Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Bush Admin's How-to Guide for Using Religious Warfare to Destroy Iraq

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted April 15, 2008.


Using a mixture of cultural ignorance, incompetence and a touch of cronyism, the U.S has turned a patriotic nation against itself.
Advertisement

Here's a thought exercise.

Imagine if the greatest minds this country has to offer were assembled in a conference room and tasked with drawing up a post-invasion plan that would lead to sectarian bloodshed in a country like Iraq -- where different groups had long lived side-by-side, intermarried and thought of themselves first and foremost as Iraqis, rather than as Shiites and Sunnis.

Their first recommendation would probably be to create an environment in which conflict would be likely to flourish. It would be a good idea to go into the country with enough heavy weaponry and air power to defeat the national army, but too few troops to provide security on the ground after the fact. When anarchy reigns, people look inward -- to their family, neighborhood and, yes, their religious community -- and develop a distrust of members of other communities.

If some military experts -- say the Army Chief of Staff -- said that the planned force would be insufficient for providing day-to-day security, one would probably want to humiliate and undermine him publicly. Maybe announce his successor 14 months before the end of his term so that he appeared before the world as some batty lame duck without any support from his superiors.

Then, dismantle the entire government, instead of just the senior leadership, and fire all of the country's bureaucrats, police and security personnel -- even if there were a half-million of them. But don't disarm them -- those weapons will come in handy later.

It would be good to destroy the country's infrastructure, too -- people get pissed off when they lack reliable electricity, working sanitation facilities, clean running water and the like. Make sure not to get those things up and running within five years of the invasion, either. That's a challenge, especially if one wants shovel tens of billions of dollars of American tax-payers' cash into the reconstruction effort.

The best way to achieve that trick would be to create enormous umbrella contracts with dozens of projects within their scope -- far too many for any firm to complete without farming out projects to dozens of subcontractors -- and hand those out to well-connected firms -- firms with terrible track records if possible. Make those contracts "cost-plus" - guaranteeing a profit regardless of the quality of the work -- add in minimal oversight and you've created excellent incentives for graft, corruption and incompetence (this solution would likely come from an economist sitting on that prestigious panel).

While you're at it, it would probably be best to rapidly privatize the large state-run companies that guaranteed employment for a large portion of the population. Make sure to ship in tens of thousands of foreign guest workers from places like India and the Philippines, and, if possible, pass a binding law that prevented any new government from giving preference to domestic firms or firms that employ large numbers of locals in its contracting. Otherwise, with a huge influx of foreign investment coming in, it's unlikely that there'd still be an unemployment rate of between 25-50 percent five years after the invasion.

If a working group within the government -- say at the State Department -- recommended that a job program be created for the newly-unemployed -- including those heavily armed members of the former regime's security forces -- ignore it at all costs. Idle hands are, after all, the Devil's tools.

When chaos first breaks out, as it inevitably will, dismiss it with a sound-byte -- maybe just say, "democracy is messy."

Make sure to leave dozens of large weapons caches unguarded for easy looting -- they'll come in handy later.

With the stage set, now comes the tricky part. How would that group of August thinkers replace a strong national identity -- one of the strongest in the region -- with a fractured sectarianism?

It would require some sophistication -- the key task is taking a population that has had all the "ancient blood-hatreds" that one finds among American Lutherans and Methodists, and deepen that sense of sectarian identity to a very large degree.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sectarian violence, iraq

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not Just Iraq
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Apr 15, 2008 2:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not just Iraq. Nepal just fell into Maoist hands because the US, through its arrogant, alcoholic neocon ambassador, encouraged the brutal, corrupt king to rule with an iron fist. Then when he fell, they promoted the interests of corrupt, casteist, arrogant politicians and disregarded the sentiments of the majority of the people. Now, predictably but unfortunately, the Maoists have swept the elections. Yet another example of neocon stupidity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Just Iraq Posted by: richholland
Iraq's on the 5th of 8 Steps to Genocide
Posted by: TripleFire on Apr 15, 2008 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to your own link, http://www.genocidewatch.org/8stages.htm, Iraq's at Stage 5, one away from 7, Extermination, then 8 Denial. The dangers of genocidal war after we leave are real, let's not trivialize it to fit our wishful thinking. It's hard to unite people but easy to divide them, and as you wisely note, with all our weapons, very volatile. The sectarianism, I'm afraid, like Al Qaeda in Iraq, is our legacy to Iraq. Only our exit coupled with fair negotiations with all parties, that leaves national resources intact, might avert it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Civil war isn't genocide Posted by: Joshua Holland
We are losing in Both Afghanistan & Iraq.
Posted by: peacekeepertwo on Apr 15, 2008 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like to hear all sides of A story, So I visit the presstv.com website once each Day, they are A website that represents the Iran government. They where accusing the American government of Supplying weapons to the Taliban, Knowing the way the CIA conducted these kinds operations operation In Vietnam, I find this believable. Alternet might want to Check into this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Provocative Thought Experiment
Posted by: taxidriver on Apr 15, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting article. I can understand why so many people believe it was the Bush Administration's intent to create such chaos--to turn Iraqis against themselves--in order to exploit them. My opinion is that it's our own ignorance and arrogance that are mostly to blame--not Machiavellian plotting. Think about it. Our own government is exploitative, divided, and dysfunctional. What made us think we could create an Iraqi government that was service-oriented, united, and functional? All in about a year, which is what the CPA tried to do with its assortment of operatives and cronies? (There were also good people at the CPA who saw the disaster coming.)

