American Resistance To Empire

War Hawk Graham Would Rather Bomb Iraq With Iran Than To Ask the CIA To Call-Off Their ISIS Dogs

Sen. Lindsey Graham says Iran’s help needed to avoid collapse in Iraq

bdn maine

WASHINGTON — The United States needs Iran’s involvement to prevent a collapse of the government in Iraq and should open talks toward that end, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday, a step he described as unattractive but perhaps unavoidable.

“We are probably going to need their help to hold Baghdad,” from takeover by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, the Sunni Muslim militant group that has seized control over northern Iraqi cities and is approaching the nation’s capital, said Graham, R-South Carolina, on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“The Iranians have an interest. They have Shia populations to protect. We need a dialogue of some kind,” to help stabilize Iraq but also set limits to be sure Iran does not use the situation to seize territory, he said.

The advance of ISIL fighters on Baghdad slowed on Sunday as the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki tried to rally its forces and stave off a civil war.

Still, a suicide bombing in Baghdad and fierce fighting in the northern town of Tal Afar highlighted the country’s slip into sectarian violence between a Sunni minority and the Shiite-dominated government.

Graham’s comments were part of a flurry of Republican criticism on Sunday of the Obama administration’s response to the fast-developing crisis.

Obama has ruled out the use of U.S. ground troops, and said any air support or other assistance was conditional on Maliki trying to overcome divisions between Sunnis and Shiites that have widened under his rule.

“It is too late to have long political reconciliation meetings that will last weeks or months,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “You have an al-Qaida army on the move.”

The United States ordered an aircraft carrier moved into the gulf on Saturday, readying it in case Washington decides to pursue a military option after insurgents overran towns and territories in the north and advanced on Baghdad.

Rogers said the administration should organize neighboring Arab states in a joint response, and support that with U.S. intelligence, air power, and other assistance. He said the threat was not just regional, but of ISIL establishing a safe haven for itself, and using that to plan attacks against targets in the United States or Europe.

The last U.S. troops left Iraq in 2011 after the failure of talks between Maliki and Obama over a longer-term U.S. military presence.

Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, last week said American air strikes in Iraq will be needed to halt the advance of militants.

His comments about Iran broach an even more sensitive topic — putting the United States in potential collaboration with a country it suspects of developing nuclear weapons and supporting its own militant groups in places like Lebanon.

Iranian officials, closely allied with Maliki and watchful over the Shiite population centered in southern Iraq, have also been alarmed at the sudden seizure of territory by the ISIL.

US Diplomat Offended Because Maliki Failed To Credit US As Primary Sponsor of ISIS Terrorist Army

QUESTION: Prime Minister Maliki was clear today in holding Saudi Arabia responsible for supporting ISIL financially and morally. What do you think about this?

MS. PSAKI: It’s inaccurate and, frankly, offensive.”

America rejects Maliki’s position from Saudi Arabia: your statements are inaccurate

shafaq news iraq

Shafaq News / The U.S. administration, rejected the statements of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki in which he accused Saudi Arabia of “sponsorship for terrorism”

, describing them as “inaccurate and unprofessional “.

The spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, Jennifer Bsaki said at a news conference, in Washington, DC, seen by “Shafaq News”, that “This is the opposite of what Iraqi people needed now, which is what we continue to prove to Prime Minister al-Maliki.”

She described the situation in Iraq as “complicated,” pointing to “the existence of some tribes and local politicians of Sunnis who joined the Iraqi government and others with (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant organization) Daash through violence to destabilize the government.”

She added that “those who have joined Daash are supporting terrorists, who follow an extremist doctrine that believes in killing Shia sect, to which they belong.”

She expressed the need to ” political leaders in Iraq take into account the legitimate grievances for all people as a way to rule,” without further details.

Iraqi Council of Ministers condemned at a meeting on Tuesday, the position of Saudi Arabia from the current events in Iraq after Sunni militants controlled large parts of the country.

The Saudi Council of Ministers has considered what is happening in Iraq, as inevitable result of the marginalization and exclusion policies pursued by the Shiite-led government against the Sunni component.

The Iraqi Prime Minister , Nuri al-Maliki had accused ahead of the parliamentary elections last April directly charges to Saudi Arabia and Qatar of waging a war on Iraq by Islamic militants which was denied by the two countries, saying that al-Maliki is trying to shed his internal failure on others

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki renewed on Wednesday, what he described as the control of “Daash” organization and its allies on Mosul city in Nineveh province as a “conspiracy” by “unnamed ” internal and regional parties vowing to dismiss more military commanders who failed to perform their duty in the battlefields against armed groups.

