Iraq Invasion - Stopping Saddam or Stopping the Islamic Revival?

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/08/iraq-invasion-stopping-saddam-or-stopping-the-islamic-revival/

﷽

We will without doubt be hearing how the Iraq Invasion in 2003 was a failure and mismanagement by Tony Blair now that the Chilcot Report has affirmed what we already knew was an unfounded case for WMD's. However, this article will give you an entirely different narrative to what you may find on the mainstream news channels and papers.

The Iraq Invasion was a failure only in terms of establishing Iraq as the model democratic nation in the Middle East for the rest of the nearby Muslim countries to follow suit, and this was undoubtedly "Plan A" for Iraq under the Greater Middle East Initiative of 2004. However, this does not mean there was not a "Plan B". In fact when John Kerry mentioned Plan B for Syria he was not only speaking of Syria but rather a Plan B in moving towards Plan A, democratisation and secularisation of the Middle East.

The Islamic sentiment during the latter years of Saddam's reign was strong and this is evident from the fact that he used this sentiment a number of times, whether that be falsely claiming that he is a descendent of the Prophet ﷺ or filling his speeches with references to the Qur'an. The only reason one would feel obliged to ride the Islamic wave would be due to the fact the people held Islam as more than just a mere religion. Especially when we know that the Ba'ath party was not born on religious grounds but on a secular one.

If Saddam had stepped down without a fight and left U.S. and Britain to install a new leader, they would have undeniably had to replace him with a leader that called for Islam. This is due to the fact the peoples thoughts and emotions were leaning towards Islam at this time.

This is definitely apparent when we look at the way in which Saddam held to power. He used government money to promote mandatory Qur'an studies in school. He built training centres for Imams including Saddam University of Islamic Studies. Radio stations were being dedicated to airing Qur'anic lessons and alcohol banned in restaurants. Ba'ath party members were made to take courses in Qur'an and Saddam was being shown in prayer in the media. There was a rise in mosque attendance and more women began to dress more modestly - especially  considering the fact that Baghdad was the most secular of all the surrounding areas before. With all of these actions he felt that the population would support him from any incoming foreign invasion or occupation.

Plan B is in fact the steps preceding Plan A. Plan B is to engulf the Middle East in bloody sectarian conflict whereby a Muslim is recognised based on their affiliations to a certain sect (Shia, Sunni) rather than their religion. It is to partition the Middle East with more than just a mere line in the sand, but rather a deep bloody scar that will not heal with time.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that:

“what we’re seeing here in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one." 

They wish for a New Middle East that will not see Islam as its solution because Islam will be seen as something barbaric and unable to govern, as is the case with post-Iraq ISIS.  They wish to show that political parties that have any connection to Islam are simply incapable of handling the power and with one fell swoop can be destroyed.

It is through destruction and chaos that the West will start to prop-up and fund secular democratic groups as an alternative to the mayhem that they have endured. They hope that the majority would seek stability and safety rather than revolutions and uprisings.

It was not a failure for the West in Iraq but a pre-requisite to entering the Middle East, inserting their influence and averting the Islamic revival which would unmistakably challenge their dominance at a world stage.

The Chilcot Inquiry will later be seen as a waste of public money and a way to appease the mass that were against the war from the very beginning. They wish to pull the wool over the peoples eyes, so that the real motive is left unrevealed. It is surely easier to lay the blame on one individual rather than the ideology itself.

US CENTCOM Commander General John P.Abizaid Urges Sykes-Picot 2

The Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) have recently published an interview with the ex US CENTCOM commander John P.Abizaid on the topic of the Middle East.

Bear in mind that this man served 34 years, the longest serving commander of the US CENTCOM and has been involved in many of the huge foreign policy decisions in the West, this is no ex-army officer talking on Press TV and claiming "Israel" controls the world - i.e. this is no conspiracy theorist. CTC are a huge think-tank organisation who like RAND and the Brookings Institute, shape the policies for the West going forward.

Now, he was posed the question, "In your opinion, what should be our strategic end state in this conflict?" and in his response he said that "It is hard to say what the strategic end state would be because Sunni Islamic extremism is an idea, and it is hard to destroy an idea. It’s an ideology." 

Exactly, and this is a point most Muslims fail to understand. The West themselves know that Islam is an ideology and that it is the IDEA of Islam they are trying to destroy. This is not contrary to what Allah (swt) tells the Muslims in the Holy Qur'an.

Now this isn't the point that spurred me on to write this article. It is the question he was posed after this.... read carefully.

