The stinging Democratic vote to continue the funding of the War on Iraq without withdrawal is still pulsating throughout the Republic. Americans are dismayed. Some leading figures have given into the despair and feeling of helplessness manifested by the current situation and folded up their tents of opposition. The most notable, obviously, being the anti-war mother Cindy Sheehan. In all this, one has to ask, why? Why did the Democrats, in the end, decide to restructure the war-funding bill so as to refit it without a timetable for withdrawal and cast a majority vote for its approval? Why did the Democrats run counter to what the people wanted? Why did the Democrats not do what they were elected to do? Why did the Democrats decide to do what the Republicans were ejected out of their Congressional seats for continuing to do?

The Democrats were elected, and expected, to end the destructive machinery that is destroying the lives of Iraqis and Americans. They were elected and expected to erect a blockade to the current administration’s imperialist ambitions in the Middle East. They did not. Why? Why, in light of the American public’s opposition to the War on Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqi protesters calling for the U.S. to leave their country?¹ The reasons are many, but few are vital. One of the chief vital interests for why is clear: in war there is money to be made and in a state where money is the essence of its existence, war is the lucrative force that drives its existence.² In short, the Democrats are committed to imperialist expansion just as much as the Republicans — their 20th century track record on waging war overseas says as much — and their job, just as would be the Republicans were the tables turned, is to maintain the status-quo, not end it.

The Government Of The Government

It must be understood that a good slice of U.S. economic policy is driven by, and devoted to, the need to prepare for, and engage in, war.³ Many areas of agreement between the government and corporations include “disciplining workers, lucrative armaments contracts, and job creation stimuli.”⁴ Hence, the War on Iraq is as much about feeding the Military-Industrial-Complex as it is about the acquisition of resources and opening of new markets. In essence, the War on Iraq has been rightfully deemed a quagmire, because it was supposed to be such. The track record of mistakes and ‘coincidental’ activities says as much.

Not adequately planning to safeguard Iraqi cultural or economic institutions upon invasion postulated mayhem. Iraqi museums were subsequently looted and destroyed. U.S. officials “were warned repeatedly about possible damage to irreplaceable artifacts, either from bombs and missiles or from post-war instability after the removal of the Iraqi government, but they did nothing to prevent it.”⁵ The absence of the rule of law, or neglect to adequately prepare for the enforcement thereof, created a situation of chaos and disorder where the conditions ripe for cultural liquidation needed to be inoculated by paternal Western crusaders.

The disbanding of the Iraqi Army, “the Republican Guard and the Revolutionary Command Council, among others…,” unleashed a Hydra. This action, which put “an estimated 350,000 to 400,000 soldiers out of work, as well as an estimated 2,000 Information Ministry employees,” was supposed to be part “of a robust campaign to show the Iraqi people that the Saddam regime [was] gone and [would] never return.”⁶ Instead, it ended up feeding a nationalist “insurgency and crime wave… [that] built through 2003…”⁷ As Colonel Paul F. Hughes, the strategic policy director for the U.S. occupation authority in 2003, expressed in 2004, “[a]nyone who ever worked in any country after a losing war knows you have to do something with the old soldiers… Otherwise, they’re out of work, and they will do what people do who know how to use guns.”⁷

Not providing adequate forces permitted the burgeoning of a vibrant Iraqi nationalist-reactionary-insurgency. Iraqis soon rose up after the fall of Baghdad to resist the invading coalition of foreigners. “Before the war, several experts — including then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki — warned the Bush Administration that [approximately] several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure post-Saddam Iraq.”⁸ Yet, the administration “dismissed this warning out of hand.”Monday, October 4, 2004. “Bush Administration Fails to Address Deteriorating Situation in Iraq.” Democratic Policy Committee. Not providing adequate ground forces created a situation which allowed for a relentless nationalist uprising with tremendous resilience. The administration then gave more justification for sending in more troops for security. This was done four times before the current ’surge’, each of which resulted primarily in escalating levels of violence instead of security. In the beginning:

