Dissident Voice

July 24, 2003

To paraphrase Marx, “There is a specter haunting the world, the specter of violent and militaristic hyper-imperialism. Unlike classical or post-classical imperialisms of the 19th – 20 centuries, hyper-imperialism is an exclusive American phenomenon. Hyper-imperialism claims four basic attributes. 1) Its polity is superior to any other form of societal polities that the world has ever known. 2) Its pattern of government is the only viable pattern for the future of humanity. 3) It can take preemptive militarily actions against any nation that it “perceives” as hostile to US interests. 4) It is s predisposed to inflict immeasurable death and destruction, including the threat of using WMD to any nation whose government is not in agreement with US policies. In essence, hyper-imperialism is supremacist, racist, exclusivist, and inherently hostile to all other forms of society except its own.

Hyper-imperialism is not a spontaneous germination. To play with words, it existed, and was static before it became hyperactive! In critical retrospect, hyper-imperialism evolved by default, and its dialectical progenitors were in sequence. 1) Brezhnev with his invasion of Afghanistan (when Carter punished the USSR for her invasion of Afghanistan by cutting US wheat exports; the immediate result of that gesture is that it showed who was the weaker between the two superpowers. A superpower that imports its own food from a rival superpower cannot aspire to remain a superpower.) 2) Gorbachev with his Perestroika (it indicated a deep structural crisis in the Soviet system, a fact immediately noticed by Washington. 3) By sheer irony of history, the one leader, who has brought hyper-imperialism to full aggressive adulthood, gave it life, nerve, and motor functions, was no other than Saddam Hussein when he refused to leave Kuwait after invading it. 4) The other leader who allowed hyper-imperialism to reach its aggressive manhood was Milosevic with his chauvinistic policies in the former Yugoslavia.

However, until 9/11, US hyper-imperialism was still only super-imperialism, while traditional imperialism that included major NATO countries and Russia remained essentially unaltered. The 9/11 alibi changed one important thing. It downgraded US-NATO alliance, and cemented the US as the sole decision maker of NATO, the UN, and the world. However, since the US exclusively directed its response to 9/11 against all Islamic countries in general, and against all Arab countries in particular, Israel, a long-time, an Arab and Islamic adversary, became America’s direct partner in the imperialistic onslaught to dominate the Arabs; thus the birth of hyper-imperialism. Hyper-imperialism is American by implementation and Zionist-American and Israeli by ideological make up, and with the UK inserting itself in it, as an insignificant comma, located somewhere in a very long paragraph. To prove this point, the presence or absence of the UK, changes nothing in the basic dynamics of hyper-imperialism.

In historical steps, Israel’s rise in forming the future alliance commenced with the American response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991. In that crisis, Israel and American Zionism dictated the nature of the American response more than pure American interests did. The convergence between the American and Israeli objectives is the nucleus from which hyper-imperialism took shape and substance. Its essential traits are: 1) specificity of the geographical range of action (Middle East), 2) ideological manifesto that binds Zionism and American Imperialism in an alliance for world supremacy, and 3) shared projects for future imperialistic expansions.

In the Iraqi example, hyper-imperialists moved rapidly to implement the next phase of domination. As the invasion is evolving into a protracted occupation, events that included the premeditated social meltdown, the destruction of existing civilian institutions, ministries, universities, banking system, the use of the dollar as currency, and the appointment of American personnel to rule Iraq, the dissolving of the Iraqi Army, and the ministry of information confirm the precise nature of the enterprise. This cannot be but the destruction of the old Iraqi societal order, even the many functional parts of it, as a means to consolidate conquest.

The US invasion achieved several objectives. 1) It destroyed, permanently, the only Arab state that, theoretically, could confront Israel. 2) It seized Iraqi oil. 3) It subdued all Arab political states. 3) It encircled oil-rich Iran. 4) It will resolve the Palestinian issue as per Israel’s dictate. 5) It completed the military occupation of all the Arab East (Arab States in western Asia) except Syria and Lebanon. 6) It finally relegated the United Nation to an agency of the US. 7) It ended the international roles of traditional European imperialisms. 8) It permanently ended any international role for Russia making it effectively an American vassal. 9) It provided American companies with immense, uncontrolled, and lucrative Iraqi re-construction contracts. This confirms that US companies thrive on wars.

Again, in the Iraqi example, as the US is racing with time before the arrival of the incoming tide of history opposing to it, oil, the coveted prize of its expedition, is still a problem. Hypothetically, if the US had the means to siphon all of Iraq’s oil reserves to American reservoirs on Sunday, the US would leave on Monday. Because this cannot happen, the US plans to stay in Iraq as along as needed to bring the colonialistic enterprise to complete fruition. Further, because the US cannot annex Iraq for logistical and practical reasons, it cannot declare it a colony in the traditional sense either. Consequently, the US will adopt an optimal imperialistic solution: future Iraq will enjoy nominal but limited sovereignty through an Iraqi puppet regime administered by cohabitated Iraqi-Americans and aided by opportunistic Iraqis from inside Iraq. However, as soon as the hyper-colonialist genetic laboratory begins the essential structural transformation of the Iraqi colony, only Americans and Israelis will tightly control all aspects of the socio-economic system including social, administrative, economic, military, cultural, political, diplomatic, religious freedom, development, resources allocations, oil policy and production, and foreign policy.

