06/25/14 – Dahr Jamail – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, y'all, Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager whose site is unique on the web.
Subscribers are allowed a window into Mike's very real main account and receive announcements and explanations for all his market moves.
Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply to finance the bank bailouts and terror war overseas.
So Mike's betting on commodities, mining stocks, European markets, and other hedges against a depreciating dollar.
Play along on paper or with real money and then be your own judge of Mike's investment strategies.
See what happens at WallStreetWindow.com.
So we got to differentiate which Iraq war we're talking about.
Ronald Reagan had his own, only he was on Saddam's side.
Anyway, welcome back to the show.
I know that you're beat nowadays.
You're trying to find peace and do some environmental work and it's important journalism, I'm sure.
But I need your expertise on the war here, Dar.
So thank you very much for joining us today.
Oh, my pleasure, Scott.
And I am going to be writing about Iraq again.
So it's inevitable.
Yeah.
Well, listen, I mean, Michael Hastings is dead and Robert Dreyfuss won't do radio anymore.
And there just ain't too many people who ever heard of Abdelaziz al-Hakim or know anything about what the hell, you know, actually happened in this damn war.
You know, everybody's got some myth that they need to cling to for whatever stupid explanation.
So, you know, trying to find people who actually understand and are willing to just give the straight dope the best that they can.
You guys are few and far between and you're one of the best, of course.
So thanks again.
So tell me, let's start with Kurdistan.
Is this the end of Kurdistan's alliance with Baghdad?
Is it the end of Kurdistan being part of an Iraqi state, do you think?
It's certainly heading in that direction.
I mean, you know that we are or we being U.S. policy in Iraq is in dire straits when you have Kerry asking the Kurds to help hold Iraq together.
I mean, that is extremely telling comments.
But, you know, the reality is the Kurds have been planning on trying to become an autonomous state since the second talk of U.S. invasion began back in 2001.
And so they've been planning for this and they are seizing this opportunity the best they can.
It's, of course, complicated because Kurdistan has still very, very strong economic ties on Baghdad.
They do remain reliant on Baghdad for a lot of their building materials in this sort of thing.
But, you know, this rift has been happening.
And Scott, I know that you've talked about it on your shows over the last years, too.
I mean, we don't have to go back too far.
But back in 08, 09, there were major rifts between Baghdad and Kurdistan.
And at one point, Maliki even deployed a large portion of the Iraqi military up to the border of Kurdistan when Kurdistan was at that point threatening to start selling their oil on their own terms and leaving Baghdad out of it.
So this is a very, very real rift that's almost come to blows in the past.
And now the Kurds are basically seizing the opportunity to pull further away from Baghdad.
And at this point, Baghdad literally can't do anything about it.
I mean, they literally have their, Maliki has his hands full just trying to keep Baghdad at this point from being taken over by rebels and ISIS.
Right.
Well, I mean, I guess the Kurds got their hands full just keeping ISIS out of Kurdistan.
Although, as the war nerd Gary Bretscher has written today, the Kurds have the benefit of topography for an actual natural border for much of their territory from the flat desert land where ISIS is prevailing for now.
And of course, the Peshmerga are the most professional military force in the country and have been for a long time.
And the most cohesive.
I mean, because even Iraqi's military, as you know, this ISIS crisis is underscoring, and as have previous crises underscored that the Maliki military is essentially a mercenary first force whose loyalties are secondarily at best to the government in Baghdad.
I mean, when we saw Maliki deploy the military against the Sadr Mahdi army down in southern Iraq several years ago, we literally had instances where people in the military just started walking over to the Sadr side because, lo and behold, they're a part of the Mahdi army and they were just in the Iraqi military to get the extra paycheck or to pick up some extra gear.
So that type of situation is rampant and we're seeing it all over even now where when this crisis first began, when ISIS rolled into Mosul and most of the Iraqi army just left, there was actually very little fighting.
But by comparison to how many folks were there, and they basically just either turntailed or ran to Baghdad or just ran back to their home village, wherever that was.
So again, the fact that the Kurds are organized, they're coherent, they have a structurally sound military, their loyalties are very, very clear.
So that's yet another leg up that they have both over ISIS and Maliki's military.
All right.
