The ISIS Megathread

[alasdairm]

It’s easy to see clearly in hindsight. But sometimes it’s worth looking back at what people foresaw. The current crisis in Iraq displays more starkly than ever the wilful blindness of the architects of America’s invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

they're already blaming obama.

if you are in any doubt this is obama's fault, droppers will surely be by in a moment to explain why that's true.



alasdair

 

[Wyld 4 X]

American imperialism is not the same as the sort of colonialism carried out 400 years ago.
Cultural and strategic imperialism is more subtle and nuanced than simply invading and stealing "the spoils" of war.

Simple question, from this American imperialism, what has the US gained from this in Iraq?

Let me help you out a bit here....if you have no quantitative answer, then it is not imperialism and just warmongering/stupid foreign policy that hurts all sides.

 

[spacejunk]

Thank you for being so arrogant as to "help me out".

What has America gained? Well - what it 'gained', and what it attempted to gain may have some discrepancies because of the abysmally executed (no pun intended) occupation, and ensuing insurgency/civil war.

Iraq has the fifth largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, and it passed Iran as the second largest producer of crude oil in OPEC at the end of 2012.

Source: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=iz

(Do I need to remind you of the great number of high ranking members of the Bush administration from the oil industry? G.W.Bush, Cheney, Rice...to name but a few)

Now, Cheney himself commissioned the Baker Institute Report: STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY: CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY in 2001, highlighting the 'threat' to 'American prosperity' posed by "scarce spare capacity" of resources and "Middle Eastern tensions" (ie Middle Eastern governments have control over their countries' oil supplies, which is a 'threat' to American industry and that is unacceptable to "US interests" [specifically that of the corporate vested interests of the Bush regime]);

"Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies."

This article makes some very good points in regard to the motivations leading up to the invasion of Iraq, in terms of strategic control of fossil fuels, US military presence in the region;

Brigadier-General James Ellery CBE, the Foreign Office's Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad since 2003, had confirmed the critical role of Iraqi oil reserves in alleviating a "world shortage" of conventional oil. The Iraq War has helped to head off what Ellery described as "the tide of Easternisation" – a shift in global political and economic power toward China and India, to whom goes "two thirds of the Middle East's oil."

So, in other words - the US sought to fend of other contenders for global power (call it what you will) - by asserting "Superpower" dominance, using a series of allegations of Iraq's weapons program and links to militant Islamists (both of which are demonstrably false).
Now, besides the strategic, political and corporate muscle flexing that went on there, the US government called upon some of its more...loyal allies to take part in this shady exercise in plunder.
Australia and Britain, for example went into battle - not for any "moral imperative" as their political and bureaucratic spin doctors tried to sell their populations at the time - but because he US was leaning very heavily on them for support.

Australia, for example, took part in the invasion without our Federal Parliament being consulted.
This was a deeply unpopular course of action for the Government to take, sending our military off to a war under extremely dubious pretences - but our government did so anyway.
Why?
Because of the threat - used time and time again by US governments and the State Department - to withdraw US support (military, trade and other geopolitical benefits of being cosy with Uncle Sam) - if we did not participate.
Now - Australia is not a Republic - we are still, in formal terms - a British Colony.

But as you most likely are aware, the British Empire became more or less a ceremonial formality (and nothing more) in the years since the Second World War.
Britain - in a military and global political sense - is part of a bigger Imperial force; that of the United States. Or NATO, as the broader alliance is called - but it is evident who is the power broker in that relationship.

So, Australian service men and women were pulled along with the UK, who in turn were left with little option but to pursue this war, as "the Coalition of the Willing" - an ironic term if ever there was one.
The relevance of this, in answering your question?

Not only were efforts made to secure Middle Eastern resource interests, but the US govt also made an Imperialist play at ensuring support from her privately sceptical - yet publicly enthusiastic allies.

There are many examples of the US replacing Britain as Australia's Imperial overseer and big brother (quite literally - as much of the satellite surveillance technology infrastructure used in the Iraq Invasion - and subsequent extrajudicial drone killings in more recent times - has been centred out of a top secret CIA communications base in the Australian outback called Pine Gap. The Australian public are not privy to any information about what the base is used for, except for odd congratulatory remark from US sources when another carload of people gets blown to smithereens in Yemen or some such place).
The Australian government has limited autonomy - anything the federal government wishes to pursue, policy-wise (from enquiries into the Pine Gap facility [in the early 1970s] to a trial of medically prescribed heroin maintenance [in the late 1990s, I believe] has been shut down due to pressure - or worse, from our US "allies").

