What better gift could I receive on my birthday than the news that Canada is about to send in ‘advisers’ to assist the Iraqi military in its struggle against the organization whose name varies from ISIS to ISOS, but which we shall call IS, for ‘Islamic State’? Without much elaboration – since I have stated the case so often – I shall keep these comments brief. Firstly, the term ‘advisers’ – which I noticed originally back when the USA was inheriting the Vietnam War from France – actually means highly-trained special forces; the kind of soldiers able to take an entire town or base without assistance. The vagueness of Prime Minister Harper’s description of this advisory unit as “several dozen men” confirms this suspicion, ‘several’ being one of the most meaningless terms in the language. ‘Advisers’ has always been Pentagon code for Special Forces. I met such people when I was in Iraq in 2003, and they had been there long before the actual invasion itself began, their principal task being to knock out Saddam’s desert bases, thereby immobilizing his most highly-trained forces. So let us dispense with the myth of ‘advisers’. If actual advice were required by Iraq’s military, a couple of men could perform this task; ‘several dozen’ would merely be superfluous, if not confusing. Let us assume that Britain will send in its SAS, and the US its Delta Force. This tells us the problem is troublesome, yet easily contained.
Next arises the issue of why the Canadian public is not consulted about such an action, which will undoubtedly result in Canadian deaths, if not an involvement in another debacle as insolvable and pointless as Afghanistan or Vietnam. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers. Are we really living in a democracy? Does Harper actually comprehend the function of a Parliament? What became of public discussion?
The last issue I can be bothered to raise before my birthday dinner is the one of how to stop IS in its progress, including the execution of men I still deem colleagues. Does no one wonder why these beheaded journalists are all termed ‘independent’? I always reported on war zones as an ‘independent’, but it was only when my reports from Iraq in 2003 were so eagerly received by the Globe and Mail, and the CBC, that I realised why. They had none of their own people on the ground because they could not – or would not – afford the insurance to cover reporters in danger spots. They happily take the reporting of such independents venturing into areas where a story really exists, yet they offer nothing in condolence or compensation to those who have provided the material they would otherwise lack. It seems likely I lost my eyesight from exposure to toxins in Iraq, yet I would no more dream of asking the Globe or CBC for compensation than I would of suing the Pentagon for its war.
As I have stated ad nauseam, the way to stop IS is to locate the channels of funding which, I can guarantee, originate from the Wahhabi priesthood of Saudi Arabia. This is not a crew of crazed vicars handing over the collection plate. This is an hereditary priesthood receiving, by law and tradition, half the Saudi oil wealth. The ethnic cleansing being performed by IS alone demonstrates its close Wahhabi ties. Wahhabism is ostensibly a Muslim heresy which, for self-serving purposes, condemns the Shia and other Muslim sects as non-Islamic. It also regards women as subhuman and views music and dancing as satanic. Unfortunately, however, it also has an annual income in the trillions of dollars, which it has used to spread its malicious heretical version of Islam all over the world since the oil boom of the 1970s. It also funds IS, and all the Al Quaeda spin-off factions. Notice how none of these pseudo-Islamic psychopaths ever bother a Sunni-led regime. Read books about the sect, for Christ’s sake, if you don’t believe me. If you want to see more Canadian soldiers die for nothing, then please don’t bother to inform yourself about any issue at all. If, however, you would prefer Canada to engage solely in just wars, ask your MPs and MPPs to raise the issue of Saudi funding for IS in Parliament. Demand to know why the most backward and barbaric state on earth is tolerated simply for its oil wealth. Also ask why Iraq, not Syria, is the cause behind intervention. Could it possibly be that Syria has no oil? If any country deserves to be invaded it is surely Saudi Arabia. If any faith deserves to be prohibited it is surely Wahhabism. If oil is not the issue – as the liars in high places will doubtless assure us – then leave Iraq to sort out its own problems. Interfering in them will solve nothing in the long run but further antagonizing those few deranged Islamist radicals who still believe the Crusades have yet to end. “Whoops,” as George W. Bush said, “I didn’t mean to say ‘crusade’.”
With love, as always, Paul William Roberts