On March 17th 20031, 1.1, the 43rd President of the United States; George W Bush, issued a proclamation broadcast to the domestic population of the United States. In it, he ordered the head of state of Iraq, a foreign sovereign nation in south-west Asia, to leave his position as head of state and hand over control of the country to the United States military. The proclamation contained within it the sum total of all propaganda efforts of the United States security and military sectors, and its dependents, toward south-west Asia for the previous twenty one year period2, 3, 4, 5. Bush stated in the proclamation that Iraq had successfully manufactured weapons of mass destruction (aka WMD) which he claimed were about to be used by the leadership of Iraq against the United States and its dependencies. The proclamation was heavily laced with an insistence that the United States had pleaded with Iraq for many years to stay development of such weapons, and also that Iraq had actively belittled the United States wishes even when articulated through the United Nations (U.N.). Throughout the proclamation, Bush insisted that the United States government had acted without fault throughout the period covered in the address, counter-weighted by an insistence that Iraq had acted with persistent hostility throughout the same period.
The proclamation was delivered to the American people via terrestrial and satellite broadcast in 13 minutes and 34 seconds.
Throughout most of the world, U.S. hostility toward Iraq was met with anger, derision and contempt for the U.S. administration and its multilateral dependencies. On February 15th 2003, this disgust for the U.S. administration manifested with a series of coordinated international anti-war protests6, 7 that took place around the world attended by an estimated 30,000,000 people. In Italy alone, the largest recorded anti-war protest ever to take place in modern history swept almost 3,000,000 people onto the streets of Rome. Throughout the period from February to March 2003, elicit contempt for worldwide public opinion manifested throughout many of the territories and dependencies of the United States Empire with public opinion simply being dismissed by a cabal of political opportunists desperate to facilitate and articulate the empires wishes. This act alone, revealed a chronic failure of democratic practise throughout the ranks of the empire.
On March 19th 2003 (EST), the sovereign nation state of Iraq was attacked8 by the United States Empire in an unprovoked assault. The attack was carried out by the United States Empire and its chief dependents, the United Kingdom9, Australia10 and Poland. The attack brought to an end a concerted twenty one year policy of U.S. geostrategy in south-west Asia involving human rights abuses, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the herding of smaller nation states into client status for the purpose of the waging of war against their civilian populations...for geostrategic effect. From March 19th 2003 to the present day, the reasons originally given to justify the assault have failed to solidify throughout the world's population, leaving a political crater at the epicentre of the empires sphere of influence.
The United States Empire and Iraq, 1916 - 1991
At the beginning of the 20th century, Iraq had successfully articulated a monarch system of governance under the reign of Emir Faisal ibn Hussain, the King of Iraq. In 1916, as the Ottoman Empire crumbled and Britain, France, Russia and the United States prepared to carve the empires former territory into national territories under the terms of the Sykes/Picot treaty11, the United Kingdom awarded itself a mandate to govern the territory of Iraq, which inevitably created a stronger counter-movement for independence. In 1932, under the direction of the King and after a particularly convoluted struggle, Iraq won its independence from Britain. At the end of 1932, Iraq signed the concessional "Baghdad Pact"12 articulating Iraq into a military alliance with Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Britain and the United States; a pact that quickly fell into dereliction as the United States and United Kingdom became embroiled in the second pan-European conflict of 1939 - 1945.
In 1958, the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown by Iraqi nationalists led by Abdul Karim Kassim13 leading to the deaths of the Emir and his family. From 1959 onwards, a series of regional annexations and demarches took place leading to military intervention by the United Kingdom and its allies, which in turn had the effect of driving Iraq toward the Soviet Union and China via nationalisation of its oil industries. In 1963, Kassim was deposed by covert elements of the Iraqi army operating in conjunction with the U.K. and U.S. SIS and the agitation the Iraqi's had been exposed to by both the United States and United Kingdom, along with chronic economic and political disruption, led to the seizing of power by the Socialist Ba'ath party. The Ba'ath party had its roots in the Marxist/Communist polity which formatted its political outlook around politicisation of its national energy reserves in order to drive its defence against imperialism and the unwanted involvement of western expansionist aggressor states. In particular, the Ba'ath party were acutely aware that the United States was in the process of weaponising its own material resources in order to build a global empire using the polemic of free-trade. Throughout the late 1940's and 50's, Iraq had been identified by the United States as a source of large-scale energy resources which might be used to further spread the authority of the U.S. dollar reserve currency. The greatest problem the United States faced at the time, was how to increase the monetary supply of its domestic dollar (printing more physical notes), while still ensuring it could be held to a physical resource that would affirm its value (oil).
From the late 1960's onwards, understanding the need to isolate internal ethnic problems that might be exploited by the United States and its dependencies, Iraq made persistent progress toward internal reform. In 1970, the Baghdad government gave official status to the Kurdish language and granted domestic autonomy to Kurdistan. This act prompted the U.S. backed Shah of Iran to agitate on behalf of U.S nationalists with the intention of raising a domestic conflict within the Kurd minority which he hoped would be useful in deposing the Ba'ath party. The adventure failed and the rebel Kurds were defeated. Despite this, Iraq persisted with handing the Kurds greater autonomy increasing the teaching of Kurdish language in schools, greater investment in the Kurdish region and appointing Kurds into key governmental posts. Throughout the entirety of this policy of ethnic inclusion, Iraqi political narratives were regularly co-opted and extruded by U.S nationalists in the United States for dissemination among their own domestic audiences, usually in order to misrepresent the Iraqi policy into an anti-Kurd narrative from which to engineer hostility toward Iraq as a whole. This policy of performing domestic renovation of the external policy of foreign states has come to form one of the most oppressive political devices used by the empire building political parties of the United States.
For much of this period, the United States Empire sought out every opportunity to project its power into the oil rich region. From the late 1960's and throughout the 1970's, with a degree of stability in Iran provided by the U.S. backed Shah of Iran, the United States Empire was able to project that power within the confines of a simplistic Iran/Iraq geostrategy. However, in the late 1970's, the United States Empire's fortunes in the region experienced a series of beneficial strategic gains as its tensional strategy of creating political, sectarian and religious divisions between Iraq and Iran began to bear fruit.
