![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
DIG DIRECTOR
Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer, served as a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author, most recently, of "Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change" (Nation Books).
|
|||||||||||||||
Scott Ritter: Calling Out Idiot AmericaA Dig led by Scott Ritter(Page 4) To the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia there were two great sources of religious heretics: the Shiites, who ruled in Iran and represented a majority population in several Arab nations, including Iraq, and worse still, the Sunni Arabs, who rejected the true path as represented by the teachings of Wahhab. The puritanical form of Islam pushed by the Wahhabis was difficult to export, however, until the oil crisis of 1973, after which the Saudi government was able to fund the printing of Wahhabi literature and training of Wahhabi missionaries. In Iraq, there was some attraction to the puritanical teachings of Wahhabism among the Bedouin of the western deserts. However, with the rise to power of Saddam Hussein, Wahhabism and those who proselytized in its name were treated as enemies of the state. Wahhabism was still practiced in the shadows of Sunni mosques throughout Iraq, but anyone caught doing so was immediately arrested and put to death. Wahhabi concerns over the weakening of the Muslim world by those who practiced anything other than pure Islam were certified in the minds of the faithful when, in April 2003, American soldiers captured Baghdad in what many Wahhabis viewed as a repeat of the sack of the city at the hands of the Mongols in 1258. Adding insult to injury, the role of Iraq’s Shiites in aiding and abetting the American conquest was seen as proof positive that the only salvation for the faithful could come at the hands of a pure form of the Islamic faith, that of Wahhabism. As the American liberation dragged on into the American occupation, and the level of violence between the Shiites and Sunnis grew, the call of jihad as promulgated by the Wahhabis gained increasing credence among the tribes of western Iraq. The longer the Americans remain in Iraq, the more violence the Americans bring down on Iraq, and the more the Americans are seen as facilitating the persecution of the Sunnis by the Shiites, the more legitimate the call of the Wahhabi fanatics become. While American strategists may speak of the rise of al-Qaida in Iraq, this is misrecognition of what is really happening. Rather than foreigners arriving and spreading Wahhabism in Iraq, the virulent sect of Islamic fundamentalism is spreading on its own volition, assisted by the incompetence and brutality of an American occupation completely ignorant of the reality of the land and people it occupies. This is the true significance of Baghdad, and any answer not reflecting this will be graded as failing. A pop quiz, consisting of one question in two parts. Most readers might complain that it is not realistic to expect mainstream America to possess the knowledge necessary to achieve the level of comprehension required to pass this quiz. I agree. However, since the mission of the United States in Iraq has shifted from disarming Saddam to installing democracy to creating stability, I think it only fair that the American people be asked about those elements that are most relevant to the issue, namely the Shiite and Sunni faithful and how they interact with one another. It is sadly misguided to believe that surging an additional 20,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad and western Iraq will even come close to redressing the issues raised in this article. And if you concur that the reality of Iraq is far too complicated to be understood by the average American, yet alone cured by the dispatch of additional troops, then we have a collective responsibility to ask what the hell we are doing in that country to begin with. If this doesn’t represent a clarion call for bringing our men and women home, nothing does. Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) and “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006). Dig last updated on Mar. 23, 2007Advertisement
Elsewhere: .
CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By SocraticGadfly, March 27 at 11:47 am # Great in places but quasi-Shiite simplistic on religiousRitter’s article was interesting, especially the first page, which says what I’ve said for quite some time about Democrats. Of course, he didn’t say how he was voting. Beyond that, he himself greatly oversimplified the history of the Islamic Middle East. Multiple separate emirates had split off from the Abbasid Caliphate by two centuries after Muhammed’s death, including one run by a descendant of Ali on the south shore of the Caspian. Multiple independent Sunni caliphates were in existence by a century later. And, Christian, Christian Gnostic and non-Christian Gnostic groups had already had their influence on groups like the Alawite and Druze. In short, some of the martyrdom complex of Shi’as is overwrought. And, Shi’as have a story to tell, one that may not always match up with reality. Also, an explicit claim for the origin of Sufism from Sunni Islam is not unanimous, at the least, and highly controversial at the most, among experts. Some claim it goes back to Muhammad itself; others that it at least arose before the split between Shi’as and Sunnis became final. Yet others argue that Sufism was influenced by pre-Muslim Persian beliefs. Sufism in the Ottoman Empire probably developed from pre-conversion Turkish shamanism brought with them from Central Asia.