Army planners said they needed an initial occupation force of 250,000, which would still be half the number that the historically proven formula called for. Had they been listened to, and a robust force moved in at the start to establish firm control of the country and disarm the militias of political factions, it is possible that a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces could have followed.Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007. “⁹

Slow progress in training Iraqi security forces further exacerbated security issues. “Nearly a year and a half after Iraqi reconstruction efforts began” it was reported that “one of the administration’s highest priorities — training Iraqis to provide their own security — remain[ed] far behind schedule.” The administration “failed to put adequate military personnel in place to oversee training… mismanaged funding appropriated for security forces development… [and] chose to contract out security training, rather than allow experienced U.S. military trainers do the work.”⁸ Recently, “U.S. intelligence officials disclosed that the deployment of Iraqi forces into Baghdad under [the administration's] new plan to stabilize Iraq is running behind schedule and that all of the units sent so far have arrived under strength, some by more than half.”¹⁰

Amidst the flurry of mistakes, the formerly Republican dominated Congress appropriated funds to build an embassy in Baghdad that is “ten times the size of the typical U.S. embassy, the size of 80 football fields, six times larger than the UN, the size of Vatican City” and “more secure than the Pentagon.”¹¹ This behemoth structure that overlooks the Tigris River comes fully equipped with its own set of “apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a fast-food court, and its own power generation and water-treatment plants.”¹² Construction has been continuous.

The Congress also appropriated funds to build permanent super-bases that will have recreation halls, cybercafés, premium coffee shops, miniature-golf courses, movie theaters, bus systems, supermarkets, and restaurants. It is no wonder that these structures have been called the “warrior’s country club.”¹³ All this while Baghdad burned.

In late 2003, Lieutenant Colonel David Holt expressed that there “was already… several billion dollars being sunk into base construction, which has been continuing ever since.”¹⁴ These elaborate and enormous structures clearly and directly state a determination to stay in Iraq — their omission from debates suggests consensus among the parties as well. They are enduring imperialist footprints that have significant implications. The United States will continue to have a presence in Iraq for some time to come; the heavily fortified embassy and super-bases imply as much. These bases were built during the quagmire that stemmed from the preemptive assault launched on Iraq, which served the Military-Industrial-Complex that governs the government.

An Unlikely Prospect

The more instability that is garnered in Iraq, the more justification will be given to stay. When the Democrats came to power, there was much hope that things would change. Their congressional activities thus far have dimmed hopes. It seems, unfortunately, that if the Democrats do maintain power into the next congressional cycle, even obtain the presidency in ‘08, there will not be much of a drift in terms of leaving Iraq. For those well intentioned people inside the party itself, there is no hope of penetrating the impermeable power structure within. Does one really expect the second most powerful corporate sponsored party in the country to abstain its newly given power, and potential to acquire more, by pulling out from a part of the world that holds key resources and valuable potential for new markets? Does one really expect it to deconstruct, even leave, the super-bases and embassy that costs billions to build, and which are near completion? Does one really expect the profit-making, runaway defense establishment to give up its entrenched governing power over the government? The prospect is unlikely. Such an action would require a political and social revolution that is unlikely to take place.

The powers that be will continue to keep “American soldiers on Iraqi soil well into the century… [and use the state as] a platform… to launch new acts of aggression.”¹⁵ The goal is to control local resources and create a launching pad to further imperialist ambitions in the Middle East. Direct or indirect casualties are of no consequence as long as imperialist goals are met and sustained. We are not going anywhere, anytime soon, regardless of which party holds the reins of power.

