Breaking Iraq and Blaming Iran
British Black Ops and the Terror Campaign in Basra
By Andrew G. Marshall
British Black Ops in Basra
07/07/08 "Global Research" In September of 2005, the southern Iraqi oil
city of Basra, under
British occupation since the 2003 invasion, was the scene of an
extraordinarily controversial
incident, which has since exposed the anatomy of the Anglo-American "dirty
war" in Iraq, and in
fact, the relevance to the wider "War on Terror".
On September 19, 2005, two white men, dressed as Arabs, obviously
suspicious to the
British-trained Iraqi police, were pulled over in their car as they
approached the city center
of Basra. As the Independent re****ted, "the two men had been driving in an
unmarked car when
they arrived at a checkpoint in the city." What followed was a
confrontation between the two
men and the Iraqi police, with shots fired and an Iraqi police officer
killed and another
wounded.[1] The men were then detained by the Iraqi police and taken to
the central jail. As it
turned out, the two men were members of the British elite SAS Special
Forces.[2]
In an interview with Al-Jazeera TV, Fattah al-Shaykh, a member of the
Iraqi National Assembly
representing Basra, stated that, "I could see that the UK forces were
always provoking the
Iraqi people in Basra. There are indiscriminate arrests and pressure," and
that a
representative of the British embassy informed him that, "two UK soldiers
were trying to stir
up disturbances. Explosive materials were found in their car and they
opened fire." He further
elaborated that, "what the UK forces are doing is not necessarily known by
the Iraqi forces or
coordinated with them through exchange of information. There are
occupation forces, armoured
vehicles, tanks and military aircraft in Basra. Moreover, there are
members of the British
intelligence present in Basra especially, since Basra is currently a
sensitive and im****tant
area in Iraq. There are members of the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]
and Mossad [word
indistinct], as well as many institutions in this city."[3]
British journalist Robert Fisk asked in an article he wrote on the
subject, "what [were] our
two SAS lads were doing cruising around Basra in Arab dress with
itsy-bitsy moustaches and
guns? Why did no one ask? How many SAS men are in southern Iraq? Why are
they there? What are
their duties? What weapons do they carry? Whoops! No one asked."[4]
The Great Escape
An astounding part of the story about the two British SAS agents is not
simply what they were
up to in Basra, but what happened to them after being arrested. Once
arrested, they were
questioned by Iraqi police, and as a Basra government official stated,
"They refused to say
what their mission was. They said they were British soldiers and to ask
their commander about
their mission."[5]
Within hours of the arrests, ten British tanks backed by helicopters
stormed the jail where the
men were held and destroyed the building, freeing roughly 150 Iraqi
prisoners in the
process.[6] However, the British government initially stated that the men
were released as a
result of negotiations. British Defense officials "insisted they had been
talking to the Iraqi
authorities to secure the release of the men, but acknowledged a wall was
demolished as British
forces tried to "collect" the two prisoners."[7] The Basra Provincial
Governor described the
incident as "barbaric, savage and irresponsible."[8]
Later, the story was changed again, as the British Army re****ted that they
staged the "rescue"
because after the two soldiers were arrested, they were "then handed over
to a militia group,"
and likely as a result of British pressure, "Iraq's interior ministry
ordered the police force
in Basra to release the soldiers but that order was ignored." Brigadier
John Lorimer, who led
the operation, said, "that under Iraqi law the soldiers should have been
handed over to
coalition authorities, but this failed to happen despite repeated
requests."[9] It should be
noted, however, that the Iraqi law being referred to was written up by the
Anglo-American
Coalition Provisional Authority upon its initial occupation of the country
in 2003.
As John Pilger noted in the New Statesman, "Although re****ted initially by
the Times and the
Mail, all mention of the explosives allegedly found in the SAS men's
unmarked Cressida vanished
from the news. Instead, the story was the danger the men faced if they
were handed over to the
militia run by the "radical" cleric Moqtada al-Sadr." He further re****ted
on how what was found
in the car included, "weapons, explosives and a remote-control
detonator."[10]
It is an amazing display of Orwellian double-think for the British to be
able to be responsible
for inciting terror, orchestrate a massive assault on an Iraqi police
station with tanks and
helicopters, and yet, somehow spin it so that it looks like a heroic act
of patriotism of the
kind depicted in the classic World War 2 film, The Great Escape, where
British and American
POWs undertake a massive escape from a German POW camp. Although, far from
a heroic escape, or
valiant rescue, this was an overt military operation aimed at returning
British terrorists into
British hands.
A month after the "rescue" operation, the British government "officially
apologized to Iraq
over the recent Basra events," and a British statement "said that London
apologizes to the
Iraqi people and government, Basra residents, city and province councils
and the police force
over mistakes made by the British."[11]
The Investigation Hits a Dead End
The day after Britain officially apologized for terrorizing Basra, a
"senior British military
police officer in Iraq involved in the investigation of alleged abuse of
Iraqi civilians by
soldiers [has] been found dead at a camp in Basra." Captain Ken Masters,
commander of 61
Section of the Special Investigations Branch (SIB), "was found in his bed
at the air****t at the
weekend." The Independent quoted Defense sources as saying the death was
"not due to hostile
action and also not due to natural causes." Friends referred to the
incident as a "total
surprise," and it was re****ted that no suicide note or firearms were
found.[12]
Masters’ job consisted of investigating all serious incidents involving
the British military in
Iraq, and as the Times re****ted, "Captain Masters’s biggest current
investigation was ordered
after the incident on September 19 when two SAS troopers had to be rescued
by British troops in
armoured vehicles after they had been arrested by Iraqi police. During a
day of violent
confrontations, the Iraqi authorities in Basra claimed that seven Iraqis
were killed and 43
injured, many of them police." The article elaborated on Masters’ duties,
stating,
"Compensation to the families of alleged Iraqi victims who died during the
fracas depended on
the official investigation being carried out by Captain Masters and his
team."[13]
The British Ministry of Defense "said the cir***stances surrounding the
death on Saturday of
Captain Ken Masters, 40, were not suspicious."[14] The day before Masters
died, the official
line put forward by the British military of the Basra incident was that,
"the SAS had been
ordered to carry out surveillance operations against several members of
the Iraqi police, who
were believed to be responsible for torturing prisoners at the notorious
Jamiyat prison in
Basra."[15]
Later, the official line put out after an investigation was that Masters
did indeed kill
himself, due to work pressures. Masters, who was a husband and father of
two, was due to return
home from tour five days after he apparently killed himself.[16]
The Christmas Day Massacre
On December 25, 2006, the British again stormed the Basra headquarters of
the serious crimes
unit, the same police station where the SAS officers were held the
previous September. The
British killed seven men and destroyed the building, which "had been
demolished with explosives
after the pre-dawn assault by about 1,000 troops." Further, "The operation
came three days
after British soldiers arrested the head and other members of the serious
crimes unit on
suspicion of involvement in the kidnap of two SAS soldiers and the murder
of several Iraqis
last year." The "kidnap" being referred to here is an Orwellian
double-speak version of the
events describing the arrest of the two SAS officers for injuring and
killing Iraqi police.
The official reason for the assault was that the serious crimes unit
headquarters, "has long
been accused of involvement in murders, attacks on coalition forces and
kidnappings in the
southern oil city, where rival ****a factions are fighting for control,"
and that, "The British
military acted after learning that some of the prisoners, all suspected
criminals, inside the
police station faced imminent execution." Captain Dunlop stated, "We had
clear directions from
the prime minister and governor to dissolve the unit."[17]
Three days earlier, on December 22, 2006, the "senior Iraqi policeman who
allegedly
masterminded the abduction of two SAS soldiers last year was arrested
yesterday following a
major security operation in Basra." In other words, the senior Iraqi
officer who was present
for the arrest, detention and questioning of the SAS soldiers was taken
into British custody.
The Telegraph re****ted that, "Under cover of thick fog, 800 British troops
in tanks and
armoured vehicles swooped on the home of the policeman and six other Iraqi
officers." The
Telegraph again re-wrote history when they re****ted that, "The two SAS
troopers were allegedly
minutes away from being sold to insurgents and certain death after they
were abducted by rogue
police at a checkpoint in the Jamiat area of Basra on Sept 19 last
year."[18]
In reaction to the storming and total destruction of the Serious Crimes
Unit HQ in Basra, the
Basra Council "described the raid as illegal and has suspended
co-operation with the military,"
and called the raid "provocative." Notably, "A Ministry of Defence
spokesman said 1,000 troops
were involved and hundreds of seized files and computers have been taken
as evidence."[19] What
exactly was contained on those files and computers? As re****ted by the New
York Times, the
"battle lasted nearly three hours. There were no British casualties, but
the streets around the
station were littered with bombed-out cars and rubble."[20]
Considering the fact that the mainstream media and British officials put
massive spin on and
manipulated the facts of the story about the SAS soldiers in relation to
this story, it raises
the question as to what they may be lying about in relation to the actual
storming of the
prison once again. What exactly was the purpose of this massive
undertaking? Surely, the police
forces in Iraq are corrupt and influenced by local militias; it is, after
all, a state of war.
But, it seems that as long as the corruption is in line with
Anglo-American strategy in the
region, a blind-eye is turned. Was the real problem that the Serious
Crimes Unit was actually
doing its job, investigating the Basra incident involving the SAS? This
could explain why the
computers and files were taken. The current official line that the SAS
were investigating
corrupt officials can sup****t why they were dressed as Arabs. But as to
why they were heavily
armed, had explosives and detonators and were the first ones to shoot
during the confrontation
with the police, this explanation does not stand up to scrutiny.
Also, to storm the jail under the pretense of preventing torture and
executions is highly
hypocritical considering what the Coalition is guilty of in Iraq and
around the world. So, it
begs the question, what else is being lied about in this situation, and
for what purpose?
The British Follow the Paper Trail
Following very much in line with previous British actions in Basra, from
the 2005 "rescue" of
black-ops SAS state-terrorists, to the 2006 destruction of the jail,
"rescue" of its computer
records and arrest of its leading officials, the British again made their
destabilizing
presence known. On March 4, 2007, "Iraqi special operation forces and
British troops swept into
an Iraqi intelligence ministry building" in Basra, and, "found prisoners
with signs of torture,
British officials said." Interestingly, "All 30 prisoners escaped during
the surprise raid,
which was triggered by information gleaned from suspects arrested hours
earlier in another
sweep." The public explanation for the raid is very much the same as the
previous Basra raid a
year earlier, which actually appeared to be an operation aimed at
retrieving information about
and arresting all the officials involved with the previous year’s arrest
of the two SAS
soldiers. Officially, this 2007 raid was undertaken to "rescue" abused
prisoners.
Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, referred to the raid as an
"unlawful and irresponsible
act." As the Wa****ngton Post re****ted, "A British military statement said
its forces acted
quickly because it had gained information hours earlier that presented a
high threat."[21]
According to the Telegraph, the British captured "an alleged death squad
leader and four other
militants." The article further re****ted that, "A British military
spokesman said it had not
been possible to warn the provincial authorities before the raid because
it was ordered just
hours earlier, on the basis of information received from a detained
insurgent." About the
prisoners that escaped during the raid, "the British denied they were
deliberately freed,
saying they "regrettably" took advantage of the chaos to make their
escape."[22]
The Iraqi Prime Minister released a statement saying that he "has ordered
a prompt
investigation into the incident of breaking into the security complex
headquarters in Basra and
he affirmed the need to punish those who have carried out this unlawful
and irresponsible
act."[23] The BBC re****ted on the incident, stating that, "The British
government said the
Army's main bases in the city [of Basra] would be closed and the total
British strength reduced
by several thousand over time," and that, "The theory behind this is that
the Iraqi forces are
now ready to take over. The raids over the weekend were indeed led by the
Iraqi security forces
- but targeted other parts of the Iraqi security forces."[24]
The question must be asked: What was the mission really about? Surely, and
sadly, the only
unique prison in Iraq would be one where torture does not occur,
regardless of who is in
control of it. And to say certain facilities under Iraqi government
control are corrupt and
involved in sup****ting terrorists and death squads is a diversionary
point, as the Iraqi
government itself is under Anglo-American control. The fact that the
Iraqis were not told of
this raid not only demonstrates that the British (and Americans) act above
the law, but that
the raid was something they did not want to have known by the Iraqis.
There was a purpose
behind the raid on the prison. It is im****tant to note that it occurred a
mere three months
after the previous raid in December of 2006, in which the British seized
"hundreds of files"
and took computers "as evidence," likely related to the British SAS
incident. Since this was
the Iraq intelligence unit in Basra, could it be that the previously
destroyed Serious Crimes
Unit had passed along some intelligence to the Iraqi Intelligence Ministry
building? It would
seem likely. And so, it would also seem to be likely that the British
would follow the paper
trail of evidence with their trail of terror.
The British Withdraw?
In an August, 2007 article, the Wa****ngton Post re****ted that, "As British
forces pull back
from Basra in southern Iraq, ****ite militias there have escalated a
violent battle against each
other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening
concerns among some
U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's ****ite-dominated
national government will
turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down." The article
quoted a think tank
called the International Crisis Group (ICG) as saying that Basra is
plagued by "the systematic
misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal
vendettas, neighborhood
vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of
criminal mafias that
increasingly intermingle with political actors."[25]
In September of 2007, amid widespread disenchantment among the British for
their participation
in the Iraq war and occupation, the British "pulled out of Basra Palace,
the onetime southern
residence of Saddam Hussein that became the symbol of the UK's role in the
US-led invasion." As
the Independent re****ted, "The British departure from their last remaining
base inside the
walls of Basra City, signalled their disengagement from the conflict and
has highlighted a
growing and public discord between Wa****ngton and London over Iraq, with
the Americans claiming
the move will severely undermine security." The British were to remain at
Basra air****t only,
which is on the outskirts of the city, "while what remains of the
British-controlled south is
handed over to the Iraqi authorities." One Iraqi who is a resident of
Basra was quoted as
saying, "One thing we are uneasy about are rumours that the Americans may
come to Basra to
replace the British. We see what is happening in Baghdad and we don't want
that here."[26]
On September 12, 2007, it was re****ted by the Independent that, "British
forces have been sent
from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior
US commander in Iraq
that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war"," and that, "The deployment came
within a week of
British forces leaving Basra Palace, their last remaining base inside
Basra city, and
withdrawing to the air****t for a widely expected final departure from
Iraq." The move to the
Iranian border was apparently at the request of the Americans, as "The
move came as General
David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US
ambassador to Iraq, made
some of the strongest accusations yet by US officials about Iranian
activity. General Petraeus
spoke on Monday of a "proxy war" in Iraq, while Mr Crocker accused the
Iranian government of
"providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state"."[27]
In December of 2007, the British officially "handed over control of Basra
Province to Iraq’s
government," and as the New York Times re****ted, "American officials
believe the transfer of
control will be a serious test of Iraqi political and military leaders to
maintain Basra — a
strategically vital and politically fractious southern province, and the
****t city of the same
name — under Iraqi control, and prevent Iran or ****ite militias from
gaining too much
influence." However the British would remain in a "sup****t role" in the
Iraqi province that
"holds most of Iraq’s proven petroleum reserves." A British General was
quoted as saying, "We
will continue to help train Basra security forces."[28]
So was the British departure from Basra really a drawing down of
participation in the war? Was
it for political legitimacy within the UK? Or, was there another reason
behind this action?
Basra’s strategic im****tance cannot be underestimated, being in the south
of Iraq, the most
oil-rich province, close to Iran and in the heart of the Gulf.
The British used to govern Iraq under a League of Nations mandate from its
"independence" from
the Ottoman Empire until 1932. In 1940, an anti-British nationalist
leader, Ra****d Ali, came to
power in Iraq. After engaging in closer relation****ps with fascist Italy
and quietly with Nazi
Germany, he was replaced in 1941 as Prime Minister. A few months later, he
orchestrated a coup
d’état and returned to power. The British immediately responded by seizing
Basra, what was
seen, even then, as a vital supply route. The British also had a major
military base in Basra.
Significantly, also in 1941, Iran’s King was developing close ties to
Germany. Britain was
afraid of Iran’s oil reserves falling out of the hands of the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now
known as BP – British Petroleum), and into hands of Germany. So, a couple
months after Britain
took back Iraq, the British and USSR launched a joint invasion of Iran.
The British of course
invaded from the south in Iraq, from their bases, notably their base in
Basra.
