Questioning the Narrative: Mosul, Ramadi, Iraq, ISIS/ISIL, WW3, Media

Reproduced below is an essay I wrote at the very end of December 2015 in response to an article in The Guardian, a 'left-leaning' English newspaper. I thought it might be interesting for those who follow what is happening in the middle-east to jump back over a year and remember where things stood.

In it I discuss what I feel the purpose of the article was as part of the constant onslaught of biased propaganda that is fed to western 'news' consumers. Included is some predictions for how I saw the article linking to the overall picture in Iraq and predictions for what they were planning in future. I believe the media is used to prepare populations for the future that TPTB are creating.

Hence, I think we all need to question the narrative that is put forward. Not just in isolation with regard to specific events but in the overall sense that every small piece of propaganda is one piece in a huge jigsaw.

After the essay I will mention a couple of points raised in it that seem very relevant right now in May 2017.

Questioning the Narrative
Iraqi PM declares Isis will be 'terminated' in 2016 (Guardian, Tuesday 29 December, Kareem Shaheen, Istanbul)

So there we have it. The writing seems well and truly on the wall for ISIL as Iraqi forces storm into Ramadi and route the bastards with a panache rarely seen since ISIL themselves waltzed into several major population centres in Mesopotamia and sent government forces fleeing for their lives. In 2016 ISIL will be 'terminated' in a 'big and final victory' destroying their presence in Iraq, according to Iraqi PM al-Abadi. Obama praised the 'courage and determination' of the Iraqi armed forces. The US Defense Secretary even got in on the act with some choice words for ISIL.

Of course, European leaders put their tuppence worth in. Fortunately for us, the British played a key role in the glorious offensive, aiding the attack with sky-bombs. However, the attack was led by Irag's 'elite counter-terrorism unit' who are presumably as elite, if not even more so, than Saddam's old elite republican guard.

The narrative neatly turned to the northern city of Mosul which Iraq wants back from the terrorists by the end of the year. It is there that British sky-bombs supported the Kurds in their valiant efforts and no doubt will play a significant part in the year to come.

Ramadi was the latest in a recent 'series of defeats' for ISIL. Sinjar, homeland of the Yazidis, was another key loss. Meanwhile, across the border, more Kurdish paramilitaries are lapping up ex-ISIL territory in the north of Syria. 'Human shields' screams the last paragraph... in case it was all too much and we had forgotten in our tiny brains that ISIL are indeed BAD GUYS.

Now for the questions. First of all, numerous sources of power across the world, not least the local bully boy Sunni states Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are anxious about the Shia power grab that is the Iraqi government and its associated armed forces. So considering it is well accepted that the Iraqi army is a de facto Shia army and the majority of Iraq's Sunni tribes and Kurds are not involved... and considering the Iraqi army is backed and supported by Iran and Shia militias... and considering the fact that Ramadi is/was a Sunni town, indeed a key town in the 'Sunni heartland' of Iraq... and considering the Sunni make-up of ISIL which of course grew out of the Sunni group Al-Qaeda in Iraq... and considering the ongoing attempts to stir sectarian violence by ISIL, other terror groups and even (whisper it) state players, both in Iraq and the wider middle-east... what exactly does the Sunni heartland population in Ramadi and other local areas think of a Shia-state army, backed by Shia militias and supported by Iran, 'liberating' the town on the back of tanks and armoured vehicles? What is going to happen to Ramadi now? What will the ethnic make-up of the town be a year from now? Will the Sunni Dulaim tribe, known for their support for extremists and being utterly antithetical to the Shia government, appreciate the Shia forces populating the town? Will Ramadi exist in the future and why was it worth the lives lost? Take a look at the photos of the troops celebrating in Ramadi. They aren't exactly surrounded by a joyous local population. In fact, the buildings have been effectively turned to rubble. Simply put, I don't believe Ramadi is important as a population centre for local Sunnis to live in and I don't believe that is the reason for its liberation.

Next, why is Iraq pushing so hard against ISIL now and why decide that they need to take Mosul by the end of next year? They ran away from Mosul without a fight and gifted one of the largest cities in Iraq to ISIL just a year and a half ago. Mosul isn't close to being a Shia city or a threat to Baghdad. It is however, near to where Turkish troops illegally entered Iraq in recent weeks in a move that in most parts of the world would have been condemned as an act of territorial aggression and quite possibly war. In the quagmire of Iraq and Syria it is merely another strategic power grab by a world or regional power. Iraq is fragmenting into different areas along ethnic and sectarian lines. In respect of the Mosul situation it is clear that Turkey are making attempts to shore up their territorial integrity against a possibly future Kurdish state. Both the US and Shia Iraq do not appreciate this posturing and plan to ensure that Turkey doesn't become the dominant power in northern Iraq.

Finally, with European, British and American politicians spouting their bull# in the occupied media it is clear that the content is sanctioned. This means that the sky-bombs will rain. And rain. And rain. Make no mistake, Mosul is a huge city with a population still of probably well over a million. Destroying ISIL's last major rule in Iraq and returning the city to Iraqi/Kurdish/Turkish/American (delete as appropriate) hands is likely to be long drawn-out and perilous. The scramble to own Iraq's northern oilfields that has been in full play for a long while is set to heat up. Ramadi meanwhile is a key strategic location in Anbar province where ISIL control has meant a difficult security situation since the West started exploiting recently discovered treasure troves of both oil and gas. Removing the ISIL threat from western Iraq and getting the Sunni tribes onside is a win-win situation for the US et al and for the Iraqi Shia government.