I think this is another example of the fish rotting from the head. What's amazing is how smug and cavalier Bush and Cheney are about the disaster they've created, with the support of Congress, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Provocative Thought Experiment Posted by: Joshua Holland
» as usual..follow the money Posted by: Drclaw
it's time
Posted by: solrev on Apr 15, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As usual the author has a better concept of Iraq than anyone else posting on the net. However, documentation is of limited value with all the propaganda machines out there competing for space. I think it is time to put up or shut up. All the pundits I see on the net keep saying it’s the economy stupid, this can not be true. If the media mouth conservatives were not initially supporting McCain, and the evangelicals folded after supporting the born again pagan Bush, and the social conservative Baptists were voting for Huckabee, and the supply sidewinders hated McCain, who is voting for McCain? McCain’s core support are those who have bought into the fear factor. They support McCain because they view him as the safety factor. That is the issue that will come up front and center in the national election. The war dog lite Clinton can not beat McCain on this issue. Can a peace candidate who will face the charge of “weak and inexperienced” beat McCain? I am afraid Obama will surround himself with the military and political factions available in DC. The result will be an ineffective fractured campaign. Joshua, you understand the Iraqi people write an OPP ed (Obama peace plan), that can get us out of Iraq and avoid a civil war. Write it then outline it, we the people understand our ABC’s the easiest. You already know what the outcome in Iraq will be, it is not a question of if, it is a question of when. If the people here on Altnet copy it’ and flood the blog comments with it’ and email it to every congressman, we might bring the war home with a big enough grass roots coalitian. Peace is the way to win in Iraq. Maybe Obama will get the message and put up or shut up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

name names
Posted by: Ripcord on Apr 15, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm disappointed that you didn't.

(It's 6:30 PDT in the morning here-- a little early in the morning to think on my own)

I suppose that the hypothetical think tank is led by our Vice President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ACLU names Bush Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: ACLU names Bush Posted by: Lauren
» RE: ACLU names Bush Posted by: willymack
The Saudi Arabian model in action.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 15, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. What other countries look like a version of Iraq governed by a small cabal of insiders backed up the religious police? Here's an excerpt from a think tank that describes the structure of some key U.S. "democratic allies in the region:

THE EGYPTIAN MODEL. This model can be characterized as a relationship of subordination and cooperation between the religious establishment and the regime. The former recognizes the regime’s primacy, supports its stability, and legitimizes its policies (especially in controversial issues) through the status of al-Azhar as the preeminent religious authority in the Sunni Muslim world. In return, the regime acknowledges the religious authority of the establishment ulama and allows the religious scholars latitude in issues that are not vital for the regime’s survival.The Egyptian regime however, is basically secular; it does not see the religious establishment as a source of authority for itself, but primarily as a potential political asset or domestic constraint.

THE SAUDI-ARABIAN MODEL. This model reflects a more equal alliance between the political rulers and the religious establishment, forged by the founders of the Wahhabi movement and the al-Sa’ud dynasty. In this model, the legitimacy of the Saudi regime derives from the religious authority ofthe ulama, but at the same time, the regime is the quintessential manifestation of the Wahhabi ideology. The dividing lines between the regime and the religious establishment here are fuzzy; for the orthodox Wahhabi Saudi regime, the ulama do represent a genuine spiritual authority and a constraint ontheir political policy. The Saudi regime allows the ulama wide latitude in religious, social and cultural matters, and in return the ulama provide the rulers with religious legitimization.

