“The Islamic State” (ISIS) is Made in America: The Pentagon had Planned the Fall of Mosul and Ramadi in 2012
First published in May 2015, this article confirms that the US led coalition is behind the Islamic State (ISIS).
Washington has now acknowledged in
no uncertain terms that the ISIS is responsible for genocide in Syria,
which begs the question as to Washington’s role in liaison with Saudi
Arabia and Turkey in channelling support to the Islamic State.
“In my judgment Daesh [ISIS] is responsible for genocide against groups in territory under its control” said John Kerry…
Michel Chossudovsky, GR Editor. March 18, 2016
* * *
The US-led coalition now attempting
to appear as though they are fighting ISIS knowingly aided the rise of
the Islamic State for the purpose of isolating Assad and combating
expanding Iranian influence.
At least as far back as August of
2012 the very same anti-IS coalition knew full well that the precursors
to ISIS, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Islamic State in Iraq (ISI),
dominated the Syrian opposition along with other al-Qaeda affiliated
groups.
They knew that AQI was declining
during 2009-10, yet was resurrected due to the insurgency in Syria. In
spite of this, the US and her allies continued to provide aid, funding,
weaponry, and training to these same extremist groups, specifically
seeing their rise (and the horrendous crimes against humanity that they
partook in) as a strategic asset for their geopolitical aims.
The rise of the Islamic State was
not only predicted, it was the expressed aim of the powers sponsoring
the sectarian Syrian opposition for the purpose of opposing Assad and
containing Iran. Despite the fact that the rise of an Islamic State was
predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, including the fall of
Mosul and Ramadi, support from the US-coalition to the Syrian opposition
continued to manifest, leading to the conclusion that this was either
the expressed intent, or an accepted byproduct of these policy
decisions.
A 7-page Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated
to August of 2012, recently released under a Freedom Of Information
Act, request specifically states that the Syrian opposition was by that
time “taking a clear sectarian direction,” and that “the Salafist, the
Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency
in Syria.”
AQI, the precursor to the Islamic State,
as well “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning,” and had
“a regression… during the years of 2009 and 2010; however, after the
rise of the insurgency in Syria, the religious and tribal powers in the
regions began to sympathize with the sectarian uprising.” Despite these
facts, it was “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey [who] support[ed]
the opposition,” while “Russia, China, and Iran support[ed] the regime.”
Furthermore, it was predicted by the DIA
that “ISI (Islamic State in Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State
through its union with other terrorist organization in Iraq and Syria”
and that “there is a possibility of establishing a declared or
undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria.” This is exactly
what transpired in the years after 2012 with the declaration of the
Islamic State. Yet not only was this a possibility, this was instead
“exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to
isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of
the Shia expansion” with Iran and Iraq being labelled as integral parts
of this expansion. The supporting powers are said to be “the West, Gulf
countries, and Turkey.”
The report goes on to state that “the
future assumptions of the crisis” are that “the regime will survive” and
that the current events are developing “into a proxy war” between
Iran-Russia-China and the West, Gulf, and Turkey. Further, the report
accurately predicts the fall of Mosul and Ramadi, stating that
“the deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation… This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters.”
This could as well “create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”
This document was classified as “secret”
and distributed to the Department of Homeland Security, the Department
of State, the DIA, FBI, CIA, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
State, Central Command, and other agencies. It is an Intelligence
Information Report, not a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment,
yet its information was vetted before distribution.
Therefore the US-led coalition that is
now “fighting” ISIS continually supported an opposition it knew to be
dominated by sectarian extremists, lying to the public while describing
them instead as “moderates,” and predictably knew that this support
would result in the establishment of an “Islamic State” and further
continued to aid in such an establishment in order to weaken and oppose
Assad and combat Iranian expansion. It is a tenant of law that the
“doer of an act must be taken to have intended its natural and
foreseeable consequences.”(1) Therefore, even absent the documents own
admission of complicity of intent given that the rise of ISIS was a
“natural and foreseeable consequence” of continually aiding the
sectarian opposition the US and her allies must therefore be taken to
have intended this outcome.
Furthermore, the document specifically
demarcating Iraq as a center for unwanted Iranian “Shia”expansion while
accurately predicting the fall of both Mosul and Ramadi to Sunni
extremists, thereby assuring against such an expansion, all lead to the
conclusion that the recent ISIS gains in both of these cities was not
something that the US opposed, but instead something that it desired.
Given that the fall of Mosul and Ramadi too were “natural and
foreseeable consequences”, given as well the severely questionable ways
in which each city fell and the fact that although these outcomes were
predictable the US-coalition still continued the policies that were
known to lead to them, the US and her allies must therefore be taken to
have intended these outcomes as well, either directly or indirectly.
