What is really happening in Iraq? Obama recently announced he is sending 300 “military advisers” to Iraq, which could lay the groundwork for airstrikes in the country to stem the gains of the ISIS militants.
But could the primary goal of these “military advisers” be more insidious? Could the goal rather be the overthrow of the Maliki government? A review of the evidence points in the direction of “Yes.”
In fact, this is pretty much openly stated in the media. According to the Washington Post:
U.S. representatives on the ground in Baghdad — led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk and Ambassador Robert Stephen Beecroft — have consulted with Sunni, Kurdish and Shiites outside Maliki’s governing alliance, to explore the possibility of forming a new government without him (emphasis added).
The Los Angeles Times:
U.S. officials are actively pushing for the removal of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and have held meetings with senior politicians who are angling to replace the embattled leader, according to Iraqi officials and a report Thursday (emphasis added).
The New York Times:
Iraqi officials said Thursday that political leaders had started intensive jockeying to replace Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and create a government that would span the country’s deepening sectarian and ethnic divisions, spurred by what they called encouraging meetings with American officials signaling support for a leadership change (emphasis added).
Surprise, surprise. The United States is once again plotting to overthrow a disloyal government. And openly, no less. The Obama administration is exploiting the ISIS militant crisis to install a new, friendly client regime.
Maliki, though officially a US ally, has always been closer to Iran. The United States did everything it could to undermine and prevent the rise of a democratic Iraq, the principle being that a democratic Iraq would be more allied with Iran and could exert independent control over its oil resources. This is essentially what happened. Elections were held and the Shiites, being the majority of Iraq’s population, naturally dominated the government and allied themselves with Iran and kicked out US forces.
The United States utterly failed to achieve any objectives in its invasion and occupation. Now, the Obama administration senses an opportunity to rectify this unfortunate state of affairs.
It should be remembered that Maliki is the democratically elected leader of a sovereign country. By what right does the United States have to seek his ouster? Does Iraq have the right to seek the ouster of Barack Obama? What if Iraqi officials came to the United States and met with “senior politicians who are angling to replace” Obama? There would be screaming headlines of a foreign power planning a coup against the US government.
In these reports in the media, we hear again and again how Maliki is not being “inclusive” toward Sunnis and Kurds in the country. This is probably true, but a total charade. Since when does the United States care about a foreign power being “inclusive”? Is it seeking for Saudi Arabia to be more “inclusive” towards its Shiite minority? Of course not. Because Saudi Arabia is a friendly dictatorship that follows orders.
Iraq does not follow orders so well. But now, if the US can install its favored clients (people like Ahmed Chalabi, one of the “senior politicians” US officials have met with), will the Iraqi people stand for it? The US is skillfully seeking to install a new government while Iraqis are distracted with the ISIS threat. Well played, US government. But if I can figure out, so can they.
The “military advisers,” then, likely have two goals: the publicly stated goal of preparing actions against the ISIS militants; and the secret goal of laying the groundwork for a post-Maliki, friendly-US client government. As noted in the New York Times, these aren’t just any “military advisers;” they are special operations forces.
These recent developments prove again how much the United States fears and hates the prospect of democracy in the Muslim world. The US would rather maintain relations with harsh, Sunni dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states – which have ties with the jihadist forces in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere – than have to deal with democratic states that would be outside US control.
The United States overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
It supported the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt until the very end.
It bitterly denounced the results of the elections in the Palestinian Territories in 2006, because Hamas (the “wrong people”) won them.
It supports dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and elsewhere.
It supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.
I could go on. But you get the point. The United States seeks nothing less than total domination at the expense of the people living in the Middle East. And at the expense of American lives, it might be added. Its support for the Islamic fundamentalist governments in the region fuels Islamic terrorism.
But hegemonic control of the world is more important than things like democracy or reducing the risk of terrorism.