In 1977, the regional polity between the mongrel "capitalism" of the Empire, and the sturdier guerrilla/Marxist polity of the south-western Asian region began to collide together creating the revolutionary polity of the regional Mujahedin. In Iran, this manifested within the Iranian polity through the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini operating from Paris and the Marxist/Socialist polity of the regional Ba'ath party movement in Iraq. In February 1979, the Ayatollah triumphantly returned to Iran after revolutionaries successfully deposed the Shah and the following July, the Ba'ath party in Iraq fell under the control of President Saddam Hussein. This fast acting series of political movements in both Iran and Iraq handed the United States an opportunity to stride along with its polity of division encouraged by an awareness that both the Iranian and Iraqi regimes were inexperienced, and predictably reactionary to the particular brand of Capitalist dogma the United States was claiming to be using. The prior order of Iran as a puppet dependency and Iraq as a puppet enemy had collapsed, and in its place both Iran and Iraq presented as ideologically reactionary states competing with one another to be seen internationally as being the leading regional anti-imperial antagonist. Over the course of the following year, the United States strongly encouraged these reactionary movements, and cleverly took control and ownership of the polity of "division" that separated them.
From May to July in 1980, the United States Empire had publicly and with great fanfare abandoned Iran in favour of the Ba'athist Saddam Hussein in Iraq and by September, Iraq had launched a pre-emptive strike against Iran across the Iran/Iraq border. The regional U.S. geostrategy in the region had successfully divided Iraq from Iran and created a successful geostrategic fault line running from the Persian Gulf through to Turkish border,
Within eight years of the beginning of the Iran/Iraq war, over a million soldiers on either side were dead, joined by almost a quarter of a million civilians. The Iran/Iraq war throughout its entirety was eagerly exploited by the United States, the United Kingdom and a number of other members of the United Nations Security Council, each of them historically tasked with reducing conflict and slaking international arms sales. The United States Empire had swollen Iraq's military with weapons funnelled into Iraq from Turkey using non detectable mercenary arms dealers while at the same time funnelling weapons and arms into Iran via Israel with the promise of replenishing Israel's weapons stocks with new modern replacements. By the wars end, both Iran and Iraq found themselves with swollen military arsenals, heavily in debt and with no detectable progress on either side. The Iran/Iraq war had ended in a near perfect stalemate between the two sides, with a substantially strengthened United States Empire in close proximity.
On 2nd August 1990, with chronic debt problems hanging over its economy, Iraq invaded Kuwait citing a minor and largely irrelevant disagreement over drilling rights to a minor regional oil field. The invasion was pounced on by the United States keen to take any opportunity it could to break Iraq's anti-imperial oil policy while drawing geostrategic proximity to Iran. Between August 1990 and January 1991, the United States along with its multilateral partner dependency states at the U.N. built a case for intervention in Kuwait under the pretext of liberating Kuwait from the Iraqi aggressor. In late February 1991, and sensing the impending violent arrival of the United States with an assortment of multi-lateral opportunists, Iraq began the process of withdrawal from Kuwait. As its 4,000 vehicle strong invasion force attempted to leave Kuwait by road in a large convoy, the United States and Canadian air-force blocked the retreat by bombing the road ahead, preventing all forward movement. The convoy came to a halt with no way to proceed and no way to reverse.
On the night of February 25th/26th 199114, the United States and Canadian air forces engaged in a pre-meditated act of mass murder using heavy aerial weapons to bomb the defenceless convoy. Wave after wave of U.S. and Canadian aircraft arrived at the scene in quick succession and relentlessly strafed and bombed the convoy. The "Highway of Death" incident was the closest the United States Empire has ever come to overtly identifying itself as an operating coercive empire on the world stage. The 25th/26th February 1991 atrocity along the Kuwaiti/Iraq border was recognised immediately as a war crime by the United States itself, causing the U.S. President, George Bush snr, to order an immediate halt to all hostilities the following day claiming that U.S. tactical objectives in Iraq had been met.
In geostrategic terms however, the United States had scored a compelling strategic victory in that it had again weakened Iraq and again successfully brought nearer the possibility of drawing Iran into sufficient proximity to enable a wider polity. The United States had stepped closer to its long term goal of taking complete control of the giant oil fields of Iraq and Iran in order to affirm and strengthen its global reserve currency on the world stage. But the United States had also confirmed that it had abandoned its humanity, and shown that its desperation to dominate economically on the world stage had no barriers, either morally or ethically. The "Highway of Death" atrocity, would be the point at which the United States had abandoned any humanitarian credibility it had previously enjoyed.
Iraq, a geostrategic client state of the United States Empire from 1991 to 2003.
The management of Iraq as a client state of the United States Empire between 1991 and 2003 is a story involving all aspects of the empires toolset including political deception, media management, propaganda, military and diplomatic deployment and finally, populist diatribe. From 1991 to the 2003 invasion, the United States maintained complete dominance of the Iraqi floor and air-space. From 1991 onwards, Iraq lost control of its northern airspace just north of Erbil and the southern air-space just south of Mahmudiyah. The northern and southern air-sections constituted around 70% of the sovereign state of Iraq. Because the United States and its dependents had chosen to deny freedom of movement to the Iraqi air force in two non-connected sections, the Iraqi air force were unable to make any flight anywhere in the country due to the logistical impossibility of providing defensive cover across two non-contiguous fronts, while at the same time standing down possible aerial threats from beyond its borders. The Northern No Fly Zone (NNFZ) and the Southern No Fly Zone (SNFZ) were in tactical terms a public relations exercise to make palatable the fact that the United States and its dependents had denied access to any part of Iraqi airspace to the Iraqi government and military. Both the NNFZ and the SNFZ effectively grounded all Iraqi aircraft and constituted total and complete denial of freedom of movement within the country.
During the period between 1991 and 2003, U.S. and U.K. media in particular paid careful attention to the management of the southern and northern NFZ's in order to steer public examination away from coherent analysis of this particular element of Iraq's client status. There is very little evidence that any media organisation within the United States or the United Kingdom made any detectable attempt to correctly identify the operation of what was clearly a pre-invasion attack plan.