Modern day imperialism isn't about conquering the natives and proclaiming "this land belongs to the American empire" - it is far more complex than that.
The Invasion of Iraq not only attempted to secure US oil supplies; but also a military support team for their otherwise "unilateral" actions.
The first objective, I cannot say I've investigated too deeply (in terms of its "success" or otherwise) - but the latter exercise in international coercion in following American agenda, in the case of my country and the UK (in the face of widespread public opposition in those countries) was a complete success.

And there you have it - Modern day Imperialism.
Not for "King and country" but for "Control and corporate dominance".

 

[socko]

legalize: Everybody is responsible, even if it's very indirectly. That include me, you, and everybody using a computer and electricity. All you can do is minimize what you do. There's no way to avoid it completely.

 

[Engage]

An affordable electric car for everyone cannot be mass produced fast enough. This is the best way for us to let them have their region back and rule themselves how they see fit. I know this is obvious to us all but it cannot be stated enough. And the comment about imperialism, no, its about controlling as much oil as possible much like Russia is trying to secure the North Pole to secure gas and oil rights up there as the ice melts from the Arctic. These are some wicked times and one more big crisis could trigger something very awful.

I agree with you here.
And yet, to play devil's advocate, how do we go about disentangling ourselves from this mess?

Our ally, Israel, won't be safer without our presence there, the military will be sitting around with their hands in their pockets ( unless we put them to work here at home! ), and many, myself sometimes included, worry that a Sino-Russian 'special relationship' would surely dwarf any similar (NATO, EU, etc) group vying for 'influence' in trade relations, stategic balance of powrr. etc.


I'd love to bring ALL the military back here and stop the thankless task if world policing. But, how?

 

[bit_pattern]

Simple question, from this American imperialism, what has the US gained from this in Iraq?

Well, putting aside the fact that the enterprise was so royally fucked up for just a moment - introducing Chomsky's Primary, Secondary and Tertiary model for imperial control of resources:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the U.S. economic interests I think we have to make a distinction. The primary interest, and that’s true throughout the Middle East, even in Saudi Arabia, the major energy producer, has always been control, not access, and not profit. Profit is a secondary interest and access is a tertiary interest.

So in the years when the U.S. was not using Middle East oil at all, [the U.S.] was the largest producer and the largest exporter, it still had the same policies. It wanted to control the sources of oil and the reasons are understood. In the mid-1940s, the State Department made it clear that the oil resources of the region, primarily then Saudi Arabia, were a stupendous source of strategic power which made the Middle East the most strategically important area of the world. They also added that its one of the greatest material prizes in world history. But the basic point is that it’s a source of strategic power, meaning that if you control the energy resources, then you can control the world, because the world needs the energy resources.

This was made explicit by George Kennan when he was one of the Middle East planners [in the U.S. State Department]. [He said that] control over Middle East oil will give us veto power over our rivals. He was specifically talking about Japan, in case Japan industrialized, it was devastated by the war still, we’ll have veto power as long we control the oil. And that’s been understood through the years. So in the early stages of the Iraq war [former U.S. National Security Advisor] Zbigniew Brzezinski, who’s one of the more astute of the planners–he was not terribly enthusiastic about the war–said that if the U.S. wins the war, which means that it succeeds in imposing a client regime in Iraq, then the U.S. will have critical leverage over its industrial rivals in Europe and Asia because it will have its hand on the spigot.

And that is also understood very well at the highest level of the administration. So a few months ago, Dick Cheney said that control over [oil] pipelines can be "tools for intimidation and [blackmail]". He was talking about control over pipelines in the hands of others, so if our enemies have it, it’s a tool of intimidation and coercion. But of course the same is true if it is in our hands. We’re not supposed to think that because we’re supposed to be noble, but the rest of the world certainly understands it. Yes, it’s a tool of intimidation and coercion, whether it’s the direction of pipelines or whether its control over the production or over the regimes in question, and control can take many forms.

So that’s the primary concern–control. A secondary concern is undoubtedly profit for U.S.-based corporations and British based corporations and several others of course. And yes [in the case of the Iraqi oil law] that’s a possibility. The Production Sharing Agreements and the other arrangements for long-term contracts at ridiculous rates, those are expected to be sources of immense profit as they have been in the past, so for example a couple of weeks ago Exxon-Mobil posted its profits for 2006 which are the highest for any corporation in U.S. history. That broke the record of the preceding year, which also happened to be Exxon-Mobil and the other energy corporations are doing just great–they have money pouring out of their ears. And the same with the corporations that link to them, like Haliburton, Bechtel and so on.

