Saturday, February 12, 2005
The purpose of wars and ethnic cleansing - Iraq, a practical example
I stumbled across a book by Sbancor. Never heard of him, but the title looked interesting, "War Diary, Critique of the Humanitarian War", in Italian, which is mainly about the Kossovo war, which was defined precisely as a humanitarian war. It's a pretty interesting book, well, actually the size of a large pamphet, basically briefly painting the picture of the market's need for a war.
Sbancor's writing can be found on an interesting Italian site Rekombinant. In fact, it's been pretty interesting to peruse, and I will here translate two things for those not able to read Italian very well. (although, why not?!)
The first is an excerpt from his book. It starts with a comment from another participant on the Rekombinant forum, an independent radio speaker, Bifo:
"The States of the Western world are conducting a war against demographic and economic redistribution that planetary immigration is spontaneously creating.
The redistribution of wealth (concentrated in the hands of a small minority of humanity, the global class) can only happen through free mobility of the citizens of poor countries toward rich countries.
To oppose this unreversable process the Western nations are willing to fight a planetary civil war. But, they can't win this war. It is destined to devastate the world in which we've been living for fifty years.
The scandal of unfair division of wealth will be attacked from every corner of the earth. But perhaps with this scandal, civilisation itself will be destroyed."
Sbancor comments: "Is the enemy a multiethnic Mediterranean? No, let's not use the word "multiethnic". Let's use the true term, "cosmopolitan". Is cosmopolitanism the real enemy?
All of the cosmopolitan cities of the Mediterranean, from Constantinople to Smirne, from Beirut to Alexandria, were systematically destroyed from the start of the 30's.
Since then, we don't call ourselves "citizens of the world" anymore."
On the Rekombinant site, there is a four part essay by Sbancor that is very interesting. I will translate a small segment:
"The modern war between the "West" and "Islamic Fundamentalism" doesn't leave the tried and true blueprint that has been calling the shots in history for the past few decades. (It's even now impossible to write history with a capital H.)
The Americans have even developed an abbreviation "MOOTW": Military Operations Other Than War. The operations are described as "counterinsurgency", but they foresee also "insurrection" as "MOOTW". The only thing that is lacking is the true text that can serve as a point of reference, written by Ted Schackley, "The Third Option", from 1981. It seems as though every copy has somehow been made to disappear. Schackley does nothing more than present an idea of Luttwak (1969) in which the "Coup d'état" was theorised. This takes off from the consideration that it was worthwhile to incentivate the most extremist groups, in order to involve the opposition in an insurrectional attempt and to then respond with the Coup d'état. Whoever was attentive during the 70's recognises the plot.
Let's apply it to Iraq.
*In the first place, send a force that is absolutely inadequate: 150,ooo - 200,000 men for a territory of 437,072 square kilometres with a population of over 25,000,000 inhabitants
*disband the army and the police force
*consent looting and abuses to the damage of the population
*practice torture on the prisoners
*make such actions manifest to the public
*create a "puppet government" that has no popular credibility
*consent the concentration of "rebel" forces in the city of Fallujah.
*a resistance movement is born. A fundamental part is a Shiite sheik, Mossadeq al Sadr. The battle is concentrated in Najaf. The shiek, upon pressure by the Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani stops the combatants.
*only the Sunnis remain as combatants
*a "leader of the rebels" is elected, al Zarqawi
*Zarqawi in a "missive", which is quickly intercepted, states the objective of a civil war with the Shiites
*Osama bin Laden recognises him as "Emir" for Iraq and representative of Al Qaeda
*the city of Fallujah is razed to the ground during the period of Ramadan, this causes particular sensibility in the Islamic population
*al Zarqawi flees from the assault on Fallujah, after having decapitated in an absolutely horrible way some hostages (all of this, obviously in direct coverage)
*proclamation of the victory over Fallujah, even though there are still pockets of resistance, (here the direct coverage just isn't there, actually from now on the Americans who died at Fallujah are indicated as deaths in the province of Al Anbar, rather than at Fallujah).
*The Associated Press reports on an American plan for the creation of a "death squad". It is to be called Operation Salvador. There is already the right man on the spot: Negroponte, the man of Salvador.
After Fallujah we believe that the "Lebanonisation" of Iraq has been a success. By now, barriers of blood, hate, resentment is dividing the Shiites from the Sunnis and both of them from the "Peshmerga". The Christian-Chaldean community has been practically annihilated. There is no possibility for peace in the near future. No hope. The destabilisation continues. We are seeing some persons who are nostalgic for the Cold War calling this "resistance" thinking that one can change the meaning of the same on a symbolic plane. The Americans are going farther than that. They are actually calling it "insurgency". Insurrection. For them, the words are operative enunciations. To classify what happens in Iraq as "insurgency" means being able to use all everything in the toolbox of "counterinsurgency", and that goes well beyond the manual.
