Noam Chomsky: If US manage to destroy IS, will have to deal with something even 
more extreme
25.03.2015   Islamic State is fighting on five fronts at the same time. Noam 
Chomsky claims that while the importance of Islamic State began with the 
invasion of Iraq, the group will become more and more violent as the conflict 
continues. Synopsis of the piece by David Barsamian (Jacobin), Opera Mundi.The 
United States is responsible for the appearance of EI (Islamic State). Far from 
being a conspiracy theory, the linguist, philosopher and American political 
activist Noam Chomsky argues, in an interview with journalist David Barsamian, 
the Jacobin informative website, that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 caused the 
sectarian divisions that caused the destabilization of Iraqi society.So the 
result was a climate where the radicals supported by the Saudis prospered. He 
also warns that the group will be even more extreme as the conflict develops 
and the groups that will gain predominance will be the most brutal and harder, 
"if they can destroy the IS, have to deal with something more extreme," he 
says.David Barsamian: The Middle East is in flames, from Libya to Iraq. There 
are new jihadist groups. Attention will focus on the Islamic state. What do you 
think of this group and its origins?   Noam Chomsky: There is an interesting 
interview with Graham Fuller, published a few days ago. It is a former CIA 
agent, a leading analyst of the Middle East. The title is "The United States 
created the Islamic State". This is one of the conspiracy theories, there are 
thousands in the Middle East.But this comes from another source: the US 
establishment of the heart. Fuller is quick to clarify that does not mean that 
the US decided to give existence to IS and then fund it. What he maintains - 
and I think a correct opinion - is that the US created the environment in which 
IS was born and developed. Part of the approach was the standard hammer effect: 
it crushes up what you do not like.         In 2003, the UK and the US invaded 
Iraq, a great crime. Just this evening, the British Parliament gave the 
government the authority to bomb Iraq again. The invasion was devastating. Iraq 
had already been virtually destroyed, first by the war of ten years against 
Iran, in which, we can say, in passing, Iraq was supported by the US; and soon 
after, the decade of economic sanctions.These were described as "genocidal" by 
the respected international diplomats that administered, and both resigned in 
protest. The sanctions devastated civil society, strengthened the dictator, 
forcing the population to rely on him to survive. This is probably the reason 
for not following the same path of a whole bunch of dictators who were 
toppled.Finally, the US decided to attack the country in 2003. The attack is 
compared by many Iraqis to the Mongol invasion which took place a thousand 
years before. Severely damaging. Hundreds of thousands of people dead, millions 
of refugees, millions of other displaced people, destruction of archaeological 
resources of the country of Sumerian times.One of the effects of the invasion 
was immediately the setting up of sectarian divisions. Part of the impact of 
the invasion force and its civilian director, Paul Bremer, was separate sects, 
Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and conflicts between them. In a couple of years, there 
was a huge, brutal sectarian conflict prompted by the invasion.To prove this 
just look at Baghdad. If we see a map of, say, 2002, it is a mixed city: Sunnis 
and Shiites live in the same neighborhoods, sometimes they did not even know 
who is Sunni or Shiite. It's like knowing if your friends are a Protestant 
group or another. There were differences, but not hostility.In fact, for some 
years both sides said, there will never be Sunni-Shiite conflict. We are too 
mixed in the nature of our lives. But in 2006 there was already a raging war. 
This conflict has spread to the entire region. Today, all of it is divided by 
the Sunni-Shiite conflict.The natural dynamics of such a conflict is that the 
most extremist elements begin to predominate. They had roots. The roots come 
from the largest US ally, Saudi Arabia, which has been the main US ally in the 
region since Washington is seriously involved, in fact since the foundation of 
the Saudi state. It is a kind of family dictatorship. The reason is having a 
huge amount of oil....Beheadings have become common practice adopted by 
jihadistsYou can be sure that as the conflict develops, they will get more 
extreme. The most brutal, tougher groups will gain predominance. This is what 
happens when violence becomes the means of interaction. It's almost automatic. 
This is so both in neighborhoods and in international affairs. The dynamics are 
quite evident. This is what is happening. It is hence the EI. If they can 
destroy the EI, have to deal with something more extreme.And the media are 
obedient. In the September 10 speech, Obama cited two countries as success 
stories of the US counterinsurgency strategy. Which countries are these? 
Somalia and Yemen. Everyone should be blown away, but the next day the silence 
was total, there was no comment on it. Translated from Resistencia.infoFrom the 
Portuguese version of Pravda.Ru

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"SERBIAN NEWS NETWORK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/senet.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to