The material prize of oil production is not just from energy. It’s also from many other things. Take Saudi Arabia or the [United Arab] Emirates. They have huge constriction projects paid for by petro-dollars which recycle back to Bechtel and other major construction companies. A lot of it goes right back to U.S. military industry. So these are huge markets for U.S. military exports and the military industry in the United States is very closely linked to the high-tech economy generally. So it’s a sort of a cycle–high prices for oil, the petro-dollars pour back to the U.S. for major construction projects for high-tech industry, for development, for purchasing treasury securities which helps bolster the economy–it’s a major part of the economy and of course it’s not just the United States. Britain, France and others are trying very hard to sell them the same things and sometimes succeeding. There was a big bribery scandal in Britain recently because of efforts to bribe Saudi officials into buying jet aircraft and so on. So the basic idea of the energy system is that it should be under the control of loyal clients of the United States, and they’re allowed to enrich themselves, become super rich in fact, but the petro-dollars are basically to cycle back to the West, primarily the United States in various forms. So that’s a secondary concern.

A tertiary concern is access. That’s much less of a concern. One of the reasons is that the distribution systems are pretty much in the hands of big energy corporations anyway and once oil is on the high seas, it can go anywhere. So access is not considered a major problem. Political scientists, when they make fun of the idea that the U.S. invaded Iraq to gain its oil, they point out is that the U.S. can get Middle East oil in other ways so therefore that can’t be the reason. That’s true, but it’s irrelevant because the true issues are and always have been control and secondarily profit and in fact U.S. intelligence projections for the coming years have emphasized that while the U.S. should control Middle East energy for the traditional reasons, it should rely primarily on more stable Atlantic basin resources, namely West Africa and the Western hemisphere. They’re more secure, presumably and therefore we can use those, but we should control the Middle East oil because it is a stupendous source of strategic power.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/03/09/noam-chomsky-connects-the-dots/

 

[bit_pattern]

Meanwhile, in Australia...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-return-of-asylum-seekers-to-strife-torn-iraq

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Morrison refuses to halt return of asylum seekers to strife-torn Iraq
Greens demand moratorium but minister says it would be ‘strange’ to stop people going back of their own free will

Bridie Jabour

theguardian.com, Wednesday 18 June 2014 10.39 AEST

The immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has refused to rule out sending asylum seekers back to Iraq as the Greens attempt to move a motion demanding a moratorium on returning them while violence in the country escalates.

Morrison says the government will judge each case on its merits but said it would be “strange” to stop Iraqi asylum seekers returning of their own volition.

The Greens immigration spokeswoman, Sarah Hanson-Young, will move a motion in the Senate on Wednesday to put a moratorium on returning Iraqi asylum seekers and to allow those in offshore detention centres to apply for protection in Australia.

Under current policy no asylum seeker in offshore detention will be settled in Australia. Hanson-Young estimates there are 500 Iraqi asylum seekers on Manus Island and in Nauru and thousands more in the community on bridging visas.

Morrison said the situation in Iraq was “obviously very concerning” but the overwhelming majority of returned Iraqi asylum seekers did so by choice.

“We will continue to judge every single case on the merits and on the information available to us,” he told ABC Radio National. “...They themselves are the ones who say they wish to return to their own country and I think it would be a strange situation to detain them when they want to go home.”

Morrison dismissed the possibility that escalating violence in Iraq could “push” more people to head for Australia in illegal boats.

“Those people who seek to illegally enter Australia will face the same set of policies that have been in place for the past nine months … the reason I’m confident we’ll be able to do more in this situation is [because of the policies] we’ve freed up 4,000 places on the refugee humanitarian program,” he said.

Hanson-Young questioned whether people were really returning voluntarily or were doing so under coercion after being held in “terrible” conditions in indefinite detention.

“The government is on this chest thumping exercising and boasting about how many people they’re deporting, how many are opting to go home rather than sitting in terrible conditions on Manus, let’s be a little bit humane, a little bit more practical on Iraq,” she told ABC Radio National.

Hanson-Young said asylum seekers were in “limbo” and their processing needed to be quickened.

“There’s all these [Iraqi] people we have here in Australia already, clearly anxious about what’s going on at home, at the very least Australia could be offering sanctuary to those who are already here,” she said.

Figures are not available on how many Iraqi people have returned to the country after attempting to seek asylum in Australia.

 

[spacejunk]

I was thinking about the humanitarian/refugee implications of this last night.
What a total disgrace.
The Greens really are the only sane voice cutting through all the news media noise at the moment.
How the government can be so cold, the day after every newspaper in the country had photographs of mass executions running on their front page.
Just callous.

