August 1st, 2023 | RYAN TYLER

Iraq Was Theatre, A World War Is Not

The war in Iraq was staged to show off American power, but Putin's invasion is a real war.

There aren't many corporate journalists embedded in Ukraine, are there? Currently, most of the reporters reporting from the the war are in “green zones”. Those are safe zones where they won't get maimed or killed. Now think back to the war in Iraq, when we saw live feeds of buildings exploding and journalists reporting from downtown Baghdad. Why was that war covered so differently? The answer is simple. The war in Iraq was theatre designed to showcase America's power and to intimidate rivals, while working toward a long-term goal to choke off Iran.

Saddam Hussein's army was small, underfunded and disloyal. The whole war to overthrow his regime lasted just over one month. When he was gone and the real, bloodthirsty insurgents took over the country years later, the Americans couldn't beat them. The same happened in Afghanistan. You'll often hear about how America and its allies were defeated and forced out of Afghanistan by yak-herders with machine guns. It's all true.

Defeating Saddam Hussein wasn't difficult. As they always do, Americans targeted a weak enemy to wage a war for profit and to secure the dominance of their currency as the global reserve, while taking control of another piece of the global chessboard in their effort to eventually topple Iran.

Knowing the war would be quick and painless for Americans, CNN and other propaganda outlets embedded their journalists right in the centre of the war. They ran advertisements for the up and coming “shock and awe” bombing campaign like it was the Super Bowl. They then pieced together montages of buildings being bombed in rapid succession across Baghdad, after the live footage of the anticipated event fell flat and dragged on too slowly. When the war was over, Iraq lost an estimated 16,000 soldiers and personnel. Over the course of years and amid the rampant insurgency that followed, the biggest losses have been among civilians—which are estimated to be as high as 250,000 or more. In the end, the U.S. lost about 4,500 servicemen.

In its efforts to profit, intimidate and control the world, the United States has probably killed millions of innocent civilians by staging similar theatrics.

When we compare what happened in Iraq to what's happening in Ukraine, we get something that more closely resembles a real war. One that's too dangerous for journalists to cover. The only footage of the battlefield we see is on social media, uploaded by civilians and soldiers from both sides. Often, that footage is graphic and horrifying. It's too horrific for mainstream audiences, so it gets blurred out and removed from platforms within hours.

The war in Iraq was American theatrics. The war in Ukraine is real.

Since the war is ongoing and could escalate into the biggest, most real war we have experienced in our lifetimes, it's hard to know how many casualties there have been. Both sides will report numbers that look better for them and worse for their enemies. Western propagandists will say Russia has sustained heavier losses than Ukraine, while Russian propagandists will say the opposite.

In terms of territory gained, we can see that Russia is winning.

If NATO gets officially involved—when Ukraine is admitted as a member—all of this could change. When a member nation is attacked, as stated in NATO's rule book, the alliance has an obligation to respond immediately. That means everyone, including Canada and most of Western Europe, will be forced to officially declare war on Russia and its allies. If Putin refuses to back off and make the unreasonable concessions NATO would likely demand, we could enter a whole new stage of real war. If NATO uses Poland to antagonize Russia next, it could set off an even worse scenario.

One of the main reasons Putin invaded Ukraine was to stop its entrance into NATO.

The Bigger Picture

NATO will attempt to appear reasonable if they ever accept Ukraine as a member. As of now, Biden has thrown a dagger into Zelenskyy's back by stating the war needs to end before Ukraine can join, but things could change. If they do, NATO will make some offers to end the war, but riddle them with demands they know Putin would refuse. They'll ask Russia to give back Donbas, Crimea and the Eastern parts of Ukraine's territory that have been conquered. Knowing Putin would be crazy to accept the offer, they'll ramp up the propaganda efforts to paint him as an unreasonable, unhinged tyrant with intentions to invade the rest of Europe.

“We tried to broker peace, but Putin is the next Hitler,” they'll say.

Why would Russia give back Eastern Ukraine? It would be stupid. The whole purpose of Putin's invasion was to protect his country and Moscow from Western incursions. By accepting Ukraine into the alliance, one of the closest countries to Moscow's city limits would be armed and equipped with heavy Western artillery, military bases, nukes, missile silos and American military personnel. Does that sound like something a serious leader, who is committed to protecting the sovereignty of his country, would let happen? Both Latvia and Estonia are already members of NATO. Where is Putin supposed to draw the line?

Putin's whole invasion of Ukraine is about protecting Russia and blocking NATO.

