From the RIGHT Side
Enter Talabani: Will Iraq become the new Kurdistan?
Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time you&
ve been waiting for &
the finale of &
Iraq, the sequel&
133; now playing in a war theater near you (if you live in the Middle East).
By now, you&
ve come to realize that the current actors in the White House and Pentagon are merely playing their roles. These are the same roles that others have played throughout the history of the U.S. involvement in the Middle East, as well as in the first televised production, &
Invasion of Iraq.&
In the original screenplay (aired on nightly newscasts) the &
character was played by George Herbert while the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, played the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Members of the troupe included Donald Rumsfeld (21st Sec. of Defense, also former White House Chief of Staff and 13th Sec. of Defense under Gerald Ford), and vice president Dick Cheney (also former White House Chief of Staff under Ford and Sec. of Defense under Ronald Reagan).
New to the cast, but playing a phenomenally convincing role as the highly devoted ingenuous, is Condoleezza Rice, whose meteoric rise to the world stage has enabled her to speak on behalf of the nation, dine with world leaders, yet still remain obscure in black America, where she is despised by liberal black leaders and forced to walk virtually unknown in the shadow of Oprah Winfrey&
The original &
Invasion of Iraq,&
aired in 1991, was a blockbuster theatrical release designed to pave the way for &
Invasion of Iran, the sequel.&
It hasn't come to fruition quite yet. But don&
t worry, you fans of invasions, Iran isn&
t off the list quite yet. In the wake of it&
s defiant attitude toward obeying the orders of the western powers, it has been referred to the U.N. Security Council, a move that took an all-night dinner (that spilled over into this morning) between Condy Rice and her counterparts from the European Union (including France and Germany) at the home of Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary for Great Britain.
In the Associated Press report of the meeting, it stated in regard to the International Atomic Energy Agency:
The IAEA "will report on the situation — in Iran and the way the Iranian authorities are not cooperating with the — international agency," said a French government official, speaking — on the customary condition of anonymity.
He said the Russian and Chinese ministers — had initially been reluctant to agree to refer Iran to the Security Council, — but were persuaded of the need for the council members to show a united — front. —
In a comic twist of this tragic drama, France, speaking on condition of anonymity and waving a white flag (just in case) admits that Russia and China wasn&
t agreeable to going along with the conspiracy shenanigans schemed by the French, British and Americans. But somehow, they were &
And the audience is expected to buy the cryptic concept that the Chinese and Russians agreed based on the profound notion that without them the dance number wouldn&
t go over quite right.
Um, okay. I&
m persuaded. How about you?
ll have to wait until March to hear those sabers rattling and the merry band of five kicking up their heels as they prepare to kick the resistance out of Iran.
During the intermission, perhaps you will enjoy the latest poll numbers from the L.A. Times that show 57 percent of Americans favor invading Iran if it maintains its present nuclear posture as propagandized by the western powers.
In comparison polling, six months prior to invading Iraq in 2003, the L.A. Times showed that just 53 percent of Americans were solidly supporting shoving Saddam in the slammer. So, the U.S. has quite enough support for creating production of &
But if it plans to do a sequel it will need to get started before the current cast disappears into wherever it is old has-been actors go when their 15 minutes in the limelight fade away.
Unlike the audience, however, the actors and directors of &
Iraq, the sequel&
are well aware of their limited time. While the U.S. government is paving the way for only those in Iraq who favor America to be appointed to positions of power, oil companies are chomping at the bit to gallop into the deserts of Iraq where known oil reserves are waiting to be tapped.
Although we can't always peek behind the curtains of deceit, sometimes the performances taking center stage are beyond the scope of believability. For example, on Monday, the Associated Press came out with a blockbuster article that bombed at the box office of American living rooms. Not many of us gave it much of a review. But some of us couldn't ignore the clanging of the stock market bell as ExxonMobil posted record profits for the fourth quarter of 2005 ($10.71B and $36.13B for the entire year). That profit was the largest in this country's entire history!
Consider that just one year prior, Harper's Magazine reported that the energy industry was in a funk. Commercial crude oil inventories in January 2004 were as low as they were 29 years prior, in January 1975.
So, the question is, what occurred between the time crude oil inventories were bottoming out in 2004 and the middle of 2005 when ExxonMobil was posting a record $9.92B profit that was eventually topped by the following quarter's earning?
The answer is Ayad Allawi.
Audiences familiar with the ongoing saga of "same name-different role" will recall this long-time CIA man in the role of Interim Prime Minister, appointed by the U.S. in the aftermath of Saddam's downfall. Allawi is the guy who checked the roughly 80 known oil reserves in Iraq and claimed the 17 or so that were being productively operated by the Iraqi government would continue with the involvement of private enterprises. He then went a step further to offer the remaining 63 oil fields to foreign companies for a period of 25 years or more with no ability for future claims by the Iraqi government.