During the same period, Iraq was routinely flooded with U.S. and U.K. Security and Intelligence Service (SIS) employees operating covertly through the United Nations posing as "weapons inspectors". Between 1991 and 2003, Iraq was subject to large number of U.S. and U.K. SIS operatives moving throughout its territory gathering intelligence on Iraq's infrastructure and political systems. These inspectors operated under cover of chemical and biological agent detection. In tandem with this apparent regime of asset gathering, intelligence was also gathered on the Ba'ath party network and any possible links it had with external or foreign groups. Toward the end of 1998, Iraq repeatedly complained to the United Nations that "U.N. weapons inspectors" were in fact covert intelligence agents15 working for the U.S. and U.K. governments, but no investigation was ever actioned. Between 2001 and 2003 alone, the U.N. conducted 750 inspections of 550 sites inside Iraq in a determined effort to find any evidence at all that Iraq had hidden away any weapons component of either a chemical or biological nature, but found nothing. It is highly likely that the "weapons inspection" regimes undertaken by the United States and United Kingdom governments were more concerned with mapping the Iraqi Ba'ath party system with an eye toward eventual intervention rather than attempting to find any given chemical or biological threat. It is also highly likely that the eventual intervention in 2003, was one in which the U.S. and U.K. governments knew not only that Iraq had no chemical and biological weapons, but had strident, competent and detailed knowledge of just how few of these weapons actually existed. In this sense, the WMD component of the 2003 intervention into Iraq, is little more than a political obfuscation designed to distract the people of the U.S. and U.K. away from the reality of Iraq's client status to the empire of the United States. Indeed, the United States SIS were heavily engaged with this false narrative as recently as 2009, operating covertly through British media16.
The third element to Iraq's client status of the United States Empire can be found in the rigid financial trade embargo17 against Iraq which the United States Empire had engineered in order to prevent Iraq gaining any international support in financial, trade or aid terms. The U.N. trade embargo was near complete and disrupted all day-to-day economic activity in Iraq from 1990 until 2003. During this period, it is estimated that as many as half a million children died in Iraq as a result of malnutrition18, disease, medical negligence through lack of medical supply and simple starvation of the poor in the poorest neighbourhoods. The sanctions regime was so heavily enforced, that any item which might have had any conceivable use as a weapon was banned from entering the country. Trousers containing zips, pencils containing graphite, computers containing circuit boards and transistors were all flagged as suspicious by a U.N. sanctions committee which met in secret. The enforcement of the sanctions regime was so strict that warnings were given that if Iraq could not sell enough oil on the international markets, the Iraqi people may begin to succumb to famine and disease. These warnings led to the nominal relaxing of the sanctions in what came to be known as the "oil for food" program.
The three pillars of Iraq's status as a client state of the United States involved complete dominance of Iraq's floor and airspace by military means to such a degree that Iraq could provide no security to its populace at any time either day or night; complete exposure to foreign intelligence gathering operatives tasked with mapping and building a detailed picture of Iraq's military, intelligence and party political systems and finally a complete denial of the vast bulk of all economic activity both domestically and internationally within Iraq itself.
By 2003, Iraq was utterly defenceless and incapable of posing a threat to any nation state within or without its region. This simple and very obvious fact was fully and comprehensively understood by the political systems of the United States and the United Kingdom; but not, of course, by their media.
During the period between 2001 and 2003, U.S. and U.S. dependent state political, military and security service operatives routinely reported that Iraq posed in immediate threat to the national security of the United States and its dependent states. This was a falsehood and was based on nothing more than blind agenda and fabricated reports which the United States and United Kingdom governments knew to be false. The policy against Iraq was rushed forward by ideological elements in the United States working alongside Kurdish and Iraqi nationalists keen to exploit the post 9/11 period toward regime change in Iraq, an international crime under international law.
The unprovoked assault on Iraq by the United States Empire on March 19th 2003.
The unprovoked assault on the sovereign nation state of Iraq by the United States and its dependencies took place from the 19th March 2003 (EST) onwards and involved a series of military manoeuvres ending in the eventual defeat of Iraqi government armed forces in or around April of 2003. At the point of the final deployment of its aerial, ground and sea forces, the United States had successfully managed to build and maintain, with the strident support of U.S. nationalist media, a wide-ranging public support regime in which the bulk of the U.S. populace19 were in support of the invasion.
Despite the previous period of Iraq's client status toward the United States from 1991 onwards; the American, British, Australian and Polish people were unable to articulate or form a counter-narrative based on fact or cogent analysis. Even at the United Nations, cogent analysis although it existed, failed to form a coherent counter-narrative toward peace because the United States had flooded many of the member states of the United Nations with funding expressly designed to prevent any formal or political anti-war narrative from forming. In addition, the United States had worked hard to ridicule20 any nation state or entity that attempted to stand in the way of its actions regarding its Iraq policy. Much of the western media's output was little more than populist nonsense21 which was further aggravated by spurious22 and poorly formed analysis emanating from so-called "experts" in geostrategy operating through media outlets. Even during the immediate post invasion phase, reporting on troop movements by all forces, either U.S. sponsored or Iraqi, was dogged with propaganda23 and disinformation. Throughout the bulk of the western narrative, coherent analysis was overshadowed by fear-based populism in which the propaganda efforts of the United States ran riot.
I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will present the full evidence after we have investigated all the sites, after we've interviewed all the scientists and experts, and this will take place in the coming weeks and months...[WMD, sic] is not some invention of the British security services. It's been well documented over 12 years of lies and deception from Saddam.- Tony Blair, British Prime Minister. Associated Press interview. 30th March 2003. Poland.
As the assault got underway, many of the ontological problems that would eventually tear the United States "war effort" apart were quietly slipped into the conflict under a cloud of misfiring media-led jingoism.
On 19th and 20th March 2003, the United States and its dependencies assaulted Iraq in a ground and air campaign heavily laced with propaganda. As U.S. and U.S. dependent troop divisions entered southern Iraq from the Kuwaiti border in an attempt to rush headlong toward Baghdad, a televised aerial assault directed at Baghdad was staged in an attempt to build a narrative of overwhelming force, aka "shock and awe". This policy is unlikely to have been an attempt to overwhelm the Iraqi armed forces because the Iraqi armed forces were in the majority disinclined to oppose the invasion; they had no air support! Instead, "shock and awe" was certainly a pre-arranged operation designed to be consumed by the domestic populace of the United States and its dependents along with dissident elements of Iraq.