Now, so there were all these initial reports when the latest phase of this started back up again that, well, you know, as soon as ISIS rolled into Mosul, the Kurds took Kirkuk.
Well, it was already their city and they had been kicking all the Arabs out since 2003 at least.
And it's certainly a majority Kurdish city and the Peshmerga already controlled it, right?
What exactly, if anything, changed in the status of Kirkuk?
Did they actually consolidate their power over the city more than it was before?
I don't, I wouldn't go quite that far simply because it's still technically a contested city.
I mean, it's very unstable.
Certainly, I mean, most of what you said is true.
I mean, they already had control of it.
It was, they were already doing things from early, early on in the U.S. occupation, like teaching Kurdish in the schools instead of Arabic, pulling down Arabic signs, replacing them with Kurdish signs.
So already it was, it was, they were quick to pounce on Kirkuk once the invasion occurred in 2003.
And those policies were moving forward from that point on and well advanced in, before this crisis even began.
But now we have a situation where the Kurds, I mean, at least for now, ISIS has kind of surrendered Kirkuk and not tried to make a play for it, but nevertheless taken over Beji, you know, the biggest oil refinery in the country, which is very nearby there.
Of course, they have total control of Mosul, which is also not too far from there.
So I would say, I think it's safe to say that while Kirkuk is largely in control of the Kurds, the situation is far from settled.
Well, you know, another thing that Gary Bretscher wrote about was all the refugee minorities, the Yazidis and the Turkmen and the Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, and all these others who've been hiding out in the foothills of, in Kurdistan, in Kurdish territory.
But how these are just low hanging fruit targets for a bunch of ISIS lunatic beheaders who you know, crucify him upside down if they could and all this kind of crap.
So that's a conflict the way he portrays it, one that's waiting to still play itself out.
I think so.
Yeah.
I mean, the situation across most of Iraq at this point is so incredibly volatile and it's so intensely dynamic that, you know, it's we don't know what it's going to look like.
There's no predicting where this is going to go.
I mean, literally, as we speak, you know, the ISIS and the people affiliated with them are are encircling Baghdad.
And so if they what happens then if they cut supplies to Baghdad?
By the way, are you referring to this piece by Mitchell Prothero today in McClatchy about them seizing the highway south of Baghdad?
Is that what you're talking about?
Or is there more?
Yeah.
Because, you know, I'm trying to get a hold of him and it ain't working.
But and he says he has Kurdish sources for that.
And and, you know, he's a damn good reporter.
But I wonder, is that smart of the ISIS guys to try to do that?
How in the world could they hold a highway south of south of Baghdad?
Unless what the Mahdi army's all on vacation in the Bahamas or what?
That's a good question.
I mean, the Iraqi army, I guess, you know, when they're the bottom brigade, they're ruthless killers when they're the Iraqi army.
They sit in their lounge chairs and collect their tax money.
OK, that makes sense to me.
But the Mahdi army is still a very well motivated and disciplined militia.
So how could it be that the ISIS guys could be reaching to the south and to the east of Baghdad?
Oh, crap.
And now the music's playing.
We got to go to break.
If you can answer it quick, try.
Oh, well, and you're one of those that the music is stomping right on your signal.
I'm not sure why it happens to some Skype callers and not others.
We're going to work that out.
Anyway, it's the great Darja Mail, everybody.
We're going to be right back right after this.
All right, you guys, welcome back.
Marcy Wheeler's coming up.
Jason Ditz, too.
Right now we're talking with Darja Mail, author of Beyond the Green Zone.
All right now, so when we were interrupted by the break, I was asking, could it really be that the ISIS guys have now moved to the south and to the east of Baghdad?
And is it really right that they're attempting to cut off the capital city from the rest of southern Iraqi Shiastan that George Bush created?
It is.
I mean, whether this holds or continues to increase is really, I think, the big question.
But when we talk about ISIS, one thing, and I know that you know this, Scott, but just to make it clear to more of the listeners, we're not talking only about ISIS.
ISIS now includes a large part of the former Iraqi resistance that formed under the US occupation.
And it also is including a lot of the old Ba'athist military leaders.
And these are people who are seasoned fighters, seasoned military strategists that fought all through the Iraq-Iran war.
They then helped form the backbone of the Iraqi resistance and made it as effective as it was at times against the US military.