In other words, Allawi did his job. He gave away the farm. Oh, it's covered with sand and looks like it ain't worth much. But like teenagers waiting for the opening of a new Star Wars film, companies like ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron pulled vigils lasting weeks and months to get their grimy hands on the black gold beneath the golden sand. None of this is open to public eyes, but the truth always finds a way to seep out.
If I were a betting man, my money would be wagered that ExxonMobil didn't make all that cash on just the rising cost of gas. I'm betting their coffers increased after acquiring huge oil reserves. But, thus far, no contract has been produced. Nevertheless, history will be our witness.
Meanwhile, sitting in the catbird seat and watching the entire process unfold, is the Iraqi president &
133; a Kurd.
It is the epitome of irony that a Kurd sits in the post of president of Iraq. I could toss out his name, Jalal Talabani, and it would have as much impact on the American public as running down the roster of leaders of most of the world&
s obscure and virtually unknown nations.
But when I say that the United States is in control of Iraq through its leadership for the purpose of gaining control of its oil reserves and that our government also intends on controlling the oil reserves in Iran as well, it should have a heavy impact and perk up the interested ears of Americans who, if nothing else, fear for their personal safety and the safety of this nation&
s freedom and wealth.
Your safety, your freedom and America&
s wealth are all bottled up in the Middle East. If you have not paid attention to what is occurring in Iraq up to this point, please feel free to review other parts of this four-part series, of which this is the last installment. But in this last story in the series, it is imperative that we come to know who the Kurds are and how they relate to both Iraq, the country we occupy, and Iran, the country we're threatening.
The land of Iraq, as we see it today, may soon divide giving rebirth to the land previously known as .
Once upon a time, in the land of Mesopotamia, nearly 3,000 years ago, there was a place called Kurdistan. The people residing there were called Kurds. Long before Mohammed, and even before Jesus Christ was born of men, there lived the Kurds. In some Kurdish history, the religious beliefs of the people were in line with the beliefs of the Christians. High-ranking priests were called Magi. And in some Kurdish beliefs it is told that three of them that traveled to Bethlehem to pay homage to the birth of a baby King &
133; 2006 years ago.
During the 7th century, as Islam was rising, the Kurds were impacted by various invaders in their land. By the time the Ottoman Empire rose to prominence, the Kurds had a thriving Muslim population, although intermixed among the Muslims were a variety of other beliefs, even Christianity.
In the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain redistributed the lands into the countries we see today, and Kurdistan ceased to exist. One day the Kurds awakened and they were positioned in the countries of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
In 1946, Mastafa Barzani formed the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) that welcomed a new member by the name of Jalal Talabani the following year. Talabani was just 14 years old. By the time he was 18, he was elected to the leadership circle of the KDP. At age 26, after graduating from law school, he joined the Iraqi army. In 1961, during the Kurdish uprising against Iraqi leader Qassem, Talabani led a successful part of the Kurdish revolt.
But in 1964, he split with the KDP but still fought with it against Saddam Hussein in the Kurdish Revolt of 1974-75. Iran assisted the Kurds at the behest of the United States, but ultimately abandoned them to their fate when Saddam agreed to sign a treaty regarding the transportation of oil down a river dividing the two nations. The U.S. was satisfied and thus pulled Iranian support from the Kurds.
Talabani formed his own group in 1975, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). From 1976 through 1988, he led against Hussein in an effort to bring about an autonomous region for the Kurds. occurred between the Kurds and the Turks.
But in 1991, after the U.S. invaded Iraq and took over the northern and southern regions of Iraq, both the KDP and PUK were provided a safe haven to strengthen their forces. In 1992, both groups joined with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) led by Ahmed Chalabi. Under that umbrella organization, funded by the CIA, Jalal Talabani (PUK) and Masoud Barzani (grandson of Mastafa, the founder of KDP) became allies with the Iraqi National Accord (INA) led by Ayad Allawi.
Throughout the time Hussein remained in power from the U.S. invasion of 1991 until his ousting in 2003, all of these groups played major roles in sabotage, covert ops, and acts of terrorism in an effort to undermine, disrupt and maintain a continued plague upon the Hussein government. All were funded by the CIA and each, in turn, were left abandoned at their greatest hour of need, thus suffering thousands of casualties at the hands of a very enraged Saddam.
But these men, primarily Chalabi and Allawi, convinced the U.S. that the only way Saddam could be unseated was for yet major military force to directly attack him. After all, he has been "contained" in the middle of his country throughout the Clinton presidency while the U.S. tried and failed repeatedly (much to the chagrin and death of the Kurds) to remove Hussein using covert operations.