The operation backfired and instead built an immediately appearing reaction of disgust24. The use of "shock and awe" in this context was almost certainly the result of a bitterly overconfident series of decisions made by U.S. nationalists in the Whitehouse and Pentagon who in turn had been advised by Kurdish and dissident Iraqi nationalists who had been working alongside the U.S. in the lead up to the invasion. This failure to appeal to the American people which ordinarily manifests as over-reaction, excessive violence, extremism and religious oddity is due exclusively to almost invisible foreign dissident nationalists having too much say over U.S. military planning. The invasion of Iraq would always be an operation that had to appeal to Iraqi dissident's as-well as the populace of the U.S. and its dependents.
As "shock and awe" got underway, U.S. and U.S. dependent troops entered Iraq from the south in two columns and immediately rushed toward Baghdad. As they made headway through the south of the country, two further support columns entered the country from the south alongside a smaller support column from the north. This kind of military manoeuvre was only possible because Iraq had been denied all flights across its airspace since 1991. Indeed, as troops entered the country, little material opposition was encountered because it largely did not exist. This fact was exploited ruthlessly by U.S. and U.S. dependent media who routinely attempted to claim that the invasion was an evenly matched contest between evenly equipped standing forces. In actual fact, the vast bulk of Iraqi forces melted into the general populace and never conventionally presented at any point between March and May of 2003.
In and around April 2003, U.S. and U.S. dependent forces entered Baghdad and hurriedly declared victory25, 26. In their haste to gain a reportable footing in Iraq's capital, U.S. and U.S dependent forces had left much of southern Iraq under the control of incompetent and largely inexperienced support columns and almost the entirety of northern Iraq without any coherent occupation presence at all. On May 1st 2003, the U.S. President George W Bush very stupidly engaged in a media publicity stunt27 claiming the Iraq "mission accomplished" on the deck of the USS aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. During the media stunt, one of a many carried out by the US media and political and military wings of the empire, a large banner stating "mission accomplished" was printed and hung from the control tower of the carrier by Whitehouse staff. The President himself was airlifted onto the carrier itself dressed in an aviation flight suit. In the speech he gave to military personnel on the flight deck of the carrier almost an hour later, he claimed that major military operations in Iraq had ended and that the U.S had begun the process of "securing and reconstruction of the country". This was in actual fact an announcement that the United States believed that it had successfully brought Iraq to the point of installing a U.S. dependent administration which would begin the process of enabling the overarching polity of reverse engineering Iraq's national oil polity and drawing geostrategic proximity to Iran. In the interim, Iraq as a complacent state would enable the U.S. dollar to be linked to the natural resources of Iraq and its large scale oil fields. At the point that Bush made this speech, the U.S. administration genuinely believed that it had defeated Iraq's ability to weaponise it natural resources against U.S. imperialism. The Whitehouse regime and Bush cabal believed that the Iraq war had been won on TV and in the news organisations of the empire.
As the dust settled and the empires most adoring supporters gloated over the apparent televised success of the assault, an Iraq counter-occupation movement assembled and began the pre-amble to a lethal counter-occupation campaign that would bleed the empire dry. Over the coming period from early 2004 and onwards, that counter-occupation movement would alight out into the open and the real-world battle for Iraq would begin.
The Iraq War.
The "Iraq War" has two concentric narratives broadly demarked by a political difference between a single polity. In any given conflict, differences of polity or military arrangement should ordinarily by dispersed cleanly among the antagonists. That is to say, any conflict which might be presented as being a war should be clearly demarked between two sides in which polity, military deployment and media strategy are defined by the two warring sides. The "Iraq war" however is complicated by the fact that internecine conflict existed within the conflict to such a degree that the primary antagonists (the U.S. and the U.S. dependents) were unable to clearly determine what or who they were fighting. In the United Kingdom, around half of the populace had ditched any pretence at support for this appalling act of aggression and had effectively wandered away from their government's control. It is certainly the case that counter-occupation forces inside Iraq had material and financial aid and support from curious entities based inside the United States and the United Kingdom at the very least. This fact was severely complicated after the invasion had been completed and a larger number of nation states entered Iraq under the auspices of international multilateralism. In addition, further material aid and support arrived into Iraq from immediately adjacent nations with the intention of helping to prevent Iraq from falling into dependency on the U.S.
These support provisions eventually became a spiders web of competing interests all funnelling aid and assistance to the Iraqi counter-occupation forces in order to bedevil, disrupt and dishevel U.S. forces to such a degree that the U.S. became completely disorganised and found itself unable to manage any part of the territory it was attempting to occupy. Fundamentally, the "Iraq War" was predominately an international multi-state guerrilla war fought in an electronic/urban/desert setting across multiple fronts in which the conflict points were invariably stationary occupation forces with little or no local support. Where operations were seen in the form of roadside bombings or targeting of occupation forces, it would be likely that counter-occupation forces were attempting to localise an area with larger numbers of occupation troops in order to cause gaps in the occupation elsewhere, where arms, material, explosives, equipment and support goods were being transported for use.
However, by far the bulk of counter-occupation operations involved enforcing a constant state of alertness among U.S. and U.S. dependent forces in order to induce lapses in concentration which would aid the movement of counter-occupation forces freely throughout the towns and cities of Iraq. From 2004, the vast bulk of all U.S. occupation forces in Iraq were subject to near endless alerts and emergencies designed to trigger disruptive mental patterns which would manifest as tactical mistakes and strategic errors. In many cases, this led to an acceleration of troop rotations in theatre due to exhaustion, ensuring a regular supply of inexperience entering into the occupation forces ranks.
