by Kim Petersen
May 10, 2003
Recent articles in NY Times have adduced the image of the chest-puffing hyper-imperion. As evinced by many polls, the neocons and prostrated media duped the American public with the Hitlerian big lie. The Washington cabal paraded a gaggle of neocons before the fawning media that faithfully reported ad nauseum a litany of outrageous prevarications. The totality of the American media surrender of its role as a monitor of power centers was reflected by the fact that the mass public gullibility over Iraq is manifested exclusively in the US.
The filters of the Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model functioned exquisitely according to prediction in the Persian Gulf Aggression. Although the Propaganda Model has oodles of confirmatory cases, the role played by the media in the Persian Gulf Aggression is akin to what the observed bending of light by gravitation was to Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The ever-increasing consolidation of the mainstream media in fewer hands and its interlinkage with government and other power centers saw the anti-war movement effectively marginalized. The flak machine beamed its military experts into living rooms across the country while contrary views were brandished as being anti-American. There has been little let up in the virtually unquestioned righteousness of the US-UK invasion of Iraq.
The US is making another pitch to have the UN sanctions on Iraq lifted so the US can better care for its “baby,” as NY Times Columnist Milton Friedman mockingly refers to the cradle of civilization. Washington has also let it be known that they expect a unanimous vote.
The hubris of the hyper-imperion seemingly knows no bounds. In the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom the US vociferously attacked all non-obliging or dissenting voices. The UN was castigated for it “irrelevance.” “Old Europe” was derided for its resistance. France was especially singled out for blame over its “irresponsible” threat to use its veto power in the UN Security Council (ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of the US vetos in the UN Security Council). President Bush was dismissive of the millions of anti-war demonstrators around the world who he likened to a “focus group.”
Having brushed off millions of people, former allies, and the UN, the only thing left to do was compile a “coalition of the shilling,” which according to The Washington Post had the strict requirement for each member nation to “allow its name to be put on a list.” (1) Once getting the names on the list then there was also the effort to keep as many as possible onboard; Solomon Islands and Angola turned out to be not so willing. Next was the extirpation of arch US fiend Saddam Hussein. It was supposed to be a cakewalk but surprisingly, in the beginning, the recalcitrant Iraqis refused to conform to US war game scenarios. With a few American greenbacks stuffed into the pockets of certain Iraqi officers it wasn’t long before Iraqi troops vanished. This paved the way for a nice photo-op of the tumbling of Saddam’s statue with dozens of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi’s mercenaries, in a lull from their looting, posing in the background as a mammoth horde of Iraqis. Having exposed the charade the nearby Palestine Hotel’s media were punished with a round of cannon fire.
Quickly the oil infrastructure was secured and work began to get it up and pumping. Never mind that the Iraqi hospitals were short of medicines but crammed with casualties; never mind that the age old history of Mesopotamia was being plundered; never mind that people hadn’t had potable water for a low time and that the electric grid was fried. The US had its priorities decided early on. As for the rest, ask US Minister of War Donald Rumsfeld. He’ll tell you: “Stuff happens.”
It was time to instill some order on the recalcitrant infant. Enter Zionist Jay Garner to join with convicted crook Mr. Chalabi. Reappoint some Ba’ath officials and policeman. Teach some proper behavior to the US “baby”: a few rounds of ammunition pumped into Iraqi civilians with the gall to exercise their Iraqi freedom by urging their liberators a quick trip home.
In the meantime, the US came to a few nasty conclusions: reconstruction is going to be expensive and the Iraqi debt is a burden to redevelopment. Quickly the US sought to wipe out the Iraqi debt burden, in which Washington readily agreed to write off its relatively small share. Others were not so eager. The plight of other countries stifling under an oppressive debt load was neglected by the US. Apparently this was a one-shot gesture of magnanimity. The humanitarian taps were not yet flowing at the UN. It seems the UN wanted some say in the occupation.
The US insisted that this is a US operation albeit with some Roadmap biscuits thrown in for the British lapdog to deal with that other “so-called occupation.” The UN and NGOs have not taken kindly to submitting to US fiat. Fortunately for the US, there are plenty of Christian fundamentalists like Reverend Graham II to dish out bread and water with Bibles, as food for thought, to the Iraqi Muslims.
Still there are those nagging UN sanctions that the US-UK stubbornly maintained in place despite the resignations of UN Humanitarian Coordinator Chiefs for Iraq citing the genocidal impact of the sanctions. Erstwhile US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had already made clear that the US thinks the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children are “worth it.” Well the US has - surprise - unilaterally decided they no longer apply and it will henceforth ignore them. Yet in the same issue of the NY Times is a piece on Syrian and Jordan having circumvented UN sanctions thereby earning the scorn of the US. Well, at least Syria is earning some scorn. The article begins by mentioning Syria and Jordan both twice and then mysteriously US client state Jordan disappears followed by 18 more mentions of Syria and its duplicity. (2)
It would make things easier for the US if everybody was helping out. The NY Times reports that a draft resolution, supported by the US, UK, and Spain, is ready calling for the end to the UN sanctions in Iraq. Heck, why stop there. The hubris of the hyper-imperion knows no bounds. The resolution also calls for approbation of US-UK control in Iraq for a minimum of one year and expects a unanimous result. (3)
That would seem to suggest that a Zionist and a convicted crook on the lamb would rule Iraq for at least one year. Apparently democracy doesn’t grow overnight except if you are white Kosovans without oil. US Secretary of State, currently engaged in an internecine skirmish with Mr. Rumsfeld, made it clear in a CBC interview that the US has “equity, some standing at the head of the class so to speak, to make sure this [Iraqi democracy] goes in the right direction so that our investment pays off.”
That pay off is known by most sentient people to be the Iraqi people’s oil. To garner the UN Security Council votes the UN has been offered the fig leaf of a “concession, ” in the risible form of “representation on the advisory board of the assistance fund and on the role of a new United Nations special coordinator in Iraq.” (4)
In essence what the invaders cum occupiers are asking for is a post hoc legitimation of their violence. This is a madness borne of illusionary thinking. It ignores the illegality of the aggression against Iraq. As such it would be a blatant violation of the UN Charter that strives to prevent “the scourge of war.” The UN would surely shred any credibility or relevance if it bestowed a blessing upon the resolution. It would send out the message that if you are mighty enough then Nuremberg Law be damned; aggression, even without evidence of something approximating a justifiable casus belli is the prerogative of the powerful.
Speaking of casus belli just where are those weapons of mass destruction? Well the US won’t be letting any UNMOVIC inspectors back in the near future, and the US isn’t offering any control over the humanitarian situation that the US-UK have managed to create with help form Mr. Hussein. Neither is the UN to be involved in the establishment of institutions of democracy.
The NY Times quotes Mr. Anonymous, a “senior administration official,” who claimed the resolution was meant to win unanimous approval. Those countries which “lost their way this spring, will accept the fact that, like it or not, the Iraqis should not have to live under sanctions.” (5) The realization came quite possibly a million or more lives and 12 years too late.
It sends a lucid indication to get back behind the hyper-imperion. The NY Times depicted the carrot-and-stick approach of Mr. Bush. The newly-constituted democracies of “New Europe” were rewarded for having stood by the US. Mr. Bush also invited to the Whitehouse the emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani to convey “the highest praise from a president who has made clear the importance of loyalty.” Cynically, the NY Times reported the administration chastisement of Turkey for adhering to the democratically-expressed sentiments of its people. (6)
“Old Europe” eluded censure since NATO expansion was also on the presidential agenda. A move was made to downplay Russian fears over NATO enlargement. Senator Richard J. Durbin noted curiously, in what must be a Freudian slip: "The tiny Baltic states are no military challenge to Russia." (7) Neither was relatively tiny Iraq a challenge to the hyper-imperion.
The LA Times stated: “With its clear military supremacy, the Pentagon feels free to flex its muscles with little regard to the diplomatic consequences of moving into Russia's backyard or leaving the impression of snubbing Germany.” (8) The hubris of the hyper-imperion knows no bounds.
Senior diplomat Mr. Anonymous excoriated the neocons: "I don't think this group realizes how arrogant they come off. It's a PR nightmare." (9)
Kim Petersen is an English teacher living in China. He can be contacted at: email@example.com
(1) Dana Milbank, “White House Notebook: Many Willing, But Few Are Able,” Washington Post, 25 March 2003: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21268-2003Mar24¬Found=true
(2) Timothy L. O’Brien, “Syria and Jordan Suspected of Being Conduits for Iraqi Funds,” NY Times, 9 May 2003: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/09/international/worldspecial/09FUND.html?th
(3) Felicity Barringer and Steven R. Weisman, “U.S. Will Ask U.N. to Back Control by Allies in Iraq,” NY Times, 9 May 2003: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/09/international/worldspecial/09DIPL.html?th
(6) David E. Sanger and James Dao, “Bush Hails New Friends and Omits Some Old Ones,” NY Times, 9 May 2003: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/09/international/europe/09PREX.html?th
(8) “West greets East as US abandons 'Old Europe,'” LA Times, May 3 2003. Available on The Age website: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/02/1051382096799.html
(9) Sonni Efron, “U.S. Diplomats Decry `Military Coup,'” The Courant, 9 May 2003: http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc-foreign0509.artmay09,0,5953630.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3