The decision to remove him through a major military operation was finally made in 2002.
In the aftermath of the takeover by the United States, Talabani emerged as the nation's first Kurdish president. Ironically, this man fought for Kurdish independence from Iraq for many years. Today, Barzani rules the Kurdish north, where the oil-rich regions of Kirkuk are a grand prize. Allawi and his various relatives and strongmen remain in power despite having no political office (his cousin is Minister of Finance). Chalabi is Deputy Prime Minister and in December 2005 took over the Oil Ministry for a scheduled period of 30 days while the man he replaced was unexpectedly forced to take an unplanned vacation. Where that scenario will lead is anybody's guess.
But now, Iraq is problematic. Moreso than ever before.
The Kurds still want their own region &
133; even their own country again. And they want oil as well. After all, what good is land if it has no natural valuable resource?
The CIA, Pentagon, and U.S. government desire men in power in Iraq who will capitulate to the demands of American oil companies, contractors and other powers inside Iraq. After all, the U.S. spent a lot of money funding the Kurds and various other organizations over the many years the U.S. government courted Saddam and pretended to be his friend. The two invasions it took to unseat Saddam took their toll on American leaders politically as well as the U.S. taxpayer financially. The goal is to recoup the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars (the lives we lost are irreplaceable and priceless) by gaining control over the trillions of dollars of oil reserves located in various areas of Iraq.
And what about the Shiites and Sunnis?
They simply want their country back &
133; sans America.
In the meantime, while America has control over Iraq, the target has once again fallen on Iraq's neighbor, Iran.
Meanwhile, Iran treads lightly and fearfully, knowing that it has been infiltrated before, and has likely been infiltrated yet again today, given the alliances between the U.S. and various Shiite and Sunni factions, as well as Kurdish groups. All of these exist within Iran.
Iran understands it is likely to be the target of invasion by the U.S. because of its revolution that ousted the Shah (U.S.-installed) in 1979. Immediately following that revolution, Iran was invaded by Iraq, aided by the U.S. for eight years. More than one million Muslims died in that war. Millions more were injured and displaced.
Iran sees the writing on the wall. Iraq is a powder keg, with a variety of groups seeking power and rights to the oil flow. It is likely the U.S. will govern such operations, doling out what is necessary to maintain some semblance of peaceful cooperation. Meanwhile, Iran will become the victim of yet American-incited invasion in an effort to regain control over Iran's massive oil reserves.
As we watch Iran posture itself and pretend it can't hear the massive propaganda campaigns that paint it as an evil that must be stopped before it gets started, it recalls how well that very same campaign worked against Saddam Hussein. In an effort to use whatever means it has available, it is manipulating the economic structure of the oil industry, threatening to disrupt the oil flow if attacked (it will have no choice) and seeking fervently to acquire at lease one nuclear deterrent to prevent what looks to be an inevitable attack from Iraq, led by the United States.
If we, the American people continue to look upon the theater of war as actual theater, with various leaders playing various roles over time, we will see the truth unfold at some point down the road. And just as it is too late to save the millions who died when we supported both Iraq and Iran in a fight to the death of both countries, it will be too late to save those Americans who die to advance the causes of a secular lying government that has sacrificed its own citizens in an effort to progress a hidden agenda.
Americans, it seems, have such limited memories, and suffer from high rates of ignorance and apathy that our leaders merely repeat the same lines over and over, the same strategy used to propagandize against Saddam's regime (even while we were his ally), and the same strategy used to present Iran as the enemy of the entire world &
133; mixed in a cocktail of propaganda that most of us willingly swallow.
It is time to bring the houselights up, open the curtains, expose the actors, directors, and producers of "Iraq, the sequel." It is time to dismantle the set, fire the crew, tell the extras on the battlefields they can go home, and leave the deserts of Islam to the Muslims who call it home.
There ought to be no more sequels to this misery, whether it is in Iraq, Iran or elsewhere. The all-out pursuit of oil has caused our government to trample over Islam's holiest places and has riled the Muslim Brotherhood, the same organization whose call Osama bin Laden answered in Afghanistan. This is the true force we fight in the Muslim lands. Call them what you will, "radicals, extremists, fundamentalists, Saddamists, insurgents" &
133; by any other name they remain the mujahideen (holy warriors) fighting to expel a demonic force that has renounced God and laid claim to a secular identity.
The Muslim Brotherhood fought the Soviets in Afghanistan for 10 years. They have battled us in Iraq for 15.
Who is wrong? Who is right?
And how many more American lives will we sacrifice before we leave the lands we invaded and open our iron-clad fist to drop the oil-enriched cookies back in the sandy cookie jars?
Don't ask me how much am I willing to pay for oil. Ask me how many lives am I willing to sacrifice for it.