And now they are flocking in and joining in the battle, not necessarily with ISIS, although that's happening some, but it's certainly alongside.
I mean, the ISIS moves have been a rallying cry for the disenfranchised Sunni, and that's why they're getting so much support across Iraq.
And then, of course, when there's blood in the water, it becomes even more frenetic.
And so you have the Sunnis who've been literally persecuted, detained, tortured, shot, unarmed civilian protesters shot and killed all through 2013.
And so when they have a chance now to take the fight back to Baghdad and take the fight directly to Maliki and forces under his control, that's what we're seeing.
And that's why this movement is as widespread and as strong and powerful as it is.
It's not just 3,000 to 5,000 to 10,000 Sunni extreme Islamic radicals.
It's now that plus what I just discussed.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, yeah, they're like in South Park.
They're the darky shield.
You radicals, you go out there and catch the first volley of bullets headed our way.
But but yeah, like you're saying, I mean, the reason that it's or or what you're saying, I think, is why it's been pardon me, but relatively bloodless advance.
When you look at the amount of territory that has joined the uprising here, that is, you know, is declaring itself independent from Baghdad or, you know, maybe maybe marching on Baghdad soon enough.
I don't know.
But it's it was easy to take these cities for the most part.
And there's been relatively little fighting because, like you're saying, these are the areas where Maliki's got no support whatsoever.
Now, I don't guess Sada really supports Maliki very much and hasn't wanted to support him for a very long time.
And I don't know whether.
Well, but then again, Sistani said, you know, to fight against these guys, to fight against the Sunnis, you ought to join the Iraqi army.
He didn't say go join Sada's Mahdi army said join the Iraqi army.
So I don't know, you know, exactly who's going to be doing the fighting on that side.
But I guess that's why I'm kind of surprised to hear that they would be really pushing on Baghdad, because it seems like that's really stupid, because, you know, if the Iraqi army is going to turn and run back to Baghdad, Baghdad is what they'll stand and fight for, if anything.
And certainly, you know, the Mahdi army is based right there in eastern Baghdad.
So it's not like they're going to let these guys push it this far.
And ISIS has been pretty smart, right?
They tell al-Nusra, you guys go die and trying to fight in Damascus or whatever the hell we're going to consolidate the territory we've got so far.
And so why in the world would they suicidally fling themselves up against the walls of Baghdad, which they've already lost?
Well, that's a good point.
And maybe they're not going to.
I mean, maybe they are just trying to isolate it.
Maybe this is I mean, we don't know.
I mean, these are seasoned military strategic commanders that are now in the game on the ground that are taking part in this uprising.
And so maybe maybe it's a bluff.
Maybe it's a temporary show of force.
I mean, maybe it's a false flag that they're going to do and then to distract and then make a push someplace else.
We don't we just don't know.
But another point, a point that you brought up that I think is important about why is Sadr not being involved, because, you know, down there in Hilla, that is his home turf, you know, that along with Sadr City in Baghdad, of course.
And why is he?
And I think I think something you said actually really does shed light on why Sadr is, at least for now, standing down.
And that's because Sistani is aligned directly with Maliki and Maliki, obviously, directly with Sistani.
And so when Sistani calls on people to go join the Iraqi army, I mean, once again, as we've seen consistently, Sadr is disenfranchised.
You know, he's he's not being included in that.
And I think, again, like he did smartly and strategically throughout the U.S. occupation is when the times when he felt it was the right time to fight in the Mahdi army was at an advantage, then they would fight.
But they had some huge parade last weekend, right?
Tens of thousands of fighters marching with new weapons, and they're sure are ready for battle.
I don't know where they want to do it, but a very effective show of force.
But clearly, they're standing down.
Clearly, they're they're waiting and standing aside and waiting for their time, because, you know, Sadr definitely has the numbers.
Sadr definitely has the guys on the ground.
That's been the case through the very beginning of the U.S. occupation.
I mean, that massive, massive militia, possibly even the biggest one in the entire country outside of the Peshmerga.
And so, again, he's clearly standing down for whatever reason.
I mean, that's something that I'll need to look more into as I go forward with my writing.
But but that's again, and as you know, and as we've talked about on your show over the years, Sadr has this this penchant for being able to throw a wrench into the game at exactly the worst possible time for everyone else.
