Dissident Voice

April 16, 2003

Which behavioral, philosophical or ideological prototype is Bush following in his rabid mass slaughter of Iraqi civilians and soldiers that are fighting not to defend the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, but to resist the barbarous colonial conquest of their country by American oilmen, re-construction industrialists, military bases builders, and Zionists?

Why is the American “butcher of Baghdad” (until now, this was Saddam’s exclusive epithet!) destroying Iraqi cities and burning the cradle of civilization with a vile vengeance? Why would anyone think that, the Iraqis, although willing to except the idea of getting rid of Saddam, are willing to accept that, at the price of their own destruction and occupation? Finally, why would anyone expect the Iraqis to accept as natural course of history, the substitution of their local thief who wasted Iraqi wealth in disastrous military adventures, with a million American “thieves of Baghdad” ready with their Draculaean siphoning fangs to swallow the last drop of oil from the bosom of Iraqi soil?

These questions require moral courage to formulate, and extensive knowledge to answer. However, before attempting to answer them, it is imperative to investigate other precursor issues to discover the connective matrixes that contribute to build a unified epistemological mechanism capable of helping us understand the bloody chapters written by the current class of US rulers and supporting cast. Although this mechanism is an indispensable requirement, it is still not adequate to dissect the meaning of the carnage and the destruction of modern Iraq. Other ancillary devices are an absolute necessity. These include, among many other factors, the historical corollary of events regrouped to make a logical temporal continuity, motivational patterns of US interventionist decision-making, and profiling of the personalities that lurk behind the pyrotechnical fireworks that are devouring and pulverizing Iraq. However, to answer the questions of the title above, I shall limit myself to one aspect, and that is the cumulative bloody killing of the people of Iraq by the US.

If Iraq truly had weapons of mass destruction, the US would have never dared to attack it for fear of retaliation. Russia, China, Israel, the US, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are leading examples of the validity of the “Mutual Assured Destruction” principle. This proves the controversial point that owning serious weapons of mass destruction in the age of homicidal hyper-imperialists who slaughter women, children, and everything else that moves and breaths in Iraq, is an urgent and vital deterrence against military aggressions. As a matter of instant controversy and debate, we, the defenseless people of the world, urge all weak nations to seek nuclear deterrence immediately.

Furthermore, If the US and Iraq had common borders, and if Iraq had strong conventional weapons only, the US would still have to think twice before attacking it, as its own civilian population would suffer an Iraqi counter-attack. The fact that the US traveled 11,000 miles away from American shores to destroy a nation with impunity and nonchalance is an indication of pathological predilection for pure violence.

Before I go further, I believe that a historical overview of Iraq is necessary. Many an ignorant, ignorant by choice, or politically motivated people, love to repeat that Iraq owes its existence to Britain. This is obviously absolute rubbish. If Iraq were an artificial country, then how would you call the United States or Israel? Iraq, Mesopotamia as the Greeks called it, existed since the dawn of history; indeed, ancient Sumerians called it “Uruk” which means a land rendered dark because of the density of date palm trees. Many a Great civilizations that included the Acadian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and the Arab Abbasid had flourished in Iraq. Even during the pre-Islamic era, Iraq was referred to as “wilayatt al-Iraq” which means “the country of Iraq”. Important cities of the Abbasid Empire (750 – 1258, AD) were Baghdad (the capital), Mousul, Basra, and Kufa that have been immortalized by the tales of “one thousand and one nights” and “Sinbad the sailor.” The fact that Iraq had become a province of the Ottoman Empire under Turkish occupation, and that Britain occupied it after WWI, cannot detract, not even by an iota, from the unity and continuity of the Iraqi territory. The presence of indigenous Kurds in the North is part of history and decisions by colonial powers.

Based on the study of recent history, one can conclude that the US has been specializing in the mass murder of Iraqis. The latest episode in these macabre rituals is the ongoing filial competition that Bush the son, launched against his father’s record. At this point, what is the historical record of the US in Iraq?

