambodia, Chile, Angola, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, and others. The CIA’s “secret operations” and “skullduggery” included assassination (for instance, the CIA had the democratically elected leader of the Congo, later Zaire, Patrice Lumumba assassinated—other victims include Dominican Republic President Trujillo, South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem, and Chilean Rene Schneider), torture, and death squads (the CIA put Brazil’s General Castelo Branco in the torture and death squad business in 1964—the effort was so successful at generating dread and fear the spook and subversion agency used it as a matter of course over the years). Henriksen mentions none of this—or does he bother to make note of the Pentagon’s various “counter insurgency” programs, including Operation Phoenix in Vietnam (an assassination program “plain and simple,” as Mark Zepezauer comments).

Just to remind you: Israel created Hamas to oppose the PLO, America created Al Qaeda to defeat the Russians. Is it starting to make sense yet?


Post a Comment

<< Home