It follows, under the pretext of disarming Saddam Hussein; the US unified colonialism, imperialism, and hegemony in one operation that has nothing to do with the declared aim of the invasion. In doing so, the US is following meticulously, the successful example of five decades of Israeli experimented methods of creating facts on the ground, but with a mild difference. Israel, does not publicize her projects, nor care about the reactions to them when she implements them. The US publicizes her projects, lies about their nature, but does not care about the reactions to them either. In imposing its ex post facto colonialistic realities in occupied Iraq, the US, is fundamentally counting on creating a gradual psychological adaptation to those realities, and with the expectation that popular rejection of the colonial model would disappear with the passing of time.

Viewed from this hyper-imperialist angle, the American enterprise of re-introducing direct colonialism through the conquest of a rich, independent, yet devastated country (that the US itself devastated to facilitate future conquest) was a gamble worth taking. However, it is a gamble that comes with a caveat. First, it is an exclusive American gamble, thus America has to face its consequences at her own peril. Second, it is going to fail, as Iraqis after the initial shock of occupation and Saddam’s betrayal, will assuredly fight the occupiers. Third, despite the deceiving calmness of world states, it is a prelude to globalized war in a horizon not too distant.

Let me explain. The US would have never allowed France, Germany, or Russia to go to Iraq under the pretext of disarming and occupying it for their individual benefits. In the US mind, Iraq’s conquest must be a sole American privilege! If other big states oppose this US self-endowed privilege, then the scenario would be as follows: in hindsight, it would be pre-WWI and WWII again; in foresight, it would be WWIII! In both cases, hyper-imperialists and Armageddonists would love it, but only on one condition: that mutual Armageddon will not happen! Let me further explain: if a country is sure that it is going to perish by war, it will not wage war! Are we talking about the necessity for “mutual assured destruction” deterrence and the threat of war to stop the hyper-imperialist enterprise?

In further analysis, peace among imperialists is only a transitory mirage. Although the nuclear quintet endorsed America’s conquest, the US cannot expect the Iraqis to accept that verdict and stay put. After the conquest, Pandora’s Box is still closed; but time will tell if it will remain so, and if it opens up, what will come out of it. If Russia would take Armenia, America would react only minimally; but if Russia, following the American Iraqi precedent would take back oil-rich Azerbaijan, and then take Iran, America would react with her finger almost pressing on the nuclear detonator. In the colonialist division of states, what country, an imperialist state is taking, is of paramount importance to the reaction to it. Since the US grabbed a country with huge oil reserves, it is probable that it would allow other imperialist nations to grab something to satisfy their appetite for colonialist profits. However, it is also possible that unexpected international military, social, or economic forces will eventually change the colors of the picture that the hyper-imperialists are trying to depict, and when they do, imperialists and hyper-imperialists will confront the possibility of their own demise.

At present, the colonialist impulse of hyper-imperialism is prevailing over its imperialist urge; but in the age of absolute unaccountability and ample military disparity among nations, the US views its policy of coercion, econo-political intimidation, and expeditionary enterprises as a normal outcome in a world that is incapable to challenge her perceived primacy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bi-polar world, we ended up with another two entities sitting on top of opposing antipodes. One is a powerful hyper-militarized entity that thrives on passive responses to its military threats. The other, the rest of the world, although presiding over considerable and efficient combined military capability that can juxtapose or even exceed that of the hyper-militarized entity, is powerless by the expectation that the hyper-militarized entity would reconsider its options.

At the first antipode, the US, Israel, and other imperialist States occupy the center, together with a few other lackey nations carrying an opportunistic agenda. At the other antipode, the world is gathering its smashed pieces where all nations are frenetically scrambling to find a way to fend off or just slow the impact created by the American war against the world and by its willful action to depredate Iraq openly.

What are the reactions to the conquest of Iraq, now that the UN signed the colonialist deal? Hugo Young, (a columnist of The Guardian, UK) typifies the general Western imperialist culture of conquest. Young, former critic of the US policy, now turned an apologist of hyper-imperialism declares, “The US was wrong to go in Iraq, but now it must not leave” to endorse his conversion, he lists many distorted rationales.

On the other hand, understandable powerlessness of many world nations imposes the acceptance of Iraq’s immolation on the altar of the hyper-empire as a price to pay for the possible dissipation of the American momentum toward more wars of conquest. The practical problem with this attitude is this: if the US feels free to threaten the entire world, why, should the world not feel free to threaten back! Can you allow an obnoxious corpulent person to knock you down, sit on your chest, and then strangle you, just because that person is bigger and stronger than you are?

