Why wouldn't the U.S. bomb Shiite holy places in Iraq and shift the blame to Sunnis? Why wouldn't the U.S. want a civil war in Iraq?

Hasn't the U.S. Always pursued "divide and rule" strategies, starting with the earliest days of conquering the native inhabitants of Turtle Island?

Didn't the British allies of the U.S. get caught with SAS soldiers in Arab garb driving around Basra with bomb-making materials in their vehicle?

Weren't the Brits so concerned over the capture of their covert operators by Iraqi police that they broke them out of custody, using tanks to destroy a local jail?

Anyone who doubts that the U.S. wouldn't deliberately provoke hostility within the Iraqi population is naive, ignorant, or stupid.

Didn't the U.S. set up an Iraqi constitution that subdivided the nation by religion and culture in order to provoke resource disputes between the subdivisions?

Wouldn't a united Iraq that insisted on full Iraqi sovereignty and control of Iraqi assets and wealth be a bigger challenge to U.S. hegemony that a divided Iraq, no matter how great the intra-Iraqi violence patterns?

After all, the U.S. personnel can stay relatively safe within the Green Zone or military bases with patrol aircraft and mechanized infantry providing security while Iraqis blow the hell out of each other all over the country.

The U.S. can send Navy Seals or Delta Force operatives to bomb golden mosques or any other locations they can get access to. Haven't U.S. personnel been photographed in native garb in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they do the same in Iraq?

Divide and Rule. That strategy is as old as warfare itself. Much is at stake, and letting the divided enemy self-destruct is much more painless than head-on confrontation. [Stan Moore @ MMN]


ISRAEL'S WET DREAM: THE BREAK-UP OF IRAQ

Arab analysts believe the US and its Western allies are executing a "divide and rule" policy in Iraq.

They cite a 1982 report, A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s, written by Israeli strategist Oded Yinon which states the break-up of Iraq was an imperative for Israel.

"Definitely they ruined the Iraqi state because it was calling for Arab unity and refused to shake hands with Israelis," he said.

"What are they doing now in Iraq? They are doing everything to divide the country, it is their final aim, and anybody who cannot see that is acting like an ostrich trying to bury its head in the sand."

He pointed to recent calls by some Iraqi Shia parties to establish an autonomous region in the south of the country as evidence of that aim.

FUTURE DANGERS

Al-Sammak also believes that fragmentation is a strategic goal in the Middle East, modelled after the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, which divided Arab lands formerly under Ottoman rule to British and French hegemony.

"They do not want states; they are working to establish easy-to-control micro entities. They believe that state-of-the-art arsenals are not enough to secure the Jewish state. What would really secure it is the breaking up of Arab countries," he said.

Ha'ivri, however, sees "American/European imperialism" as a dangerous precedent in Iraq that could play out to be a threat to Israel's sovereignty.

"They very well may try to impose their rule on our land as well," he said.

"The USA and the European Union are all Christian countries; of course their beliefs influence polices and decision-making when they pick countries that they chose to enlighten with 'democracy' - the latter being no more than an excuse for their invasion [of Iraq]." [Al Jazeera