Does ISIS Take its Orders from Saudi Arabia and the CIA?


What a tangled web we weave

No doubt that today’s biggest news story in the mainstream media is ISIS/ISIL and the chaos they have create in Iraq, but to completely understand what is going on there you must follow the webs of evidence that have led to a prior prisoner of war leading a militia capable of toppling a new U.S. backed government.

Reports in a Reuters article dated July 18, 2007:

A senior operative for al Qaeda in Iraq who was caught this month has told his U.S. military interrogators a prominent al Qaeda-led group is just a front and its leader (al-Baghdadi) is fictitious, a military spokesman said.

Today the statement above would look preposterous. We all know that al-Baghdadi is the leader of ISIS/ISIL, according to all of our media outlets, and of course they would never lie to the American people.

The name Baghdadi means person of Baghdad, and direct from Dr. Christof Lehmann, an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and a wide range of other political issues in region, The Islamic State of Iraq was established to try to put an Iraqi face on what is a foreign-driven network. But the question remains, what foreign network?



Moving forward to 2012:

ISIS/ISIL had been relatively dormant in Iraq while some of its brigades became involved in the admittedly Saudi Arabia, U.S. and Qatar and Turkey sponsored war on Syria. Weapons, other logistic supplies and mercenaries for ISIS were predominantly transported from Saudi Arabia via smuggling routes in the Al-Anbar province. But, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, was soon caught in a dilemma, although early in his reign as the as leader of Iraq he had the support of U.S. government, He and his Shia run government gained an alliance with Iran, and a regional ally was something very important to an new government.

Al-Maliki decided to appease Damascus and Tehran by confronting the ISIS/ISIL militants in Al-Anbar, he must have believed that Iraq would be next once Damascus would have fallen. When the Iraqi military was ordered to secure the smuggling routes in Al-Anbar (a pipeline to Syria) they confronted Saudi’s, U.S. mercenaries, and ISIS/ISIL, again, this is according to the Iraqi government.

Two fronts, but who is in charge?

After this move by the Iraqi government, the ISIS/ISIL has shifted its focus, and has taken on two battlefronts, one in Syria, and one in Iraq, and again, this is supposedly at the command of a Sunni from Iraq named al-Baghdadi. Could Baghdadi really be a figure head and not the real commander of such a fierce group of fighters?

January 2014

Al-Arabiya published an article and video, featuring the interrogation of an ISIS/ISIL fighter who had been captured in Syria. I cannot find the link with an accurate translation online, but, when questioned why ISIS is “shadowing the moves of the Free Syrian Army” and who had given the orders, the captured ISIS fighter states that he didn’t know why, but that the orders were given by Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, the brother of Prince Saud al-Faisal and Prince Turki al-Faisal. These are Saudi princes. Surprised yet?

So, according to an ISIS/ISIL member, al-Baghdadi did not give them order, the “supreme commander” of ISIS/ISIL is Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, of the royal Saudi family, Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry and its intelligence service. Further proof to this theory is, Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel claimed Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal is the ruler of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL).

Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal is the brother of Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Ambassador to the United-States and the United-Kingdom.

Al-Qaeda no more

ISIS/ISIL was the Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq and Syria. It figures on the UN list of terrorist organizations. According to Voltaire Network, in an article posted Feb.4th 2014, it is now funded by the United States, by virtue of a law adopted for fiscal year 2014 during a Congressional session behind closed doors. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al-Qaeda, reacted to this revelation by saying that he would peel off the Al-Qaeda label from the ISIS.

I leave the rest up to you. Are the American people being lied to by our media? Is the CIA and the Saudi government running ISIS/ISIL, or is a little known Al-Qaeda operative from Iraq running the show? If he is, why did he directly disobey orders from his Al-Qaeda commanders and break off to fight them as well? Tell me what you think.

The Unholy Alliance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the CIA and Their Bastard Offspring–ISIS

Demonstrators shout slogans in support of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) in Mosul (16 June 2014) Demonstrators shout slogans in support of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant in Mosul

Regardless of whether the Iraqi government in Baghdad rolls back the recent military advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), the central authority has suffered a mortal blow.

ISIS’s takeover of most of the so-called Sunni Triangle, as well as Mosul, the second largest city with almost two million people, hammers a deadly nail in the coffin of the post-Saddam Hussein nation-building project.

Fragile Iraqi institutions now lie in tatters.

It is doubtful if Baghdad could ever establish a monopoly on the use of force in the country, or exercise authority and centralised control over rebellious Sunni Arabs and semi-independent Kurdistan.