It is redundant to state that passivity toward the econo-military dominance of hyper-imperialism and its incipient colonialism is a worthless strategy that will only embolden hyper-zealots with monochrome visions of the world to reprise the expansion after refreshing slowdowns and logistical respite in the preparation for the next phase. (Admiral Michael Boyce, retired British Chief of Defense Staff, declared that Britain should not make any new war before 2005 so that it can recover from the Iraqi expedition! [3]

The ideologies of violent conquest, military supremacy, and unlimited US imperialist expansions are not temporary ideologies. They are, historically, an ingrained corporeal spirit that materially leads the pace of American military expansion regardless of the prevailing objective or subjective conditions surrounding such an expansion. The Washington Report on the Middle East, reported that while he was on a campaign trail, Robert Kennedy declared that he wants to see the US power extend over the whole world, and thereafter to the whole universe! (Who would not feel sorry for those hapless extra-terrestrials who want to meet us?)

In the age of classical colonialism, Europeans invented sublime and not so sublime motives to beautify the violent conquest of foreign lands. The French wanted to civilize, the British wanted to bring order, the Spaniards wanted to evangelize and to find gold, the Portuguese wanted gold and colonies, the Belgians wanted diamonds, the Italians wanted a share of all theses goods, the Germans wanted a greater share of colonies, and the Dutch wanted slaves, spice, diamonds, and silk. To illustrate the scale of the colonial expansion, by 1939 five powers (Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany), whose combined areas were 352,600 square miles, and whose combined populations were 170 million people, occupied and controlled over 20 million square miles of combined colonies having over 627 million of colonial people. [4]

As for the “sublime motives” of the classical US colonial enterprise, aside from a hardcore brazen imperialist named Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, is the one who most represented the presumed idyllic righteousness of imperialism. McKinley, to implement his imperialistic vision as if per divine revelation, decided to educate, Christianize, civilize, and annex the Philippines that the US had just conquered from Spain. Just read “…It will be the duty of the commander of the forces of occupation to announce and proclaim in the most public manner that we come, not as invaders or conquerors, but as friends to protect the natives in their homes, in their employments, and their personal and religious rights…” [5]

For the record, US occupation of the Philippines lasted 48 years, during which the US installed military bases, and took two thirds of its rubber requirements from it. After independence through present, the US heavy hands are still playing in the Philippines. Now compare McKinley’s proclamation to all George W. Bush’s proclamations about freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein!

Although nothing has changed in the essence of the colonialistic enterprise, diachronic changes underwent some semantic subtleties: for example, instead of a “mission to civilize”, now it is a “mission to democratize”. However, in the newly minted golden age of the hyper-imperialists, adorned romanticism has become an obsolete euphemism. Now it is about direct occupation and peremptory injunctions; it is about highway robbery of crude oil, changing of regional political orders, and the omnipresent rationale of “American interests”. In the interim, while the world is waiting for its fearless anti-imperialistic dues ex machina, the progression of the US devouring Iraq is proceeding with alacrity, and with the Israeli mind penetrating all the crevices of the American brain calibrated to work in the hyper-colonialist and hyper-imperialist modes.

While US B-52 and B-2’s were bombing Baghdad, they were also delivering an Israeli envelope with an American stamp glued on it carrying a message that the new American enterprise is, in fact, a full-fledged Israeli-American conquest, and that the sophisticated orchestra of deception about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was indeed just another US hoax. After a year of sudden “catastrophic” warnings about the dangers posed by Iraq, the only “validity” of the American aggression is a disclaimer. It proved that Iraq no longer possesses WMD. However, this disclaimer is of no utility to the Iraqis, as forces known for not wanting to leave from a place once they enter it, are already occupying their country! Shortly after the hyper-imperialist onslaught on the people of Iraq, the talk about WMD totally disappeared.

Consequently, it is imperative that we repeat a question we made before. Since the US rationale for invading Iraq is centered on finding alleged WMD, is it not logical, then, to suggest that since these weapons were not found anywhere, the US must leave Iraq immediately, and pay compensation for its wonton destruction and killing thus empowering the Iraqis to decide their own destiny after Saddam? The claim that the US will find these weapons one day – a reason for an indefinite occupation -- is such a contrived alibi that only an irrecoverable imbecile can accept. Now, if we were to remove, one by one, all propagandistic veneers that cover the American military expedition, we will soon uncover its econo-ideological fulcrum: classical colonialism recycled. If it is so, and this is colonialism, then what kind of colonialism is it?

Next in part 4: Iraq in the hyper-imperialist cobweb

B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American peace-activist. Email: bjsabri@yahoo.com

Read Part One of this series

Read Part Two of this series

NOTES

[3] Source, The Independent, May 22, 2003

[4] Mary Evelyn Townsend, European Colonial Expansion.)

[5] William McKinley, Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation. December 21, 1898).