The Truth About US Troops “Sent to Iraq”
Global Research, June 17, 2014
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-truth-about-us-troops-sent-to-iraq/5387328
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-truth-about-us-troops-sent-to-iraq/5387328
Indeed, nearly 300 troops are being prepared to deploy to Iraq, as they
would be to any nation on Earth where a US embassy is located, and may possibly
require evacuation. It is in no way an “intervention” or a gesture of
“assistance” to the government of a destabilized country. However, in Iraq,
Western headlines would have readers think otherwise.
The Guardian’s article, “Barack
Obama sends troops back to Iraq as Isis insurgency worsens,” in title alone
leads the general population to believe the third “Iraq War” has begun. The
article claims:
The US is urgently deploying several hundred armed troops in and around Iraq and considering sending an additional contingent of special forces soldiers as Baghdad struggles to repel a rampant insurgency.
Upon carefully reading the article, however, it is revealed that
these troops are only to aid in the security of the US embassy in
Baghdad. Buried 11 paragraphs down, amid suggestions, speculation, and
conjecture, is the true nature of the latest deployment:
Obama said in his notification to Congress that the military personnel being sent to Iraq would provide support and security for the American embassy in Baghdad, but was “equipped for combat”.
All troops participating in such missions to protect and possibly evacuate US
embassies anywhere on Earth are “equipped for combat.” This hyperbole at best is
sensationalism, and at worst, intentional disinformation meant to further
undermine the stability of Baghdad’s government, by implying that it both seeks
and depends on US military forces for its continued survival.
 |
Image: US troops aren’t going “to Iraq.” They
are going to bolster security at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Attempts to portray
the routine move as an “intervention” is a ploy to undermine the credibility and
sovereignty of the Iraqi government.
It has
been previously reported that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is
a creation of the United States and its regional allies, with the CIA itself
monitoring, arming, and funding the terrorist organization along the
Turkish-Syrian border for the past 3 years. The ISIS’ incursion into northern
Iraq was portended by their very public redeployment to eastern Syria in March
2014 where they then prepared for the invasion of Iraq.
Since invading, they have committed themselves to overt,
sectarian bloodshed in an attempt to trigger reprisals across Iraq along
sectarian lines and create a wider sectarian conflict. The relatively small ISIS
force can and will be overwhelmed by Iraqi security forces if the psychological
and strategic impact of its blitzkrieg-style tactics can be exposed and blunted.
In the meantime, during this closing window of opportunity, the US in particular
is struggling to undermine both the sociopolitical stability of Iraq itself, and
the credibility of the government in Baghdad. Ironically, to do this, the US is
posing as Baghdad’s ally.
America’s “Political Touch of Death”
 |
Image: The US has used insidious propaganda to
distance itself from its own proxies in places like Egypt, portraying ElBaradei
and Mohammed Morsi as “anti-Western.” Policymakers have admitted the need to do
so to prevent anti-American sentiment from undermining the chances of success
for their proxies. Following this logic, overtly “supporting” those the West
opposes would be an effective way to in fact, undermine them.
Readers should recall during the opening phases of the very much
US-engineered, so-called “Arab Spring,” that both the US and Israel
intentionally and very publicly offered “support” for the embattled government
of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, despite training and funding the very mobs that were
set to overthrow his government. The alleged support was a psychological
operation (psyop) designed not to help the embattled government, but to
undermine it further. Egyptians on all sides of the political divide viewed the
United States and Israel with everything from suspicion to outright scorn. By
posing as allies of the Mubarak government, the US and Israel were able to
politically poison the leadership in Cairo and deny it any support that could
counter the Western-sponsored mobs in the streets.
In retrospect, the orchestrated Western-backed
nature of the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan unrest is clear. However, as
the events played out, especially in the early stages, the corporate-owned
Western media committed itself to breathtaking
propagandizing. In Egypt, crowds of 50,000 were translated into “crowds of 2
million” through boldfaced lies, tight camera angles and disingenuous
propagandists like BBC’s Jon
Leyne. In Libya, the initial armed
nature of the “rebellion” was omitted and the unrest was portrayed as
“peaceful unarmed protests.”
Perhaps most diabolical of all is the manner in which the mainstream media
portrayed Egypt’s opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei. Indeed, ElBaradei was at
the very center of the protests, having returned to Egypt a year earlier in
February 2010 to assemble his “National
Front for Change” with the help of Egypt’s “youth movements” led by the US
State Department trained April 6 Movement and Google’s
Wael Ghonim. But we were all told he “just flew in,” and that he was
viewed with “suspicion” by the West. We were also told that Hosni Mubarak
was still our “chosen man” and reports even went as far as claiming
(unsubstantiated claims) that Mubarak was preparing
to flee to Tel Aviv, Israel of all places, and that Israel
was airlifting in weapons to bolster his faltering regime.
Obviously those “attempts” to save Mubarak’s regime failed, precisely because
they were never designed to succeed in the first place. And on the eve of
Mubarak’s fall, the US eventually turned a full 180 degrees around from
defending him, to demanding he step down.
With amazing “foresight,” the Council on Foreign Relations’ magazine Foreign
Affairs reported
in March 2010, a year before the so-called “Arab Spring,” the following
(emphasis added):
“Further, Egypt’s close relationship with the United States has become a critical and negative factor in Egyptian politics. The opposition has used these ties to delegitimize the regime, while the government has engaged in its own displays of anti-Americanism to insulate itself from such charges. If ElBaradei actually has a reasonable chance of fostering political reform in Egypt, then U.S. policymakers would best serve his cause by not acting strongly. Somewhat paradoxically, ElBaradei’s chilly relationship with the United States as IAEA chief only advances U.S. interests now. “Fully realizing US or Israeli support for ElBaradei would destroy any chance for the “revolution’s” success, it appears that the cartoonish act of overtly, even oafishly supporting Mubarak in the early stages of the unrest was a deliberate attempt to shift the ire of the Egyptian people toward him, and their suspicions away from the West’s proxy ElBaradei. Similar attempts have since been made to bolster the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood while undermining the military-led government now ruling in Cairo.
Beyond Egypt, such a campaign unfolded in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi, with
rumors circulated that Israel was trying to save the embattled regime by
hiring mercenaries, and even claims being made that
Qaddafi was Jewish. Mirroring the cartoonish propaganda aimed at galvanizing
Mubarak’s opposition, attempts to tarnish Qaddafi’s image in the eyes of
America’s and Israel’s enemies by feigning support for him was attempted, but
ultimately failed. Against Syria, a similar campaign by the US and Israel met
with even less success.
Still, the “political touch of death” the US and its regional allies wield is
extended out toward any and all in the hopes that it will help undermine and
destabilize targeted nations. This most recent attempt to portray Baghdad as a
benefactor of possible US assistance seeks to both grant the US plausible
deniability in its role of raising ISIS legions in the first place, and
undermine the Iran-leaning government of Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki in the eyes of
enemies and allies alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment