If
the invasion of Iraq was indeed a desperate attempt to guard the
interests of America’s ill-defined empire, then the experience
of the last 20 months might have been the needed historical
imperative that classically precedes the disintegration and demise
of great empires.
No
single factor leads to this grim reality, but rather a
combination.
The
American public was duped into backing two dreadful wars in
Afghanistan and in Iraq, thinking that by preemptively eliminating
the “gathering dangers” in these extremely poor countries,
another 9/11 might be thwarted. The elite coalition in Washington,
however, had another scenario in mind, a scenario of almost no
relevance to the subject of averting terrorism altogether, but in
fact, one that is likely to spur the intensification of violence
and counter violence.
This
is not to suggest that the war on Afghanistan was devised on the
same pretexts as the invasion of Iraq, or that the ruling class in
Washington adheres to the same political, ideological, or
self-motivated philosophy.
The
increasingly prevailing narrative now indicates that Iraq was the
prize sought by the US administration’s neoconservative elements
as early as a decade prior to September 11, 2001. While the
justifications for the war were modified according to the
political atmosphere in Washington, Israel’s security was, and
remains a focal point. This in part explains why neoconservatives
are often labeled “Likudists” on Capitol Hill, in reference to
Israel’s right wing Likud party. The allegation is strengthened
by the incontrovertible fact that some neocons, as they are often
called, have served as advisors to past Israeli governments.
But
the war party’s interests are of course not limited to those of
Israel, or even to any other single factor, be it strategic
control over oil reserves, obstructing China’s growing economic
power from encompassing the Middle East, maintaining a weakening
empire’s reputation, or simply hunting for new Pentagon
contracts. There is also the rampant fervor of religious
fanaticism, a fanaticism that is more institutionalized and enjoys
more influence in Washington than anywhere else in the world, with
the exceptions of Israel and Iran.
To
preserve these interests and widen them to reach other troubled
(read exploitable) spots around the world, the average American
must be kept under the watchful eye of state propaganda; Mission:
Be Very Afraid.
Indeed,
when in fear, people huddle, seeking salvation and deliverance,
they learn to trust and become more gullible and easier to
manipulate. In fear, presidents like George W. Bush achieve
prominence, get reelected, rising to the status of a modern-day
Messiah in the eyes of some, or many. It is telling to see how
Bush’s popularity fluctuates according to variations in the
terrorism alert scale. The nearer America is to “imminent
threat,” the more worthy and trusted he becomes.
And
in fear, easy explanations are sought, as commonsense peters out
of public discourse. Context, history, and cultural sensibility
are abandoned in favor of Bill O’Reily’s “factor,” which
now sets the stage, influences the agenda, and dishonestly relates
the truth as seen by hateful fanatics. Racist talk show hosts ride
the wave to the end: “Nuke the Arabs,” France, or any other
who dares question the way of the righteous, the mighty, the
proprietors of manifest destiny.
In
a state as dismal as that, “shoot to kill” becomes the only
prevailing doctrine, one that precedes in its significance the
profusion of international laws that were forged as a result of a
century of conflict and war. Only the war general has the
exclusive right to decide who is to live and who is to die, what
city to be destroyed and when: thus the massacre of Fallujah.
Peace is no longer the ultimate objective, but death for its sake,
thus: “We didn’t get rid of the insurgency in Fallujah, but we
definitely killed a lot of them,” as one US commentator put it.
Religious fanaticism is institutionalized and enjoys influence in Washington. |
|
But
Americans, even if frightened by an uncertain future, cannot be
allowed access to information on the ongoing genocide in Iraq, or
any other battles for democracy. Full details must be hidden from
the public. Such a tactic is canonized by Robert Kaplan, a leading
neoconservative, who writes in the neoconservative Atlantic
Monthly: “the best information strategy is to avoid
attention-getting confrontations in the first place and to keep
the public's attention as divided as possible. We can dominate the
world only quietly, so to speak. The moment the public focuses on
a single crisis like the one in Iraq, it becomes a rallying point
around which lonely and alienated people in a global mass society
can define themselves through an uplifting group identity.”
Therefore,
by exposing the public to a controlled narrative, blending the
half-truths of the self-censoring corporate media with those of
the propaganda-driven official account, the “rascal
multitudes” can be kept under control. Add to that the
occasional and well-calculated manipulation of the terrorism alert
levels and the unleashing of racist media pundits who insist that
only by mass-murdering distanced and little understood
“rag-heads” can Americans live in peace.
But
even in conquest, commonsense shouldn’t be discarded altogether.
Why provoke a conflict with Iran if the Pentagon is struggling to
locate a meager 5,000-7,000 additional troops to deploy to Iraq to
fight an already lost war that has kept 139,000 US troops busy
fighting a few thousand lightly armed Iraqis? Why would a
“moderate” like outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell
insist on provoking the Iran front without any evidence of the
latter’s ill intentions? Hasn’t America had enough of his ruse
about Iraq’s “stockpiles” of weapons of mass destruction?
Why is the Israeli media – the Jerusalem Post in particular -
frantically trying to prove that Iran was and is the actual
security threat to Israel, not Iraq? (Oops, we invaded the wrong
country again). It won’t be long before serious talk about the
army draft is introduced to this repellent discourse, not to
secure America, but the narrow interests of Washington’s war
coalition.
September
11 didn’t break America. In fact, it constituted an opportunity
to make it stronger and to rally world solidarity. What is in fact
hurting America, diminishing its spirit, its reputation, and its
chances of maintaining its relevance and prominence, is this
endless lust for war by a coalition of Armageddon-crying fanatics,
neoconservative pro-Israeli ideologues, aging war generals who are
adamant about bringing democracy by killing everyone who dares to
question their motives, and a president who must truly believe
that he is God’s gift to humanity. To make this wretched
discourse more digestible to the public, we are inundated with the
wisdom of numerous “experts,” who keep explaining why it was
necessary for the US to take on (or take out) half of the world,
and, like stock market experts, only rationalize a debacle after
it unfolds.
The
insurgency in Iraq is not nearing an end. In fact, “the daily
number of attacks and incidents in Iraq is now running more than
100 per day, or double what it was before the Fallujah offensive
began,” according to a Knight Ridder article. What is equally
perturbing is the desire in Washington to go after other “rogue
states,” for the neoconservatives’ “total war” cannot
possibly achieve its full potential in Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
What
that means precisely for the future of the empire is unclear. But
it is out of the question that a positive scenario can possibly
stem from this ongoing calamity. And since there is one percent
more Americans who voted for Bush than for John Kerry, then the
president has the needed mandates - that of God and of the people
- to carry on with the fight against the forces of darkness, the
“axis of evil.”
Nothing
will bring an end to the international chaos and disorder nurtured
by fundamentalist and rightwing elements save action on the
internal fronts in both Iraq and the United States: continued
resistance in Iraq, and popular opposition at home. The focus here
should neither be to salvage a disintegrating empire or the
faltering reputation of a superpower, but to reclaim this world of
ours, ruled by rogue fanatics and equally rogue states.
Ramzy
Baroud is a veteran Arab-American journalist. A regular
columnist in many English and Arabic publications, he is
editor-in-chief of PalestineChronicle.com and heads Aljazeera.net
English’s Research & Studies Department