By Conservative Yankee, October 28, 2007 at 4:35 am # 109592 by Ernest Canning on 10/25 at 3:33 pm “CY, I don’t want to go back into it too deeply” Neither do I, the only difference we have is in the non-confirmable items. Personally, I believe Kennedy though he could control the situation, and personnel and learned in the last seconds of his life that he could not, and that they were not working for him and his administration! AND as I’ve mentioned before there’s enough dirt here to burry everyone! The population (if it survives) will learn the whole sordid truth in about 100 years. (jackie said 50 years after Carolyn’s death.
By Nils Cognizant, October 25, 2007 at 2:32 pm # Mr. Ritter is immersed in reality and historical trend. Why would anyone put up with such arrogance? Next thing you know, word will spread and the textbooks issued to schoolkids will begin reflecting an accurate account of past events. Of course, there are no truly past events. All previous decisions made by American leaders exert unending influence on the course of events. I think this is the thrust of Ritter’s argument: those willing to participate in forcing change will alter physically the layout of the planet near and long term. One argument for not invading Iran, aside from those already enumerated in this forum, is that invasions by the United States against other nations over our entire existence, have mostly been against helpless smaller nations. This is moral cowardice. Compound this with the reality of chicken hawks directing our foreign policy and you have the makings of a world in turmoil. Pointless turmoil. The kicker, if one is needed, is that this President has a subordinate trailing after him everywhere he goes toting the holy brief case, the one with the codes and buttons which will permit Mr. Bush to launch multiple nuclear attacks against the world’s cities. Since the military leadership and the Congress have not shown much interest in defending this nation’s Constitution, they can hardly be expected to defend the rest of the world.
By Conservative Yankee, October 25, 2007 at 11:31 am # I surely agree that Drugs were used as a political weapon by our government during Vietnam, The Reagan years, and through the Bush/Noriega connection. Guess what The Kennedy administration did it too… In Cuba, with the help of the Genovese family of New York, Johnny Roselli and Sam Giancana. The Kennedys gave the Genovese family a “look the other way” deal and in return the Genoveses were to make Castro nervous or better still… stiff! Drug wars, (like campaign finance reform) is a subject neither party wants to complete. Discuss it, rail about it, pretend to do something, then take the money for the next campaign
By ewastud, October 25, 2007 at 2:05 am # Interesting synopsis of history of that region of the world, Scott. However, it seems to overplay the schism between Shiite and Sunni, IMHO, as there are many marriages among the Iraqi people of Sunni and Shiite. Also, if everyone felt religious passions as strongly as implied in your account, it seems that there should be no sentiments for keeping the country united among its people. I don’t believe that to be the case, generally. Iraq has existed as a nation long enough for the people to have a unique identity of their own as a people separate from their religious upbringings and despite those inherent divisions.
By John Borowski, October 13, 2007 at 6:24 am # A commentator praises Ron Paul: 1 He has never voted to raise taxes – We have taxes and plenty of them. 2 He has never voted for an unbalanced budget – We have an unbalance budget bigger than you know. 3 He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. - Neither would criminals, psychotics, and six year old school children. 4 He has never voted to raise congressional pay –With the Congresses’ pay they will never be eligible for food stamps. 5 He has never taken a government–paid junket –The only place the Congress folks have not junketed to is Mars. 6 He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. - Bush has more power than Hitler ever dreamed of having. 7 He voted against the Patriot Act. - the Patriot is fully operational 8 He voted against regulating the Internet – Ask MoveOn web site and the British about this interdiction. 9 He voted against the Iraq war – Has this “Peace-nik” recently check the wooden boxes in Delaware? 10 He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program – Although I’m sure he is getting his share now or in the future. 11 He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the US treasury every year. – Does he write this off as a charitable contribution? Has he done this because all of these things are guaranteed to become a fact of life while he benefits from there unpopularity? Will the pope ever vote him in as a saint?