As the U.S. dubbed "insurgency"28, 29 took hold militarily, politically and psychologically; the disparities between the causes of U.S. service personnel and Iraqi's fighting to preserve their freedoms began to take over. For Iraqi's, the invasion was simply a continuation of a long-war policy which had been waged against Iraq by the United States and its dependents. From 1991 and onwards, Iraqi's had always been aware of the proximity of U.S. and U.S. dependent aerial forces because they had observed them in the skies. While the northern and southern no fly zones had not been in force over Iraq's capital, Baghdad, they had been in strong force over Mosul, Najaf, Nasiriyah, Basrah, Karbala and Tal Afar. These were areas already familiar with U.S. and U.S. dependent flights over their territory.
In the Sunni triangle of Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit and Kirkuk, the U.S. enforcement of the SNFZ and NNFZ was a matter for news broadcasts on Iraqi TV and not direct observance. In the Shi'a far north of Iraq and the south below Mahmudiyah, direct observable experience of U.S. and U.K. air force sorties contrasted with the received wisdom of those in the Sunni triangle. When the eventual invasion of the country took place in 2003, the Shi'a had been conditioned to accept what would become familiar while the Sunni experienced the full weight of a new observable arrival.
This ethnic dimension to the invasion's fortunes lay at the centre of military planning and brought the United States into a position of strident overconfidence. The fundamental ideological properties of the invasion had not been laid out ontologically for the common U.S. soldiery and so for the entirety of the U.S. armed forces involved in the invasion, a severe and fatal vacuum existed at the heart of their planning. U.S. service personnel had no idea what cause they were fighting for or how they should go about determining the various ethnic hazards that existed at the point of the invasion. Ironically in Washington, the invasion could not have been any more carefully understood. This was an invasion that had been twenty one years in the making and a full and coherent understanding existed among military planners about all possible hazards that could be encountered. Fundamentally, the U.S. administration in 2003 could not communicate the full weight of knowledge it had on Iraq for fear of revealing its master strategy for transiting Iraq into an oil-rich complacent dependency of the empire, a cause that few American soldiers would be prepared to fight for due to its imperial persona.
As the U.S. nationalist forces entered Iraq, the speed of the military advance swept those soldiers, and their ignorance, into the country and brought them quickly into close contact with a civilian populace that was not understood, and openly hostile to the presence of the U.S. in all its forms. In Washington, the previously existing divisions carefully created in Iraq since 1991 were quickly swamped by the ignorance of its armed forces and before long Shi'a and Sunni alike had seen the brutality of post 9/11 revenge and ignorance at U.S. nationalist forces at close quarters.
For the Iraqi people, both Shi'a and Sunni alike, the master plan Washington had held back from its own armed forces was quickly recognised and turned toward a counter-occupation strategy. From that moment on, U.S. and U.S dependent geostrategy in south-west Asia was doomed.
From 2004 onwards, that geostrategy entered the pre-amble to its collapse as elements within the common U.S. soldiery effectively abandoned their military discipline and began to engage in blind acts of aggression against ordinary Iraqi's both Shi'a and Sunni alike. This fed a new cycle of indiscriminate violence that quickly spiralled out of control.
On March 31st 2004, four U.S. mercenaries employed at the Blackwater private security corporation attempted to enter Fallujah. The four; Scott Helvenston (U.S. Navy), Jerry Zovko (U.S. Army), Wes Batalona (U.S. Army), and Mike Teague (U.S. Army) were travelling into Fallujah in two four wheel drive vehicles when they were attacked and killed by armed counter-occupation forces. The four men were shot and killed in their vehicles which were then set on fire. Later, the bodies of at least two of the men were dragged to a bridge and hung up. Photographs and video of the incident was broadcast widely across the United States although other incidents during the same period were largely ignored. The men were travelling without any protection, in vehicles that were soft-skinned, without any coherent knowledge of either the area or the security situation, on an assignment that was far from clear. The men had been sent into Fallujah, scene of a serious and building counter-occupation operation. The resultant military counter-assault by en-maddened U.S. nationalist forces in Fallujah is now recognised as a war crime.
The events of March 2004 polarised U.S. domestic opinion against the Iraqi "insurgency" and laid bare the reality of the popular view of Iraq by large sections of the nationalist U.S. populace. Time and time again, U.S. nationalist media found room to fabricate an anti-terror narrative in order of build confrontation after confrontation which would always settle unfairly on the Iraqi people themselves. For U.S. nationalists, this was a ploy to accelerate and legitimise the violent enforcement of Iraq as a complacent state. For U.S. nationalists deployed in Iraq itself, the ploy allowed the venting of the frustration they had as a result of the destruction of symbolic buildings in the United States on September 11th 2001. What transpired, was a long series of crimes against humanity freely committed in Iraq by regular U.S. forces and mercenaries which were rigidly defended by senior ranks throughout the entirety of the U.S. military and political sphere's both in Iraq and inside the domestic U.S. As the crimes dragged on and the Iraqi people became progressively defenceless, the empire and its dependents fell into a charnel house of deception that would fix into history an international war crime of the most serious order, and would go onto breed international war crimes by other nationalists around the world.
As this international crime continued, the concentric narrative inherent in the "western war" narrative began to appear. The United States could no longer maintain a moral30 dimension to its assault of Iraq, and found serious divisions breaking out throughout the entirety of its strategic domain. This most seriously manifested in the public view of the conflict throughout the world, which would later migrate into strategic withdrawals by the United States dependents the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland. By the end of 2004, the damage to the United States had reached a point where it could no longer be arrested31, 32. By the end of 2006, that damage could no longer be recovered33. The United States Empire had experienced a terminus loss of moral wealth which it would never recover. From late 2006, the United States has become almost pathologically dependent on attempting to renovate this damage by subjecting domestic media organisations to subjective mis-analysis of these facts in order to simply fabricate the removal of its problems.
In 2005, the "Iraq War" entered a new phase that would fix U.S. misfortunes in Iraq for the remainder until the U.S's final humiliating withdrawal from the country in December 2011.
The "Iraq War" collapses.