THE JORDANIAN MODEL. This model is one in which the religious establishment is totally subordinate, religiously and institutionally, to the Hashemite throne, which created it and prevented it from acquiring its own sources of power. Unlike the Egyptian and Saudi cases, the Jordanian ulama are merely technocrats who carry out the guidelines dictated by the king. The Jordanian regime does not seek the advice of the ulama in political matters, nor does it seek constant legitimization from them for itsactions. The Hashemite origin of the royal family has been the main source of Islamic legitimacy forthe regime. The king is the supreme religious authority as a descendent of the Prophet, and thus does not need the religious establishment’s legitimization.


These countries use the religious police as an adjunct of state power in order to keep people in line. This is the reason that separation of Church and State was put into the U.S. constitution. The U.S. in the Middle East does not encourage that separation - just the opposite - it encourages the linkage of state power to religious power, as is the case in Iraq with the courting of the (Shia) Supreme Islamic Councils, the Sunni Awakening Councils, etc. Why? Such a situation, as Saudi Arabia shows, results in long-term "stability" - the kind of stability found on 18th century Southern slave plantations. The religious police in Saudi Arabia, plus the torture dungeons, ensure that criticism of the corrupt, greedy and U.S.-controlled Royal Family is kept to a minimum.

However, to accept that you'd also have to accept that the U.S. goal in the region is not freedom or democracy or anything like that, but rather the establishment of puppet regimes dependent on the U.S. for survival as a means of gaining access to the natural resources (mainly oil) of the region. You'd also have to accept that in order to do this, U.S. state planners were (and are) willing to accept torture, rape, murder, and the deliberate suppression of democratic reform as necessary tools for the achievement of their goals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Palestinian model Posted by: leafsong1
Very good article, bad closing...
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Apr 15, 2008 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Now we have to set a timetable for an orderly withdrawal and leave the Iraqis free to create that "democratic, non-sectarian state" on their own terms."

Yeah right!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

black ops
Posted by: bluepilgrim on Apr 15, 2008 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not forget setting up death squads and false flag attacks so each side can blame the other for violence and destruction of cherished sites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: black ops Posted by: Lauren
THE AUTHOR GIVES THESE PEOPLE TOO MUCH CREDIT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 15, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They simply are not smart enough to have come up with such a complicated plan. Iraq has been 5 yrs. of 'make it up as we go along', they'll never notice. While this article is accurate today, it was not the original plan. There was none. And so we wait in 3 month increments to see what unfolds and then think of what to call it. In 2003 it was a given that religion, various sects and the social order in Iraq was something we didn't understand. That should have kept us out. Guess not. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why either/or Posted by: Joshua Holland
The bush regime
Posted by: willymack on Apr 15, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is a collection of ignoramuses, moral degenerates, and pusillanimous ass-kissers. All are concerned solely with lining their own pockets, regardless of the cost to the American people and nation. Both houses of congress have either been bullied into submition or bought off. The goal in Iraq is simple enough; to steal the oil there and bully and intimidate the entire Moslem world. This folly, if allowed to continue much longer will bring us only heartache and ruin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The bush regime Posted by: sofla100
divide and conquer
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Apr 15, 2008 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the divide and conquer strategy is thousands of years old... the intelligence agencies have long mastered this skill now having computer program to to indicate exactly which stressors and when to apply them for maximum destabilizing effect.. its a science folks and a quiet war against the nation states of earth in favor of the privately owned empires... iraq itself was put together long ago with divison in mind at a later date... those tribes have been feuding for centuries and the british deliberately arranged this country for later dissection after ww1. LONG TERM PLANNING RULES!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The element the author left out
Posted by: leafsong1 on Apr 17, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is false flag operations. It was not enough to simply put the Iraqis in a position conducive to civil war; we had to actively start one. Where death squads or terrorist attacks were absent, we provided them. Where Al Qaida was weak or non-existant, we had to create it and support it with propaganda. Not to fault the author; obviously, these things are difficult to document and the emphasis in the article was on things in plain sight. But readers should note that only part of the case has been presented.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IRAQ: Corporate Puppet Garrison State
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Apr 18, 2008 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite what others have said the "incompetence" factor in achieving division and conquest at Iraq is mostly MSM hyperbole.

Mistakes and issues remain of course but with people like Henry Kissinger (Cheney and Paul Bremmer handler) having pulled the usual tricks, Iraq's future as a corporate oil plantation for the usual suspects was a foregone outcome.

And of course the hidden story of a bogus "Al Qaeda" force in Iraq that never really existed other than in MSM headlines and BS government "intelligence" estimates is the other side of the nightmare.

The following 1998 quote by Halliburton Dick Cheney pretty well covers this:

"You’ve got to go where the oil is. I don’t think about it (i.e. political unrest) very much.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]