HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Hyper-Imperialist Paradigm
by
B.J. Sabri
[Editor’s
Note: This 4-part essay was written between mid-May and mid-June of this year]
“There are in nature no rewards or
punishment, there are consequences”
-- Robert Ingersoll, American free thinker, 1833-1899
After
the fall of Baghdad and the beginning of the US military occupation of Iraq,
and as the Iraqis were still burying their dead and clearing the rubble, the
rulers and companies of the United States swiftly removed the cosmetic crowns
covering their hyper-imperialist fangs, and commenced devouring the opulent
Iraqi prey they just devastated by war.
While
the US was savoring her conquest, the UN, through resolution 1483 formalized
the US/UK occupation, thus converting itself into a promulgator of a colonialist
project, and leaving the US theoretically in perpetual control of Iraq. As a
date, May 22, 2003 has now four meanings. 1) It is the day the Security Council
became the “Ultimate Prostitution Board”. 2) It is the birthday of
institutionalized hyper-imperialistic colonialism. 3) It is the day that Iraq
ceased to exist as a sovereign nation. 4) It is the day the Iraqis must face
the grim reality that to regain their lost independence, they have now to fight
alone, maybe a long and bloody war against a formidable imperialistic
alliance.
Although
the occupation of Iraq is a landmark in the emerging history of
hyper-imperialism, UN resolution 1483 upholding it is not. From any legal
viewpoint, the US-UN transaction imposed by five dictatorial members of the UN
on the rest of world is a worthless deed forged under imperialistic duress and
lacking authentic legitimacy, hence, has no validity in the court of the Iraqi
people, as well as in the court of history. History has always been an
implacable nullifier of colonialism’s algorithms of conquest, and as such it is
capable of sudden cataclysmic turns that no one can predict. Therefore, to
prepare for the future of History, we have to go back to where it started.
Consequently,
the current Iraqi situation demands that we present two separate statements
followed by the same question. 1) The American “leading cause” for invading
Iraq was to disarm Saddam from his WMD. However, because the US failed to find
not even a wandering atom from Iraq’s “nuclear arsenals”, nor a tenuous stream
of poisonous gas from its chemical weapons; or a naughty lone germ from its biological
weapons; then, why is the US continuing to occupy Iraq? 2) Since the US
arrogated to itself the right to change the Iraqi regime by force and since that
regime is now extinct, why is the US continuing to occupy Iraq?
This
question, inexorably, forces the matter back to the “leading cause” of the
invasion – WMD. The finding of, or failing to find these weapons, was (until
resolution 1483 cancelled the need for it) of enormous importance for the
preservation of the post-invasion strategic balance of world states including
imperialist powers. The issue of Iraq’s WMD, however, remains the most powerful
tool that we possess to debunk Washington’s claims, hence, reverse her
colonialist conquest. After the US occupied Iraq, a joyful modus vivendi
has quickly emerged between the nuclear powers in control of the Security
Council. After all that theatrical posturing of the anti-war front, the
imperialist cartel has now offered the US a way out of her colonialistic
problems by validating her conquest, on the condition that the bellicose
hyper-empire accepts certain harmless demands. 1) The US agrees to give the UN
a ceremonial role in the management of the US colonialistic project, thus
conferring a semblance of “legitimacy” to an abhorrent war of conquest, and 2)
The US agrees to prize sharing by secondary powers looking for trickle-down
colonialistic fringe benefits.
Although
imperialists do not issue transcripts of their private deliberations, it is not
difficult to imagine their contents. To close the brief imperialistic rift, the
nuclear pentarchy redrew the role of the United Nations thus allowing the US to
absorb Iraq without international challenge. Regardless of what happened in the
corridors of imperialistic powers, the fundamental question about Iraq’s WMD
remains intact: if the supposed possession of WMD were the alibi to swallow
Iraq, then where are they? The US now
suggests that they require a few more months to find them; and Rumsfeld has
even admitted that Iraq may have destroyed them before the war (meaning, Iraq no
longer possessed WMD)! While a charlatan British prime minister tells us “to
eat our words, because these weapons will be found”, his foreign minister
acknowledges that these “weapons may never be found”. In the interim, George
Bush, who gave us the slogan that the US is going to disarm Saddam with or
without the UN, now elucidates us with piercing eloquence that the US is
going to find these weapons with or without the high-ranking Iraqi
officials! If the issue were the need for more time to find these
phantasmagorical weapons, then is not more time, just what Hans Blix requested
to complete his work without war?
Since
it is a known fact that the US is omnipotent; then, what were the urgent
motives to display her violent omnipotence against Iraq? Is it because of
militaristic exhibitionism to satisfy a psychological aberration related to infatuation
with war? Could it be because of an extroverted inclination to make war an
overt object of desire, thus unlocking repressed killing instincts in
ambivalent human souls? Or, maybe because the prurient urge for conquest
reached an alarming level that the hyper-imperialists could no longer tolerate?
