Globalist Think Tanks Call For Balkanization Of Iraq

Long term agenda to divide and conquer presented as final solution

Steve Watson Infowars.net Thursday, July 5, 2007

A plan gaining traction in the Congress to separate Iraq into three autonomous territories directly mirrors long term globalist plans to "divide and conquer" in Iraq, an ongoing semi-covert project which has involved the intentional stoking of sectarian violence by occupying forces.

The authors, Edward P. Joseph of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, are hoping to draw the attention of George W. Bush administration policymakers, reports Iranian news wire Press TV.

The three main spheres proposed in the report would be Shia, Sunni and Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurds already control Kurdistan. The report also acknowledges that the plan also echoes long term Council on Foreign Relations balkanization mantra.

Such a plan is not new and has been ongoing as part of the 'Salvador Option' by the US in Iraq, which has been reported on and discussed from at least the beginning of 2005 onwards.

Newsweek reported that this Pentagon or CIA handled operation "would even extend across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions... The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries."

Veteran journalist John Pilger wrote further about the Salvador Option in the New Statesman last year, shedding light on the origins of the plot:

"The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador."

Former British Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has also made clear that he suspects the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq has been intentionally provoked and continued by US and UK special forces in occupation of the country.

Murray has stated:

"As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK military. To what extent were they passively incompetent in facilitating the decline into civil war, and to what extent were they actively pursuing policies that promoted that outcome?"

Murray suspects that as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy, the same strategy used by British forces in Iraq 85 years ago, Special forces are being used to intentionally foment civil war by training and equipping Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers.

"The evidence that the US directly contributed to the creation of the current civil war in Iraq by its own secretive security strategy is compelling." Murray continues.

He goes on to point out that US Congressman Denis Kucinich took up the issue in April of this year in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld requesting all records pertaining to the plan.

Kucinich weighed in on the matter, providing further evidence that the Salvador Option was being implemented, he wrote:

"About one year before the Newsweek report on the "Salvador Option," it was reported in the American Prospect magazine on January 1, 2004 that part of $3 billion of the $87 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund operations in Iraq, signed into law on November 6, 2003, was designated for the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. According to the Prospect article, experts predicted that creation of this paramilitary unit would "lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists."

There have been a number of instances that have provided evidence pointing to the fact that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. In September 2005 British SAS were caught dressed in Arab garb and attempting to stage a terror attacks on Iraqi police. The soldiers were "rescued" by British troops using extreme force and a media blackout ensued.

The 2006 bombing that shattered the famous Golden Dome of the al-Askari shrine in Samarra, one of the holiest Shia religious sites, unleashed a wave of retaliatory sectarian violence that still bloodies Iraq. Last year former CIA analyst and presidential advisor Ray McGovern went on record to state that he believed Western intelligence could have been behind the bombing of the shrine.

In a repeat of this incident just last month the shrine was bombed again, destroying its two minarets. Both Sunni and Shia Iraqis, as well as muslim clerics in other countries, accused the U.S. and the Iraqi government of being behind the bombing in order to further incite sectarian violence between the two rival Islamic groups and provide a justification for the American surge.

CNN reported that authorities had evidence that the bombing was an "inside job", and 15 members of the Iraqi security forces were arrested.

Other mosques that have suffered the same fate have also been described as inside job attacks with analysts concluding that occupying forces are behind such acts in Iraq, doing their utmost to pit Sunnis against Shias under the guise of a war against terror.

It has also been revealed that the US is arming its own cadre of Sunni insurgents in Iraq, in addition to British special forces also training and equipping the very insurgents they are supposed to be fighting.

In addition to the Salvador option, we have also exposed other US and Israeli policy documents stating that it would be beneficial to the overall strategy to engender strife in the region.

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

Ethnic cleansing, maimed children and thousands of dead American soldiers are a small price to pay because for the Globalists the end always justifies the means and untold bloodshed and misery and bloodshed won't stand in their way.

That agenda was again underscored recently when Daniel Pipes, a highly influential Straussian Neo-Con media darling, who told the New York Sun that a civil war would aid the US and Israel because it would entangle Iran and Syria and enable those countries to be picked off by the new world empire without the need to sell a direct invasion to the public.

Stephen Zunes, professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, recently wrote,

"Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war's intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be "ripped apart" by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to "expedite" such a collapse anyway.

One of the long-standing goals of such neoconservative intellectuals has been to see the Middle East broken up into smaller ethnic or sectarian mini-states, which would include not only large stateless nationalities like the Kurds, but Maronite Christians, Druze, Arab Shi'ites, and others. Such a policy comes not out of respect for the right of self-determination – indeed, the neocons have been steadfast opponents of the Palestinians' desire for statehood, even alongside a secure Israel – but out of an imperial quest for divide-and-rule. The division of the Middle East has long been seen as a means of countering the threat of pan-Arab nationalism and, more recently, pan-Islamist movements."

The machinations of the Machiavellian Neocons are unfolding according to plan. In a classic example of "problem, reaction, solution", the occupiers have allowed Iraq to cascade into chaos, diluted the insurgency by manipulating it to become fractious, watched violent in-fighting ensue and are now presenting official division as the final resolution.

Balkanization of the middle east into easily controllable regions assures that there can be no strong enough state, independent of the new world order, to exert influence in the region, all part of the insane drive to use America as the spearhead for globalist domination over the planet.