The post-WW1 borders is the Sykes-Picot Agreement was in 1916 as we know that WW1 was in 1914. This is clearly talking about the Sykes-Picot Agreement which saw the Middle East split up into the various states we see today. 

Obviously the West can't conclude that they are the ones stoking up sectarianism in the region to establish new lines in the sand but effectively that is what is happening and as always the crocodile tears, is aimed at the Muslims not being able to live peacefully with each other. 

Now if you have read my other articles in relation to the West collusion with Russia and various factions on the ground whether that be consciously or not - the fact of the matter is, the factions on the ground are allowed to exist due to the support that is given to them by huge state sponsors, i.e. a proxy war. 

This redrawing of the Middle East on sectarian lines which they themselves have harnessed and allowed through arming, funding and fundamentally supporting is the new policy going forward and it is very rarely spoken about so plainly! As you can see his response after making that statement was that "most people will clutch their heart, and do cluth their heart, every time I say something like that..." And rightly so! 

If the Muslims were aware of what the plan was for their lands, they wouldn't be so easily duped and embroiled in sectarian struggles. 

Please make the Ummah aware of Sykes-Picot 2, it divided us once and set us back 100's of years, and it'll set us back another 100 years. 

#SykesPicot2 

RAND's peace plan for Syria

RAND Report: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

It is important to know that the RAND corporation are no ordinary think-tank. They are one of the leading think-tanks in America that have shaped policy and decision making at the highest level. This is why any analysis that come out of RAND, you can be sure that it is the direction the politicians will take in America.

This recent report by RAND regarding the peace plan for Syria agrees with much of the Brooking's Institutions report on deconstructing Syria towards a regionalized strategy.

The report starts off by recognising the two paths that can be taken in Syria, them being:

1. Concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. The second approach would be to secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

We can see that the West are currently aiming for the first path by gathering the opposition to come to an agreement. However whether or not Assad stays or leaves is the main sticking point for most of the warring factions - something that Russia also wish to have a say in. 

RAND suggest that path one is unrealistic now that sectarianism is as rife as ever. 

"pitting the regime against the opposition, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, and moderate against extremist. It has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from Europe, North America, and Africa; exacerbated geopolitical rivalries among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, the United States, and others; and drawn in the armed forces of nearly a dozen external states. There may have been a time, early on, when it could be argued that the benefits of overthrowing Assad would be worth the human, strategic, political, and economic costs of achieving that goal, but that time has long past. At this point, whether President Assad stays or goes in the near term should be regarded as a matter of pure expediency"

Whereas the second path seems to be more achievable according to both RAND and the Brooking's Institute. The most telling point of this report is the acknowledgement of three safe zones for Syria. RAND writes:

"Were the fighting to be halted on the basis of the territory currently held, Syria would find itself divided into roughly four zones—one controlled by the government; one controlled by the Kurds; one controlled by diverse elements of the Sunni opposition; and one controlled largely by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 As ISIS has no foreign sponsors, is largely immune to external influence, and is certain to reject any ceasefire, Syria would effectively be divided into three “safe” zones in which the parties agreed to stop fighting, and one zone in which all other parties would be free to wage war on ISIS."

 RAND's proposal acknowledges three difficult realities.

1. The first is that four years of fighting and more than a quarter million dead have left Syria intensely divided by sect and ethnicity. It should be a goal to mitigate those divisions in the long run, but they must be acknowledged in the short run.
2. Second, ousting the current regime by building up the military power of the opposition—the basic approach of the United States and its partners for the past four years—is unlikely to succeed. Russia and Iran have proven so committed to the regime’s preservation that escalation of the conflict has not led to Assad’s capitulation, but rather a significant counter-escalation, more killing and refugees, and radicalization of the opposition.
3. Third, the current battle lines on the ground, while hardly ideal, would have to be the fundamental basis of any armistice. Limited territorial swaps may be necessary to facilitate the disengagement of combatants and assist in ceasefire implementation.

It goes on to state that the war in Syria has ruined the intermixing of  ethnicities and sects within Syria, thus forming regions based on them or creating lines in the sand, what some would call Sykes-Picot Part 2.

 "Like most countries in the Middle East, Syria’s ethno-sectarian breakdown is far from clean. Syria’s communities have historically intermixed, so there is no such thing as a solid stretch of land inhabited by a single community. In addition, Sunni Arabs constitute more than 60 percent of the country’s total population. They are present throughout the country, comprise A ceasefire may not be a sufficient condition for an eventual political settlement, but it is likely to be a necessary one. 3 a majority even in regime-held areas, and in many cases remain loyal to the Assad regime.4 These important caveats aside, Syria’s longstanding ethnosectarian map does reflect regional groupings, which have been consolidated by internal displacement"

Without the war in Syria it would have never been possible to split Syria up on ethnic and sectarian lines. One could call this the sickest method of separating the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

The map above shows the clear zones that RAND are suggesting in their proposal for Syria. In the full report you will find more maps relating to sects within Syria before and after the war. 

