Join Our Members List For Exclusive Reports

Email address:

Your name:

Type this

in the box

Alexandra Bruce
July 2, 2014

Iraq is descending into chaos, but not for the reasons you’re being fed by the politicians and the mainstream media.

How did this Happen?

That’s an extremely important question.

How you answer it will determine what comes next.



Iraq is descending into chaos, but not for the reasons you’re being fed by the politicians and the mainstream media.

In June 2014, the world watched in shock, as an Islamic militant group, operating under the name of “The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria rises to control the Mosul, Baiji and Tikrit, the pushing south of Baghdad and Fallujah has been under their control since January.

Iraqi military and police put up very little resistance, in spite of the fact that they greatly outnumber the militants. Most fled their posts and left their uniforms and weapons behind.

Those who didn’t, were killed.

ISIS, whose stated goal is to erase the border between Syria and Iraq to establish an Islamic caliphate, encompassing both countries and to impose Sharia law, already holds vast swathes of territory and they are rapidly gaining ground.

How did this happen?

That’s an extremely important question. How you answer it determines what comes next – not just in Iraq.

That’s why the media’s spin doctors and politicians are out in force, attempting rewrite history and turning reality completely on its head, in the process.

For instance, we have people insisting that this is happening because the US and NATO failed to intervene in Syria. Well, that’s a convenient answer, isn’t it?

The less convenient answer is that the US and NATO have been actively working to topple Assad, arming and funding the Syrian rebels, since at least 2011. This has developed into a bloody civil war, which has attracted jihadists from all over the world.

It has also created a vacuum of power, which has enabled groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda and al Nusra to organize and establish physical Strongholds

The US claims to only be arming the Moderate rebels, however the leadership of the Free Syrian Army, a.k.a. the FSA has stated that they regularly carry out joint operations with al Qaeda and its affiliates and up until recently, ISIS was a branch of al Qaeda but in February of this year, archives of the official leadership of Al Qaeda publicly disavowed ISIS, due to their brutal tactics; that’s why ISIS is referred to as a “splinter group.”

Furthermore, we know for a fact that the majority of the weapons and funding from the US and its allies are ending up in the hands of jihadist and US officials have been aware this since 2012 – but don’t take my word for it; go read this article from New York Times, yourself.

Do the math folks, ISIS would have never gotten a foothold in Syria, if the US hadn’t had weakened the Syrian government – and the weapons that they’re using weapons right now were most likely paid for with your Tax Dollars.

But wait – this isn’t just about Syria, is it? It’s also about Iraq, which brings us to the other deranged narrative, that is being promoted right now.

You see, this chaos that is unfolding is because US military withdrew prematurely in 2011 and that Iraq is in ruins and unable to defend itself because US military left the party too early – not because the Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media convinced the public that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was planning to use them – NO! and it’s not because the US invaded Iraq under these false pretenses; disbanding the Iraqi Army and Police, and reducing the country to rubble in an attempt to put down the resulting insurgency – NO! it’s because eight years of a military occupation wasn’t enough!

For those, who fought there, it’s a punch in the gut to see that your sacrifice was for nothing.

The occupation of Iraq was never going to end well – and the Bush administration knew that it wouldn’t – but don’t take my word for it – let’s take a look at this clip of Dick Cheney from 1994: [Cut to clip of Dick Cheney]

Interviewer: “Do you think the US or UN forces should have moved into Baghdad?”

Cheney: “No.”

Interviewer: “Why not?”

Cheney: “Because, if we’d have gone into Baghdad, we’d have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else who were with us. It would have been a US Occupation of Iraq.

“None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

“Once you got to Iraq and took it over and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, what you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government in Iraq, you’re going to easily see pieces of Iraq flying off. Part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west. The part of Eastern Iraq, Iran would like to claim. They fought for it, for 8 years. In the north, you’ve got the Kurds – the Jurds spin loose and then join the Kurds in Turkey and then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire, if you try to go that far and take over Iraq.” (End of Cheney sequence)

That was very astute, Dick!

You accurately predicted the mess that you’re going to help create in 2003. I would even venture to say that your predictions were more accurate than those who warned against this adventure. I’m impressed!

Now, you’ll notice that the talking heads, on the left and right are both trying to frame this crisis is fault the other side. They’re both right: Both sides of the aisle have blood on their hands in this goes WAAAYYY beyond Bush or Obama.

The United States has been tinkering in Iraq for a long long time

In fact, it was the CIA that put Hussein in power in 1963.

Don’t take my word for it. Go read this article from New York Times:

The US government also backed Saddam, in 1980 when he launched a wa aggression against Iran – even though they knew he was using chemical weapons – but again, don’t take my word for it, go read this article, by Foreign Policy magazine:

Fast-forward to 1990. Saddam Hussein was embroiled with Kuwait with oil prices and borders and he was preparing to take action. Given America’s support for the war against Iran, Saddam had no reason to think that Kuwait would be any different, but just to be sure, he decided consult with Washington, first.

On July 25th, 1990, US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein. In their meeting, Saddam described his case and told Glaspie his view that their activities is an act of military aggression. Glaspie responded by saying, quote: “We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”

She reinforced this by saying, “This issue is not associated with America.”

Naturally, Saddam interpreted this as green light and eight days later, he invaded.

Later, during questioning in hearings, Glaspie claimed that those quotes were accurate but she followed it up by insisting that Iraq settle its dispute in a non-violently.

Cut to Glaspie Hearing:

(Voice of Sen. Alan Cranston): “Did you say we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border dispute with Kuwait?”

Glaspie: “Yes, that was one part of my sentence but the other part of my sentence was that, “we insist that you settle your disputes with Kuwait, non-violently.”