1. Wong, Edward. Monday, April 9, 2007. “Thousands of Iraqis march on 4th anniversary of Baghdad’s fall.” International Herald Tribune.
2. Fitzgerald, Michael. 2004. “Militarism: A Way of Life.” The Humanist.
3. Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism (New York: Vintage Books, 2004): p. 145.
4. Ibid., p. 146.
5. Martin, Patrick. Wednesday, April 16, 2003. “The sacking of Iraq’s museums: US wages war against culture and history.” World Socialist Web Site.
6. Arraf, Jane. Friday, May 23, 2003. “U.S. dissolves Iraqi army, Defense and Information ministries.” Cnn.com
7. Monday, July 12, 2004. “U.S. colonel says disbanding Iraqi army was key mistake.” The Daily Oakland Press.
8. Monday, October 4, 2004. “Bush Administration Fails to Address Deteriorating Situation in Iraq.” Democratic Policy Committee.
9. Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007. “Pelosi Leads Democratic Opposition to Iraq Troop Surge.” NewsMax.com Wires.
10. Strobel, Warren P., and Jonathan S. Landay and Renee Schoof. Tuesday, February 27, 2007. “Bush administration to join Iraqi-led talks attended by Iran, Syria.” McClatchy Newspapers.
11. Zeese, Kevin. Friday, April 21, 2006. “We’re Staying!” DemocracyRising.us; Hughes, Chris. Tuesday, January 3, 2006. “U.S. plans $1.8 billion Baghdad embassy.” The Mirror (UK).
12. Slavin, Barbara. Monday, April 10, 2006. “Giant U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad.” USA Today.
13. Hirsh, Michael. Monday, May 1, 2006. “Don’t dream about full exits. The military is in Iraq for the long haul.” Newsweek; White, Deborah. 2006. “An American Palace in Iraq and Four Permanent US Bases.” About.com.
14. Thursday, March 9, 2006 (March 27, 2006 issue). Engelhardt, Tom. “Can You Say ‘Permanent Bases’?” The Nation.
15. LaFranchi, Howard. Tuesday, June 12, 2007. “US signals permanent stay in Iraq.” Christian Science Monitor.

It was recently reported that the United States is “trying a radical new strategy” in Baghdad: the building of a wall to keep rival sects apart.¹. This is hardly a radical, even new, strategy. In 1961, the Soviet Union constructed a wall not only to choke the flow of millions fleeing from East Germany, but also to keep two rival philosophies apart. One of the chief goals of the Berlin Wall was to quell the outflow of East German workers. In short, this writer maintains that the Soviet Union was having a crisis of legitimacy due to its failure to bring about its promise of a better life for those under its control. To subdue its declining image, it resorted to building this grotesque structure. It was a vile and arrogant attempt to divide a historic society. The forces of history would prove to work against this action, among others, as a divided Germany became the focal point of legitimacy for the Soviet Union on the world stage. The building of the Berlin Wall displayed the Soviet Union’s inability to enforce its system and control foreign populations. The building of the Baghdad Wall shows America’s inability to do the same.

Anger quickly rose “among citizens and some politicians in Baghdad after local and international news sources circulated the report of the” wall’s construction. ². Despite this, and Nuri al-Maliki’s call to halt the construction of the Baghdad Wall, the United States continues with its so-called “radical new strategy.” No one is listening in an accountable, paternalistic America. The Iraqi people want a halt to the building of the wall and there is no response.

Much like Germany did for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Iraq today stands as the focal point of legitimacy for the United States on the world stage. America’s decision to build a wall to separate the Iraqi society conveys to the world that it is suffering from a crisis of legitimacy. It is an expression that it is attempting to quell the discontent and rejection of its hegemonic apparatus. In its failure to bring about what it promised the Iraqi people — freedom, democracy, prosperity, peace, and security — the United States stands in the same position as the Soviet Union did in 1961. This repugnant structure that America is building is a “most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the [American] system, for all the world to see.”³

It is important to note that America’s declining legitimacy does not begin with the building of the Baghdad Wall. Nor is it confined to the host country of this contemptuous act. It has been a process in the making. From the “pursuit of ‘preventive’ war as a basis for foreign policy”; international torture centers; domestic immigrant detention camps; and massive citizen surveillance, America’s legitimacy has been in decline.⁴ The credibility gap stands far and wide for both non-Americans and Americans.