Could this glimpse into the past present any understanding of the present
British situation in
Basra? Considering that the British went from Basra and moved to a base on
the Iranian border,
it seems likely. But why leave Basra? Well, if the strategy of tension in
the Middle East is
directed at destabilizing the region, spilling civil war and conflict
across borders,[29]
perhaps it might be necessary for the British to step back and see if
Basra collapses in on
itself. Or perhaps, there would be some outside help in Basra’s implosion,
but without the
British forces present, foreign involvement would not be discussed as a
cause of the problem,
and could therefore be discussed as a possible solution to any implosion.
The Battle of Basra
Three months after handing control of Basra over to the Iraqis, a large
battle was underway.
The western media tenaciously referred to it as the "Battle of Basra." On
March 24, 2008, Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went to Basra to oversee the planned Iraqi
offensive to rid
Basra of its Mahdi Army militia in key Sadrist neighborhoods of those
loyal to Mahdi Army
leader, Muqtada al-Sadr. This was the first major operation undertaken by
the Iraqi Army.
The Battle lasted until March 31, resulting in hundreds of dead and
significantly hundreds more
wounded. During the battle, British papers such as the Times were calling
for Britain to
abandon its withdrawal timetable from the base outside of Basra, in order
to remain in case of
a need to "rescue" Basra.[30]
The Iraqi government forces were surprised by the resilience of the Mahdi
Army in Basra, and
were suffering a great deal at the defenses of the militia. This resulted
in American forces
having to be drawn into the battle to sup****t the Iraqi government forces.
US warplanes were
used, ultimately killing civilians, and even the British were drawn into
the fighting directly
from their base at the air****t. The Independent re****ted that, "If US and
British forces engage
in direct military action on a wide scale with the Sadrist militia, then
Mr Sadr could call for
a general uprising, which would engulf all of ****a Iraq in war."[31]
According to the BBC,
"There have also been a small number of both British and American special
forces on the ground"
in Basra during the Battle.[32]
It was on March 29, that Muqtada al-Sadr called for a ceasefire between
the ****’a militia and
Iraqi forces. The Independent re****ted that, "The Sadrists' ceasefire was
unexpected since they
have prevented government forces from advancing in Basra and Baghdad.
Hours before the
announcement, militiamen stormed the state television station in Basra,
forcing the guards to
flee and setting armoured vehicles on fire."[33] As it turned out, the
ceasefire between Iraqi
government officials and Sadr’s militia was brokered by Iran. USA Today
re****ted that, "Iran
has close ties with both al-Sadr's movement and [Prime Minister]
al-Maliki, who spent several
years in exile there," and that, "the agreement was brokered by the
commander of Iran's al-Quds
Brigade, which is considered a terrorist organization by Wa****ngton."[34]
What was Behind the Battle of Basra?
How exactly did the Battle of Basra begin, other than the initial attack
by government forces?
What was the reasoning and purpose behind this major offensive? Surely, a
puppet government
such as Iraq would never undertake such an operation without in the very
least, the sup****t of
the Americans or British, but even more likely, at the direction of the
Anglo-Americans. The
Battle of Basra must be put into a wider context.
A week before the Battle broke out, Vice President Dick Cheney took a
surprise tour of the
Middle East. If George Bush is the "Decider" as he once proclaimed, Dick
Cheney is certainly
the "Destabilizer," not to mention, the "Decider’s Decider." On March 17,
Cheney made a
surprise, unannounced visit to Iraq, where his "first meeting was a
classified briefing with
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S.
military commander in Iraq
who met him at the air****t." He also met with Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki. Among many of the
possible topics of discussion during Cheney’s trip was that, "The Iraqis
do not yet have a law
for sharing the nation’s oil wealth among the ****ites, Sunnis and Kurds, a
law that the Bush
administration believes will trigger multinational energy companies to
invest in exploration
and production in Iraq," as well as, "a plan for new provincial elections.
Iraq’s presidential
council, which must give its nod to laws passed by the Iraqi parliament,
rejected a plan for
new elections last month, ****pping it back to the legislature." The
rejection was seen as "a
setback to the U.S. campaign for national reconciliation, [which] came
despite Cheney’s
last-minute phone call to the main holdout on the three-member panel: Vice
President Adel
Abdul-Mahdi, a ****ite." Cheney’s trip included visits to Oman, Israel,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and
the Palestinian territories.[35]
Among much of the discussion regarding Cheney’s trip to the Middle East
was rumours of
preparing for a possible war with Iran. As the Telegraph re****ted, "Mr
Cheney, whose nine-day
tour has included stops in Turkey, the Gulf and Afghanistan, insisted that
Iran must not be
allowed to develop nuclear weapons."[36] A surge of violence in Basra
would provide Cheney with
a convenient excuse to point the finger at Iran for "troublesome meddling"
in Iraq.
It is im****tant to take a closer look at possible reasons for the outbreak
of violence in Basra
in late March, a mere nine days after Cheney’s visit to Iraq. The main
reasons, (none of which
include the Iraqi government’s "decision" to displace the Mahdi Army),
include scoring
political points on the war issue in domestic American politics, passing
an Iraqi oil law,
pressing forward with provincial elections, building the case or creating
a pretext for a war
with Iran, and justifying a permanent occupation of Iraq.
Scoring Political Points
At Congressional hearings in early April following the Basra offensive,
where Ambassador to
Iraq Ryan Crocker and General David Patraeus testified, Senator Ted
Kennedy asked Crocker,
"Were you at any meetings with the Vice President… where the issue of the
Basra invasion took
place?" Crocker responded, "Um, that was not discussed." Kennedy pressed,
"It wasn’t discussed
at all, during the Vice President’s visit to Baghdad, ah, that the, the
possibility of Maliki
uh, going into Basra, was not discussed, you were not at any meetings
where the Vice President
was present or where this was discussed in his presence?" Crocker again
replied, "Uh, it was
not discussed in any meeting I attended, no, sir." Kennedy then looked to
General Patraeus,
"Ah, General?" Patraeus replied, "Same, Senator."
