Editorial Note: The following news reports are summaries from original sources. They may also include corrections of Arabic names and political terminology. Comments are in parentheses. Share this article with your facebook friends

 

Zionist Operative, Tony Blair, Admits That US-UK 2003 Invasion of Iraq Led to the Rise of the Islamic State

October 26, 2015 

Editor's Note:

The Zionist operative, Tony Blair, claimed yesterday that the US-UK invasion and destruction of Iraq was the right decision!

Why was it the right decision? Right for whom?

It was a Zionist decision to destroy the Middle East, executed by Zionist puppets like Tony, the B Liar, in preparation for extending Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates.

For a background about the Israeli-led destruction of the Middle East, read:

Creative Destruction: The Name of the Game in the Middle East

 

The Israeli puppet Tony Blair

 

Tony Blair: The clear lesson of Iraq war

By Tony Blair

CNN, Sun October 25, 2015

Tony Blair

The real choice for the Middle East was, and is, reform or revolution. So when we come to reassess Iraq, it is possible to disagree strongly with the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003, to be highly critical both of the intelligence on WMD and the planning for the aftermath, and yet still be glad that he is gone.

Indeed, had he and his two sons been running Iraq in 2011 when the regional revolts began, it is hard to see how the upheaval would not have spread to Iraq and hard to see that he would not have behaved like his fellow Baathist Bashar al-Assad rather than like the presidents of Egypt or Tunisia who stood down. The probability is that Hussein would have tried to cling to power by whatever means no matter how brutal.

In Iraq, we would have had a leader from the Sunni minority keeping out the Shia majority; in Syria, of course, we have the opposite -- a Shia-backed leader from the minority keeping out a Sunni majority. The consequences of this would have been vast.

Of the four nations in a state of trauma today in the region -- Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya -- only one has a government that is fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (with whatever difficulty), is doing so with full international support, has its leader recognized by both Saudi Arabia and Iran, and one who visits the White House.

It is correct, as Fareed Zakaria's documentary describes, that Iraq has been hugely expensive in lives lost and money spent. I understand completely the anger and anxiety this causes.

But we do not yet know the cost of Syria or Libya. In both cases, we sought regime change. And in Libya we achieved it through military power. I make no criticisms of these decisions. I know better than most how hard they are.

However, it is not immediately plain that policy on Libya and Syria has been more successful than Iraq. As for ISIS, it is true that it was formed after Hussein's removal. But it is also true by 2009, al Qaeda and other jihadist groups were largely beaten in Iraq, and it was in Syria -- after 2011 -- where ISIS came to prominence and became the threat it is today.

I accept some of the strictures about the planning in Iraq, which had centered on the consequences of humanitarian disaster post-invasion and what would happen to the institutions of the country or if Hussein used WMD. But, part of the reason why Iraq became very difficult was that we did not perceive the full scale of the underlying extremism and its attendant violence. Where this type of extremism operates, there is a limit to what planning can do. They need to be fought against.

Of course, some will say we should never have gone into Iraq because that gave the extremists an opportunity. But my point is that had we never removed Hussein, it is not at all clear that we would be in a better position today post-2011 -- or that he would not have used the erosion of sanctions (and, back then, $100 a barrel oil) to go back to his old games.

Not until the Middle East has gone through its painful transition to modernity will we be able to pass a full judgment on the effects of decision to go to war in 2003.

***

Britain's Blair says 2003 Iraq invasion played role in Islamic State rise

 Reuters Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:24pm EDT

LONDON --

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged the 2003 invasion of Iraq played a part in the rise of the Islamic State militant group, and apologized for some mistakes in planning the war, in an interview broadcast on Sunday.

Blair's decision to send troops to back the U.S.-led invasion is still a live political issue in Britain, where a six-year public inquiry into the conflict is yet to publish its findings. [ID:nL5N1113IL]

Asked whether the offensive was the principal cause of the rise of Islamic State, which now controls large areas of Iraq and neighboring Syria, Blair said there were "elements of truth" in that.

"Of course, you can't say that those of us who removed (former Iraqi dictator) Saddam (Hussein) in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015," Blair told U.S. network CNN.

Critics say the U.S. decision to disband Saddam Hussein’s army after the invasion created a huge security vacuum exploited by al Qaeda, which was eventually replaced by Islamic State.

Some former Iraqi army officers, members of the Sunni Muslim minority which says it has been marginalized by the Shi’ite-led government backed by Western powers, are senior strategists in Islamic State. The Iraqi government says it has not marginalized Sunnis.

Blair said the "Arab Spring" uprisings across the region also affected Iraq, and pointed out that Islamic State had risen out of a base in Syria, not Iraq.

Blair apologized for what he described as mistakes in planning and intelligence before the war and in preparations for would happen once Saddam was removed, but said it had been the right decision.

"We have tried intervention and putting down troops in Iraq; we've tried intervention without putting in troops in Libya; and we've tried no intervention at all but demanding regime change in Syria. It's not clear to me that, even if our policy did not work, subsequent policies have worked better," he said.

"I find it hard to apologize for removing Saddam. I think, even from today in 2015, it is better that he's not there than that he is there."

(Reporting by Kylie MacLellan; Editing by Andrew Heavens) 

***

Destruction of Iraq as a result of the US-UK invasion and its aftermath. This is just today, October 28, 2015:

الأخبار السياسية صلاح الدين اا هجوم عنيف يستهدف القوات الحكومية ومي.. بغداد اا السلطات الحكومية تفرض اجراءات مشددة على م.. صلاح الدين اا اصابات بين المدنيين بسقوط صواريخ كات.. بغداد اا تفجير في شارع الكفاح يخلف قتلى ومصابين.. تهديدات امريكية اا دنفورد: حكومة بغداد ستفقد دعمنا.. بغداد اا قتلى وجرحى من ميليشيا الحشد الشعبي بتفجير.. جرائم الميليشيات اا تهجير طائفي وموجة نزوح لأهالي .. صراعات سياسية اا تصاعد حدة التوتر والخلافات بين حز.. بغداد اا استهداف دورية للشرطة الحكومية بتفجير شمال.. صراعات سياسية اا نيجرفان بارزاني يقصي وزراء ومسؤول.. البصرة اا نزاع عشائري جديد يوقع قتلى ومصابين.. استعراض شامل لأهم وأبرز التطورات الأمنية والسياسية..

 

 

***

Share this article with your facebook friends