The Iraq War Was To Counter Al-Queda

[Matty_UK]

If this theory is right, it depresses me a LOT.

The war in Iraq was to counter Al Queda. But by that, I don't mean our governments give a shit about protecting the working class of their countries from terrorist attacks.

Think about it. What's the purpose of Al Queda? AFAIK they want a pan arab nationalist movement to create an arab superstate. Such an aim is obviously contrary to the western bourgeois interests.

We are given the impression by the bourgeois media that they "went in without a plan." I don't believe this, I think there is no way they could have been so incompetent as not to have realised the chaos invading Iraq would cause. They knew exactly what would happen and planned for it. In fact, we know that they have definitely been stirring up sectarian violence; some Brits got caught driving a car loaded with bombs dressed in Arabic clothing not so long ago. What they are doing is attempted to divide Iraq along ethnic grounds, creating a seperate Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish state. I suspect this is part of a longer term strategy to create stronger divisions in the middle east; doing this makes it ever more difficult for a pan-arab superpower to be created and makes it far easier for the western bourgeois to exercise economic control over these countries.

The plan is working. The USA is winning.

[RebelDog]

The reason the US/UK invaded Iraq was for oil, simply. All the turmoil in Iraq right now is not exacly conducive to the ideal plan but the main over-riding priority was achieved when Iraqi oil was seized and secured.
It seems that Al Queda have the greatest popular support among the muslim nations than they ever have as a consequence of the invasion. I don't think US policy thinks along the lines of using such huge resources for countering Al Queda. I think US policy is centered along the lines of regional dominance in the middle-east, which is of course a crucial area given its energy resources. The US ruling class has essentially got what it wanted. They may ultimately wish to counter any threat by Al Queda to create any 'arab superstate' but is it a real threat worth the US/UK ruling class threating over? The US can compel arab states to deal with any domestic Al Queda elements in any case and is doing so right now with regard to Pakistan and others.

I doubt in the planning of the Iraq war in the pentagon and white house that Al Queda even got a mention. The old black gold probably came up a few times though.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 07, 2006 02:35 pm
The reason the US/UK invaded Iraq was for oil, simply. All the turmoil in Iraq right now is not exacly conducive to the ideal plan but the main over-riding priority was achieved when Iraqi oil was seized and secured.
It seems that Al Queda have the greatest popular support among the muslim nations than they ever have as a consequence of the invasion. I don't think US policy thinks along the lines of using such huge resources for countering Al Queda. I think US policy is centered along the lines of regional dominance in the middle-east, which is of course a crucial area given its energy resources. The US ruling class has essentially got what it wanted. They may ultimately wish to counter any threat by Al Queda to create any 'arab superstate' but is it a real threat worth the US/UK ruling class threating over? The US can compel arab states to deal with any domestic Al Queda elements in any case and is doing so right now with regard to Pakistan and others.

I doubt in the planning of the Iraq war in the pentagon and white house that Al Queda even got a mention. The old black gold probably came up a few times though.
Well, of course oil is the main thing, but to ensure control of it divide and rule is necassary.

[Tekun]

I don't necessarily think it was only for oil, but oil WAS one of the most important factors taken into consideration when they planned their lil excursion
Other factors which made them invade Iraq were things such as their desire for new markets in the middle east, a need for a "friendly" government in the region, a place from where to threaten Iraq and Syria yet also protect Israel, and to "discipline" their naughty lil child who after helping them undermined them during Bush I

However, I disagree with the notion that they are currently winning
If u haven't noticed they're losing soldiers every day, which fuels the anti-war sentiment over here in the states
Therefore, the more soldiers they lose the less time the know they have b4 they'll be forced to pull out
Its all about the public's support or indifference, the choice is yours to make, which allows them to continue waging this conflict
The more support or indifference that the public has, the more time they have to "win" in Iraq (which means setting up a puppet government, stabilizing the new Iraqi market, and reducing the number of military deaths)
Its like Vietnam, they have a certain time limit b4 the public will force them out of Iraq