The best-case scenario for Iraq is devolution of power from the centre in Baghdad to local Shia, Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurdish communities; the worst is splintering of the country to three separate entities.

ISIS’s swift advance has exposed the state’s structural and institutional weaknesses, as well as a deep ideological and sectarian rift in society.

After eight years in office and monopolising power, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has delivered neither security nor reconciliation and prosperity.


Iraqi security forces, which number hundreds of thousands of men, almost disintegrated under a stunning sweep of only a few thousand, lightly armed al-Qaeda-linked fighters.

More than a decade after the Americans removed Saddam Hussein from power and dissolved his army, the reconstituted military lacks a unifying identity and professionalism, and is riddled with corruption.

For example, in Mosul, ISIS militants had a joy-ride through the city because senior and junior officers had already deserted their positions and weapons, and ordered soldiers to flee home.

A security force in Mosul made up of tens of thousands melted away.

Iraqi men who volunteered to join the fight against ISIS's offensive run on board army lorries outside a recruitment centre in Baghdad (13 June 2014) Shia volunteers have rallied to defend the state and holy sites

Coming to the rescue of a sinking ship, a representative of the highest Shia authority in the land, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, said the “defence of Iraq and its people and holy sites is a duty on every citizen who can carry arms and fight terrorists”.

A parallel army of an estimated 100,000 volunteers, mainly Shia, has joined the fray, increasing the risks of sectarian strife.

Concerned about misinterpretation of his call to arms, Ayatollah Sistani’s office subsequently qualified his statement by warning his supporters against “any behaviour that has a sectarian or a nationalist character that may harm the cohesion of the Iraqi people”.

Broken system

It is misleading to exaggerate ISIS military prowess and exploits as many reports in the Western media do.

Its strength stems not only from the weakness of the Iraqi state, but also from the communal and social cleavages that are tearing society apart; it is a manifestation of a bigger revolt by (tribal) Sunni Arabs against what they view as Mr Maliki’s sectarian authoritarianism.

Checkpoint set up ISIS on a main road into Mosul (17 June 2014) Soldiers and police retreated en masse as the militants swept into Mosul last week

At the very heart of the fierce struggle raging in Iraq is a broken political system, one based on “muhasasa”, or distribution of the spoils of power along communal, ethnic and tribal lines, and put in place after the US invaded and occupied the country in 2003.

Sunnis Arabs, particularly in the last four years, have felt excluded and disfranchised by what they view as Mr Maliki’s sectarian-based policies.

When the US left Iraq in 2011, the al-Qaeda brand was in decline, unpopular among Sunnis.

Three years later, ISIS has revived by finding a “hadana shaabiya”, or social base, among dissatisfied and alienated Sunni Arabs.


Seizing the opportunity afforded by the Syrian armed uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi expanded his activities to the neighbouring country and established a powerful base which has yielded new recruits and precious financial and operational assets.

ISIS has aligned itself with insurgent Sunni groups, such as officers of Saddam’s dissolved army, and co-opted hundreds of these skilled fighters to its ranks, a turning point in its ability to plan and execute complex operations in both Iraq and Syria.

In Falluja, Mosul, Tikrit and other towns, Sunnis welcomed al-Qaeda militants as liberators and armed men joined the advancing units.

Women and children queue to register at temporary camps set up to house Iraqis who have been displaced by the fighting in Nineveh province (17 June 2014) The offensive has displaced hundreds of thousands of people in Nineveh province

More alarming, Sunni officers who deserted their bases are reported to have said that they would not fight for Mr Maliki’s government, a development that shows the gravity of the sectarian-political rift in Iraq today.

This helps explain the shattering collapse of Iraqi security forces.

Sunni tribes and disgruntled former army officers sealed the fate of the Sunni Triangle.

ISIS is only a powerful vehicle for Sunni Arab grievances, though a vehicle that could ultimately crush both Sunnis’ aspirations and the Iraqi state. The writing is already on the wall.

In Mosul, ISIS has already laid out its iron law which caused disquiet and alarm among its religious-nationalist and tribal allies who advised caution and prior consultation.

Even if the Iraqi state recaptures the cities seized by ISIS, it would be unable to pacify the population without decentralisation of the decision-making and devolution of power to the local level.

Old order dead

Various communities should be empowered to govern themselves and feel invested in the national project, a vital task to rescue the fragile Iraqi state and rid the country of ISIS and other insurgent groups.

The old order is dead. There is an urgent need to reconstruct the broken political and social system along new lines of citizenship and the rule of law.

Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighter at a camp set up for those fleeing the violence in Nineveh province (13 June 2014) The ISIS assault has allowed Kurdish Peshmerga forces to seize control of Kirkuk and its oil reserves

Neither reconciliation nor institution-building would occur without a new social contract based on the decentralisation of power and an equitable sharing of resources.