Can
we prove, as many claim, that the US occupation of Iraq is indeed, a conquest
by hyper-imperialists in an age where colonialism is a relic of the past?
Alternatively, can anyone prove the contrary, i.e., the US imperialistic
incursion is a generous military enterprise to end dictatorship thus
transforming Iraq into a democracy? As events are unfolding, several signs
unequivocally confirm that the American expedition has all the attributes of a
colonialistic enterprise; and to be more specific, it is a combined
American-Israeli operation, and not a generous liberation from tyranny. The
precise scope of this operation is the takeover of Iraq, its oil, and the use
of its territory as real estate for US military bases. Once this phase is
completed, Iraq would serve as a vast military hub from which the US can
attack, expand, conquer, and continue with the building and consolidation of
the newly formed Israelo-American Empire. From the Israeli perspective, the
expedition should culminate in the re-design of the Middle East according to
Israel’s objectives. From an American perspective, strategists of the
hyper-empire look at the map and see flashing arrows pointing to Syria and
Iran, before getting to Pakistan, China and Russia, while leaving cohabitated
India, a new Israeli ally, out of focus for the time being.
Are
the preceding mere idle or unconvincing arguments? The answer is no. As we
cannot prove them false, we can prove them coherent enough for acceptance.
Nevertheless, we could be very wrong! Consider what might happen if a
supernatural lightening bolt strikes the hyper-empire right on its cranium, and
turns it into an altruistic maker of a bright Iraqi future! Excluding that
fantastic possibility, we should then aim at establishing a working hypothesis
on the strategic intentions of the United States.
No
other entity on earth can rival the interventionist repertoire of the United
States, where ideologues can concoct a zillion rationales for any intervention.
It follows that keeping track of all deceptions and lies that
hyper-imperialists invent, is as impossible as trying to empty an ocean with a
sieve. Because psychoanalyzing the thinking of hyper-imperialists is a separate
issue that requires a different thematic approach, dissecting their words,
however, is less demanding. The problem is that even after you give
hyper-imperialists a potent dose of truth serum you would still be unable to
extract the truth out of them. Truth spoken by the hyper-imperialists is a
volatile idea with its own logical path and peculiar existence. To our luck,
analyzing the details of the US colonialistic adventure in a factual
dialectical context requires just two simple tools: inquisitive reasoning and
asking many pinpoint questions such as this one: are there irrefutable motives
behind the US invasion of Iraq?
There
are at least six possible motives. 1): to disarm Iraq under the baseless
contention that Saddam poses a threat to the US with his “WMD”. 2): to effect
“regime change” as Saddam is an abominable dictator. 3): to confuse the debate
on the causes of anti-American terrorism and US responsibility in it, thus
funneling a huge emotional anger through the narrow opening of a large
ideological cone to aid the imperialist agenda. 4): to intimidate world nations
opposed to US policy objectives. 5): to promote the sale of US weapons. 6): to
implement an ambitious colonialist project for the re-conquest of the Middle
East, but with implications that transcend its geographical delimitations.
It
is certain that Iraq is devoid of WMD. Otherwise, the hyper-empire, which
possesses spying gadgetries and intelligence means that exceed the total count
of all the rice kernels in China, would have found them by now. This confirms
that UN inspectors destroyed those weapons and that Iraq cancelled related
programs.
It
is an axiom that the theological riddles of existence are not applicable to
manufactured objects. Accordingly, material objects must exist first to be
physically tangible. Now, because WMD no longer exist in Iraq, and the
hyper-power insists they do exist, but it cannot prove their existence, and
since you cannot find what does not exist, then the existence of such weapons
is only a hoax that the US exaggerated beyond all conceivable limits for a
pre-determined scope. Further, the non-existence confirms that the hyper-empire
is also a hyper-liar who knows that these weapons no longer exist, yet it is
conniving to keep the deception rolling as a means to justify its expedition.
Alternatively,
if these weapons really exist, and the hyper-empire finds them, and impartial
sources with no secret connections to the hyper-imperialist project, can
confirm that neither the CIA nor the Mossad planted them; then, Saddam was
lying. However, that was for Blix to find out, and he would have found them,
too, if he had more time to search. Nonetheless, even if the US were to find
them, that would still not legalize its war and subsequent occupation of Iraq.
Finally,
since Iraq’s WMD no longer exist materially or otherwise, but the hyper-empire
will find them, miraculously, somewhere down the road hidden in an abandoned
chicken coop, then the statistical probability of their true existence
is as credible as making two parallel lines originating from the Oval Office,
intersect at multiple points behind the colored rings of Saturn.
Conclusion:
motive number 1 is not valid.