In January 2005, the United States along with its dependents attempted to hold an election for the National Transition Assembly34. This was a staged attempt to move Iraq formally into an empire complacent state and would dismiss the U.S. directed "interim government"35. The "interim government" had been little more than a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operation to legitimise a U.S. presence in Iraq after it had become clear that the U.S. was not wanted in the country. Almost 8 million Iraqi's are claimed to have voted in the January 2005 election, although it should be remembered that in the lawless environment that existed in Iraq at the time, election fraud would have been a straightforward matter. Indeed, the outcome was the election of a Shi'a alliance backed by a series of minority Kurdish parties, exactly and precisely the outcome the United States had been working toward since 1991. Three months later, the National Transition Assembly rubber stamped a three person Presidency with a Kurdish nationalist, Jalal Talabani36, as interim leader of the Presidential Council sharing the Presidency with CIA asset Ghazi Yawer37 and Adel Abdul Mahdi38, the former "interim government" finance minister. The three person presidency would allow a full range of diplomatic and political polity's to form in Iraq, all stridently on-topic with U.S. policy. Two months later the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Massoud Barzani39, was sworn in as President of Iraqi Kurdistan.
These demarches were not the result of Iraqi self-determination, but the result of Iraq's extrusion into a complacent oil-rich dependency of the United States Empire. The United States had successfully engineered the end-point of its twenty one year policy toward Iraq and now had the beginnings of a fully complacent state that could be used to further reverse engineer the Ba'athist nationalisation of Iraq's oil reserves toward full capitalisation. In this way, the United States now had a large scale natural resource to affix to the wealth of its global currency.
The election of the National Transition Assembly had been the last waypoint the U.S. needed to reach in order to legitimise its long-war policy over Iraq. However, the waypoint was passed, the election had successfully returned the correct result, Iraqi Kurdistan had successfully been invoked and the Socialist Ba'ath Party had been removed from power. In October 2005, Saddam Hussein was charged by a quasi-judicial occupation court for crimes again humanity and held in detention with a number of Ba'ath Party members. All that remained for the United States, was to engineer Saddam Hussein's execution along with eradicating the last remnants of the Ba'ath Party and Iraq would formally fall into complacency and the "Iraq War" would be formally legitimised as an international historical event.
The "Iraq War" then experienced a full blown ontological collapse.
The Iraq Civil War
The Iraq civil war40, 40.1, 40.2 demarks the point at which counter-occupation operations against the U.S. and U.S. dependent became prominant and were appended with perceptual sectarianism as a U.S. nationalist defensive strategy. This period also marks the point at which the U.S. and U.S. dependent nationalist narrative began to experience ridicule and segmentation away from the conventional polity of "the humanitarian west" and into firm isolation. In the United States, this was seen as a counter-occupation narrative which went on to destroy the nationalist Republican movement and in the U.K. was seen as the general defenestration of the Labour administration leading to calls for political leaders of the Labour administration to face trial for suspected war crimes. In Iraq itself, a realisation that Iraq could no longer count on the nationalist Republican administration to maintain the polemic of the liberation of Iraq on the world stage appeared leading to a general crisis of confidence among the Shi'a and Kurdish sects which now had political power.
This general international malaise coalesced together into a general failure of the U.S. Empires geostrategy in the region. From late 2004 and into the electioneering period of 2005, Iraq exploded into an internecine conflict that would articulate the "Iraq War" into the "Iraq Civil War".
In an attempt to take control of its poor fortune, U.S. nationalist forces both military and political attempted to re-define the civil war as an ethnic conflict41, 42, 43 in which it could engineer an easy to execute counter-insurgency doctrine that would be usable by a regular army that had perpetually shown a failure to understand the basic reality of the situation they had been involved in. From the beginning, the nationalist armed forces of the United States along with its dependents had failed to understand the ethnic makeup of Iraq choosing to believe instead that all of Iraq was united in its dislike of the Ba'ath Party, and in turn, the Ba'ath Party leader Saddam Hussein. As the civil war began to rage, a final and belated attempt was made by the U.S. and U.S. dependent militaries to renovate the common soldieries understanding of Iraq's ethnic topography. The civil war would then become a simple binary type strategy of understanding the polity of the Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi's. On for the Shi'a, off for the Sunni.
With this new-found understanding by U.S. nationalists, the Iraq Civil War spread geographically and became far more violent than it might otherwise have become44, 45, 46. The fundamental pattern which developed in Iraq from late 2004 and into 2005 through to the civil wars height in 2006/7 was targeted counter-occupation operations against U.S. nationalist forces throughout Iraq but particularly around the Green Zone in central Baghdad, offset by targeted violence undertaken by U.S. soldiers and their Shi'a partners against Sunni's particularly in Mosul, Fallujah, Tikrit, Samarrah and Baghdad. This division along ethnic lines has always been present in Iraq to some minor degree but only since the 2003 invasion and occupation had this division manifested as a severe and chronic sustained period of strident civil conflict.
In 2006 and 2007, the Iraq Civil War was fully articulated and the country was in a state of overt ethnic chaos. During this lamentable period, no measure undertaken by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland or any other late arriving international entity, nor even the United Nations itself, succeeded in alleviating in any way the suffering of the Iraqi people. At this point, and due primarily to the high but selective interest shown in the conflict by international media, the humanitarian credentials of two of the United Nations Security Council permanent members was lost for good, never to be recovered.
The collapse of U.S. intervention strategy.
By 2008, the world had come to realise that the United States was not the great champion of justice and freedom it claimed to be, but was simply a self-interested entity operating to achieve its own material self-interest on the world stage. Worse, the U.S. had little to no collective moral understanding of its actions and appeared to be incapable of pursuing a course of action that would correct its failures. In January 2009, the United States exercised a political change of direction in its policies with a public display of political theatre in the lead up to the Presidential election of 2008. Unusually for a U.S. Presidential contest, the Democratic candidate Barack Obama embarked on an international tour of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle-East and Europe culminating in a visit to the empires primary dependency, the United Kingdom. The speeches and addresses given by the Democratic candidate during this time, some involving audiences of many thousands, were a clear attempt by the United States to renovate the public relations component of its foreign policy while allowing it to continue with its offensive persona. Most especially, the political capital raised during this election, would buy time for the United States to continue with its presence in Iraq in order to further attempt to bring Iraq into a complacent state.
