THERE WAS, AND IS, NO OTHER WAY!
April 2, 2008
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
It was absolutely necessary for the West to get rid of Saddam Hussain, but it was not necessary for us to stay in Iraqi to establish a democratic government made up of Kurds in the North, Iraqis in the Central zone, and Shiites in the South. Why? – Because it is an impossibility which simply cannot be done no matter how many troops you put there or how long they stay.
Archive Prophecy Update Number 80A, which follows, made it clear I believed it absolutely essential to replace Saddam Hussian, and I never believed otherwise. The two Archive Updates that follow 80A, 114C, and 170B detail the reasons why Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will not be able to have a stable government until the Second Advent.
The May 5, 2004 Update is as valid today as it was the day it was issued. I have always believed what the first President Bush did was correct, namely, blow the Iraqi Army to Hades, but don’t go in to homestead and establish a Democratic government to replace it. I have advocated from the start, go in, stay long enough to eliminate the ungodly Saddam Hussein, then get out, and let the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni slug it out for whatever type of government or governments came out of the conflict.
Once we were bound and determined to establish a democratic form of government that we thought would last, and determined to stay in Iraq come Hell or high water, I have supported the troops there and prayed for their survival, and will continue to do so.
Now that we have spent so much time there, I am not in favor of an immediate pullout, which might cost us greater loss of by a disorderly withdrawal, than would we would be likely to susta
in if we did not stay long enough to establish a greater degree of stability in the Iraqi forces we have trained.
The IHT Article, which follows our three Archive Prophecy Updates, is well worth the read.
Begin Archive Prophecy Update 80A
SPECIAL PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBER 80A
August 11, 2002
SADDAM HUSSEIN – THE MIDDLE EAST WILD CARD!
WHY THE U.S. IS DETERMINED TO REPLACE HIM!
The United States has reason to be concerned about Saddam Hussain, not because of his military genius, or because he has a great army, for he has neither. The reason that we, and all the rest of the world should be concerned about him is because of his complete disregard for any human life, including his family and the people of his nation. One of the Roman Emperors once said of King Herod of Judea that he would rather be one of his dogs than one of his sons. Saddam has the same characteristics. The other Islamic leaders have sufficient intelligence to restrain themselves when it is obvious they are going to lose everything if they fail to do so. But Saddam is not only cold, heartless, and cruel, but he is also a crazy madman who makes decisions regardless of the consequences in his mad daydream of becoming the modern Saladin of the Middle East. His illusions of grandeur envision himself as being one who, like Saladin, can unite the Sunni and Shiite Muslins and thus become the Sultan of a vast domain that stretches eastward from Morocco to India. His recreation of a model city like Babylon at its old site was a mere reflection of the man’s belief he is destined to be as great as Mohammad. Do I think he could be the antichrist? No! But I can assure you he would like to fly to the heights the Bible predicts for antichrist before his Armageddon demise. The antichrist will be smooth as silk and more slippery than a greased pig.
Saddam Hussain reveals far too much outside, of what exists inside, to be a man we could identify as antichrist.
As an analyst I love predictability – that is what bothers me so much about Saddam. The only thing predictable about him is his unpredictability and I would love to see the end of his regime for this reason. None of the other Islamic nations would launch any missiles carrying biological, chemical, or nuclear warheads. Why? They know that Israel has some 300 Jericho missiles in Negev silos that can support chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads, but they also know that Israel will not launch them against them unless they first launch against them. They have enough sense and compassion that they don’t want to see the people of their nations and their families wiped out. But that is not the case with Saddam. He is just fanatical enough to launch first against Israel, with no regard for the consequences. That is why Israel struck from the air to destroy his ability to produce an atomic bomb in his first nuclear facility.
Begin Archive Prophecy Update 114C
SPECIAL PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBER 114C
April 7, 2003
Iraq – A Biblical Land of Conquerors and Confusion
The post Saddam government’s character and temperament cannot be expected to maintain a personality that manifests a long-term gratitude for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Its history dictates that initial expressions of thanksgiving must slowly, but surely, return to the standard Islamic attitude toward the big devil United States, and the little devil Israel. It will never degenerate to the Saddam regime madness, but Iraq will be among the 10 nations that attacks Israel some three and on-half years before the final battle of Armageddon.