Ray McGovern, former 27-year CIA analyst who delivered several daily
intelligence briefings to
US Presidents, stated that, "I think Kennedy knows more than the rest of
us know. I think it’s
very clear that if you’re looking for why Maliki went off half-cocked for
a big offensive down
against Moqtada al-Sadr in southern Iraq, it was because Cheney had told
him to. And I would be
shocked if Cheney didn’t tell Patraeus and Crocker what he was going to
tell Maliki." He
continued, "Patraeus has hundreds of troops there [in Basra] embedded with
the Iraqi forces, he
had to know exactly what was going on. He just couldn’t stop it. Why?
Well, well he didn’t want
to stop it because Cheney is running things. The plan was to get down
there into the south to
show that this fellow [Maliki] can take the initiative and be – well, the
President was
instructed two days later to say this was a ‘defining moment’ – a defining
moment of the
leader****p of Prime Minister Maliki. Well, yeah, it was, but not the way
they meant." McGovern
elaborated, "And so Patraeus and Crocker could come before Congress and
say, ‘look, you told us
– you told us last time that the Iraqis had to take more initiative, so
that we’re not doing
the fighting. Well, look, just what happened, they cleaned out the whole
of southern Iraq. And
they still played that theme… [that] Maliki took the initiative." He
further stated,
"Ironically, they wanted to give the initiative to Maliki because they
thought it might
succeed, but then they wanted to give the initiative to Maliki because it
failed miserably."[37]
The Oil Law
Iraq has failed to pass an oil law for some time. Basra, the most oil rich
province in Iraq, is
of vital im****tance in any decision made regarding an oil law. In 2001,
before 9/11,
Afghanistan, and Iraq, Vice President Cheney met in secret with executives
from Exxon Mobil
Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP
America Inc., in what was
known as the Cheney Energy Task Force.[38]
Interestingly, Judicial Watch, a public interest group and government
watchdog, sued to get
Commerce Department do***ents pertaining to Cheney’s secret Energy Task
Force meetings. The
do***ents contained "a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and
terminals, as well as
2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ‘Foreign Suitors for
Iraqi Oilfield
Contracts’." Further, "The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE)
do***ents likewise
feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and
tanker terminals. There
are sup****ting charts with details of the major oil and gas development
projects in each
country that provide information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil
company and status or
completion date."[39]
Months after the Battle at Basra and Cheney’s visit, the International
Herald Tribune re****ted
that, "The Iraqi Oil Ministry is negotiating with Royal Dutch Shell on a
joint venture deal to
develop natural gas associated with oil production in southern Iraq," and
that, "The head of
the Basra Economic Development Committee, Munadhil Abid Khanjar, said that
Shell had approached
the Oil Ministry last December with its plans and since then meetings have
been held outside
Iraq."[40] Two days later, it was re****ted that, "Four Western oil
companies are in the final
stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to
Iraq, 36 years after
losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to
power." The main oil
companies are "Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in
the Iraq Petroleum
Company — [and they], along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil
companies, are in talks
with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest
fields, according to
ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat." It
was further re****ted
that, "The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers
prevailed over others
by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and
India."[41]
So, if Cheney’s visit to Iraq was to do with oil, then, Mission
Accomplished. However, it
doesn’t seem likely that this was the reasoning behind the outbreak of
violence in Basra.
Surely, it was a topic of discussion between Cheney and Iraqi officials,
however, it does not
account for a push for violence in Basra, unless it is an issue of
legitimizing a permanent
occupation of the oil rich Basra province under the auspices of
"stabilizing" the volatile
region, but in reality, maintaining a presence there to protect the oil
fields for Royal Dutch
Shell, Exxon, and BP.
The Provincial Elections
In February of 2008, it was re****ted that, "Iraq's three-member presidency
council has rejected
a draft law to hold provincial elections and returned it to parliament,"
and that, "The bill is
expected to boost the powers of the provinces to launch their own economic
projects with the
money allocated by the central government."[42] Two days after Cheney’s
visit, "Iraq's
three-member presidential council on Wednesday approved legislation that
sets a time frame for
provincial elections, a development that Iraqi lawmakers called an
im****tant step toward
reconciling rival factions in the divided government."[43] This appears to
be following the
directions of the Council on Foreign Relations, among many other think
tanks, in balkanizing
Iraq, or as they put it, reverting to a federal system. Although pu****ng
for a federal system
for Iraq came after initial calls for a "three state solution," as was the
title of a Leslie
Gelb article in the New York Times, who is President Emeritus of the
Council on Foreign
Relations.[44] The article he wrote called for the Balkanization of Iraq
based upon the model
of Yugoslavia, which, incidentally, was fractured largely through
Western-financed, Al-Qaeda
affiliated terrorist organizations in Bosnia and Kosovo.[45]
President Bush said in a speech on March 27, 2008, during the Battle of
Basra, that, "Last
week, leaders reached agreement on a provincial powers law that helps
define Iraqi federalism,
and sets the stage for provincial elections later this year. And that's an
im****tant piece of
legislation because it will give Iraqis who boycotted the last provincial
election -- such as
Sunnis in Anbar or Ninewa provinces -- a chance to go to the polls and
have a voice in their
future."[46]
Reverting to a more federal system will allow for the political fracturing
of Iraq. Not only
will it separate the regions likely according to Sunni, Kurd and ****’a
factions, but it will
allow bigger powers, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, to
not have their
influence threatened by any actual strengthened and united Iraqi federal
government.