 

[legalizeall]

i have heard people say on here when "disagreeing" with someones view here on a particular topic that even tho we might think its wrong or unethical that we just have to accept that this is just how this part of the world runs itself. Seems to me that some of that applies here.

Ya its violence elevated more than usual and horrible things are probably happening but its still the usual over there. Since none of us are there, one has to remember that the news media is still reporting what we see and dont see and with that you could actually say that we dont know whats really goin on over there.

Its not gonna change or get better. The extremist arent gonna just wake up one day and just stop the fighting. Its engrained in them through generations and its just gonna get worse with young and young kids joining the bullshit. They dont know any other way and its sad to see the innocent people suffer. All in the name of God. Fuck, blame man made religion here more than anything. Thats the root of this. To me, thats one of the saddest parts of these stupid conflicts.

So again, the u.s. pull out and focus on problems at home which their are plenty of. Give the world a break from our military for once and become the prosperous nation it deserves to be. Regardless of what happens in the future a few things seem certain. The u.s. will be blamed for whatever happens for many years down the road if not just forever, the violence wont stop, and theirs nothing anyone except them can do about it. KA-BOOOM.

 

[Engage]

So true.^^^


Still, some sad sack people will be sore at the US no matter what we do.

Being the last remaining superpower has a few downsides, I suppose.



But, agree with you on bringing the boys home and putting them to work here.

 

[bit_pattern]

Not to worry - China will bear that burden soon. If only you guys hadn't have blown $3 trillion on two pointless wars to prove that you're still a superpower. Oh well. Only live once.

 

[spacejunk]

Um...your defensiveness is misplaced.

The above post is in regard to Australia's cruel treatment of refugees; specifically people fleeing Iraq.
It's a disgrace.
As for "bringing the boys home" - get with the times, pal - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

And my spiel about "US Imperialism" was in response to wyld 4 x - who requested that i define "US Imperialism", as he felt I was incorrectly using the term.
Bit hard to keep up, but this is a pretty crazy situation.

 

[Engage]

Lol, you're funny.
In your own sad little way.
Hee hee. Like a prickly little curmudgeon.

 

[bit_pattern]

 

[legalizeall]

Um...your defensiveness is misplaced.

The above post is in regard to Australia's cruel treatment of refugees; specifically people fleeing Iraq.
It's a disgrace.
As for "bringing the boys home" - get with the times, pal - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

And my spiel about "US Imperialism" was in response to wyld 4 x - who requested that i define "US Imperialism", as he felt I was incorrectly using the term.
Bit hard to keep up, but this is a pretty crazy situation.

You do believe everything you want to hear dont you. Pal. ....http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-us-troops-are-still-in-afghanistan/

 

[legalizeall]

Not to worry - China will bear that burden soon. If only you guys hadn't have blown $3 trillion on two pointless wars to prove that you're still a superpower. Oh well. Only live once.

Haha. China? Thats funny. How do you think china would do without the u.s. Thats funny tho. You can believe what you want but one thing is for sure, at least in my lifetime, not sure for you tho boy, America isnt going anywhere.

 

[bit_pattern]

Haha. China? Thats funny. How do you think china would do without the u.s. Thats funny tho. You can believe what you want but one thing is for sure, at least in my lifetime, not sure for you tho boy, America isnt going anywhere.

Yeah, thanks for that astute analysis there, Dr Kissinger

 

[spacejunk]

So, to try and salvage what was an interesting thread;

How do people who actually care about this topic see it playing out?

Is ISIS' domination an inevitable outcome of these conflicts?

Or will the battles escalate due to foreign involvement?

 

[legalizeall]

Yeah, thanks for that astute analysis there, Dr Kissinger

oh your welcome.

 

[Bardeaux]

So, to try and salvage what was an interesting thread;

How do people who actually care about this topic see it playing out?

Is ISIS' domination an inevitable outcome of these conflicts?

Or will the battles escalate due to foreign involvement?

ISIS is making gains and a fearful reputation for themselves, but it's not going to last forever. Even if the US doesn't intervene. They're essentially surrounded by enemies on all fronts and within Iraq. The Kurdish Peshmerga (who I'd really like to see make more gains) in the north just reclaimed Kirkuk from ISIS, Assad in Syria is putting up a fight, Iran is getting involved, and the central command of the Iraqi military still has airstrikes and some troops at their disposal. I think they may gain more before they start losing ground, but they will lose ground.