While much of Obama's public relations rhetoric predictably found a pliant audience, the actual reality failed to materialise in Iraq or Afghanistan and both nation states continued to reject the empires intervention strategy. Throughout Obama's various foreign policy initiatives, Republican influence has continued to successfully plump up the empire's aggression from within the U.S. congress and has continued to steer the United States into strident global decline. This decline has been so rigid and compelling, that all attempts by the Obama administration to re-invent global public support for the empire have experienced broad scale failure.
On 11th December 2008, the United States withdrew under cover of darkness from Iraq and formally abandoned the Iraqi people. Despite its failures, the U.S. President has continued to support the crimes against humanity committed by U.S. nationalist forces in Iraq during the 2003/2007 period and continues to stridently evade any attempt to bring the United States to account under international law. As a result, the United States Empire has rightly found that any attempt to intervene into the sovereign affairs of other nations is blocked immediately on the basis that the United States is not qualified to act.
Over the coming period, this will undoubtedly see elements within the United States covertly acting to initiate subversion of other nation states with the aim of instigating humanitarian crisis in a desperate attempt to renovate by force public opinion back toward support for intervention by the United States. This policy is undoubtedly seen in the nation state of Syria with political interference in the nations affairs undertaken by empire dependent nationalist elements in the United Kingdom, France and Israel.
The legacy of the Iraq intervention.
The United States has been, from 1945 onwards, engaged in building an international posture in which it is attempting to dominate economically in order to facilitate the continuation of its domestic currency. In 1948, the United States political order with an eye toward empire, unwisely committed the United States to an over-extended spherical reach doctrine which the United States could not, and now cannot, maintain. In an attempt to build that empire, the United States domestic currency token, the United States dollar, was cited as a candidate to facilitate the creation of a global currency. The remit of that global currency was to articulate a global "free-trade" symposium of like-minded nation states each trading with each other for the so-called common good. In order to ensure an adequate chance of success, a global bank, insurance scheme and international tariff setting regime had to be formed in order to regiment the trading of that currency. The Bretton Woods meeting in the United States in 1948 attempted to finalise and create such a global regime.
From 1948 onwards, and in order to safeguard the efficacy and value of the United States dollar currency, international resources would have to be found to attach "value" to the currency. Without a material "pegging" resource, all currency is only worth the paper it is printed on. The vast bulk of paper currency throughout the world has no material value because the paper it is printed onto has no sustainable worth. This is due to the fact that paper currency when printed to enable an economy in nation states that have large scale populations, must be printed onto paper stock that is cost effective to produce, distribute and replace.
A paper token currency cannot have any material value in a nation state with a large populace. This fact is severely exaggerated when a nation state attempts to create a paper currency that has value on a global scale. By default, any currency that is required to be operable on such a scale cannot maintain any material value in and of itself. For the United States, with its ambitions toward the globalising of its domestic currency, a global resource of international scope and value is required in order to "lend" value to its currency...step forward the currently extractable and provable natural energy reserves of the world. Without sufficient resources, the global dollar reserve currency has no value and without value, the global dollar reserve currency cannot be used to stabilise a global bank, a global insurance scheme nor a global tariff setting body.
The intervention into Iraq by the United States on 19th March 2003 was not an attempt to find so-called weapons of mass destruction, nor was it an attempt to hunt down the now mythical al-Qa'ida, it was an attempt to seize control of Iraq's accessible and distributable oil sector energy resources with an eye toward strengthening and stabilising the U.S. domestic dollar currency on the international stage. In service to that agenda, the United States Empire has rigidly held Iraq as a client state under its control until such time as it could articulate an intervention with the goal of seizing the countries oil reserves.
This policy was recognised as a failure in late 2007 and appeared as a failure by late 2008. The period between 2008 and 2011 marked a turning point in the conscience of the world as it became clear that a large section of the United States political and media provision appeared to be ignorant of its status as an empire, while a smaller more belligerent section appeared to be violently immersed in that self-same polemic. In strict terms, the United States failed to withdraw from Iraq even after it became painfully obvious that the civil conflict was being nourished by the U.S. nationalist presence.
In 2013, political violence in Iraq has subsided to a point nominally lower than that which existed in the country between the invasion of 2003, and the beginning of the civil war in 2004. In 2012, a total of 4,57347 civilian deaths were recorded across a reported 2,061 incidents drawn from 7,000 separate reported incidents. In the same year, the numbers of deaths involving police and barracked paramilitary forces had increased from the previous year. Overall violent deaths in Iraq from all reports are noticeable for an increase in the number of deaths reported from explosives and bombings. In 2012, 960 bombings in Iraq killed 2,812 civilians and injured 7,539. On average during 2012, 18 bombings killed 54 civilians and injured a further 145 persons across Iraq for every week of the year. Given these figures, it is not possible to claim with any degree of credibility that Iraq is a safe place since the United States withdrew from the country in 2011. As the ten year period mark approaches since Iraq was brutally assaulted by the United States and its dependents, many media reports will undoubtedly gloss quietly over these solemn facts in order to continue excusing what is a violent, deceptive and deeply secretive empire acting on the world stage with the full sanction of a subjective and malevolent international media sector.
For the free people of the world, these facts stand as a shocking testament to a divided polity which now stretches, octopus-like, across the world. In each territory in which it has influence, the United States Empire along with its dependents have created, and maintained, a horribly false narrative of illegitimate intervention on the basis of unadulterated self-interest, while claiming a humanitarian imperative. The fundamental problem is, that the worlds populace simply is no longer concerned with the rhetoric of this empire nor with entertaining any further its lofty self-interest dressed in the clothes of foreign intervention. Given the empires adoration for the presentation of that self-interest through concocted media led narratives, in conjunction with whatever nationalist polity it can exploit to politically enable that self-interest, this loss of public support for its various nation building experiments around the world constitutes the end-point for this period in the United States history. In 2012, this loss of influence has already revealed a deficit of practical influence in south-west Asia as well as North Africa.
However, the United States has emerged with extraction rights to Iraq's second largest oil field at West Qurna 148 but has not taken ownership of the field and has little control over the price they are paid by the Iraqi government for their efforts, which is very low. As a result, and as is usually the case with U.S. corporations, the U.S. has attempted to create divisions within the Iraqi government by engineering illegal deals with Kurdish Iraq to develop a number of sites within northern Iraq. This may well result in the U.S. losing control of West Qurna as a result of its attempts to politically interfere with the countries government. If this were to happen, the U.S. would undoubtedly experience disruption in the value of its currencies international standing.