[Vargha Poralli]

No. Osama Bin Laden or Al-Quaeda never had popular support amongst the Iraqis. Saddam would have made sure of it. The reason US invaded Iraq is to somewhat preassurise the growing Economy of China(which lacks petroleum reserve and heavily dependent on imports). By doing so US administration had bitten off more than it could chew IMO.Any way US just cant leave right now simply. and i wish US not to leave immediatly so that the budding revolutionary movements in South America blossom fully.


Its like Vietnam, they have a certain time limit b4 the public will force them out of Iraq

The situation is Lot more different than Vietnam. Even comparing Vietnam war was continued by 3 presidents IIRC so war in Iraq might continue @least for a decade.

[Dimentio]

al-Qaeda had 500 members the 11th of september 2001. Nowadays, they have 50.000 members and their numbers are increasing. Al-Qaeda is not an Arab nationalist movement, but are actually opposed to secular pan-arabists [like Saddam, Mubarak, Assad and so on]. They want to reestablish the Kaliphate and make it into a global superpower.

Their method is to provoke the US or any other power for that matter into attacking moslem areas, thus creating "one, two, three Jihad". They want to be beaten, because beating makes them stronger.

[Hit The North]

al-Qaeda had 500 members the 11th of september 2001. Nowadays, they have 50.000 members and their numbers are increasing.

Comrade, are you guessing here or do you have actual evidence for the numbers of al-Qaeda 'members'?

[Dimentio]

I have read it in two books, "Imperial Hubris written by Anonymous" [a former CIA agent] and Loretta Napoleone's I think "Financing terrorism".

[Dimentio]

Moreover, it is self-evident that al-Qaeda have more members today, given the fact that they'll partially control provinces in Iraq.

The US reason for invading Iraq was geopolitical.

[Raúl Duke]

The US reason for invading Iraq was geopolitical.

There may be another "geopolitical" dimension to the war on Iraq: dollar hegemony.

In 2000, Saddam's Iraq began trading oil for Euros in it's Oil for Food program (I suppose they later bought the food with the Euros)

Today and before, Oil was bought with US Dollars. Countries have reserves of US dollars to buy oil with. This should increase the value of the US currency (I can't be sure, I'm not an economist). IF the world decided that dollars weren't needed to buy oil with, they would sell their US dollar reserves and get more Euros. Thus the Euros value increase while the Dollar decreases.

That may be a reason why when in 2002-2003 the US already had some invasion plan (the plans of course only covered how to topple Saddam's regime, not any second case scenarios like insurgencies and civil wars) for Iraq. (there are even rumors, qoutes from president-cabinent, that talk about how to get "in there", meaning Iraq)

The white house also might have notice other advantages: if they invade Iraq they can privitize the oil sources (I think they did, even so at the beginning some thought about not privitizing it because the Iraqi government might need it for the furthur reconstruction) (the privatization of the oil sources benefit both the US and the UK)

Maybe Europe knew that the US intentions were to eliminate Euro oil trading; because the EU 2 major economies (France and Germany) didn't want to join.

2 other countires were pushing for the use of Euros in oil trading: Iran and Venezuela (but don't know which dates). I remember that there were rumors about invading Iran after Iraq before the whole nuclear program thing (I think, it was some time back) It was possibly also because of the Petrodollar-Petroeuro thing.

Iran has a oil trading bourse under construction. This bourse is for the trade in oil in other non dollar currencies, specifically the Euro.

I might be wrong, or only have part of the intent for war, but this may be a way to explain the reason for the war.

[chimx]

al qaeda was not in iraq at the time of saddam.

[violencia.Proletariat]

What the fuck is al queda? It used to be a CIA funded resistance group but now its just a common name we assign to organized armed groups that fight American intersts. I have never seen any evidence of a real "al queda" network under central leadership, does anyone have any?

