Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                       

Set a thief to catch a thief

Have the Iranians do our dirty work.
  (+3)
(+3)
  [vote for,
against]

It is hard to imagine that people as smart as Cheney and the hawks in power could apparently bumble the Iraq war so badly. This after Cheney was clever enough to get himself essentially elected president. But could it be that things are actually going as planned?

Consider Al-Queda and the problem it poses to the US. It is one thing for us to blow up some folks in Afghanistan, but our hands are tied when it comes to the root problem: the Saudis and financiers of AlQueda - not to mention the financiers of the Palestinians. How to address them?

I propose that civil war in Iraq was the intended goal of the invasion, with the ultimate end being a regional shiite / sunni war, with the shiites led by Iran. The sunni financiers of terror would be distracted by a more immediate threat to their holy sites: shiite uprising. They would forget about terrorizing the west.

So far this is just a theory. But even if it was not the intended consequence, could this be a desirable result? What could be done?

1: Al Queda attacks on Shiites to roil them up: accomplished.

2: Al Queda attacks into Iran itself, to make sure they get interested. Note: these attacks should come from the East, via Afghanistan and Pakistan. If they come from Saudi Arabia, the US will be obliged to fight Iran on behalf of the Sauds. If the attacks come out of the East, the Iranian will have to hunt down Al Queda in Afghanistan to stop them.

3: Shiite attacks on Palestinians (who are Sunnis, backed by Saudis). This could be via Hezbollah, who are Shiites. It should be subtle. It could occur in the context of a peace agreement / land deal between the Palestinians and Israel. The US would not be obliged to fight on behalf of the Palestinians.

Machiavellians out there, additional ideas are welcome. We will see if any come true.

bungston, Feb 16 2007

Point 3 http://www.google.c...q=palestinian+sunni
When I pasted the http address in this link, it did not hook to full text. Going there by way of google does get full text. Go figure. It is the first link on the page. [bungston, Feb 16 2007]

Getting wise? https://www.google....FBOYNNY%3B720%3B960
[bungston, Nov 12 2014]

[link]






       I think [bungston] doesn't work for the CIA because he's obviously overqualified. Very interesting idea, here, but I can't think of an end game for this strategy, either.   

       4. End Game? Iraq divided into 3 parts. The Euphrates divides Iraq in half and the right half is further divided by an arbritrary line from Baghdad north west to the Iranian border. Shiite South of this line & East of Euphrates, Sunni West of Euphrates, & Kurds East of Euphrates & North of Baghdad line.
This division allows for a multinational permenant force (as in Korea & Germany) to be stationed there as a threat to those wanting to commit acts that could be destabilising to the area. (I really think that's a bad plan, though).
Zimmy, Feb 16 2007
  

       This attirbutes far too much intelligence and foresight to a few people who are primairly concerned with keeping their corporate sponsors in the chips. Economics are a far stronger motive than religion. The very last thing the US administration wants is Iran sitting on the world's second AND third largest oil reserves.   

       5: Chaos increases with sectarian, economic and nationalistic interests duking it out over an ever expanding battlefield.
nuclear hobo, Feb 17 2007
  

       Thanks a lot now were all going to be on a watch list for knowing too much.
pydor, Feb 17 2007
  

       Personally, I wouldn't exactly have described Chesney Hawkes as smart…
Ian Tindale, Feb 17 2007
  

       I'm going to have to argue that the real goal was easier access to Iraqui oil. After operation Desert Storm, the US had a continous presence in the area, and an embargo was placed on the Iraqi oil industry, wherein they could only ship oil for food on a single supertanker.   

       My time in the US Navy was spent mostly (2001-2002) in diverting oil smugglers off of the cost of Iran to a holding area, where various members of OPEC would be selected to confiscate the smuggled oil, and try the smugglers. These two sources for Iraqui oil were obviously neither large, reliable, or safe.   

       My ship happened to return to the Persian Gulf in time to witness the capture of Saddam Hussein from there. Exactly 24 hours after broadcasts of his capture were made, our ship was ordered to serve as part of a convoy for a NEW supertanker which was exporting oil out of Iraq.   

       So, is this about making Iraq unstable, and getting US troops killed, or is it about getting oil to boost Bush's oil industry cronies to levels of untold richness? You tell me. All I know is that gas was a dollar cheaper per gallon before I joined the Navy, and Bush wants to stay the course in what increasingly resembles a desert-Viet Nam situation.
ye_river_xiv, Feb 17 2007
  

       //I'm going to have to argue that the real goal was easier access to Iraqi oil.//   

       In part, but not necessairly for our own use. Strategically, control of oil reserves would be an effective way to throttle China, whose economic growth and prosperity has made them our primary adversary.   

       This strategy has been an unqualifed disaster, not only because of regional effects, diminishment of American power and prestige, etc., but because it has further driven Iran (world's third largest oil reserve) into expanding their relationship with China. In other words, the US strategy has accomplished exactly the opposite of what was intended.   

       Then again, I may be attributing far too much intelligence to war planners Cheney and Co., and this could just easily as be about making themselves and their corporate cronies even richer. When a fully armoured mercenary decked out with all the latest equipment is getting paid $1,000 a day and Exxon Mobil is posting *profits* in excess of $100 million *per day* while grunts are wearing flak jackets sent from home and welding scrap steel to worn-out HumVees, one can't really be sure of anything except that it is all wrong.
nuclear hobo, Feb 17 2007
  

       / I can't think of an end game/   

       The end game is a Saudi/Al Queda fueled insurgency in Iraq, and at the same time an extension of Hezbollah into Palestine and Saudi Arabia. No pitched battle, nothing overt: a religious cold war, seething tension, oil still flowing.
bungston, Feb 17 2007
  

       So if the goal was to get more oil, this would increase supply, right? So... shouldn't that *drop* the price? Or am I just being naive?
Hunter79764, Feb 19 2007
  

       This is working out so far. The Arab Spring was a natural extension of the Iraq war goal: eliminate secular strongmen who restrain tendencies toward sectarian war.   

       The question now: are the sides well balanced? Iran has its work cut out for it, but I would not bet on any of the Arab states as far as making organized war without outside help. I think the last thing for the illuminati puppetmasters to do is find some pretext for lifting Western sanctions on Iran.
bungston, Jun 18 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle