When Michael E. O‘Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack returned from Iraq they wrote in the „International Herald Tribune“ on July 30 (1):
„The political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost almost all credibility.“
Then, one more sentence:
„Yet now the administration‘s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.“
Then, the clue about the fact, that the political debate in Washington is surreal and the Bush administration has lost almost all credibility over the past four years:
„Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: The United States is finally winning in Iraq“.
George Orwell´s ficticious O´Brien would have been proud of them.
THE BOSNIA OPTION
In a memo called „A Bosnia Option For Iraq“ (2) Michael E. O`Hanlon already presented his extrordinary abilities of profound logic.
„Paradoxically, the explosion of sectarian violence and the onset of Balkans-style ethnic cleansing in much of Iraq may suggest an avenue toward stability“, O´Hanlon wrote in this „Brookings“ paper, modestly directed to „Potus“, who all mortal people just know as „President of the United States“.
And then he used a well-known term by now – „soft partition“. But that wasn´t on July 9, when O´Hanlon said in during a panel discussion in Washington the only way out of a full-fledged civil war in Iraq is a „soft partition“ that would split the country up into Kurdistan, „Shi‘astan“ and „Sunnistan“.(3)
That was in early December 2006. Officially release date of „A Bosnia Option“: January 1, 2007. We wrote about it (in German) on December 8, 2006. (6)
Co-author at that „Brookings“ paper and in July 9 discussion in Washington: Edward Joseph, an Iraq veteran and scholar at the School of Advanced International Studies.
Listen to that „Bosnia Option“ for a while…
„Ethnic relocation is very distasteful and hardly free from risk“, O´Hanlon and Joseph tell us.
„Citizens of Baghdad, ground zero (sic!) for the country“s violence, are increasingly fleeing their homes.“
Let´s not forget – they are talking about a country a US-led war coalition invaded over 3 1/2 years ago at that time.
And now it´s gettin´ reaaally interesting.
„U.S. pressure on the Kurds (whose territory has been used as a base for Kurdish separatists in Turkey) could encourage them to cut a deal on Kirkuk´s oil while earning greater Sunni cooperation on property swaps in the town.“
Remember the terror attacks in Kurdistan in spring and early summer?
And then:
„We might not want U.S. forces to participate directly in what some might see as sanctioning A FORM OF SEGREGATION“, the Brookings paper by O´Hanlon and Joseph concludes.
„Even so, there is an argument for NATO carrying out this mission under its own banner, with multinational units aiding in the protective effort. This would not require large additional numbers of Coalition troops, but it would change the OPTIC of the relocation mission for the better.“
And that´s why NATO is so popular in Germany.
ANOTHER PIECE OF PUZZLE
Let´s move on to another paper: „Things fall apart“ (11), also a brookings paper, by Daniel L.Byman – and Kenneth M.Pollack…
Release date: January 2007.
The issue: the concentration of Iraqi people in camps.
Read carefully:
„13. Consider establishing safe havens or `CATCH BASINS` along Iraq´s borders.
One potential option that deserves careful scrutiny would be to try to create a system of buffer zones with accompanying REFUGEE COLLECTION POINTS along Iraq`s borders inside Iraqi territory, manned by U.S. and other Coalition personnel.
The refugee collection points would be located on major roads preferably near airstrips near the borders and would be designed with support facilities to house, feed, and otherwise care for tens or even HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF REFUGEES.
The Coalition (principally the United States) would also provide military forces to defend the REFUGEE CAMPS against attack and to thoroughly PACIFY THEM (by disarming those entering the camps and then POLICING the camps). This option would require the extensive and continued use of U.S. forces.“
The think tank „Brookings“ is still being considered as some kind of democratic or liberal, maybe you have to be a home-grown American to understand that.
THE PLAN
Actually, there is a plan for some kind of „New Middle East Order“. (10, also graphic)
It was published in the „Armed Forces Journal“ in June 2006.
It was developed by US Military think tanks and deals with a disaggregation of almost every state between Israel and India.
A concept for destruction.
THE DATE
When „A Bosnia Option“ came out there was this 3-day-meeting in Brookings´ Saban Center from 8-10 December.
Posy: „America and Israel: Confronting a Middle East in Turmoil.“
On the (official) agenda: Iran, Lebanon, Syria.
„Middle East“. Hmm. Who came up with this? Where has the good old „Near East“ gone?
Well, the guest list says it all:
Former US President Bill Clinton, Israeli Vice Premier and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman, the Assistant US Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch, Israeli Minister of Education Yuli Tamir, former Shin Bet chief and MK Ami Ayalon, Secretary of State´s Senior Adviser on Iraq David Satterfield, , former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, former Israeli National Security Adviser Giora Eiland; Director of Israeli Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin and journalists Tom Friedman, Nahum Barnea and Ted Koppel. (7)
But there were more. Condoleeza Rice meet Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Saturday in Washington who were there to held a speech in Brookings´ Saban Center that very Weekend.
Also in Washington: German Foreign Minister Frank Steinmeier who met Rice. (8)
And Tony Blair, who met George Bush. (9)
There must had been very interesting discussions in Washington. Also about the Baker-Hamilton Report, which exactly came out on Friday, December 8 – officially.
It´s quite likely that its content was well known to all Washington visitors before.
Were there some kind of global powwow going on?
Well – if so, it was not about religion.
It wasn´t about a country or its people.
It was not about nations, states and definitely not about democracies, humanity or human progress.
It was just about power and the best way to keep it –
WAR.
more articles:
14.05.07
THE PLAN III – Petraeus and the three-dimensional chess in the dark
http://radio-utopie.de/english.php?themenID=497&JAHR_AKTUELL=2007&MON_AKTUELL=5
25.05.07
Afghanistan,German troops: strange deaths have found us
http://www.radio-utopie.de/english.php?themenID=540&JAHR_AKTUELL=2007&MON_AKTUELL=5
26.03.07
US,Congress to Bush: stop funding terrorists in Lebanon
http://www.radio-utopie.de/english.php?themenID=372&JAHR_AKTUELL=2007&MON_AKTUELL=3
13.03.07
A Syria War?
http://www.radio-utopie.de/english.php?themenID=344&JAHR_AKTUELL=2007&MON_AKTUELL=3
sources:
(1) http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/29/opinion/edpollack.php
(2)
http://www.citadel.edu/smll/bosniaoption.pdf
(3) http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/07/09/analysis_soft_partition_urged_for_iraq/1043/
(6) 08.12.2006 US / Israel: Geheimtreffen wegen „Bosnien-Option“ für Irak?
http://radio-utopie.de/archiv.php?themenID=199&JAHR_AKTUELL=2006&MON_AKTUELL=12
(7)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3336135,00.html
(8)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/12/08/national/w151559S79.DTL
(9)
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=120706_blair_meets_bush_iraq_study_group.htm
(10)
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/pdf.php?id=10136
(11)
http://media.brookings.edu/MediaArchive/fp/jan2007iraq_civilwar.pdf
links added, spelling slightly corrected on September 8, 2019