So maybe that's what he's waiting for right now.
Well, he had one of his guys announced last week that, hey, Americans, you'll still be considered occupiers in your lives forfeit.
So don't come back.
And these are the guys we're fighting for.
Right, right.
And I mean, that's another interesting point, Scott.
I mean, what I think we should talk about, what is the U.S. role now?
Is there really a possibility that the U.S. would send back in a large number of troops?
I really can't see that happening.
And there's been a lot of talk about, well, they're sending in these so-called advisers and this is what they did when they started to build things up for Vietnam.
But I politically just cannot see that happening at this point unless it appeared as though Baghdad was really going to fall completely.
And as we just discussed, I don't really think that's possible right now.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I wish I agreed with you about that, but I just cannot see.
And it may take a little while.
I forgot if we joked before about how it's this Israel first policy that has the myth that ISIS ain't so bad compared to Assad going on in on the other side of the former border there.
And so the narrative is confused from the war party's perspective.
They can't put out a coherent thing about the enemy needs fighting over there.
They need a simpler narrative to sell.
But I think that's going to fall away.
That Netanyahu first narrative is going to fall away.
And eventually they're going to have to grapple with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria as a real place.
And then I think that the politics of empire are just, you know, I don't know what we can do to stop a man.
I want to try to stop him with as many radio shows I can do, whatever the hell.
I don't know.
But it just seems like the logic of empire is that as as Barack Obama said in his statement the other day, we cannot allow there to be a safe haven.
Well, George Bush created a safe haven in 2003.
The only way really to stop that is to put the Marine Corps there.
And of course, that just makes it worse.
But I mean, from the empire's point of view, what can you do except sending Marines and planes and drones and killers to kill?
And I don't know what's going to stop them.
You know, and I think it's the supreme irony that it's basically treason on behalf of Israel that has our government backing Al Qaeda in Syria against Israel's enemy, Assad, that is really preventing the war from getting worse at this point.
That's right.
That's right.
And those are all really good points, Scott.
I think, though, that things would have to get so so I mean, they're catastrophic in Iraq right now, but I think even that said, they would have to become so, so much worse for the U.S. to begin deploying large, large, a large number of troops needed to stem this, which obviously would have to be a very, very large number.
Well, it would just make matters worse, too.
It would be exactly.
And I think this is back to what's going on at the highway near Baghdad there.
Well, what would Zarqawi do?
Zarqawi would set off a bomb in the Shiite marketplace and kill a bunch of kids and provoke a worse conflict.
And I think that that ought to be anticipated as their strategy against the Shiites, against the U.S., against Iran and whoever they can to.
And man, I wish we did.
You know what?
We don't have to go.
I'm just going to turn this down and keep recording you for a minute because the archives are going to hear it.
But yeah, I mean, that's the thing is, I think that, you know, I'm not trying to endorse intervention.
I'm just saying from the empire's point of view, I think they're going to have to.
But I think that's got to be exactly what these kooks want, is to bring the Americans back in there and recruit that many more people to their cause.
It is, which, interestingly enough, is exactly what bin Laden wanted, was to have the U.S. send its military overseas to plop down in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq or someplace else.
And then and then they can just be bled.
I mean, that's what happened to the Russian military in Afghanistan.
And that's what's happened to the U.S. in Afghanistan and now Iraq.
And absolutely, it is the single biggest recruiting tool at this point.
I mean, it's not that they need more motivation on the ground.
Those those in ISIS are those fighting alongside them now.
But now to introduce another U.S. military presence, I can't imagine a better recruiting tool.
And they don't even need one right now.
I mean, literally, this is as you talked about, this is exactly why they've been so successful because of the U.S. backing of Maliki.
So even just from indirect U.S. government presence and policy in the region by backing a Shia Saddam like Nouriel Maliki, we're seeing things completely go into meltdown.
And so it's hard to even imagine what it would look like and what would unravel if the U.S. started sending military in there, which is another reason, I think.
I mean, it's complex, right?
Because you make really good points.
But at the same time, that is another reason why it's really hard to imagine the U.S. sending more troops in there any more than they have thus far.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I don't think no one better ever stopped is the problem here.