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 08:36 pm
What the fuck is al queda? It used to be a CIA funded resistance group but now its just a common name we assign to organized armed groups that fight American intersts. I have never seen any evidence of a real "al queda" network under central leadership, does anyone have any?
Thats true. Its most likely not got a command structure and is just autonomous groups of people acting under the name Al Queda. It suits the US/UK governments to have us think they are some kind of bondesque organisation with Bin Laden at the head pulling all the strings.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Iraq is just an oil grab, the terrorist "threat" is just a method of furthering UK/US increasingly totalitarian agenda at home.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 08:36 pm
What the fuck is al queda? It used to be a CIA funded resistance group but now its just a common name we assign to organized armed groups that fight American intersts. I have never seen any evidence of a real "al queda" network under central leadership, does anyone have any?
al qaeda is "the base" and was a minor organization in afganistan in the 70s and 80s, concentrating most of the efforts on getting money and giving it to refugees and victims of the russian invasion.

today there is a vary specific chain of command, and it isn't some phantomous blob of an organization. a lot of the evidence the cia has against it is from the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl), a senior member of al qaeda who defected after stealing a bunch of money from them.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by chimx+December 07, 2006 10:27 pm--> (chimx @ December 07, 2006 10:27 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2006 08:36 pm
What the fuck is al queda? It used to be a CIA funded resistance group but now its just a common name we assign to organized armed groups that fight American intersts. I have never seen any evidence of a real "al queda" network under central leadership, does anyone have any?
al qaeda is "the base" and was a minor organization in afganistan in the 70s and 80s, concentrating most of the efforts on getting money and giving it to refugees and victims of the russian invasion.

today there is a vary specific chain of command, and it isn't some phantomous blob of an organization. a lot of the evidence the cia has against it is from the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl), a senior member of al qaeda who defected after stealing a bunch of money from them.[/b]
If you get a chance, watch the film "The Power of Nightmares", it discusses the structure [or lack thereof] of al-Qaeda and I believe actually discusses al-Fadl's testimony and how it was later refuted.

From Wikipedia Article on Power of Nightmares:

n the late 1990s the Taliban set up military training camps in Afghanistan for Islamist fighters. Most were only interested in fighting in their home countries, but Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and follower of Sayyid Qutb, paid the Taliban to allow them to recruit volunteers for attacks on the U.S. from these camps. Prosecutors for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings believed bin Laden organised them and wanted to convict him in absentia by showing that he headed a criminal organisation. Jamal al-Fadl, a former associate of bin Laden, conveniently described just such an organisation to them, which the investigators called al-Qaeda. While bin Laden apparently aided the attacks he had no organisation through which he could command and control them; al-Fadl seems to have told investigators what they wanted to hear in return for money and witness protection. Similarly, while bin Laden provided funds and volunteers to carry out the September 11, 2001 attacks, they were actually planned by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

al-Qaeda is not pan-Arab, they're more pan-Muslim [pan-Sunni Muslim more specifically, they consider Shi'as heretics]. Pan-Arab leaders have generally been left-leaning and secular, the most notable being Gamal abd al-Nasser of Egypt, Hafez al-Assad of Syria, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq... Earlier posters are correct; from experts I've discussed this with, the majority of them claim that it is a way to prevent China from growing "too quickly" economically. If we have essential diplomatic control over oil-producing countries, we can control the 'tap" of oil to China.

The U.S. government has a history of planning these things out way in advance, using other bullshit reasons as their motivation. Same way the U.S. and Israel planned out this last summer's war in Lebanon a year before it took place, they were just waiting for a "provocation" from Hezbollah.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+December 07, 2006 07:18 am--> (Matty_UK @ December 07, 2006 07:18 am) If this theory is right, it depresses me a LOT.