The
ruse for invading Iraq to end Saddam’s dictatorship is definitely the most
asinine among all hyper-imperialistic ruses. It suffices to say, that the
crimes of European colonialism and US imperialism against developing countries
are not a compendium of delightful pleasures, and they exceed, by their cruelty
and violence, the record of any third world dictatorship. By all acceptable
moral standards, there are no laws that can fit the crimes of imperialist
powers. As you read this article, and excluding the millions of people, the US
killed in her military interventions, there are 2-3 million civilians maimed by
US bombs alive today. [1]
Further,
the US is not a Mother Theresa that loves humanity and cares for its sick;
second, in her entire imperialistic life, the US never cared for democracy or
human rights for non-European nations; and third, the world is full with
dictators and psychopathic democratic or otherwise leaders that can easily
emulate Saddam’s record of brutality. For example, in twelve years of US
military interventions in Iraq, George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W.
Bush killed more Iraqis than what Saddam would have killed in ten lifetimes;
but even here with a difference. Saddam only killed his suspected political
opponents; the US killed her Iraqi victims indiscriminately.
To
expand this argument, consider the following: powerful econo-political
oligarchies that interact with a mammoth military-industrial complex, which,
together with other forces are increasingly pushing the US into a virtual
resemblance to many totalitarian regimes. Indeed, beside Israel vs. the Arab
states, the US is the only other power that dictates to others what they
should do; in effect, the US is a dictatorial state. Does that make the US a
dictatorship? On an international level, the answer is a categorical yes; on a
domestic level the answer is no. A question: since special interest groups are
leading the US into a dangerous game of world domination and making it a
vicious world dictator, is it possible then that the US, could become a target
for violent change by outside forces wanting to end its unilateral dictatorship
over international affairs? In other words, are there powers who could claim
entitlement to force a regime change in the US by military means? Could an X
regime impose on the US a reciprocity rule whereas if the US wants to change
that regime by force, that regime can counter-claim by invoking its inherent
right for a reciprocal intent to change the US regime by force too?
For
example, Mexico, based on her turbulent history with the US and despite NAFTA,
feels constantly threatened by an overbearing US; therefore, Mexico demands
that the US destroy its strategic weapons to appear less threatening; if the US
were to refuse, Mexico would then threaten to lead “a coalition of the willing”
to disarm the US! However, reciprocity
as a natural reaction to an action will lose its naturalness, under the
following condition: one of the antagonistic regimes cannot execute its right
to reciprocity for calculations of military capabilities, and statistical
uncertainties of the conflict. The other condition is when both regimes force
each other to change through reciprocal physical termination by simultaneous
destruction. The point of all this, is that regime change in any state is not
the business of any other state including that of the hyper-empire.
Furthermore,
the US who installed or supported countless dictators such as Shah Mohammed
Pahlevi, Batista, Marcos, Suharto, Mobutu, Noriega, Pinochet, Galtieri; never
liberated any colonial nation from the dictatorship of European colonialism,
and itself is a colonialist power. As a result, the US looks cynically
pharisaical when it tells us about her detestation of a dictator like Saddam!
Although Washington installed and nourished Saddam to absolute power, his
problems began when he lasted beyond the functional needs of the United States.
While
imperialistic alibis dictated the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, pure
entrenched racism dictated non-intervention in Rwanda. Besides, Rwanda fared
extremely low on the scale of US hegemonic calculations and capitalistic
opportunity. The example of a hunger-ridden Somalia, is not instructive either,
the US went there, mainly, not for humanitarian purpose, but for
econo-strategic considerations. As for East Timor, the US is commendable; but
even here, aside from being a selective issue, it was a pure propaganda to
mitigate her aggressive and belligerent image. In a sense, it is as a thief who
steals ten thousand pounds of gold, and then makes a good deed by returning
back one ounce of it to the rightful owner. A reminder: why did the US tolerate
Suharto’s annexation of East Timor after the Dutch withdrew from half of the
Island?
To
conclude, it is not credible to view the American aggression as solidarity with
the Iraqis that Washington claimed they were suffering under Saddam’s rule. It
is true that Saddam’s rule was harsh and dictatorial. This however, is neither
the point, nor should have been the excuse to invade and take Iraq. Further,
what Washington carefully avoids mentioning, is that the quality of Iraqi
civilian life has deteriorated to primitive levels only after America’s wars
and sanctions (the period (1991-2003.)
That period was only one third of Saddam’s total rule (1968 to 2003). A
question: what was the US doing when the Iraqis were suffering under the other
two thirds of the same rule, i.e., the period 1968 -- 1991? Answer: the US was
busy selling him weapons and promoting his dictatorial narcissism.
Conclusion: motive
number 2 is not valid.
Next in part 2: Theories numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6
B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American peace-activist. Email: bjsabri@yahoo.com
[1] Source,
http//www.altx.com/ebr/riposte/rip8/rip8pop.htm