BIG "SACRIFICE" GAMBIT

Crimes of the State

 

In chess, it is sometimes preferable to sacrifice a high value
piece, your queen, bishop, rook or knight, in order to manipulate your opponent
into giving up a desired slice of real estate.

Pay close attention to Bush's new strategy, and to his repeated
mention of the word "sacrifice", for it may hold the key to understanding
what is about to unfold.

A real-world chess "sacrifice" gambit could go something
like this.

1. US forces attack the Shi'ite militias in Baghdad.

2. The Shi'ites throughout Iraq retaliate and cut off US supply
lines.

3. The US army is overrun in many places suffering huge and
catastrophic casualties (the "sacrifice").

4. This stunning defeat causes another "helpful wave
of indignation" [1]
across the "homeland," preordaining a new US response.

5. The US regime will reinstate the draft, and it will use
nuclear weapons in a first strike against Iran, who will be linked to the
Shi'ites of Iraq, and thus provide the pretext for this next all-out war.

The pretext to attack Iran becomes the goal of this "sacrifice"
ploy, and the scores of dead US troops will be the lives sacrificed (by the
criminal and twice unelected Bush regime) in pursuit of this end.

Many commentators have spoken about the precarious position
of US supply lines in Iraq. The army there is high-maintenance, and it cannot
last for more than a few weeks without resupply. These supply lines are primarily
through Shi'ite controlled territory. This is one reason the "counter-insurgency"
(or war of imperial conquest) has focused on Sunni targets thus far. That could
all change very rapidly.

Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote:

"By manipulating Bush and provoking a military crisis
in which the US stands to lose its army in Iraq, the neoconservatives hope
to revive the implementation of their plan for US conquest of the Middle East.
They believe they can use fear, "honor," and the aversion of macho
Americans to ignoble defeat to expand the conflict in response to military
disaster. The neocons believe that the loss of an American army would be met
with the electorate's demand for revenge. The barriers to the draft would
fall, as would the barriers to the use of nuclear weapons." [2]

To that end, the corporate media (under heavy Zionist influence)
has been steadily feeding the public anti-Iran propaganda. Many common citizens
now express a bloodlust, and a thirst for preemptive violence toward Iran on
message boards across the Internet.

One of the techniques employed was to mistranslate the Iranian
president's words [3]
time and again (mainly by Israeli propaganda organ MEMRI) to suggest that the
Iranian president is threatening an attack on Israel, which his original words
in Farsi do not express. It's also an absurd claim, because Israel possesses
at minimum 200 nuclear bombs.

Now recall that the Prime Minister of Iraq, Maliki, recently
intervened and had US forces stand down from attacking the Shi'ite Mahdi army
in November 2006:

"Maliki's decision exposed the growing divergence
between the U.S. and Iraqi administrations on some of the most critical issues
facing the country, especially the burgeoning strength of Shiite militias."
[4]

This also exposed the tenuous and precarious nature of the US
presence in Iraq. The US armed forces actually were forced to accept the wishes
of Maliki, over their own generals.

"American soldiers rolled up their barbed-wire barricades
and lifted a near siege of the largest Shiite Muslim enclave in Baghdad on
Tuesday, heeding the orders of a Shiite-led Iraqi government whose assertion
of sovereignty had Shiites celebrating in the streets." [5]

The questions this incident provokes are:

What would have happened if the US army didn't accept
Maliki's orders?

And, what fraction of the population were "celebrating
in the streets," about the US humiliation?

A solid majority of Shi'ites wants the US out of Iraq immediately:

"The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion
(WPO), taken in September [2006], found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis
in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this
call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even
higher (80%)." [6]

And that population comprises our "allies" who secure
the supply lines for a continued presence there at all.

From one vantage point, an objective observer might conclude
that 'the pieces are in place.'

 

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/