The new civilian government, which will eventually be installed, will have a violent mixture of the intermingled blood of the 12 sons of Ishmael (the first son of Abraham), the six sons of Keturah by Abraham, and the two sons of Lot (Abraham’s nephew). The first post flood population in the Iraq area was ruled by Noah’s great grandson, Nimrod, who the son of Cush, the son of Ham. Asshur, the grandson of Shem, the son of Noah, peopled the northern part. So, in this area you have the intermingled blood of the descendants of all the aforementioned ancestors. As a matter of fact, the word translated as “mingled” in Daniel 2:43 is “Arab.” The seed of all these ancestors has certainly been “mingled” in the production of offspring, but they have not been able to cleave together continuously except under the control of a very strong leader, and then only for a relatively short period of time. The great Assyrian warrior kings of 800 to 600 B.C., followed by the great Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and the famous Kurd Saladin from northern Iraq, who united the mingled tribes to drive the crusaders out of Jerusalem in 1187, have shown that only a strong-willed ruler can unite them, and then only for a specific purpose of conquest, which is invariably followed by a period of empire decay as the cleavage of many different bloodlines crumbles. The coming antichrist will be able to unite them for a while, but in the end they will break apart.
He will be like Nimrod in character.
Daniel 11:36 – And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
Daniel 2:42,43 – And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. [43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
I have always taught that I believed the antichrist would come out of Syria (See Prophecy Updates 62,63,64,65,66,67,68, and 69), but I have repeatedly stated that I am only certain he will come out of the old Assyrian empire, which would include Lebanon, extreme southeastern Turkey, and northern Iraq. So I will be watching very carefully to see if someone from northern Iraq becomes the President of Iraq.
It will take a really strong, and extremely clever, ruler to unite the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions across Iraq.
The 10 toes and 10 horns of Daniel are the same 10 horns of John’s first and second beasts.
They are not European nations, and the antichrist is not a European. He is the Assyrian of Micah’s fifth chapter, and the 10 toes and 10 horns are basically mingled (Arab) descendants of Abraham, who practice the Islamic faith – a faith that would be the worship of a strange god unknown to Abraham. The division of the vast riches of the Iraqi oil fields among the different ethnic groups within Iraq would most certainly gain him a loyal following among all the Islamic clerics.
Daniel 11:37,38 – Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. [38] But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. [39] Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
Daniel 7:24 – And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
Revelation 17:12,13 – And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. [13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
So, Lord willing, I will be paying very close attention to the interplay between the new Iraqi government, Syria, and Iran. This is going to be a very interesting scenario.
SPECIAL PROPHECY UPDATE NUMBER 170B
May 5, 2004
A Democratic Government Cannot Stand in Iraq!
I was 100 percent in favor of invading Iraq and ending the reign of Saddam the Butcher, and 100 percent in the corner of those who wanted to see the Baath Party out of power, but I have consistently been 100 percent in favor of NOT trying to establish a democratic type of government like ours because such a government would only stand for a few months after U.S. troops pulled out, and the cost of American lives would not be worth the price. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ THAT WILL LAST – IT WOULD ONLY LAST AS LONG AS A LARGE AMERICAN ARMY WAS IN PLACE TO ENFORCE IT, AND AMERICANS WILL CONTINUE TO DIE IN HIT-AND-RUN-ATACKS WHILE THEY REMAIN TO MAINTAIN SUCH A GOVERNMENT.
I could have gotten out of fighting in Vietnam, but I chose to go. I did not go because I believed we could win the war and establish a non-corrupt regime in the southern half of the country. I went because I believed it was essential to stopping the spread of communism to other countries in the Far East. The support the Soviet Union poured into Vietnam and Afghanistan broke the financial back of the communist monster, which led to the breakup of the Soviet Union, and its demise as one of two great world powers. I believe it was absolutely essential that we go into Afghanistan. Its unbelievable mountainous terrain and deep sheltered valleys made it the perfect terrain for a Taliban government to be the breadbasket of terror led by Osama bin Laden. And we simply could not eliminate the numerous terror camp training facilities and headquarters with missiles and air strikes, no matter how sophisticated the state of our technical expertise was at that time. And, for that reason, I am still in favor for troops to be maintained there in order to prevent a reoccurrence of the same scenario. Iraq is a flat land compared to Afghanistan, and, once we had deposed Saddam and crushed his regime, I knew we had the advantage of destroying any threat that arose against our interests in the region with missiles and air strikes following our withdrawal. I am 100 percent in favor of the worldwide war on terrorism, but 100 percent in opposition to attempting to form a democratic form of government in Iraq like ours in this generation. Sure, I wish it were possible, it is an idealistic, noble daydream, but we are fighting Islamic windmills with toothpicks, and the price in blood we are paying for it cannot be justified by a final result that will be marked by failure to see it fulfilled.