I mean, we basically have a consensus in the country, more or less, that even if they don't put it this way in the polls or whatever, that Ron Paul was right, that actually, yeah, it does make sense that we picked this fight by messing around over there and that now we just keep making matters worse and worse.
And we ought to back off.
I think kind of everybody understands blowback now.
It's a household word now.
But still, you know, didn't keep them out of Libya, you know, hasn't kept them from backing ISIS in Syria for the last three years, you know, indirectly, but not very indirectly for the last three years.
So I don't know, but I'm a damn pessimist.
I'm glad to hear, you know, and better than me and in a more optimistic kind of a way there as far as the American response here.
Well, even if that's got got shot, I don't I couldn't even say it because you made a really important point earlier to talking about the total lack of coherence in the U.S. policy.
On the one hand, they're being pulled one direction by corporate power.
On another hand, they're being pulled in a distinctly different direction from Israeli policy.
In another hand, there are the realists in the military or in the State Department that are looking what's happening and wanting us to do a different thing.
So literally being pulled in different directions.
And that's why I think it appears as total chaos and very confusing from a U.S. policy perspective, because that's exactly what it is.
I think they in a lot of ways, they don't know what to do.
And in other ways, even if they did know what to do, are they going to be allowed to do it because of all the different interests and in the directions that the U.S. government is being pulled?
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I'll let you go with that.
Thank you so much for coming back on the show, Dar.
We got to keep doing this all the time now.
Always a pleasure, Scott.
Thanks a lot.
Appreciate it.
That's Dar Jamal, everybody.
He wrote Beyond the Green Zone.
And was it are you there?
Is it Winter Soldier?
The Will to Resist.
The Will to Resist.
Winter Soldier is there in Glantz.
I always confuse those two.
The Will to Resist.
Thanks very much, Dar, again.
Thanks.
Oops.
And then, yeah, so we'll be right back.
Man, you need some Liberty stickers for the back of your truck.
At LibertyStickers.com, they've got great state hate, like Pearl Harbor was an inside job.
The Democrats want your guns.
U.S. Army, die for Israel.
Police brutality, not just for black people anymore.
And government school, why you and your kids are so stupid.
Check out these and a thousand other great ones at LibertyStickers.com.
And of course, they'll take care of all your custom printing for your band or your business at TheBumperSticker.com.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Hey, Al Scott here.
First, I want to take a second to thank all the show's listeners, sponsors, and supporters for helping make the show what it is.
I literally couldn't do it without you.
And now I want to tell you about the newest way to help support the show.
Whenever you shop at Amazon.com, stop by ScottHorton.org first.
And just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page.
That way, the show will get a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
It won't cost you an extra cent.
And it's not just books.
Amazon.com sells just about everything in the world except cars, I think.
So whatever you need, they've got it.
Just click the Amazon logo on the right side of the page at ScottHorton.org or go to ScottHorton.org slash Amazon.
Hey, Al Scott here.
Like I told you before, the Future Freedom Foundation at FFF.org represents the best of the libertarian movement.
Led by the fearless Jacob Hornberger, FFF writers James Bovard, Sheldon Richman, Wendy McElroy, Anthony Gregory, and many more.
Write the op-eds and the books, host the events, and give the speeches that are changing our world for the better.
Help support the Future Freedom Foundation.
Subscribe to their magazine, The Future of Freedom.
Or to contribute, just look for the big red donate button at the top of FFF.org.
Peace and freedom.
Thank you.
The military industrial complex.
The disastrous rise of misplaced power.
Hey, Al Scott Horton here.
I'd like for you to read this book, The War State by Michael Swanson.
America's always gone to war a lot, though in older times, it would disarm for a bit between each one.
But in World War II, the U.S. built a military and intelligence apparatus so large, it ended up reducing the former constitutional government to an almost ceremonial role, and converting our economy into an engine of destruction.
In The War State, Michael Swanson does a great job telling the sordid history of the rise of this national security state, relying on important first-hand source material, but writing for you and me.
Find out how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all alternately empowered and fought to control this imperial beast, and how the USA has gotten to where it is today, corrupt, bankrupt, soaked in blood, despised by the world.
The War State by Michael Swanson, available at Amazon.com and at Audible.com, or just click the logo in the right-hand margin at ScottHorton.org.
We should take nothing for granted.