By Conservative Yankee, October 12, 2007 at 5:49 am # EC “Sure seems this specific episode warrants a Congressional investigation and wider coverage in the corporate media.” You were in Vietnam, so you must remember the scads of money (US greenbacks) available for dishonest work? Dad was in WW II and he says the same bundles of cash were used there to buy French support among the Vichy… he says he came across a bale of money in the fields near the Marne,he says he treated it with the same caution he normally reserved for land mines!
By Conservative Yankee, October 11, 2007 at 4:55 am # “How many semis were need to move $2.4 billion in $100 bills?” I heard it was done with C130 transports, and hauled away in boxcars.
By Conservative Yankee, October 9, 2007 at 12:10 pm # 105584 by Ernest Canning on 10/08 at 3:12 pm “The reasons stated...are...their intention to begin transferring all of their weapons grade plutonium to their Savannah River Site located in South Carolina,” Thank Lucius Mendel Rivers for this site. He begged the Feds for it when no other State would have it. That’s L. Mendel Rivers, (D) S.C.
By John Hanks, October 8, 2007 at 5:59 am # The cost of keeping these grafters and chiselers happy is a good mass transportation system to say the least. Israel has at least 200 nukes, and yet it helps our bums by buying M-60’s and turning them into Colonial tanks. It just goes on and on - just one big protection racket.
By Guido, October 7, 2007 at 11:14 pm # Mike, Other than profiteering, one of the functions of war is to replace equipment and armaments therefore making room for newer more sophisticated technology. The rate at which the USA churn out new weapons and equipment, virtually guarantees that older equipment has to be put to use. Selling it would not do as there is way too much of it and, anyway, governments that have the money to spend on armaments want newer stuff (i.e. Saudi and Israel) I suspect that one of the drivers of Mr. Sarkozy’s new aggressive policy is just that. France is the only European country to have a military worthy of the name and it’s now been many decades since they’ve had a serious engagement that would allow them to re-equip with more sophisticated weaponry and equipment. Sarkozy needs to do some spring cleaning. Wait till the Chinese and/or the Russians have to clean house too.
By John Hanks, October 7, 2007 at 5:49 pm # Supposedly the trillions went to Israel. It was sent there by the pentagon controller named Dov (somethingorother) as partial payment for Mossad participation in 911. It’s just amazing how all these clowns with dual citizenship managed to parley themselves into positions of power where they have a right to steal.
By Mike Clark Former Marine in Vietnam, October 7, 2007 at 3:20 pm # This is no problem as far as I am concerned in funding this war, but where has all the money gone. We keep sending money and weapons to Iraq, but then we here 150,00 AK47’s missing don’t know what happened to them. forgot to write the serial numbers down what kind of crap is that. We have US Companies that have Government contracts that they are abusing but not completing what they were paid for. The outright fraud and abuse is outrageous according to the Armed services Committee in Washington. They supposedly have aver 20,000 auditors at the defense department supposed to be watching out for this kind of abuse. That is my concern just like what happened in Vietnam when we left all that equipment there when we left. when I asked I was told don’t worry about it its just government money. I almost shot the son of a bitch and he was an officer. I am tired of all the abuse and no one is watching. Article after article of money missing and it is in the billions. Answer fron Congress just don’t worry about it. They just spend the taxpayers money like it is water they don’t care but the American people car and it needs to stop.
By John Hanks, October 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm # Iraq was a huge money pit. (We always say we are bringing Democracy to the heathen). Leverage, oil, opium, weapons, graft, employement, etc. were the reasons behind this outrage. Iran is to pay Israel and Saudi Arabia for the help they provided with the 911 stunt.
By Guido, October 3, 2007 at 9:19 pm # Exactly. Anyone that has spent any time in the Middle East would have known that “Democracy” is a non starter around here just because tribalism, social dynamics and, lastly, religion preclude it. Therefore, the war was a sham from the word go. Add Your Comment |
|
||||||||||||||
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article