(End of hearing clip).

However, that’s not what we read when read the transcripts of the meeting from the New York Times:

Glaspie: “We have no opinion with your border disagreement with Kuwait.

“I was in the US Embassy during the late 60s. The instruction that we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can resolve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you you to see how this issue appears to us?”

According to the transcript, she said that, “All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.”

But maybe this was just an innocent diplomatic blunder, right?

Well, not quite.

As soon as Saddam invaded of Kuwait, the US government launched a very interesting propaganda campaign to build public support for war, by claiming that Iraqi troops were slaughtering little babies, by throwing them out of incubators in hospitals and a bringing in teary-eyed witnesses, who testified to having seen the massacre. [Infamous Clip of Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter lying about Iraqi soldiers murdering premature infants].

Just one little problem. The entire event was fabricated. Never happened.

This woman, who presented herself as a witness was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador in the United States and her testimony was part of a public relations campaign organized by a company called Hill & Knowlton.

Once the public support for the war was strong, the incubator story was dropped and never mentioned again.

The US invaded Iraq in 1991. During that war, the US military utilized approximately 640,000 pounds and depleted uranium and munitions.

Iraq was decimated. But the US left Saddam in power

But the war didn’t really end, though. The US kept Iraq under draconian sanctions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.

Clinton kept those sanctions in place for the entire duration of his Presidency.

[Cut to ’60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl interview with Madeleine Albright]:

Stahl: “We have heard a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?”

Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice…but the price, we think the price is worth it.”

[End of ’60 Minutes’ segment]

You know, how they say that those who don’t know history you’re destined repeat it. That’s really not an exaggeration.

Fast-forward to 2003 and your incubator story was swapped-out with stories of mobile missile silos and “yellowcake uranium” – and when it turned out those weapons of mass destruction didn’t exist, they acted like it was no big deal – and then, of course, came Obama, riding in on promises of “Change.”

We saw how Obama toppled Libya in 2011, leaving that nation in utter chaos, we’ve seen how he’s armed and funded Syrian rebels in an attempt to bring down Assad.

Obama is operating from the same playbook!

Yes, there is a playbook.

[Cut to Democracy Now! talk by Gen. Wesley Clarke]:

Clarke: “About ten days after 9/11, I went to the Pentagon. I saw Secretary, Ron Shelton and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and went downstairs, just to say hello to some of the people who used to work for me.

“And one of the generals called me and said, ‘Sir, You’ve got to come in and talk to me for a second.’ And I said, ‘Well, you’re too busy,’ and he said, ‘No, no!’ He said, ‘We’ve made the decision that we’re going to war with Iraq!’

“This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq, why?’ He said, ‘I don’t know!’ He said, ‘I guess they don’t know what else to do.’

And so, I said, “Did they find some information connecting Saddam to al Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, no, there’s nothing new, that way, they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He said, “It’s like, we don’t know what to do with terrorists but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments and if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem needs to look like a nail.”

“So, I came back to see him a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. And I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ and he said, ‘It’s worse than that. He said, as he reached across the desk for a piece of paper, “I just got this from upstairs, from the Secretary of Defense’s Office today and it says, we’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years. Starting with Iraq and then, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia Sudan and finish off with Iran.'”

Fortunately the future is not set in stone. We can influence the outcome and we already are. We proved that, in 2013, when the left to the right dropped their petty bickering in unifying against Obama’s proposed use of air strikes against Assad.

The deceit is the same.

This time, the people didn’t fall for it. The fact we had the UN investigator Carla del Ponte to come out and say that the Syrian rebels were behind sarin gas attacks – helped – The fact that Putin short-circuited the US, diplomatically – helped.

But the determining factor was the popular resistance – particularly, the signs discontent from within the military.

See, the ruling class is very hesitant to take a nation to war, when the people in the military strongly oppose it.

That’s why it first casualty of war is always the truth.

What’s going on, right now in Iraq is horrific. The ISIS is already committing atrocities against civilians, on a massive scale.

Inexplicably, the Obama administration did not provide Iraq with immediate air support, even after the fall of Mosul.

I say, “inexplicably,” not because I support air strikes, but because on June 12, the US conducted its second drone strike this month, in Pakistan. Why would Obama hesitate to employ air-strikes in Iraq, where civilians are being massacred while employing drones in Pakistan, without hesitation?

I’ll tell you why.

Because the atrocities being committed by the ISIS might form a back door into Syria.

You see, Obama *is* considering air strikes – but not just in Iraq; he wants to extend those strikes into Syria, as well.

Well, that’s convenient, isn’t it?

Once the Obama Administration is able to get into Syrian territory, then getting the regime change they want, will be much, much easier.

It’s the classic formula: PROBLEM. REACTION. SOLUTION.

They created the problem. They’re letting the public build up outrage and then, they’re going to propose a solution which is going to sow the seeds for other conflicts.

To short-circuit this pattern, the public needs to come to terms with the cold, hard truth.

No matter what the US does at this point no matter how long they stay, there is no happy ending to this story. The chaos that we’re seeing in this region is the direct result half a century US military interventions covert operations in the Middle East time to acknowledge that bombing for peace doesn’t work. Regime change with stability doesn’t work and you can’t fix a mistake by repeating it, over and over and over.

If the US honestly wants to stop the spread of Islamic terrorism, then they should stop funding and arming jihadists, in Syria.

That would be a good starting point. Don’t you think?

Contributed by


Alexandra Bruce

View all posts

Add comment

#1 Immune Support & Detox – Use Promo Code “FORBIDDEN” for FREE SHIPPING

*** Medical Emergency Kit *** Use Promo Code “KNOW” for 10% Off!


Most Viewed Posts