It is believed that the long-term American goal of invading Iraq and Afghanistan was to create a cordon around Iran. By controlling both countries—and later more countries—the U.S. intended to choke off and surround Iran with military forces that would be capable of launching a full-scale invasion. Failing at being the unhinged idiot portrayed by Western media, Putin threw a wrench into that plan by backing Syria and blocking U.S. efforts to topple other nearby countries.

Are you seeing the bigger picture yet?

Controlling Syria was a part of a plan to connect Iraq to Turkey for better ease of movement. If you've ever played a board game like Risk, you might know the overall strategy. If you look at a map of our current world, it wouldn't be hard to plot out American efforts to eventually seize and neutralize enemies of the existing world order. If you know Chess, you'd see that Putin is playing it.

Calling Putin the aggressor who launched an “unprovoked” war on Ukraine is beyond false—it's a blatant lie. Who invaded Iraq? Who invaded Afghanistan? Who funded rebels in Libya? Who attempted to topple the regime in Syria? Who backed a coup in Ukraine to topple the country's democratically elected pro-Russian government in 2014? You know the answers.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, OPEC

The relationship between Russia and Iran is similar to the relationship between America and Saudi Arabia. Both countries are leading members of OPEC. Both Russia and the United States have made strong friends with two rival oil producers in the Middle East and two members of an oil cartel that controls prices and supply.

Putin knew he needed to stop the West's incursions on Syria to protect Iran and Russia's long-term situation. The invasion and destruction of Iran would be a significant and dangerous long-term loss for Russia. Furthermore, losing Iran would give more control over the global energy supply to Western allies.

More recently, Iran supplied kamikaze drones to Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, but the relationship goes far back. Some would say the Russian empire has been close with the Persian Empire and modern Iran dating as far back as the 1500s. Since becoming president, Putin has strengthened military and economic relations with Iran and invited the country to join Russia's NATO equivalent, CSTO.

BRICS

A new global powerhouse is emerging and you've probably heard a lot about it. You've been hearing about de-dollarization and the strengthening ties between some of the world's strongest and most competitive countries. One of those countries is Russia. Long-time U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia, has also shown an interest in being a part of this new global alliance.

BRICS is a lot like LGBTQ. It keeps adding letters.

Formerly known as BRIC, the alliance added South Africa in 2010 and will likely add a whole swath of other countries in the coming years. BRICS currently makes up 45% of the world's population and has a nominal GDP of $28 trillion. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have been said to be showing interest in joining the partnership. Other countries on the list include Egypt, Argentina and Nigeria.

The five existing members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

The country most responsible for creating BRICS is America. American interventions and aggression have pushed Iran, China and Russia closer together, as well as sewn the seeds of doubt in many of America's most trusted allies. Saudi Arabia has become more distant and countries like Brazil and Mexico have elected anti-American presidents.

For anyone who fears that the top leaders at the Pentagon might be sociopaths, or idiots, the growth and strength of BRICS could be the catalyst for a third world war. For the first time since the Cold War, American hegemony is under threat. Under the prospects of losing its grip on power, some fear the U.S. will make moves to create a global conflict with the aim of drawing back old alliances and convincing potential threats to reconsider their actions. No one wants a world war, but the West might need one to reassert its dominance.

Thinking it could win a global conflict, NATO might be willing to take the gamble.

There would be two hopes for America by starting a third world war. The first would be that the mere threat of a war would cause alliances and loyalties to shift away from America's enemies; the other would be to bite the bullet and wage a full-scale global war to neutralize the enemies. With the emergence of BRICS, the situation is do-or-die for Western powers. If they do nothing, they are guaranteed to lose. If they start a war, they could win.

The U.S. can now either forfeit its hegemony over the course of a few more decades, or risk a war to win it all back.

Using a simple rule of game theory, with American hegemony as the long-term goal, the West and NATO have a greater chance of losing power and control by doing nothing than they do by engaging in an all out global war. They could try diplomacy, but we're beyond the point of trust. The U.S. has lost the trust of many countries, so they won't ever believe America has any good intentions. For diplomacy to work, the U.S. would need an overhaul and a believable internal revolution that changes its power structure. Trump may have been the closest thing to that, but we saw how it turned out. America's current regime is too deeply entrenched for real change to happen peacefully.

Before Donald Trump, only one other president aggressively stood up to the established order in Washington. His name was John F. Kennedy.

There is only one real option for the West to keep its dominance. If keeping power at all costs is the goal, it's likely we'll see more escalation and a possible hot war with Russia in the coming months and years. The only other possibility is a defection of key American allies, leaving the United States alienated and alone. Only that might deter the psychopaths inside America's echelons of power from starting a potentially catastrophic global war.

Or, maybe it wouldn't.