It is also interesting to note how RAND suggest each of these players are backed by international support to secure its own interests.

Thus, Russia and Iran would guarantee the regime’s adherence; the United States would guarantee Kurdish adherence; and Turkey and Jordan would guarantee the Sunni opposition’s adherence. All external parties would collaborate to dislodge ISIS. 

However I do believe that the final point about all external parties collaborating to defeat ISIS is only mentioned due to the fact ISIS have been used as a pretext for all this change in the Muslim world and also to contain the Muslims from seeking an alternative system. It will be interesting to see how long ISIS remain after the Syria end game is played out. They will either cease to exist or kept like Al Qaeda as a pretext into other parts of the Muslim world where the West require change. So far they have become the golden egg for the West and so easily allowed them to dictate the situation for the rest of the world under the guise of "terrorism".

It goes on to mention that it could become somewhat similar to Lebanon's sectarian power sharing model including the international oversight on the Bosnia model using U.N forces to implement ceasefire and support. If this is the case, the Muslims should look back at what happened to the Bosnian Muslims as the Serbs slaughtered them in U.N's presence. It would be a disaster to allow them to "protect" the Muslims.

"International oversight of the ceasefire and support for the political process would be undertaken by a Peace Implementation Council, on the Bosnia model, made up of the above-mentioned states plus others ready to contribute significantly. "

It clearly admits that support for Al Nusra and other groups currently receive support and will stop receiving it once the above actions have been taken.

"It would have to be clear to all groups that external support will be cut off for groups that violate the ceasefire."

 In conclusion it is clear to see that this second path is on its way already as Russia have now become a key player in the Syria end game, and was needed in order to support Assad in a alawi region and be their main guarantor.

Kam Kashem

Suruc Suicide Attack - Another example of ISIS's lack of political awareness?

Is this another example of ISIS's lack of political awareness or is it the same tactic used by the West to drag in other nations into the coalition?

This is similar to the situation with the Jordanian pilot whereby ISIS carried out a horrific public stunt with high level video editing for full effect of Moaz al-Kasesbeh burnt inside a metal cage and then crushed under a vehicle.

The UAE were pulling out of the joint coalition to fight ISIS and with Jordan's public opinion being more inclined to non-involvement with ISIS, a convenient public stunt changed UAE's stance as well as aiding in tipping the public opinion to the other side in Jordan - not to mention it just so happened to be the son of a very influential tribal figure in Jordan.

Why is it that ISIS carry out actions that are only detrimental to themselves. Is it not better to establish themselves and secure their own people before calling on the air strikes from yet another bordering nation? Rather it is an agenda to aid the West in its plans to further separate the Muslims, not only on nationalism but by physical borders.

Turkey has not until now carried out any air-strikes against ISIS under the banner of the coalition formed by the Americans. The Suruc massacre has conveniently given an excuse for more destruction in Syria and Iraq. It is important to note that these strikes will be launched from Incirlik Air Base which was constructed by the Americans during the Cold War after Turkey had joined the Allies. Although it is called the Incirlik Air Base it would be more relevant to be called the 'Adana Air Base' which was the original name given by the Americans who still have more personnel (Approx 5000) present at the airbase as well as the UK's Royal Air Force.

This is just one of many examples of how ISIS are playing into the hands of the West, arguably on purpose. We have not even mentioned the Saudi border attacks the pulled the Saudi's into action, the Egyptian massacre on the border of Libya that conveniently gave Sisi financial support in fighting ISIS and the recent Tunisian resort attack that has given the government in Tunis the permission to build a physical wall separating themselves from Libya.

It is important also to note that the border under construction between Tunisia and Libya has a completion date of December 2015 (6 months) which spans approximately 300 miles, only 200 miles shorter than the Turkish Syrian border, setting the precedence for Turkey to also create a physical border to separate the Muslims further. It is argued over 80% of those fighting in Syria have crossed from the Turkish border due to its lack of security and ease of access. The Turkish politicians vehemently deny this saying it is too hard to control such a long border, although this excuse no longer works due to the short time in which Tunisia will create a divide.

Is this a re-marking of the faded lines drawn by Sykes and Picot?