Finally, the United States is now experiencing severe problems with its ability to properly discharge its duties49 as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. As the crisis deepens for the people of Syria, the United Nations once again finds itself unable to provide coherent aid and relief as a direct result of the United States inability to operate outside the sphere of its own self-interest. Since the crisis in Syria emerged, the United States has taken every opportunity to damage and harm the legitimacy of the United Nations by re-moulding its own domestic problems into the problems of other members of the Security Council. Over recent weeks, the United States and its dependents have once again used their positions on the Security Council to call for the injection of arms and weapons into Syria for no other purpose than to depose yet another Ba'ath Party government in south-west Asia. It is now clear, that the United States and its primary dependency have little or no understanding of the political errors that previous administrations have made and continue to repeat a geostrategy that is globally discredited and only likely to bring harm and disruption if continued.
It is impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy how Iraq will traverse forward after this terrible period in its history. The U.S. and U.S dependent unprovoked intervention into the country in 2003 achieved little beyond depopulating the country and creating a large migration of Iraqi's out of the country and into neighbouring states. Along with chronic problems resulting from damaged infrastructure and the breakdown of basic social services in the country, Iraq has very little to show for its torment. No narrative that can emanate from the U.S. or its dependencies will ever be able to do more than scratch slightly at the surface paintwork of the countries historic record. Among western audiences, the narrative of intervention has long been abandoned and replaced with seething disrespect for those who engineered an act of terror against an innocent people in a long tormented south-west Asian state.
Today, violence in Iraq is as deadly now as it ever was50. Sectarian conflict, the most lethal of all threats to any nation state, is cooking slowly in Iraq and can be jolted into life at any time by the regional problems that surround it. Police and barracked security forces are now the single largest demographic group involved in opportunistic fatal violence. Shootings, bombings and targeted assassinations continue to take place and arms and weapons continue to flood into and out of the country. One fifth of the entire population of Iraq has now emigrated from the country. In addition, chronic failure to accurately record basic demographics in Iraq is a serious and on-going problem with major and widespread corruption in civil departments responsible for false reporting throughout the civil sector. Public works that have been outstanding for many years continue to be neglected with chronic siphoning off of public funds earmarked for civil improvements. The public sector routinely fails to competently arrange its financial affairs according to a fiscal cycle allowing public funds to be siphoned off by corrupt officials before they are allocated for projects. Prices for basic goods and services in some areas are now so expensive that the poorest Iraqi's simply go without. A chronic sense of entitlement to the nation's wealth pervades Iraqi nationalists involved with the U.S. prior to, during, and after the events of 2003 and many Sunni's previously involved with the Ba'ath Party now have a compelling sense of persecution.
Around half of the Shi'a and Sunni populace in Iraq believe they are worse off51 now than they were under the Ba'athist Party President Saddam Hussein. Almost 60% of Kurds believe they are better off. In a recent poll undertaken as U.S. nationalist forces withdrew from the country, a series of question were asked of Iraqi Sunni, Shi'a, Kurdish, U.S. Democrats and U.S. Republicans. In response to the question "Since U.S. forces entered Iraq, how do you feel the following areas of life have been impacted?". On every question ranging from political freedom to economic development; education, personal safety, government, women's rights, religious freedom, healthcare and relations with neighbours, U.S. Republicans persistently insisted that things had improved dramatically for all Iraqi's since 2003, while U.S. Democrats persistently insisted that things had deteriorated for Iraqi's in the same period. Iraqi's themselves gave a very different answer.
No group anywhere in Iraq answered that any area of life in Iraq had been enhanced or improved since the United States entered the country in 2003. On the subject of personal safety and security, 81% of Shi'a and 80% of Sunni answered that they could detect no improvement in their situation, while 90% of Kurds reported that their personal safety had improved.
From 2003 to 2013, one of the most solemn and lamentable aspects of the Iraq assault has of course been the near universal failure to understand the only metric of war that ever counts; the death toll.
The cost of the intervention of Iraq undertaken by the United States and its dependencies has been high. In almost all media throughout those nations that took part in this terrible story, the death toll experienced by the Iraqi people has been routinely disrupted and misreported. From the start, the Iraqi people have been the primary victim of this intervention. In almost all areas throughout the empire and its dependencies, partisan arguments have raged between the so-called left and right wing political blocks over what constitutes a "war death". In humanitarian terms, a "war death" is a death that results from any event connected to, directly or indirectly, an action involving a tactical or strategic military demarche.
Those killed while engaged in fighting are "war deaths". Those killed while inadvertently coming into contact with those engaged in fighting are "war deaths". Those killed while suffering from the effects of those engaged in fighting are "war deaths". A "war death" can include a soldier, a resistance fighter, those resisting occupation, those fleeing the fighting, those killed while attempting to give aid and assistance and those who die as a result of the collapse in social services and basic infrastructure collapse. Even the elderly and infirm that die by shock as the conflict erupts around them are "war deaths". Aborted foetuses that become unviable as a result of the mother becoming too stressed to carry them are "war deaths". Those carrying injuries as a result of military action that through medical neglect, negligence or supplementary complications go onto fatality at a later date are "war deaths".
"War deaths" do not relate solely to casualties experienced by the armed forces, nor do they relate solely to those killed while actively engaging in armed combat.
The mortality rate as a direct result of the unprovoked assault on Iraq as carried out by the United States and its dependencies in 2003 is 654,965 deaths inside the territorial Iraq. This figure is a measure of all mortalities that derive directly from military and supplementary action and events related to a state of general conflict as seen throughout Iraq during the period analysed.
This equates to the killing of approximately 2% of the population in order to bring about the re-capitalisation of the natural resources of the state of Iraq.
As the tenth "anniversary" of the "Iraq War" passes by, the United States will continue, along with its dependents, to excuse its nationalist classes over their part in an act of unprovoked aggression against the sovereign nation state of Iraq that led directly to the deaths of almost half a million innocent people.
As a result, both the United States and the United Kingdom will continue to experience a general decline in diplomatic52 influence worldwide.