The real problem in Iraq began in 1932, the year I was born. Iraq was also born that year as the first of the League of Nations mandate states. So, after 1932, Iraq was formally independent. There was still, of course, a large measure of British influence and power there, but it was certainly independent earlier than any of the other Arab states. The British were largely responsible for the impossible attempt to merge together four major contentious groups into one state, the Shiite, the Sunni, the Kurds, and the Assyrians. It would have been far better to have four countries with separate borders than to attempt to put four wildcats into a sack and call the sack a state. And there are many other smaller groups of ethnic wildcats that also were placed in the sack. It was inevitable that a government would eventually come into existence that would be held together by absolute force of a dictator. It is most unfortunate that the dictator who finally grabbed power was Saddam. Most dictators are happy to rule their own country with an iron hand, but Saddam had illusions of grandeur to be the great Islamic messiah who would even exceed the greatness of Saladin the Kurd and, in the end, be ruler over all of the Arab world. The only real solution to the problem, generated in 1932, is to establish governmental borders that separate the four major ethnic groups, and let each group internally fight it out as to the kind of government they want. After the dust has settled you may only have two or three states continuing to fight each other for dominance, but they will be fighting each other rather than the United States and Israel.
The continuous argument I have heard echo across the world’s political scenario from before Operation Desert Storm through Operation Iraqi Freedom is this – DO NOT DISTURB THE STABILITY OF THE REGION! And everyone seems to agree on how important it is to NOT disturb it! I totally disagree! I was hoping we would go in, get rid of Saddam, his henchmen, and his Baath Party, then pull out as quickly as possible, and let all hell break loose between the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and many other ethnic groups that make up Iraq. They would not be able to concentrate on how much they hate us and Israel, because they would be too busy hating each other. Then, after the smoke and killing ended in a truce, Iraq would probably be splintered into three separate countries, Kurdistan dominated by Turkey, Sunnistan dominated by Syria, and Shiitestan as a part of Iran. As far as I am concerned, the more instability, political turmoil, and confusion we see among all of the nations of Islam, the better off the United States (the big Satan as we are called) and Israel (the little Satan) will be in the world’s fickle climate. If I thought there was any possibility of actually installing a democratic type of government in Iraq, then I would say it would be worth the price we are paying in American blood to do so, but it is a futile pipedream, no matter how noble it may seem to those who favor it. I have been a supporter of both father and son Bush in their presidencies.
I do continue to admire them both, and will vote for the son in November.
However, I do not agree with the idea of attempting to establish a democracy in the midst of Islam because it is impossible – admirable, but beyond the scope of possibility in this generation.
We need to get out and let them slug it out among themselves. In any case, whatever happens, Iraq will be one of the tens associated with Daniel 2 & 7, and Revelation 13 and 17. The Lamb King of the soon coming Kingdom foretold in Revelation 17:14 is the King of the Kingdom found in Daniel 2:44 and 7:27, and he is the only one who can bring lasting peace and stability to the Middle East under a theocracy. The Old Roman Empire had a large southern flank that, at one time, included all of what we know as the Islamic nations stretching from Morocco to Iran, which number more than the ten required to choose from as being the toes or horns in Daniel and Revelation.
Daniel 2:42,44 – And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. [44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Daniel 7:24-27 – And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. [25] And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. [26] But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. [27] And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the
kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Revelation 13:1 – And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Revelation 17:12-14 – And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. [13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. [14] These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
BEGIN IHT ARTICLE
A civil war Iraq can’t win
International Herald Tribune
By Anthony H. Cordesman
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
WASHINGTON:
Even if American and Iraqi forces are able to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq, there are still three worrisome possibilities of new forms of fighting that could divide Iraq and deny the United States any form of “victory.”
One is that the Sunni tribes and militias that have been cooperating with the Americans could turn against the central government and the United States. The second is that the struggle among Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and other ethnic groups to control territory in the north could lead to fighting in Kirkuk, Mosul or other areas.
The third risk – and one that is now all too real – is that the political struggle between the dominant Shiite parties could become an armed conflict, and one that Iran could easily take advantage of.
It is far from clear that the fighting is over in southern Iraq and parts of Baghdad between the Mahdi Army, which is under the control of the populist cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and a coalition of forces led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a powerful party led by a Maliki ally, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.
The Mahdi Army has stood down as a result of a cease-fire that seems to have been brokered by Iran, but the Mahdi Army remains largely intact despite the fact that Dawa and the Islamic Supreme Council had de facto control of much of the Iraqi security forces, and that Hakim’s group has its own militia, called the Badr Organization.
Much of the reporting on the power struggle in Basra and Baghdad – which was initiated by the Iraqi government – assumes that Sadr and his militia are the bad guys who are out to spoil the peace, and that the government forces are the legitimate side trying to bring order. This is a dangerous oversimplification, and one that the United States needs to be far more careful about endorsing.
There is no question that many elements of the Mahdi Army have been guilty of sectarian cleansing; that the Sadr movement is hostile to the United States; that some of its extremists have continued acts of violence in spite of the cease-fire Sadr declared last summer, and that some of these rogue elements have ties to Iran. No one should romanticize the Sadr movement, understate the risks it presents or ignore the violent radicals in the Mahdi Army.