As the Berkeley Daily Planet re****ted after the Battle of Basra, Muqtada
al-Sadr, as a
nationalist, "sup****ts a unified Iraq with a strong central government,"
while Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki has "pushed for dismembering Iraq into separate provinces
dominated by the
country’s three major ethnic groups—Sunnis in the west, Kurds in the
north, and ****ites in the
south. Since most of the oil reserves are in the south, as is the
country’s only ****t, whoever
controls the south essentially controls 70 percent of Iraq’s economy."
Further, the provincial
election law that was passed "sets up an October election in which the
various provinces will
vote on whether they want to remain a unified country or splinter into
separate provinces."[47]
The author stipulates that Maliki attacked Basra in an effort to win
political points in
driving out the militias in order to win the Basra provincial election
come October, and thus,
retain control over the oil reserves.
However, my problem with this hypothesis is that in the originally
proposed recommendations
from the Council on Foreign Relations in turning Iraq into a federal
system, they state that
oil laws are to be the prerogative of the federal government, not
provincial.[48] Not to
mention, Maliki has slim, if any chance, of ever winning the south of
Iraq. Thus, it may be
more likely that in attacking Basra, it creates great resentment among
****’as and thusly, a
federal political system will be so fractured and divided that it will
likely lead to
separation naturally. If the Iraqi provinces separated of their own
accord, it would be harder
to point the finger at the US for the balkanization of Iraq, which has
long been a strategic
aim.[49] [50] [51] When the US Senate passed a resolution in sup****t of a
federal system as a
solution for Iraq, the Arab world, and even the Iraqi Prime Minister
denounced it as an attempt
to divide Iraq. But, if the Iraqi Parliament p***** a law for provincial
elections, which could
lead to fracture, it is a "break through for democracy."
Promoting War With Iran
The Financial Times re****ted prior to Cheney’s trip to the Middle East
that, "On Iran, the
vice-president is expected to urge countries in the region to do more to
isolate Tehran
diplomatically and economically," and that, "The trip comes at a time of
renewed interest in
policy towards Iran after a senior US military commander resigned last
week because of
perceived differences with the White House over the issue. Admiral William
Fallon was widely
considered a dovish voice on Iran and his departure sparked speculation
that hawkish figures
such as Mr Cheney were regaining the upper hand over the issue."[52] The
day after Cheney
visited Saudi Arabia, the government began preparing "national plans to
deal with any sudden
nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following
experts' warnings of
possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors."[53]
The outbreak of violence in Basra delivered the perfect op****tunity to
continue doing what the
administration has been doing for so long, blaming Iran for the violence
in Iraq. Amid the
heated Battle of Basra, on March 27, it was re****ted that, "The U.S.
military stated Iran is
orchestrating the ****'ite insurgency in southern Iraq and outbreaks of
violence throughout the
country," and a Defense Department spokesman stated that, "There has been
a persistent and
troublesome meddling by Iran."[54]
A month later, the US envoy to the United Nations blamed Iran "for fueling
recent clashes in
the southern Iraqi city of Basra and in Baghdad, saying Tehran was
training and supplying
weapons to militias." Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations
and signatory to several PNAC do***ents, stated, "The recent clashes
between criminal militia
elements and Iraqi government forces in Basra and Baghdad have highlighted
Iran's destabilizing
influence and actions."[55] However, what he (intentionally) failed to
realize is that Sadr had
declared a ceasefire long before the Battle of Basra began, from August of
2007, (interestingly
at the time that Bush’s "surge" strategy in Iraq became a "success" in
reducing violence), and
that the Battle began when the Iraqi government attacked Sadr strongholds
in Basra. Khalilzad
also mistakenly blamed Iran for being a destabilizing force. Yet, it was
Iran that brokered the
ceasefire, making Iran the most stabilizing force in the region.
On June 6, 2008, it was re****ted that, "Pentagon officials firmly opposed
a proposal by Vice
President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC) bases by insisting that the administration would have to make clear
decisions about how
far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran,
according to a former
George W. Bush administration official." The re****t continued, "J. Scott
Carpenter, who was
then deputy assistant secretary of state in the State Department's Bureau
of Near Eastern
Affairs, recalled in an interview that senior Defence Department (DoD)
officials and the Joint
Chiefs used the escalation issue as the main argument against the Cheney
proposal," and that
Cheney had proposed "launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in
Iran." It further
stated that, "The question of escalation posed by DoD officials involved
not only the potential
of the Mahdi Army in Iraq to attack, Carpenter said, but possible
responses by Hezbollah and by
Iran itself across the Middle East," and that, "Cheney's proposal was
perceived as a ploy to
provoke Iranian retaliation that could used to justify a strategic attack
on Iran."[56]
Cheney’s plan to provoke Iran through airstrikes on camps in Iran was
rebuked by the Pentagon,
and the attempt at scaring the world with threats of Iran acquiring
nuclear weapons was rebuked
by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of all 16 US intelligence
agencies in December of
2007, which said that Iran gave up attempting to build nuclear weapons in
2003.[57] It was even
re****ted that Cheney tried to suppress the NIE from becoming public for
over a year.[58] It
seemed as if provoking a situation within Iraq was the best option for
Cheney. However, because
Iran acted quickly in ending the violence and brokering a ceasefire,
Cheney’s plan backfired.
