The U.S. added more troops to Baghdad. Now, Hawks are saying it's been a success. U.S. military deaths are down in Baghdad. Violence in general is down. Is that due to the Surge?
Well, we know that the U.S. is paying militant Sunnis some $300 per month per head to convert from fighting an insurgency. We know the U.S. has ordered miles and miles of blast walls, some six feet high, some twelve feet high. We know that the U.S. has created many, many checkpoints and has been taking fingerprints and retinal scans. We know that the city is being segregated after it was fractured into sectarian strife. We know the U.S. undercover instigated that strife to begin with. We know the U.S. is playing sectarian and ethnic groups off each other throughout the Middle East.
Here's some in-depth coverage: "Baghdad safer, but it's a life behind walls," by Sam Dagher. The Christian Science Monitor. December 10, 2007.
Is this clearing and holding? Is the U.S. buying loyalty or just a lull covering over huge anti-Americanism? What has been the point? It has been to improve the image for the sake of the Republican Party before the upcoming Presidential election in the U.S. It has been to lockdown the whole city of Baghdad leading to the U.S. real American goal of bringing lots of oil on line via U.S. oil corporations controlling stinking contracts with the puppet regime in the making in Iraq. It has been for the sake of depriving all other powers of that oil. It has been for the sake of creating a huge forward hub of U.S. military bases in that pivotal area of the world. It has been for the sake of ringing Iran as much as possible, since the U.S. is in Afghanistan too and is planning to beef up operations there and also to move into Pakistan (whether Pakistanis like it or not).
Thanks to SUBTOPIA for the link to the article on (cited above). This site shows images of the barriers throughout Baghdad.