This dual loss of legitimacy is a menacing factor, as the United States wanders in a delusional state of denial and self-destructive continuity.⁵ Instead of a nation that thrives on legitimate logic, it has become an entity that perverts reason. Instead of a nation that expresses trust, it has become an entity that represses it. Instead of a nation that functions through freedom, it has become an entity that overwhelmingly operates by way of fear.⁶ The days of pragmatism and adaptability have long since passed. It now lumbers across the globe in a state of rigidity and speciousness.⁷ It has lost the ability to conceal its imperial ambitions within a missionary cloak to erect loyal, puppet-democracies throughout the world.⁸ It has lost the capability to legitimately “advance its interests” through a world structure that is no longer corresponding to a single, unilateral, hegemonic entity.⁹ And so, America is no longer perceived as a benevolent force for good in the world, if it ever was, and has not been for some time. It is seen as a malevolent force for wickedness and greed. It is viewed as a paranoid behemoth that sees itself as having no boundaries and will launch offensive acts of aggression at will.¹⁰

In all this, a heavy majority of the Iraqi people want the United States to get out of their country.¹¹ They are overwhelmingly skeptical of American intentions, as a “large majority of Iraqis” believe that the United States plans to maintain permanent bases in Iraq, “even if the newly elected government asks the United States to leave.”¹² Counter to their wishes, the United States has proven its determination to stay in Iraq with the recent troop surge. America, whom does not respond to the desires of the masses, is not to be denied its delusional aspirations. Consequently, the guest has lost its self-perceived legitimacy to stay with its would-be embracing host, as approval of attacks on American soldiers among the Iraqi population has risen to a clear, and significant, majority.¹³

Neither does America’s loss of self-perceived legitimacy end before the water’s edge. This sense also permeates through America itself. A poll at this time last year showed that a majority believed that “there should be a third major political party in the country,” indicating a discontent with the current two major parties.¹⁴ Neither party seems to be listening to the American people the way the American people want them to. Americans see their two-party system as having turned its back on them. They see the government as a self-serving entity that continues to ignore their wishes. A majority of the people want the War on Iraq to “come to an end.”¹⁵ There has been no response. A majority of the people want universal healthcare, even if it means paying higher taxes.¹⁶ There has been no response. Adding insult to injury, the current administration, despite overwhelming public opposition, went ahead and sent thousand of more troops to Iraq.¹⁷ It seems as if “public opposition does not greatly matter.”¹⁸

If it was not enough that the American people have been calling for such directions, they also feel a strong disconnect between what the government tells them and reality. A recent poll suggests that a clear majority rejects the purported link between Iraq and their security; they repudiate that success (whatever that is) in Iraq means safety at home.¹⁹ Americans also remain skeptical about the official explanations for the 9-11 terrorist attacks; a strong majority has wanted a new 9-11 investigation.²⁰ Thus, America is suffering from a crisis of legitimacy throughout and within its continental borders.

The Way of the “Evil Empire”

In 1989 the Berlin Wall fell marking the apparent end of the Cold War. To many observers, the Cold War was a struggle overwhelmingly won by an accumulation of individual acts of spontaneous defiance and seizures of opportunities by small key actors. Nevertheless, the United States branded itself the grand winner of this hegemonic global war and claimed to be the moral zenith for the world to follow.²¹ To many, especially those formerly under oppressive Soviet control, America was the prosperous democratic-capitalist state model to reach for both literally and metaphorically. However, a large portion of the world negated this truthful myth and did not follow. America, then, would have to show them the way. Through its century-old tactic of overthrow and self-projecting institutionalization, the United States subsequently launched a self-beguiled, narcissistic quest to transform the planet into its image by political, cultural, economic, and military force.

The Soviets saw Communism as a “predetermined” path for the world.²² They consistently claimed that “history was on [their] side.”²³ During the Cold War, it was supposed to be “the wave of the future” and nothing could stop it.²⁴

Yet, if the Soviet style system was supposed to be a natural evolution, then why did it have to be thrust upon people in such a repressive and forceful manner? This same question can be extended to America’s thrusting of its system onto others today. After the Cold War ended, some contended that the world was heading towards a liberal-democratic-capitalist world order; this was supposed to the natural progression of modern history. To them, the way the Cold War ended was proof of this “fact.” However, the current environment in the “New American Century” suggests otherwise, as worldwide democratization is at stagnation.²⁵ Compare this to “the last half of the 20th century” which saw a “globalization of democratization.”²⁶ Instead of a supposed natural evolution taking place, an unnatural, vigorous coercion is occurring. America’s forceful and repressive spreading of its brand of a liberal-democratic-capitalist system onto others is having an adverse effect.

