Scott Ritter is a former UN Weapon’s Inspector in Iraq and one of the few voices before the invasion to claim that Saddam was essentially disarmed. Mainly ignored in the Western media - keener to accept and propel government spin on WMD - he now publishes regularly in the Arab world, including al-Jazeera.
His latest article warns of the threat posed by blindly following the lead of the US and Israel, two countries encouraging action against the Islamic state. Caution should be exercised, Ritter argues, as facts on the ground are sketchy, at best.
The December edition of The Atlantic asked whether Iran was next on the neo-con hit-list and in an analysis that completely ignored the civilian population conducted a Pentagon war-game to determine US military success. Failure was the result, thankfully.
All due respects to courageous Scott Ritter but Iran, unlike Iraq, will not be a walkover. I suspect the neocons are more interested in Syria / Lebanon as their next “Clean Break” target.
Indeed. Why did the US invade Iraq first? Because they thought, wrongly, that it would be a military walkover. Wrong. Delusional neocons who’ve spent too much time reading Bernard Lewis and not enough time actually with real Arab people. Perish the thought.
The most interesting stuff I have seen over the last month or so on this has been the Harpers’ report by the BBC’s Greg Pallast. There is some discussion here. The March “Iraqi Oil” Scott Horton / Greg Pallast audio interview here is a great summary for those too stingey to actually buy Harpers. Pallast looks at the conflicts between the neocons and the major oil companies on what to do with Iraqi oil. Fascinating.