Three years ago, on March 19, 2003, US President George Bush ordered US forces to invade and occupy Iraq using two pretexts. He claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, implying that it would threaten the US with them. He also claimed that Iraq had links with Alqaeda organization, which attacked the US in September 11, 2001, in an attempt to end the US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Later, a bipartisan Committee found no bases for these two pretexts. The Committee concluded that Iraq neither had weapons of mass destruction nor had any links with Alqaeda.
Then, why did the US invade and occupy Iraq?
Researchers have found that the Zionist rulers of the American Empire had expressed their intention to invade Iraq during the 1990s. This was expressed in a blueprint written by Wolfowitz, Pearl, and Feith well before they came to power. However, in my book about the 1991 Gulf War “The Gulf War: Overreaction & Excessiveness” (which was rejected by about 50 US publishers), I argued that leaders of the Zionist Empire considered Iraq as a threat to be dealt with as far back as 1988. Back then, the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his foreign minister Shimon Peres pronounced the first public announcement about targeting Iraq, as it came out stronger from the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.
Read it here:
State of the Zionist Empire Three Years After the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
Rumsfeld singled out as crisis deepens in Iraq
By Julian Borger and Jonathan Steele
March 20, 2006
A former US army general yesterday called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign on grounds of incompetence in Iraq, hours after Ayad Allawi, the former US-backed Iraqi prime minister, declared the country to be in the thick of a civil war that could soon “reach the point of no return”.
Three years after Iraq was invaded, statistics published yesterday show that the frequency of insurgent bombings and group killings is growing, but both Mr Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and George Bush have vowed to fight on.
“Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis,” the defence secretary wrote in a Washington Post commentary, as the administration tried to quell growing concern that the conflict was unravelling beyond Washington’s control.
President Bush made a brief appearance on the White House lawn to say he was “encouraged” by progress on forming a unity government in Iraq. But he had no other good news to mark three years of a war in which more than 2,300 Americans have died, and which has so far cost $500bn (nearly £290bn).
The US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, said that the troop withdrawals he had forecast for this spring or summer might have to wait until the end of the year or even 2007. And Paul Eaton, a former American army general in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004, marked the anniversary with a furious attack on Mr Rumsfeld, saying he was “not competent to lead our armed forces”.
In London, Mr Allawi told BBC 2’s Sunday AM programme: “We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.”
Britain’s defence secretary, John Reid, rejected that assessment. In Baghdad’s green zone, he said that most of Iraq was under control: “There is not civil war now, nor is it inevitable, nor is it imminent”.
In Washington, the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, also appeared on television to play down ideas of civil war. He told the CBS programme Face the Nation that the surge in attacks aimed at fomenting sectarian conflict simply reflected the insurgents’ “state of desperation”.
The remark echoed a similarly optimistic phrase used by Mr Cheney in March last year, when he claimed the insurgency was in its “last throes”. Yesterday, he maintained that that description was still “basically accurate”.
There were signs yesterday that the Bush administration was losing its ability to shape perception of the conflict, even among partisan Republicans. George Will, an influential conservative commentator, yesterday compared Iraq’s war to that of the 1930s Spanish civil war.
Mr Allawi now heads a list of secular parties that had hoped to broker a compromise between the Shia and Sunni parties. He warned that if Iraq reached the point of no return it would “not only fall apart, but sectarianism would spread through the region”. He said even Europe and the US would “not be spared all the violence” linked to sectarian problems.
There were no public gatherings in Baghdad yesterday. People continued to race to work and back home, fearing explosions, kidnapping or murder.
Iraqi police reported that US troops had killed eight people, after a patrol was ambushed in the Sunni town of Duluiya, north of Baghdad, early yesterday. The victims included a 13-year-old boy and his parents, who were shot dead.
According to figures compiled by the Brookings Institution, in Washington, there were 75 attacks a day last month, compared with 54 on average a year earlier. The number of Iraqi civilians being killed in the conflict rose to 1,000 in February, from 750 in February 2005. There are now 232,000 Iraqi security personnel, up 90,000 over the past 12 months, but their ability to control the situation is a matter of dispute. Oil production, the mainstay of the economy, is in decline.
The Islamist parties have failed to agree on a national unity government and sectarian violence has markedly increased.
Last July Gen Casey predicted that if the political process went well there could be “fairly substantial reductions” in US troops in Iraq this spring or summer.
Yesterday, calling on the US to keep its nerve, Mr Rumsfeld pointed to the swelling ranks of Iraqi government forces. But Mr Eaton, a former major general, said the defence secretary had “shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically”, and was “far more than anyone else, responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq”. Mr Rumsfeld had to step down, he said.
Backstory
Since the invasion of Iraq three years ago, the US military has lost more than 2,300 troops in combat, roadside explosions, insurgent attacks and friendly fire. But that figure is dwarfed by estimates for the number of Iraqis killed, which range from a conservative 30,000 to a more speculative 100,000. As many as 50 people are killed every day. Britain has lost 103 soldiers in Iraq, while other nations together have lost 94 troops. But the cost of war has not just been measured in human terms. There is the financial cost. The US is still spending $6bn (£3.5bn) a month in Iraq, primarily on the 130,000 troops it still maintains in the country.
well obviously if you’re going to call them the zionist empire, of course 50 US publishers are going to reject your book. why use a US publisher and give them business anyway, seems like you dont like the yanks too much
Success in Tal Afar Shows Evidence Iraqi Strategy Working :)
Tal-Afar is the same city, American soldiers killed Iraqi children and then faked pictures of weapons near their bodies.
Search this Blog for more information, under the name “Americans do kill Iraqi children”