In the name of Allah, the Merciful to all, the Compassionate
Nowadays,every politician and military brass claims he warned Obama about the consequences of withdrawing all American troops from Iraq. In a strange turn of events, now even George W. Bush is admired for his great insights and ingenious, like he was a prophet who prophesized all the details of future. But is this really so?
On July 12, 2007, Bush took to the podium to answer critics of his order for a troop surge, and said at the time:
"It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda,"
"It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan."
To me it looks more like a plan to prediction. Bush and US Forces under his command sowed the seeds of chaos in Iraq, and they did not expect to reap anything else. Killing around 1.5 million Iraqis, destroying social texture, assassinating most of the prominent scholars and scientists and forcing the rest of them to escape from the country is more than enough to ensure trouble.
George Orwell did not live long enough to see how the Ministry of Truth of the United States rewrites history, so he could come up with better ideas in his "1984" novel. Now mainstream media tries to depict US forces as guardians of peace and security, who saved Iraq for years, and now they have to occupy not only Iraq, but also the whole Middle East again, just to keep the bad guys out.
As a matter of fact, these bad guys are created by western intelligent services, and they need a constant support to survive.
Thierry Meyssan in an article titled Who Makes Up the "Islamic Emirate"? explains this very well:
At the time, Senator John McCain came to Syria illegally to meet the chiefs of staff of the FSA. According to the photograph then distributed to attest to the meeting, the staff included a certain Abu Youssef, officially sought by the US State Department under the name Abu Du’a, in reality the current Caliph Ibrahim. Thus, the same man was - both and at the same time - a moderate leader in the FSA and an extremist leader in the "Islamic Emirate".
With this information, one can appreciate at its true value the document presented to the Security Council on July 14 by the Syrian Ambassador, Bashar Jaafari. This is a letter from the commander-in-chief of the FSA, Salim Idriss and dated January 17, 2014. It reads: "I hereby inform you that this ammunition sent by the chiefs of staff to leaders of the revolutionary military councils of the Eastern Region must be distributed in accordance with what was agreed upon: two-thirds to the warlords of the el-Nosra front, the remaining third to be distributed between the military and the revolutionary elements in the fight against the bands of IEIL (Islamic Emirate in Iraq and the Levant). We thank you for sending us the proof of delivery of all ammunition, specifying the quantities and qualities, duly signed by the leaders and warlords in person, so we can forward them to the Turkish and French partners. "In other words, two NATO powers (Turkey and France) have delivered ammunition for two thirds to the Al-Nosra Front (classified as a member of al-Qaeda by the Security Council) and one third to the FSA so that it can fight against the "Islamic Emirate", headed by one of its senior officers. In fact, the FSA has disappeared on the ground and the munitions were therefore intended for two-thirds to al-Qaeda and one third to the "Islamic Emirate".
With this dual role device, NATO will be able to continue to launch its hordes of jihadists against Syria while claiming to fight them.