Permanent Occupation
Having a massive outbreak of violence in Iraq could have provided an
excellent reason to
justify a permanent occupation of Iraq. On April 8, 2008, a week after the
fighting in Basra
reached a ceasefire, the Guardian re****ted that, "A confidential draft
agreement covering the
future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision
is being made for an
open-ended military presence in the country," and that the "secret" and
"sensitive" agreement
was dated "March 7," and, "is intended to replace the existing UN mandate
and authorises the US
to "conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when
necessary for imperative
reasons of security" without time limit."[59]
On June 5, it was re****ted by the Independent that, "A secret deal being
negotiated in Baghdad
would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely,
regardless of the
outcome of the US presidential election in November," and that, "Iraqi
officials fear that the
accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct
military operations, arrest
Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position
in the Middle East
and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country." Further, "Under
the terms of the new
treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases
in Iraq. American
negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and
contractors, and a
free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq
without consulting the
Baghdad government." The article re****ted that, "The Iraqi government
wants to delay the actual
signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has
been trying to force
it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks
trying to secure the
accord."[60]
Im****tant to note is that, "The agreement artfully drafted by US officials
will not only
jeopardize the Iraqi sovereignty but will also give the US military the
right to use Iraq as a
launching pad for attacks against other countries, including Syria and
Iran."[61] As of June
19, "Iraqi and U.S. officials are seeking a compromise on the pending
issues over a new
security agreement between the two countries."[62]
Concluding Remarks
Understanding the anatomy of the conflict that has raged in Basra since
2003 is a pivotal study
in understanding the wider "War on Terror." The British, for nearly a
century maintaining a
destabilizing presence in the region, notably in Basra, have not given up
their Empire’s
long-standing tradition of "Divide and Conquer." From the two SAS
terrorist, to their dramatic
"rescue," the destruction of the Serious Crimes Unit and eventually, the
liquidation of the
Basra Intelligence Ministry, the British have maintained a position of
being above the law and
beyond moral restraint.
Notes
[1] Helen McCormack, The day that Iraqi anger exploded in the face of the
British occupiers.
The Independent: September 20, 2005:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-day-that-iraqi-anger-exploded-in-the-face-of-the-british-occupiers-507597.html
[2] BBC, Iraq probe into soldier incident. BBC News: September 20, 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm
[3] Global Research, Iraqi MP accuses British Forces in Basra of
"Terrorism". Al Jazeera:
September 20, 2005:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=983
[4] Robert Fisk, When nature and man conspire to expose the lies of the
powerful, the truth
will out. The Independent: September 24, 2005:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-when-nature-and-man-conspire-to-expose-the-lies-of-the-powerful-the-truth-will-out-508135.html
[5] Times Online, British forces break soldiers out of Basra jail. Times
Online: September 19,
2005:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article568439.ece
[6] Ibid.
[7] AP, British soldiers free two from Basra jail. USA Today: September
19, 2005:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-19-british-basra_x.htm
[8] Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer, British Smash Into Iraqi Jail To
Free 2 Detained
Soldiers. The Wa****ngton Post: September 20, 2005:
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900572.html
[9] BBC, Iraq probe into soldier incident. BBC News: September 20, 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm
[10] John Pilger, John Pilger blames Basra on the British. The New
Statesman: October 3, 2005:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200510030009
[11] Michel Chossudovsky, Britain "apologizes" for terrorist act in Basra.
Global Research:
October 15, 2005:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1094
[12] Kim Sengupta, Senior military investigator found dead in Iraq. The
Independent: October
17, 2005:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/senior-military-investigator-found-dead-in-iraq-511240.html
[13] Michael Evans, Top military investigator is found dead in Basra. The
Times Online: October
17, 2005:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579399.ece
[14] Richard Norton-Taylor, Investigator found dead at Basra base. The
Guardian: October 17, 2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/oct/17/military.iraq
[15] The Age, Captured SAS soldiers 'spied on drill torturer'. The Age:
October 17, 2005:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/iraq/captured-sas-soldiers-spied-on-drill-torturer/2005/10/16/1129401144904.html
[16] Ian Herbert, Suicide in Basra: The unravelling of a military man. The
Independent: July
31, 2006:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/suicide-in-basra-the-unravelling-of-a-military-man-409965.html
[17] Telegraph staff, British troops storm 'execution prison'. The
Telegraph: December 25, 2006:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/migrationtemp/1537806/British-troops-storm-'execution-prison'.html
[18] Thomas Harding, 'Rogue' police officers seized in Basra. The
Telegraph: December 23, 2006:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1537714/%27Rogue%27-police-officers-seized-in-Basra.html
[19] BBC, Iraqi police ambushed near Basra. BBC News: October 29, 2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6097180.stm
[20] Marc Santora, British Soldiers Storm Iraqi Jail, Citing Torture. The
New York Times:
December 26, 2006:
http://www.truthout.org/article/british-soldiers-storm-iraqi-jail-citing-torture
[21] Sudarsan Raghavan, Basra Raid Finds Prisoners With Signs of Torture.
The Wa****ngton Post:
March 5, 2007:
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030400345.html
[22] Matthew Moore, Iraqi PM criticises 'illegal' British raid. The
Telegraph: March 6, 2007:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/migrationtemp/1544637/Iraqi-PM-criticises-'illegal'-British-raid.html
[23] Reuters, Iraqi PM orders probe of raid on Basra prison. Reuters:
March 4, 2007:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04686706.htm
[24] Paul Wood, Basra raids raise power concerns. BBC News: March 6, 2007:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6423691.stm
[25] Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks, As British Leave, Basra
Deteriorates. The Wa****ngton
Post: August 7, 2007:
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401_pf.html
[26] Kim Sengupta, British leave last remaining Basra base: What was
achieved? The Independent:
September 3, 2007:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/british-leave-last-remaining-basra-base-what-was-achieved-401284.html
[27] Kim Sengupta, The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border.