America may have gotten “it right” and proved itself to be the better student of history during the Cold War, because it “never bought but into any single, sacrosanct, and therefore unchangeable theory of history.”²⁷ However, recent events suggest that it has lost the inability to do so any longer. The United States is not only proving itself to be getting it wrong with its rigid ideology of a forceful global democratic transformation, it is also proving to be an arrogant flouter of history. If the end of the Cold War presented a window of opportunity for the world to adapt to a “New World Order” where a benevolent America would make the world safe for democracy, then America squandered that opportunity through its misguided and arrogant foreign adventures across the world, especially today in the Middle East.²⁸ In trying to cast its shadow onto the world through imperialistic measures, America has come to act and be looked upon as the empire it sought to destroy for some forty-six years. It has come to take on some of the most disparaging characteristics of the former Soviet Union.²⁹ Hence, the global pushback.

The Soviet Union’s ambition to divide a society, in conjunction with its transformation into a Hegemonic-Orwellian-Paranoid-Terror-State to enforce its way of being, led to a loss of legitimacy — which aided its protracted erosion and eventual, sudden demise. Today, the United States stands at a point in its short life where its conduct is leading it towards the same fate as its nemesis of the second-half of the twentieth century. The accumulation of individual acts of spontaneous defiance and seizures of opportunities by small key actors is sentencing, not vindicating, America. If the United States continues down this same path it will become a collapsed, illegitimate, malignant, hegemonic memory in the dustbin of history. The United States will go the way of the “evil empire,” and the New American Century, just like the Cold War, will end just as abruptly as it began.³⁰

1. Saturday, April 21, 2007. Wong. Edward and David S. Cloud, Sahar Nageeb, and Ahmad Fadam. “The Reach of War; U.S. Erects Baghdad Wall To Keep Rival Sects Apart,” New York Times
2. Monday, April 23, 2007. “Work on Baghdad wall continues despite premier’s opposition,” Raw Story
3. Gaddis, John Lewis. 2005. The Cold War: A New History. p. 115. New York: The Penguin Press.
4. Johnson, Chalmers. 2006. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. p. 8. New York: Metropolitan Books.
5. Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. 2004. American Dream, Global Nightmare. p. 231. UK: Icon Books.
6. Gaddis, p. 104.
7. Sardar and Davies. p. 231.
8. Bello, Walden. 2005. Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire. p. 208. New York. Metropolitan Books.
9. Drezner, Daniel W. 2007. “The New New World Order,” Foreign Affairs Magazine. March/April.
10. Sardar and Davies. p. 231
11. Wednesday September 27, 2006. “Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year,” WorldPublicOpinion.org.
12. Tuesday, January 31, 2006. “Poll of Iraqis: Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, but Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq,” World Public Opinion.org.
13. Ibid.
14. Tuesday, April 25, 2006. “Americans Want Third Major Political Party,” Angus Reid Global Monitor.
15. Tuesday, May 1, 2007. “American Majority Wants Iraq Troops Home,” Angus Reid Global Monitor.
16. Toner, Robin and Janet Elder. Thursday, March 1, 2007. “Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All,” New York Times.
17. Editorial Board. Saturday, January 20, 2007. “The war in Iraq and American democracy,” World Socialist Website.
18. Bello, p. 209
19. Thursday, April 10, 2007. “Americans Refute Link Between Iraq and U.S. Safety,” Angus Reid Global Monitor.
20. Thursday, May 23, 2006. “9-11 truth: Is it still out there? Zogby poll shows 70% want new investigation,” WorldNetDaily.
21. Gaddis, p. 238.
22. Gaddis, p. 87.
23. Gaddis, p. 84.
24. Ibid
25. Puddington, Arch. Freedom in the World: Freedom Stagnation Amid Pushback Against Democracy. Freedom House Press Release of annual “Freedom in the World” report, 2007.
26. Gaddis, p. 264.
27. Gaddis, p. 117.
28. Bello, p. 208.
29. Johnson, p. 8.
30. Gaddis, p. 259.