There is no assurance of success given the widening fault-lines among Iraqis and the lack of trust.

Emerging as the biggest winner, the Kurds might be reluctant to surrender the gains recently made with their occupation of the strategically important, oil-producing city of Kirkuk and the consolidation of their Kurdistan borders.

In a similar vein, the Sunni Arab leadership has not come to terms with the new realities of post-Saddam Iraq and still entertains illusions about ruling the country.

Tribal chieftains have acted as cheerleaders for ISIS and seem intoxicated by a Pyrrhic victory.

Shia monopoly

Mr Maliki, along with the Shia leadership, bears a greater responsibility for Iraq’s failure.

Iraqi cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki (centre), in Baghdad (17 June 2014) Western countries have urged Mr Maliki to reach out to Sunnis to rebuild national unity

Having taken ownership of the country after the US occupation and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Shia leadership has treated Sunni Arabs like second-class citizens and has equated its numerical majority with a licence to monopolise power.

Iraq’s future depends on the willingness of the dominant social classes to rise up to the historical challenge and prioritise the national interest over the parochial.

If history is a guide, the ruling elite might once again fail the Iraq people with catastrophic repercussions for the war-torn country and the regional and international system.

America Intentionally Sacrificed Thousands of US Troops, To Start A War We NEVER INTENDED To Win

[Kucinich is always first in line to denounce the latest administration outrage, usually in some feckless, meaningless gesture, intended to portray Denis in a positive manner.  Did he ever once take an absolute, unbending stance on any hard issue?  Kucinich never misses an opportunity to put on the peacemaker’s mantle, but I can’t recall him ever becoming a Tianamen Square type Congressman, one who would willingly throw himself under the wheels of the police state tanks.  The Iraq War WAS a huge mistake for everybody involved, but especially for the American electorate who were manipulated into supporting Bush and Obama’s “war of aggression” upon everybody. 
Today we are faced with a new, even more complex scenario in Iraq,but no one will have the temerity to ask: Who supplied and armed the ISIS army?  Who is the great benefactor that gave Isis the large fleet of  yellow Mazda pickup trucks?]


Dennis J. Kucinich Headshot

Dennis J. Kucinich Become a fan

Fmr. 16-year Member of US Congress; Two-time US Presidential Candidate

As Iraq descends into chaos again, more than a decade after “Mission Accomplished,” media commentators and politicians have mostly agreed upon calling the war a “mistake.” But the “mistake” rhetoric is the language of denial, not contrition: it minimizes the Iraq War’s disastrous consequences, removes blame, and deprives Americans of any chance to learn from our generation’s foreign policy disaster. The Iraq War was not a “mistake” — it resulted from calculated deception. The painful, unvarnished fact is that we were lied to. Now is the time to have the willingness to say that.

In fact, the truth about Iraq was widely available, but it was ignored. There were no WMD. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The war wasn’t about liberating the Iraqi people. I said this in Congress in 2002. Millions of people who marched in America in protest of the war knew the truth, but were maligned by members of both parties for opposing the president in a time of war — and even leveled with the spurious charge of “not supporting the troops.”

I’ve written and spoken widely about this topic, so today I offer two ways we can begin to address our role:

1) President Obama must tell us the truth about Iraq and the false scenario that caused us to go to war.
When Obama took office in 2008, he announced that his administration would not investigate or prosecute the architects of the Iraq War. Essentially, he suspended public debate about the war. That may have felt good in the short term for those who wanted to move on, but when you’re talking about a war initiated through lies, bygones can’t be bygones.

The unwillingness to confront the truth about the Iraq War has induced a form of amnesia which is hazardous to our nation’s health. Willful forgetting doesn’t heal, it opens the door to more lying. As today’s debate ensues about new potential military “solutions” to stem violence in Iraq, let’s remember how and why we intervened in Iraq in 2003.

2) Journalists and media commentators should stop giving inordinate air and print time to people who were either utterly wrong in their support of the war or willful in their calculations to make war.
By and large, our Fourth Estate accepted uncritically the imperative for war described by top administration officials and congressional leaders. The media fanned the flames of war by not giving adequate coverage to the arguments against military intervention.

President Obama didn’t start the Iraq War, but he has the opportunity now to tell the truth. That we were wrong to go in. That the cause of war was unjust. That more problems were created by military intervention than solved. That the present violence and chaos in Iraq derives from the decision which took America to war in 2003. More than a decade later, it should not take courage to point out the Iraq war was based on lies.