You ever work on a fire line?

[MichaelHarris]

One of the things Smoke Jumpers do is build "back fires". These fires are started to control the bigger blaze that's going on around them. Works great in the woods but I'm not sure it's going to work in a civil war.

BAGHDAD -- With the four-month-old "surge" in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight Al Qaeda-linked militants who have been their allies in the past.

Let's assume the recent Mosque explosions were actually committed by Al Qaeda linked insurgents and our leaders actually believe that arming one's enemy is the solution. If we take that at it's face value then we "invited" the Al Qaeda insurgents into Iraq with our unwarranted invasion, they are there because of us. The Sunnis know we are the problem, not the insurgents. We are the root cause.

Now let's consider a theory, one I call The Back Fire Theory. Just as Fire Fighters start back fires to control the bigger fire US non-conventional solders or as I like to call them, Blackwater mecenaries could blow up Mosques just to realign the current enemy in Iraq. Blowing up Mosques could very well be our "Plan B" to get the Sunnis fighting Al Qaeda.

Sure it's a theory, it may even involve some tin foil but would you put it past this administration? The administration who has rounded up people all over the world, hidden them in secret prisons, and uses a secret army in a foreign land uncontrolled by Congressional oversight, that administration. If it's so unbelievable then by all means make the hat. Me, I'll continue questioning every step the administration takes.

Michael Harris
Yup Blackwater, it's me. Silence me, I welcome it.

[MadMaddie]

1. Michael...this is very plausible....and this administration

is not beyond doing something like this to try to enhance their position...no matter what the cost is in lives and historical monuments..

[TahitiNut]

2. False flag operations to cause opponents to split forces and lose focus ...

... is a fairly well-known kind of covert operation. I doubt this administration sees any bounds in employing such tactics.

[stillcool]

3. I think the only thing not plausible..

is the bullshit spewed by the media and our politicians.

What is Covert Action?
J.V. Grady, ICH
September 21, 2005
There are many types of Covert Action operations, not all of them violent. For example, if a government wishes to influence the politics of another country’s government, the government may secretly fund an opposition party in that country in order to influence that country’s elections. Another method is to employ foreign newspaper reporters to write articles that give the version of events, the propaganda, that you want people to believe, even if it is the furthest thing from the truth. Or perhaps the owners or editors of a newspaper or media service can be bought or won over to allow articles or news stories created by the Intelligence organization for propaganda purposes to be planted in the newspaper or media service. A slant can then be given to influence public perceptions. For example, mercenaries can be referred to as “contractors”, thus making people believe that casualties among the mercenaries are innocent civilian construction workers who were unjustly victimized.

The main thing about Covert Action is that it must be deniable. There is a term called “plausible deniability”. When a government authorizes a covert action operation, the operation must be done in such a way that the government can claim that it knows nothing about it; in other words, the operation must not be attributable to the government that authorized it.

Covert Action operations are often Disinformation Operations, which are conducted in such a way as to discredit the opposition or the enemy. This is done, for example, by doing a violent action, such as a bombing, but making it look like the forces of another country or group did it. Such operations are sometimes called False-Flag Operations, meaning that the operation is conducted to make it look like it was done by people serving under another flag, preferably the enemy’s flag. If the operation succeeds as designed, people will blame the action on the wrong party (the enemy). Thus, public opinion will be won over to the side that actually did the killing. Such false-flag, covert action operations are often referred to as Dirty Tricks.
.....................................
So, who is behind many of the bombings against the Shi’ia and Sunni populations? It is quite possible, even probable, that many of them are being carried out by American, British, and even Israeli Covert Action operatives. So, when you watch the news, think more deeply about what you’re seeing; and when you read your newspapers, try reading between the lines or wonder about the source or the writer behind the article. Has the article been planted? Is the writer in the pay of an intelligence service?
J.V. Grady is a former member of US Military Intelligence
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10356.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/contract/2007/0225mercenariesfill.htm
'Mercenaries' to Fill Iraq Troop Gap
By Brian Brady
Scotsman
February 25, 2007
Ministers are negotiating multi-million-pound contracts with private security firms to cover some of the gaps created by British troop withdrawals. Days after Tony Blair revealed that he wanted to withdraw 1,600 soldiers from war-torn Basra within months, it has emerged that civil servants hope "mercenaries" can help fill the gap left behind. Officials from the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence will meet representatives from the private security industry within the next month to discuss "options" for increasing their business in Iraq in the coming years.

The UK government has already paid out almost £160m to private security companies (PSCs) since the invasion of Iraq, for a range of services, including the protection of British officials on duty and in transit in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. But, despite expectations that the booming market for private security would go into decline following the bursting of the "Iraq bubble", firms have now been told to expect even more lucrative work during the "post-occupation phase".
----------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Foreign Office and the MoD are believed to have supported an expanded role since early in the Iraq operation and Downing Street is now rumoured to favour the move as part of the accelerated withdrawal announced by Blair last week. "There are genuine worries that the government is trying to privatise the Iraq conflict," said War on Want's campaigns director, John Hilary. "The occupation of Iraq has allowed British mercenaries to reap huge profits. How can Tony Blair hope to restore peace and security in Iraq while allowing mercenary armies to operate completely outside the law?"

The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

[MichaelHarris]

4. That really does make sense and

we could almost go back to the very beginning. With that in mind it does seem possible that the invasion was never about Saddam or weapons. It very well could have been an invasion to divide a country, start a civil war, and draw in Al Qaeda making them the enemy. Making the statement, "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" a mere ploy.

The ploy being the manipulation of a nation by destroying what they cherish and blaming it on your enemy thus drawing in the divided nation into a conflict with your enemy. It makes it even easier when you set up a weak government in the region allowing you to control the politics and the fight for generations.

This war is slowly being manipulated into, "We're here to defend the Sunnis against Al Qaeda." Americans have a short memory, the illegal invasion will be forgotten and it will truly be another Vietnam. American soldiers sent to foreign land to defend the south from the north. The media will stop mentioning that we were actually the first to invade in Iraq, all we will hear is, "We're there to defend the Iraqis".

[tyedyeto]

5. How often do 'back fires' backfire?

I've seen it happen with forest fires, so why not with your scenario?

[MichaelHarris]

6. Oh they do

and so will this one. History is really great, remember when we backed Al Qaeda? That back fire worked out real well.