American and British Leaders Were Warned that Iraq War Would INCREASE Terrorism

The alternative media has reported for more than a decade that the Iraq war has increased terrorism.

For example:

The U.S. has undertaken regime change against Arab leaders we don’t like for six decades. We overthrew the leader of Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, Iraq twice, Afghanistan twice, Turkey, Libya … and other oil-rich countries.

Neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa yet again in 1991.

Top American politicians admit that the Iraq war was about oil, not stopping terrorism (documents from Britain show the same thing).    Much of the war on terror is really a fight for natural gas.  Or to force the last few hold-outs into dollars and private central banking.

And the U.S. military described terror attacks on the U.S. as a “small price to pay for being a superpower“:

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay for being a superpower”.

Security experts – including both conservatives and liberals – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

For example, James K. Feldman – former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies – and other experts say that foreign occupation is the main cause of terrorism. University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – agrees.

We’ve fought the longest and most expensive wars in American history … but we’re less secure than before, and there are more terror attacks than ever.

Remember, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.

If we want to stop terrorism, we have to stop overthrowing Arab leaders and invading Arab countries to grab their oil.

Now the official Chilcot Report has confirmed this:

Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the West.”

Similarly, the New York Times reported in 2002, long before the start of the Iraq war:

In the first public hearings on the administration’s goal of ousting Saddam Hussein from the Iraqi presidency, an array of experts warned a Senate committee today that an invasion of Iraq would carry significant risks ranging from more terrorist attacks against American targets to higher oil prices.

And the Washington Post reported in 2006:

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and “probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups” in the Muslim world.

The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be “a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge.”

***

More than four years after the March 2003 invasion, with Iraq still mired in violence and 150,000 U.S. troops there under continued attack from al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, the intelligence warnings seem prophetic.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • MrLiberty

    Ron Paul most certainly warned of the consequences…time and time again publicly on the floor of the House. Thankfully all of his great speeches are available on YouTube for those who missed his very clear, detailed, and accurate warnings.

  • colinjames71

    While oil politics certainly played a role in planning and discussions about the Iraq war 2.0, it was not the reason for it. We had the oil thru the oil for food program, for one thing. This war was fought at Israel’s behest, first and foremost. W getting revenge for his daddy was also a factor according to Dean Baker (Bush Family Secrets). Palast had a good piece on the not for oil angle though I don’t think Israel was featured as the alternative, I’ll have to check. Ry Dawson covered the Israel role extensively.

  • Sunny
  • cityspeak

    We were told by Bush Sr. after the first Iraq war that removing Saddam very well could make the region worse.
    When Jr was beating the drums for war 12 years later no one dared ask the question what had changed to make Poppy Bush’s warning of “setting the region on fire by removing Saddam” no longer relevant.
    it was telling for anyone that saw this as an action that would bring disaster to the region and her people.
    A disaster that the rest of the world is now seeing and paying for dearly.

  • Sarastro92

    Iraq was never about oil… What oil has the US gotten from this war that could not be had without war?

    It’s about Global Hegemony ie Wolfowitz Doctrine and related national strategy and military dominance.

  • ICFubar

    All the major terror attacks in the west have been committed by the Deep State which operates as an agenda promoting arm of the western Apex Elites as are these criminal wars of conquest for unquestionable world hegemony over everything and everyone on this planet, from the west to the east east to the emerging south and all places in between, with Orwell’s “Boot” as their mission accomplished goal.