But it is equally important not to romanticize Maliki, the Dawa Party or the Islamic Supreme Council. They are far from popular in many Shiite areas and have limited legitimacy.
The current fighting, which the government portrayed as a crackdown on criminality and insurgents, is better seen as a power grab – an effort by Maliki and the most powerful Shiite political parties to establish their authority over Basra and the parts of Baghdad that have eluded their grasp.
Moreover, Maliki’s gamble dragged American forces part-way into the fight, including air strikes in Basra, in ways that have made Sadr and the Mahdi Army far more hostile and which have made Iran a potential power broker.
Striking at violent, rogue elements in the Mahdi Army is one thing, but engaging the entire Sadr movement is quite another. The official cease-fire that has kept the mainstream Mahdi Army from engaging government and U.S. forces may well be rescinded, and the new cease-fire between the Sadr faction, and Dawa and the Islamic Supreme Council, is tenuous at best.
This looming power struggle was all too clear when I was in Iraq last month. The Supreme Council was the power behind the Shiite governorates in the south and was steadily expanding its influence over the Iraqi police. It was clearly positioning itself to counter Sadr’s popular support and preparing for the provincial elections scheduled for Oct. 1.
American military and civilian officials were candid in telling me that the governors and other local officials installed by the central government in Basra and elsewhere in southern Iraq had no popular base. If open local and provincial elections were held, they said, Dawa and the Islamic Supreme Council were likely to be routed because they were seen as having failed to bring development and government services.
There was no real debate over how bad the overall governance of the south was at the provincial level, how little money the region was getting from Baghdad, and how poor government-related services were, even in Shiite areas.
Incompetence and corruption are not sectarian. An ABC News poll released this month showed that only two-thirds of the Shiite population in Basra had a favorable opinion of the central government, down from three-quarters last summer, and that only 14 percent of all residents felt they could move about safely.
The American officials I met with differed in their views of the size of Sadr’s base around Basra, but most felt that Sadr still had a broad base of support in the rest of the south and in Baghdad – something indicated by the huge rallies on his behalf in the capital last week and the government forces inability to win any real victory over the Mahdi Army,
Many Iraqis that I have spoken to are worried about how the October elections would play out.
The first problem is that there are no real indigenous political parties operating with local leaders.
The second is the framework, which is still undecided. If the election follows the model of the 2005 vote, Iraqis will vote for long lists of candidates from the main parties (confronting many unfamiliar names) and there will be no allowance for the direct election of members of the Parliament who would represent a given area or district.
Optimists hope that local leaders and parties will emerge before the election; realists foresee an uncertain mess.
There are also differences of opinion over Sadr’s cease-fire. Before Maliki launched his offensive, Iraqis asked whether he was simply waiting out the American-Iraqi effort to defeat Al Qaeda before allowing his army to become active again.
Now they ask whether the new cease-fire between Sadr’s forces and those of Maliki and Hakim will last, whether there will be elections or more fighting, and why Iran seems to have been the key negotiating partner and neither side kept the United States informed.
In any event, it is clear that Basra has become a special case. Since the American-led invasion, it had been under the protection of the British, who opted for a strategy of not-so-benign neglect. Thus the power struggle in the city – Iraq’s main port – differs sharply from that in the other Shiite areas.
Basra was essentially divided up among Shiite party mafias, each of which had its own form of extortion and corruption. They sometimes fight and feud, and there are reasons to call them criminal gangs, but they have established a crude modus vivendi.
Basra also feels the influence of Iran far more than the other Shiite governorates. Iran’s religious paramilitary force, Al Quds, has been an equal-opportunity supplier of weapons and money to all the Shiite militias, effectively ensuring that it will support the winner, whoever
that turns out to be.
There were good reasons for the central government to try to reassert control of Basra.
It is not peaceful. It is the key to Iraq’s oil exports. Gang rule is no substitute for legitimate government.
But given the timing and tactics, it is far from clear that the Maliki offensive was meant to serve the nation’s interest, as opposed to those of the Islamic Supreme Council and Dawa. It is also unclear that the end result will strengthen any side other than Iran.
How will this intra-Shiite fighting affect America? If the fighting sets off a broad and violent power struggle between Shiite factions, most of the security gains of the last year could be lost.
The fighting that took place last week has already threatened stability and security in Shiite areas. It has made political accommodation even more difficult, and it may be a warning that the Islamic Supreme Council and Dawa will not permit fair elections and the creation of legitimate local and provincial governments.
If anything, it may indicate that they and Iran are far more interested in a Shiite-dominated “Iraqracy” than in democracy,
Anthony H. Cordesman is a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.