The war in Iraq was to counter Al Queda. But by that, I don't mean our governments give a shit about protecting the working class of their countries from terrorist attacks. [/b]
Makes no sense. Al-Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq before the invasion. It is now (that is, Zarqawi's version of it). So if the invasion was to combat al-Qaeda, obviously the U.S. isn't winning.


Think about it. What's the purpose of Al Queda? AFAIK they want a pan arab nationalist movement to create an arab superstate. Such an aim is obviously contrary to the western bourgeois interests.

Pan-Muslim, as somebody else has pointed out. But who cares? Al-Qaeda has no actual prospect of creating such a state - or even of taking power in any of the existing states. So that isn't a problem for Washington.

And partitioning Iraq certainly wasn't the goal of the invasion - it's not U.S. policy even now. Though some in the ruling class are advocating it, partition would be unacceptable to the Turkish government for example.

No, Washington's goal was to set up a strong and stable client regime, as a base for their operations throughout the region. It's the latest version of their strategic goal since 1979 - to replace the shah. That still is their goal in Iraq, to the degree they think they have a prayer of accomplishing it.

Teis and Johnny Darko have pointed out some other reasons for the invasion. I'd add one more: Washington's worldwide credibility suffered from Saddam remaining in power.

They'd set "regime change" as a goal since 1991, publicly stated it since 1992. Tried for a coup, applied all kinds of pressure to Iraq to see if they could get one. And yet here was Saddam, just kept going and going. It made others less afraid of Washington. An invasion was the only way left to remove him....

The credibility argument for war was generally left unstated, but Henry Kissinger was one of those who did state it before the invasion of Iraq. (http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/trachtenberg/useur/kissingerlatimes.txt) Credibility is, of course, also the main reason Washington is reluctant to withdraw from Iraq now - it would encourage others to think they can easily force Washington to withdraw from other countries.


We are given the impression by the bourgeois media that they "went in without a plan." I don't believe this, I think there is no way they could have been so incompetent as not to have realised the chaos invading Iraq would cause. They knew exactly what would happen and planned for it. In fact, we know that they have definitely been stirring up sectarian violence; some Brits got caught driving a car loaded with bombs dressed in Arabic clothing not so long ago. What they are doing is attempted to divide Iraq along ethnic grounds, creating a seperate Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish state. I suspect this is part of a longer term strategy to create stronger divisions in the middle east;

I've already commented why this is false; lemme point out also where this seems to come from. It tries to explain everything in terms of Washington's plans, as if Washington knows and controls all. It discounts Iraq's own longstanding divisions as a source of violence and the potential breakup of Iraq. Everything is a great Satanic conspiracy.

Probably this reflects the views and interests of some of the regimes in the regions whose own applecarts are threatened by instability in general and Kurdish nationalism in general. That includes the Turkish, Iranian and Syrian regimes in particular. A lot of Islamist and other opposition parties will go along with this too.


Chimx
today there is a vary specific chain of command, and it isn't some phantomous blob of an organization. a lot of the evidence the cia has against it is from the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl, a senior member of al qaeda who defected after stealing a bunch of money from them.

If one accepts this, there's still the problem: is this chain of command still operating after the invasion of Afghanistan? How many of the groups called al-Qaeda answer to it? The London and Madrid bombings were carried out by cells that grew up with little contact with al-Qaeda anywhere else. Al-Qaeda in Iraq follows its own course - targeting Shi'a isn't bin Laden's idea.

So is al-Qaeda today still an organization, or is it more of an idea?

[Joby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 01:18 pm
What they are doing is attempted to divide Iraq along ethnic grounds, creating a seperate Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish state. I suspect this is part of a longer term strategy to create stronger divisions in the middle east; doing this makes it ever more difficult for a pan-arab superpower to be created and makes it far easier for the western bourgeois to exercise economic control over these countries.

The plan is working. The USA is winning.
How did Britain control India for all those years? India is big, Britain small

Divide and conquer