Sbancor's writing can be found on an interesting Italian site Rekombinant. In fact, it's been pretty interesting to peruse, and I will here translate two things for those not able to read Italian very well. (although, why not?!)
The first is an excerpt from his book. It starts with a comment from another participant on the Rekombinant forum, an independent radio speaker, Bifo:
"The States of the Western world are conducting a war against demographic and economic redistribution that planetary immigration is spontaneously creating.
The redistribution of wealth (concentrated in the hands of a small minority of humanity, the global class) can only happen through free mobility of the citizens of poor countries toward rich countries.
To oppose this unreversable process the Western nations are willing to fight a planetary civil war. But, they can't win this war. It is destined to devastate the world in which we've been living for fifty years.
The scandal of unfair division of wealth will be attacked from every corner of the earth. But perhaps with this scandal, civilisation itself will be destroyed."
Sbancor comments: "Is the enemy a multiethnic Mediterranean? No, let's not use the word "multiethnic". Let's use the true term, "cosmopolitan". Is cosmopolitanism the real enemy?
All of the cosmopolitan cities of the Mediterranean, from Constantinople to Smirne, from Beirut to Alexandria, were systematically destroyed from the start of the 30's.
Since then, we don't call ourselves "citizens of the world" anymore."
On the Rekombinant site, there is a four part essay by Sbancor that is very interesting. I will translate a small segment:
"The modern war between the "West" and "Islamic Fundamentalism" doesn't leave the tried and true blueprint that has been calling the shots in history for the past few decades. (It's even now impossible to write history with a capital H.)
The Americans have even developed an abbreviation "MOOTW": Military Operations Other Than War. The operations are described as "counterinsurgency", but they foresee also "insurrection" as "MOOTW". The only thing that is lacking is the true text that can serve as a point of reference, written by Ted Schackley, "The Third Option", from 1981. It seems as though every copy has somehow been made to disappear. Schackley does nothing more than present an idea of Luttwak (1969) in which the "Coup d'état" was theorised. This takes off from the consideration that it was worthwhile to incentivate the most extremist groups, in order to involve the opposition in an insurrectional attempt and to then respond with the Coup d'état. Whoever was attentive during the 70's recognises the plot.
Let's apply it to Iraq.
*In the first place, send a force that is absolutely inadequate: 150,ooo - 200,000 men for a territory of 437,072 square kilometres with a population of over 25,000,000 inhabitants
*disband the army and the police force
*consent looting and abuses to the damage of the population
*practice torture on the prisoners
*make such actions manifest to the public
*create a "puppet government" that has no popular credibility
*consent the concentration of "rebel" forces in the city of Fallujah.
*a resistance movement is born. A fundamental part is a Shiite sheik, Mossadeq al Sadr. The battle is concentrated in Najaf. The shiek, upon pressure by the Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani stops the combatants.
*only the Sunnis remain as combatants
*a "leader of the rebels" is elected, al Zarqawi
*Zarqawi in a "missive", which is quickly intercepted, states the objective of a civil war with the Shiites
*Osama bin Laden recognises him as "Emir" for Iraq and representative of Al Qaeda
*the city of Fallujah is razed to the ground during the period of Ramadan, this causes particular sensibility in the Islamic population
*al Zarqawi flees from the assault on Fallujah, after having decapitated in an absolutely horrible way some hostages (all of this, obviously in direct coverage)
*proclamation of the victory over Fallujah, even though there are still pockets of resistance, (here the direct coverage just isn't there, actually from now on the Americans who died at Fallujah are indicated as deaths in the province of Al Anbar, rather than at Fallujah).
*The Associated Press reports on an American plan for the creation of a "death squad". It is to be called Operation Salvador. There is already the right man on the spot: Negroponte, the man of Salvador.
After Fallujah we believe that the "Lebanonisation" of Iraq has been a success. By now, barriers of blood, hate, resentment is dividing the Shiites from the Sunnis and both of them from the "Peshmerga". The Christian-Chaldean community has been practically annihilated. There is no possibility for peace in the near future. No hope. The destabilisation continues. We are seeing some persons who are nostalgic for the Cold War calling this "resistance" thinking that one can change the meaning of the same on a symbolic plane. The Americans are going farther than that. They are actually calling it "insurgency". Insurrection. For them, the words are operative enunciations. To classify what happens in Iraq as "insurgency" means being able to use all everything in the toolbox of "counterinsurgency", and that goes well beyond the manual.