In February 1963, the CIA engineered a Baathist (the party of Saddam Hussein) coupe against the first progressive and popular republican regime of General Abdul-Kareem Qassem who overthrew the monarchy, and with that ended the British colonial control over Iraq. The coupe’s two main reasons were: 1) Qassem decreed the creation of a national Iraqi oil company to prospect for oil, and 2) Qassem allowed all political parties, including the Iraqi Communist party, to exercise their political rights. Both actions that were an expression of Iraqi national sovereignty did not go down well with Washington and London. In 1964, Ali Salih Alsaadi, the first Baathist foreign minister stated, after he himself was deposed in another coupe, that “…We, the Baathist came to power on an American train driven by the CIA”. In the period February 1963 – November 1963, over 150,000 people lost their lives under a military decree to “purge” all Communists. The US and the UK, who promoted and financed the coupe, sat on the fence and watched. In legal terms, the US and the UK were active accessories to mass murder in those events.

During the 1970’s, Henry Kissinger a veteran Zionist and an advocate of Israel’s agenda, designed an Iraq policy that was centered at igniting civil wars between the Kurds and the central government (the reason is obvious: to weaken Arab states vis-à-vis Israel); thousands of people were killed (exact figures unknown) from both sides as a consequence of that policy. Again, the US was an accessory to their murder.

While the meeting between Saddam and Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Iraqi military base of K-3 (May, 1980) to discuss Iraq-US actions versus the Islamic revolution in Iran, went unreported, the meeting between Saddam Hussein, King Fahad, and the American ambassador in Riyadh (July, 1980) to decide US-Saudi war on Iran through Iraq, is a fact (Brian Corzier, “Free Agent.”) Indeed, in September of 1980, Iraq attacked Iran. It is widely documented that the US was an active participant in the conflict on the side of Saddam; it supplied him with intelligence, chemical weapons, conventional weapons, loan guarantees, and had actively participated in combat by attacking Iran’s oil terminals, territories, ships, and civilian airplanes. Then, with great cynical treachery to their gullible ally [Saddam], it supplied weapons to Iran (the Contra Affair of Oliver North) to keep Iraq and Iran fighting each other. Henry Kissinger, acting as somber messenger of death, announced that the US (meaning Israel) wants to see both Iran and Iraq bleed to death. Over two million Iraqis and Iranians lost their lives. Again, in legal terms, the US was an active accessory to mass murder.

In July of 1990, Saddam informed April Glaspie, former US ambassador to Iraq that he intends to invade Kuwait because of disputes between Iraq and Kuwait about oil and war reparations left from the Iran-Iraq war that Kuwait was financing (transcript, NYT, August 1990). Glaspie replied that the US has no defense agreement with Kuwait, and does not interfere in inter-Arab affairs. In other words, the US gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. While George Herbert Bush could have reversed the Iraqi occupation peacefully; however, he and the pro-Israel establishment decided for a military solution. George Herbert Bush’s war left Iraq destroyed and 300,000 – 500,000 people killed.

During his aggression against Iraq, George Herbert Bush exhorted the Iraqis to take matters in their hands and rise against Saddam Hussein, the “dictator”. When they did, not only did he abandon them, he actually blocked them and delivered them to Saddam, and allowed him to use helicopters to gun the insurgents down…Reports indicated that no less than 100,000 people were killed during the uprising that followed the cease-fire between Iraq and the US. Again, the US was a principle instrument in the carnage.

As if the destruction of Iraq by America’s war was not sufficient for oil-sniffing hounds turned serial killers by greed and ideology, and to add more death to an Iraq already full to the rim with death, the US-UK added a sophisticated weapon of mass destruction called economic sanctions. Imposed first by George H. Bush, then institutionalized under a devout Zionist named Bill Clinton, and finally rendered even tougher by George W. Bush, before his operation: “Iraq Occupation”, the sanctions (August 2, 1990 through today) have caused one and a half million Iraqis to perish because of malnourishment, lack of medical supply, and destruction of Iraq’s infrastructures.

After 67 years from the last European colonial conquest (when Italy’s Mussolini conquered Ethiopia in 1935), an Anglo-American alliance is attempting to restore the colonial enterprise; only this time, colonized people will fight back quicker than what Bush or Blair think. Colonialism in the 21st Century cannot survive the omnipotent will of the people to be free, the harsh judgment of history, the coming wars between imperialist powers themselves, and between those and the rest of the world. You can revisit History, but never repeat it. Only small delusional minds believe otherwise.

On April 20, George Bush, a former governor who delighted in sending inmates to the other world, decided that the Iraqis deserve an example of his “compassionate” Texan killing, made in the name of an agenda that is alien to America’s own principles. As the country that castigated Europe for its colonial policy is becoming a colonial power, its leader [Bush] has consciously embarked on another American made holocaust at the expense of people that have become so easy to kill. Having reached this point, what prototype is Bush following in his genocidal whirlwind? The following is a comparison with selected historical personalities who, with the exception of one, share one common denominator during their tenure: fire and mass destruction.

Emperor Nero’s prototype is not adequate although there are similarities. It is true that Nero was a vicious person who had his mother clubbed to death and who enjoyed the killing of early Christians, however, no one can attest that he really burnt Rome and played on his fiddle while it was burning. Moreover, even if he did burn it, he did not do so by aerial bombardment while civilians had no place to escape; and he had it rebuilt following his liking for Greek architecture. Further, according to the Roman historian Tacitus, that out of the fourteen districts of Rome, four were undamaged, three were destroyed, and the remaining seven were mangled and half-burnt. In addition, Nero did not announce to the people of Rome that once the burning is over, he was going to seize their wealth. Nero’s affinity with Bush is that while the former has burnt his own city, Rome, the latter is burning a foreign country, its capital, its people, and on top of that, he is going to steal the wealth of the Iraqis.

Does Holagu’s prototype fit the paragon? To a certain extent, there are certain connotations that both men share; but there also some divergences. Holagu, the destructive nephew of Genghis Khan, the Mongol conqueror, had invaded, looted, and plundered Asia Minor all the way to the Mediterranean coasts; and who in 1258 AD, attacked, laid siege to, and then destroyed the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, Baghdad, to is foundations. The affinity between Holagu and Bush are striking, but the cogwheel of total similarities is missing a few teeth. Among the affinities is that Holagu and his hordes, as well as George W. Bush and his new Mongols have both attacked the same cities. Although, Holagu did not have B-2, B-52, and Tomahawk missiles, he managed, by historical accounts, to kill over half a million Baghdadis in a siege that lasted 16 weeks. On the other hand, there is a great possibility that Bush will emulate Holagu’s on the per diem ratio of killing. As for dissimilarities, Holagu and his hordes invaded lands far away from their native home out of natural calamities in their environment. Bush and company, on the other hand, are invading out of greed of an already opulent capitalism after mixing it with Zionism, theological zeal, and doomsday theories.

Can it be Malthus’ prototype? Let us see. Thomas Malthus, a British political economist of the 18th Century, was mostly interested in the study of population in relation to their economic resources. He advocated population and family control in order to sustain coherent development between the size of population and resources allocated to them. So where are the affinities with George Bush? None exists. Malthus did not prescribe the violent elimination of people to increase resources, nor did he ever envisage war as a prototype for a “natural selection” of the militarily fittest, where hyper-imperialists can allocate resources to themselves only. Where are the dissimilarities? Unlike Malthus, who was interested in population control, Bush is in interested in the mass elimination of Iraqis as a matter of a specific design aimed at re-building colonialism in the age of the internet!

Many people cringe to hear the name of Hitler; this is despite the fact that many world leaders have criminal records that surpass in cruelty the German leader’s record. How does his prototype work in our analysis? Possible dissimilarities: although Hitler manipulated the elections to win the chancellorship, the German president nominated him as chancellor and the Reichstag approved it. Does this make him a democratically elected leader? By the prevailing circumstances in Germany at that time maybe not; but the process was accepted as a normal procedure of democracy. How does this relate to George W. Bush? The US Supreme Court with the score of five to four made the winning of George W. Bush possible. Does that make him a democratically elected leader? By the prevailing circumstances in the US at the time of the elections, the process was accepted as a normal procedure of democracy. Why accept Hitler’s manipulation of elections as unconstitutional, while the Florida electoral abnormalities are considered constitutional based only on interpretations by judges? Aside from this point, I am not referring to personality or specific ideology, but rather to actions taken and their finalities regardless of the justifications attached to them (to illustrate this point: when a person is killed, it is irrelevant whether to call the action manslaughter, murder or assassination. From the viewpoint of existence, the person who was killed, lost his life). Possible similarities: Hitler liked to invade neighboring countries; Bush likes to invade distant countries; he is at his second invasion since he took power. Hitler believed in the racial superiority of the Arian race; Bush believes in the national superiority of the US. Hitler’s racist instinct led him to enact mass murder against Jews, Gypsies, and Communists; Bush’s racist instinct has led him, so far, to enact mass murder of Afghanis and Iraqis, and who knows who else is appearing in his disturbed focus. Hitler was an avid believer in military might and solutions; Bush is infatuated with military might and solutions. Hitler bombed London in an act of war (Britain declared war against Germany); Bush is bombing Baghdad in an act of aggression (Iraq never attacked the United States.)

Now, let us talk about Sharon’s prototype. Sharon has many affinities with George W. Bush; actually, he is Bush’s spiritual mentor. There are dissimilarities between the two however; Sharon is a military man, Bush is not; Sharon does not believe in Rapture and Armageddon; Bush, reportedly, does. Sharon belongs to a movement that is based on falsification of history, racism and supremacist ideology that took a land, killed and expelled its people. Bush is an adherent to dogmatic biblical beliefs that leave no space for discussion; he may not annex lands that are distant (it was only in 1928 that the US finally renounced on annexing Canada!), but he may occupy them permanently. While Sharon likes to bulldoze buildings, Bush likes to bombard them. While Sharon loves “pre-emption”, Bush adores it. While Sharon hates Palestinians and Arabs, Bush despises Arabs, Muslims, and all the Europeans who opposed his war project. While Sharon thinks that Palestinian life and property are worthless, Bush thinks that Iraqi life and property are less than worthless. In the end, while Sharon wants to create a Greater Israel and control the Arab countries, Bush wants to rule the Arab countries and the world.

My purpose in all the preceding is to state that all acts of aggression, irrespective of the form of government that commit them are equivalent in all attributes. Many American politicians hypocritically disdain from such an equivalency. Are they suggesting that even in matters of aggression, American aggression is morally superior to an aggression by another country? The American president Andrew Jackson and the Spanish conqueror Hernando Cortes had, both, slaughtered Natives Americans in the US and Mexico and expropriated their lands; consequently, is Jackson morally superior to Cortes because he is American? For example, why do the American media keep refereeing to Ali Hassan Almajid, Saddam’s cousin, as “Chemical Ali” and never refer to Harry Truman as “nuclear Harry”? There should be no problem, whatsoever, to institute a moral equivalency between the two; both of them used weapons of mass destruction in war but with great difference; Harry killed over 300,000 people with a nuclear blast, while Ali killed 1500 – 5000 people with chemical shells! Are we supposed to accept American crimes against humanity because Americans made them? Accordingly, the crimes of America in Iraq are equivalent to the crimes of Israel in Palestine, which are equivalent to the crimes of Italy in Ethiopia, which are equivalent to the crimes of France in Algeria, which are equivalent to the crimes of Iraq in Iran, and so on. In conclusion, there is no prototype linking someone to some one else. The inference that this someone, is someone else by imitation, does not take into account the fact that people do not share time, space, and culture at the same occurrence. Whether George Bush is following a prototype is irrelevant. He himself can be a prototype whose definition is still in early formation. However, there is ample evidence that the universality of certain actions and their underlying motives are repetitive through out history. Obtusely structured ideology coupled with latent self-aggrandizement, absolutist opposing values, targeted propaganda, unaccountable deception, lies, and brainwashing, are not but the instruments of unyielding fascist control.

Further, one person alone cannot write world history. The Bush Administration, the controlled Congress, the lopsided media, the pro-Israel lobby, and those segments of the American people that support a war of aggression out of pathetic ignorance, simplistic patriotism and without understanding anything about its causes and origins, are complicit in a mass slaughter that will leave its indelible mark of shame on them forever. It is over due, that the American people take the lead in eliminating their passive indifference to wars on other nations, and end the degenerate charade of the “moral wars of democracy”, and “American benevolent genocides”. Silence on a crime is a crime.

B.J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American peace activist. He can be contacted at: bjsabri@yahoo.com