What this is ultimately about is control of the resources of what used to be Iraq. The foreboding clouds are gathering over Mosul and ISIL's days in control of that city are soon numbered. There are too many interests vying for control. My vague prediction at this stage is that Iraq will be redrawn, if not officially into different countries, certainly into autonomous regions. It will soon be time to welcome a Sunni tribal Western Iraq, a Shia Southern Iraq and a consolidation of Iraqi Kurdistan. I believe the West thinks that will be easier to manage and manipulate. We'll see about that.

a reply to: mersaultdies

Hence, I think we all need to question the narrative that is put forward. Not just in isolation with regard to specific events but in the overall sense that every small piece of propaganda is one piece in a huge jigsaw.

It is really simple. Endless war , the same as used in Vietnam, not to win, because how do you defeat invisible enemies in a war on communism or today, Terrorism (the same war against communism), fought the same way in protracted chain linked events.

Like the war in Iraq. They want us to believe the war is several wars, "The first gulf war", then Operation Iraqi Freedom, (Mission accomplished), various surges, and now still we fight in Iraq but fight again, some invisible enemy.

Endless war in Iraq, and other places like Afghanistan (where empires go to die) can never be won, because subjugation of peoples and nations is a never ending job. People don't submit to military occupations by foreign armies, period.

So they lie to us, change the narrative, develop 'new enemies' to deflect from the same wars of conquest for resources, territory and control.

Had to make a new post to make a couple of points that might be interesting and give an idea of where things are going now.

1. Luckily for many people in northern Iraq, Turkey now works quite well with the Iraqi Kurds in Iraqi territory. This fact alone means Turkey didn't feel the need to carve a chunk out of Iraq, displacing many people and creating instability in the process. The oil flows as well from the Kurds as it did from ISIS!
2. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Syria. The Kurds in northern Syria are more closely aligned with the 'terrorist' Kurd groups in Turkey itself. Turkey fears Rojavia and so HAS carved out a chunk of New Greater Turkey in northern Syria. Obviously, if Kurds controlled the entire border of Syria/Turkey it would be interesting to see what happened to the Jihadi fighter flow into and out of Syria.
3. Anbar state, where Ramadi is, populated mainly by Sunnis, has been left largely alone since the article. Put it this way, if the Shia government had allowed the Kurds and their allies to take Mosul and surrounding areas whilst it got bogged down in Anbar it would lose a huge piece of the Iraq bread basket. So, for now, ISIS have been allowed to maintain a large presence in many Anbar towns and the desert around, also ensuring good access for them between Iraq, Syria and Jordan for supplies and resources.

What happens next?

Well, ISIS get mopped up in Mosul and Nineveh province over the next six months. Relative stability in the northern oilfields. Good relations between Iraqi Shia, Kurds and Turkey for the time being. At some point Iraq will need to turn its attention to Anbar and that is when they might need to prepare for more Kurdish land grabs.
The real meta issues have shifted over to Syria where ISIS and similar groups will have something of a last stand. The Euphrates is absolutely key and I have already seen the US, Syrian Kurds and Assad all coveting Raqqa and Deir Ez Zor in recent days. On top of that, the Kurds have suggested they might be interested in a corridor leading to the Med, meaning that piece of current New Greater Turkey in northern Syria could be up for grabs. I wonder if this could all hinge on relations between Turkey and Russia. If they become close buddies in order to exclude the US from the majority of Syria we better get ready for further hell to break loose. All the gas men have their eyes on that Euphrates corridor so the corporate west will not allow it to be handed over to Syria and Russia without a big fight. The US will back the Syrian Kurds to take as much as they can and WW3 will begin to ramp up even further!

Interviewer: Do you think UN forces should have moved into Baghdad?

Dick Cheney: No.

Interviewer: Why not?

Cheney: Because if we would have gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone there, there wouldn't have been anyone else 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 over Saddam's government then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government of Iraq you can easily see portions of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of Eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the North you have the kurds, If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you question the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire.

They knew what was going to happen a decade before it was done.

EU-NATO media are now actively making up propaganda movies to blame atrocities on the Iraqi army and attempt to save EU funded ISIS terrorists.

Just found out the kurds are sunni muslims and the Iraqi's are mixed shias and sunni ... huh didn't know.

Here i thought ALL muslims would support ISIS.

a reply to: MorbidGenie

Iran is Shia ad doesn't support ISIS. Saudi is Sunni....

The Kurds are not all Sunni Muslims as far as I know, more of a mixed bag. There's a lot of different variants of Kurds.

a reply to: D8Tee

Actually the Kurds are 98% sunnis and 2% shia doesn't sound like a mixed bag to me. Btw if you re read my old message i mentioned Iraq not Iran they're different nations. Iraq is more mixed Iran is completely Shia with some 70,000 jews.

And its well known across the muslim world that Saudi Arabia isn't just sunni they are Salafi extremists.