The Independent:
September 12, 2007:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-proxy-war-uk-troops-are-sent-to-iranian-border-402083.html
[28] Paul von Zielbauer, British Hand Over Basra to Iraqis. The New York
Times: December 16, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/world/middleeast/16cnd-iraq.html?ex=1355461200&en=3c6761e2acb08c5a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
[29] Ralph Peters, Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look.
Armed Forces Journal:
June 2006: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
[30] The Times, Iraq: the battle for Basra. Times Online: March 28, 2008:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3635662.ece
[31] Patrick Cockburn, British and US forces drawn into battle for Basra.
The Independent:
March 30, 2008:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/british-and-us-forces-drawn-into-battle-for-basra-802626.html
[32] BBC, Britain and the battle for Basra. BBC News: March 30, 2008:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7321461.stm
[33] Patrick Cockburn, Al-Sadr calls ceasefire after six days of clashes.
The Independent:
March 31, 2008:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/alsadr-calls-ceasefire-after-six-days-of-clashes-802735.html
[34] Charles Levinson, Iranians help reach Iraq cease-fire. USA Today:
March 31, 2008:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-30-iraqnews_N.htm
[35] AP, In push for political unity, Cheney visits Iraq. MSNBC: March 17,
2008:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23667595/
[36] Tom Coghlan, Dick Cheney tour sparks Iran war rumours. The Telegraph:
March 21, 2008:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582409/Dick-Cheney-tour-sparks-Iran-war-rumours.html
[37] Real News, Ex-CIA analyst on Petraeus and Cheney. The Real News
Network: April 11, 2008:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1323
[38] Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, Do***ent Says Oil Chiefs Met With
Cheney Task Force. The
Wa****ngton Post: November 16, 2005:
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
[39] Press Office, CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DO***ENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI
OILFIELDS. Judicial
Watch: July 17, 2003:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
[40] AP, Iraq in talks with Royal Dutch Shell on joint venture deal to
invest natural gas. The
International Herald Tribune: June 17, 2008:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/17/business/ME-FIN-Iraq-Natural-Gas.php
[41] Andrew E. Kramer, Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back.
The International
Herald Tribune: June 19, 2008:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/africa/19iraq.php
[42] AFP, Iraq presidency rejects provincial election law. AFP: February
27, 2008:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYO3MajPLR6JQiP1E71sgMz0ufzg
[43] Sholnn Freeman, Iraqi Council Clears Key Legislation on Provincial
Elections. The
Wa****ngton Post: March 20, 2008:
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903520.html
[44] Leslie Gelb, The Three State Solution. The New York Times: November
25, 2003:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6559/threestate_solution.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3325%2Fleslie_h_gelb%3Fpage%3D3
[45] Michel Chossudovsky, "Osamagate." Global Research: October 9, 2001:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html
[46] George W. Bush, Bush's Speech on the Global War on Terror, March
2008. CFR: March 27, 2008:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15867/bushs_speech_on_the_global_war_on_terror_march_2008.html
[47] Conn Hallinan, Column: Dispatches FromThe Edge: The Story Behind the
Battle for Basra. The
Berkeley Daily Planet: April 11, 2008:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-04-11/article/29715
[48] Leslie Gelb and Joseph Biden, Jr., Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq.
The New York Times: May
1, 2006:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10569/unity_through_autonomy_in_iraq.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3325%2Fleslie_h_gelb%3Fpage%3D2
[49] Linda S. Heard, The Prophecy of Oded Yinon. Counter Punch: April 25,
2006:
http://www.counterpunch.org/heard04252006.html
[50] Richard Perle, et. al., A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing
the Realm. The
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies: June 1996:
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
[51] Leslie Gelb, The Three State Solution. The New York Times: November
25, 2003:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6559/threestate_solution.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3325%2Fleslie_h_gelb%3Fpage%3D3
[52] Daniel Dombey and Andrew Ward, Oil tops Cheney’s Middle East tour
agenda. The Financial
Times: March 16, 2008:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d132d1e2-f3a2-11dc-b6bc-0000779fd2ac.html
[53] Chris Floyd, US Attack on Iran: Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for
"Sudden Nuclear Hazards"
After Cheney Visit. Global Research: March 31, 2008:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8494
[54] World Tribune, U.S. charges Iran behind renewed violence in Iraq. The
World Tribune: March
27, 2008:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ss_iran_03_27.asp
[55] Claudia Parsons, US envoy to UN blames Iran for fueling Iraq
violence. Reuters: April 28,
2008:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKN28305593._CH_.242020080428
[56] Gareth ****ter, US/IRAN: Fearing Escalation, Pentagon Fought Cheney
Plan. IPS: June 6,
2008: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42696
[57] Mark Mazzetti, U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work. The New York
Times: December 3,
2007: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/03/5588/
[58] Gareth ****ter, POLITICS-US: Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran
NIE. IPS: November 8,
2007: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978
[59] Seumas Milne, Secret US plan for military future in Iraq. The
Guardian: April 8, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa
[60] Patrick Cockburn, Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US
control. The Independent:
June 5, 2008:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html
[61] Ismail Salami, US hidden agenda in Iraq security agreement. Press TV:
June 7, 2008:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=59060§ionid=3510303
[62] AP, Iraq, US seek security compromise. Associated Press: June 19,
2008:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4Sx1RDO6xF-Ggz2GsqBY6y0vq6AD91DC1TG1
|