The fall of Mosul in June of 2014 it must be remembered was, as described by Noam Chomsky,
“pretty remarkable. In fact, western military analysts were astonished. Remember what happened, Iraq has an army, and the Iraqi army knows how to fight. During the Iran-Iraq war that army fought hard and viciously, and in fact ultimately won the war, with US support. There was an Iraqi army of 350,000 men, armed to the teeth with all kinds of advanced weapons. They had been trained by the United States for over a decade. They were faced by a couple of thousand lightly armed jihadi’s. First thing that happened was all the generals ran away. Then all the troops ran away, leaving their weapons behind them. And then the jihadi forces just marched into Mosul and then into large parts of Iraq. It was a pretty amazing phenomenon, it tells you a lot if you think about it.”
Furthermore “the Iraqi security forces
disintegrated and fled, the rout led by their commanding officers,” one
Iraqi army soldier describing that
“on the morning of June 10 his commanding officer told the men to stop shooting, hand over their rifles to the insurgents, take off their uniforms, and get out of the city.”(2)
Mosul was simply given away to by a
battle-hardened army of 350,000 men to a lightly armed brigade of
roughly 1,300 Islamists(3), the commanding military officers
specifically ordering their subordinates to leave their weapons for the
jihadi’s and to flee. Had this “remarkable” fall been desired by the
US-coalition in order to “isolate” the “strategic depth of Shia
expansion” in Iraq? Or rather “Had the senior Iraqi commanders been
instructed by their Western military advisers to hand over the city to
the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?” as Professor Michel Chossudovsky had asked when this occurred?
Similarly, the more recent fall of
Ramadi is equally as dubious. The US-led coalition, which had promised
to defend Iraq against the Islamic State, basically allowed Ramadi to
fall, conducting only 7 airstrikes during the battle, which is such a low number as to be completely irrelevant. The remarkably weak excuse was that a great sandstorm had
prevented them from conducting regular attacks. This despite the fact
that the next day ISIS was holding victory parades among perfectly clear
skies, the militants assembling in massive rows down the wide open
street.With no “sandstorm” excuse, airstrikes could have easily wiped
out entire factions of the extremists the US is supposedly fighting, yet
none occurred. Why? Had this too been desired by the US-coalition in
order to “isolate” the “strategic depth of Shia expansion” in Iraq?
Wahda Al-Jumaili,
an advisor to Iraq’s parliamentary speaker, speaking of the city’s fall
the day after stated “Whether this was the result of treason, neglect,
or conspiracy, or a regional or international plot… Even the
international coalition has played a bad role. People saw the
international coalition dropping weapons for ISIS. They dropped heavy
weaponry to the forces of terrorism in Ramadi. This is an act of
treason by the international coalition forces.”
This, however, is not the first time an
Iraqi politician has accused the US-coalition of dropping weapons and
aid to ISIS, this is instead a phenomenon that has been going on for
some time now, in one incident two
British planes were even shot down by the Iraqi’s under charges that
they were dropping weapons to ISIS. Photographic evidence was taken of
the downed planes. Iraqi parliamentarian Jome Divan stated that “The
international coalition is only an excuse for protecting the ISIL and
helping the terrorist group with equipment and weapons. The coalition
has not targeted ISIL’s main positions in Iraq.” This being only one of
a plethora of Iraqi politicians who have consistently been making these
claims for some time now.
In any event the spillover to Iraq and
the fall of Mosul and Ramadi were predictable consequences of the Wests’
Syria policy, and in some instances it appears as though the West aided
in their fall, so at the very least they were an accepted consequence
in the strategy against Syria and Iran, and at the worst they were an
intended partition of Iraq.
Given this, and the fact that the
US-coalition continuously aided the sectarian Syrian opposition knowing
full well that this would then lead to an “Islamic State”, the
consequence of which was the predictable fall of Mosul and Ramadi,
coupled with the unbelievable manner in which both fell, it would be
wise to consider the numerous Iraqi politicians claims very seriously,
and to seriously question whether or not the fall of these cities really
does have a more believable, albeit much more sinister, explanation
behind them.
Notes:
1.) International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996),
“Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry,” Chapter III, “Humanitarian
Law,” section 10, “Specific rules of the humanitarian laws,” (a) “The
prohibition against causing unnecessary suffering” (emphasis in
original).2.) Cockburn, Patrick. “The Rise of ISIS.” The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution. Brooklyn, NY: Verso, 2015. 15. Print.
3.) Ibid, 11.
Steven Chovanec is an independent geopolitical analyst and writer based in Chicago, IL. He is a student of International Studies and Sociology at Roosevelt University and conducts independent, open-source research into geopolitics and social issues. His writings can be found at undergroundreports.
The original source of this article is Underground Reports
Copyright © Steve Chovanec, Underground Reports, 2016
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment