The Hyper-Imperialist Paradigm
by B.J. Sabri
[Editor’s Note: This 4-part essay was written between mid-May and mid-June of this year]
“There are in nature no rewards or punishment, there are consequences”
-- Robert Ingersoll, American free thinker, 1833-1899
After the fall of Baghdad and the beginning of the US military occupation of Iraq, and as the Iraqis were still burying their dead and clearing the rubble, the rulers and companies of the United States swiftly removed the cosmetic crowns covering their hyper-imperialist fangs, and commenced devouring the opulent Iraqi prey they just devastated by war.
While the US was savoring her conquest, the UN, through resolution 1483 formalized the US/UK occupation, thus converting itself into a promulgator of a colonialist project, and leaving the US theoretically in perpetual control of Iraq. As a date, May 22, 2003 has now four meanings. 1) It is the day the Security Council became the “Ultimate Prostitution Board”. 2) It is the birthday of institutionalized hyper-imperialistic colonialism. 3) It is the day that Iraq ceased to exist as a sovereign nation. 4) It is the day the Iraqis must face the grim reality that to regain their lost independence, they have now to fight alone, maybe a long and bloody war against a formidable imperialistic alliance.
Although the occupation of Iraq is a landmark in the emerging history of hyper-imperialism, UN resolution 1483 upholding it is not. From any legal viewpoint, the US-UN transaction imposed by five dictatorial members of the UN on the rest of world is a worthless deed forged under imperialistic duress and lacking authentic legitimacy, hence, has no validity in the court of the Iraqi people, as well as in the court of history. History has always been an implacable nullifier of colonialism’s algorithms of conquest, and as such it is capable of sudden cataclysmic turns that no one can predict. Therefore, to prepare for the future of History, we have to go back to where it started.
Consequently, the current Iraqi situation demands that we present two separate statements followed by the same question. 1) The American “leading cause” for invading Iraq was to disarm Saddam from his WMD. However, because the US failed to find not even a wandering atom from Iraq’s “nuclear arsenals”, nor a tenuous stream of poisonous gas from its chemical weapons; or a naughty lone germ from its biological weapons; then, why is the US continuing to occupy Iraq? 2) Since the US arrogated to itself the right to change the Iraqi regime by force and since that regime is now extinct, why is the US continuing to occupy Iraq?
This question, inexorably, forces the matter back to the “leading cause” of the invasion – WMD. The finding of, or failing to find these weapons, was (until resolution 1483 cancelled the need for it) of enormous importance for the preservation of the post-invasion strategic balance of world states including imperialist powers. The issue of Iraq’s WMD, however, remains the most powerful tool that we possess to debunk Washington’s claims, hence, reverse her colonialist conquest. After the US occupied Iraq, a joyful modus vivendi has quickly emerged between the nuclear powers in control of the Security Council. After all that theatrical posturing of the anti-war front, the imperialist cartel has now offered the US a way out of her colonialistic problems by validating her conquest, on the condition that the bellicose hyper-empire accepts certain harmless demands. 1) The US agrees to give the UN a ceremonial role in the management of the US colonialistic project, thus conferring a semblance of “legitimacy” to an abhorrent war of conquest, and 2) The US agrees to prize sharing by secondary powers looking for trickle-down colonialistic fringe benefits.
Although imperialists do not issue transcripts of their private deliberations, it is not difficult to imagine their contents. To close the brief imperialistic rift, the nuclear pentarchy redrew the role of the United Nations thus allowing the US to absorb Iraq without international challenge. Regardless of what happened in the corridors of imperialistic powers, the fundamental question about Iraq’s WMD remains intact: if the supposed possession of WMD were the alibi to swallow Iraq, then where are they? The US now suggests that they require a few more months to find them; and Rumsfeld has even admitted that Iraq may have destroyed them before the war (meaning, Iraq no longer possessed WMD)! While a charlatan British prime minister tells us “to eat our words, because these weapons will be found”, his foreign minister acknowledges that these “weapons may never be found”. In the interim, George Bush, who gave us the slogan that the US is going to disarm Saddam with or without the UN, now elucidates us with piercing eloquence that the US is going to find these weapons with or without the high-ranking Iraqi officials! If the issue were the need for more time to find these phantasmagorical weapons, then is not more time, just what Hans Blix requested to complete his work without war?
Since it is a known fact that the US is omnipotent; then, what were the urgent motives to display her violent omnipotence against Iraq? Is it because of militaristic exhibitionism to satisfy a psychological aberration related to infatuation with war? Could it be because of an extroverted inclination to make war an overt object of desire, thus unlocking repressed killing instincts in ambivalent human souls? Or, maybe because the prurient urge for conquest reached an alarming level that the hyper-imperialists could no longer tolerate?
Can we prove, as many claim, that the US occupation of Iraq is indeed, a conquest by hyper-imperialists in an age where colonialism is a relic of the past? Alternatively, can anyone prove the contrary, i.e., the US imperialistic incursion is a generous military enterprise to end dictatorship thus transforming Iraq into a democracy? As events are unfolding, several signs unequivocally confirm that the American expedition has all the attributes of a colonialistic enterprise; and to be more specific, it is a combined American-Israeli operation, and not a generous liberation from tyranny. The precise scope of this operation is the takeover of Iraq, its oil, and the use of its territory as real estate for US military bases. Once this phase is completed, Iraq would serve as a vast military hub from which the US can attack, expand, conquer, and continue with the building and consolidation of the newly formed Israelo-American Empire. From the Israeli perspective, the expedition should culminate in the re-design of the Middle East according to Israel’s objectives. From an American perspective, strategists of the hyper-empire look at the map and see flashing arrows pointing to Syria and Iran, before getting to Pakistan, China and Russia, while leaving cohabitated India, a new Israeli ally, out of focus for the time being.
Are the preceding mere idle or unconvincing arguments? The answer is no. As we cannot prove them false, we can prove them coherent enough for acceptance. Nevertheless, we could be very wrong! Consider what might happen if a supernatural lightening bolt strikes the hyper-empire right on its cranium, and turns it into an altruistic maker of a bright Iraqi future! Excluding that fantastic possibility, we should then aim at establishing a working hypothesis on the strategic intentions of the United States.
No other entity on earth can rival the interventionist repertoire of the United States, where ideologues can concoct a zillion rationales for any intervention. It follows that keeping track of all deceptions and lies that hyper-imperialists invent, is as impossible as trying to empty an ocean with a sieve. Because psychoanalyzing the thinking of hyper-imperialists is a separate issue that requires a different thematic approach, dissecting their words, however, is less demanding. The problem is that even after you give hyper-imperialists a potent dose of truth serum you would still be unable to extract the truth out of them. Truth spoken by the hyper-imperialists is a volatile idea with its own logical path and peculiar existence. To our luck, analyzing the details of the US colonialistic adventure in a factual dialectical context requires just two simple tools: inquisitive reasoning and asking many pinpoint questions such as this one: are there irrefutable motives behind the US invasion of Iraq?
There are at least six possible motives. 1): to disarm Iraq under the baseless contention that Saddam poses a threat to the US with his “WMD”. 2): to effect “regime change” as Saddam is an abominable dictator. 3): to confuse the debate on the causes of anti-American terrorism and US responsibility in it, thus funneling a huge emotional anger through the narrow opening of a large ideological cone to aid the imperialist agenda. 4): to intimidate world nations opposed to US policy objectives. 5): to promote the sale of US weapons. 6): to implement an ambitious colonialist project for the re-conquest of the Middle East, but with implications that transcend its geographical delimitations.
It is certain that Iraq is devoid of WMD. Otherwise, the hyper-empire, which possesses spying gadgetries and intelligence means that exceed the total count of all the rice kernels in China, would have found them by now. This confirms that UN inspectors destroyed those weapons and that Iraq cancelled related programs.
It is an axiom that the theological riddles of existence are not applicable to manufactured objects. Accordingly, material objects must exist first to be physically tangible. Now, because WMD no longer exist in Iraq, and the hyper-power insists they do exist, but it cannot prove their existence, and since you cannot find what does not exist, then the existence of such weapons is only a hoax that the US exaggerated beyond all conceivable limits for a pre-determined scope. Further, the non-existence confirms that the hyper-empire is also a hyper-liar who knows that these weapons no longer exist, yet it is conniving to keep the deception rolling as a means to justify its expedition.
Alternatively, if these weapons really exist, and the hyper-empire finds them, and impartial sources with no secret connections to the hyper-imperialist project, can confirm that neither the CIA nor the Mossad planted them; then, Saddam was lying. However, that was for Blix to find out, and he would have found them, too, if he had more time to search. Nonetheless, even if the US were to find them, that would still not legalize its war and subsequent occupation of Iraq.
Finally, since Iraq’s WMD no longer exist materially or otherwise, but the hyper-empire will find them, miraculously, somewhere down the road hidden in an abandoned chicken coop, then the statistical probability of their true existence is as credible as making two parallel lines originating from the Oval Office, intersect at multiple points behind the colored rings of Saturn.
Conclusion: motive number 1 is not valid.
The ruse for invading Iraq to end Saddam’s dictatorship is definitely the most asinine among all hyper-imperialistic ruses. It suffices to say, that the crimes of European colonialism and US imperialism against developing countries are not a compendium of delightful pleasures, and they exceed, by their cruelty and violence, the record of any third world dictatorship. By all acceptable moral standards, there are no laws that can fit the crimes of imperialist powers. As you read this article, and excluding the millions of people, the US killed in her military interventions, there are 2-3 million civilians maimed by US bombs alive today. 
Further, the US is not a Mother Theresa that loves humanity and cares for its sick; second, in her entire imperialistic life, the US never cared for democracy or human rights for non-European nations; and third, the world is full with dictators and psychopathic democratic or otherwise leaders that can easily emulate Saddam’s record of brutality. For example, in twelve years of US military interventions in Iraq, George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush killed more Iraqis than what Saddam would have killed in ten lifetimes; but even here with a difference. Saddam only killed his suspected political opponents; the US killed her Iraqi victims indiscriminately.
To expand this argument, consider the following: powerful econo-political oligarchies that interact with a mammoth military-industrial complex, which, together with other forces are increasingly pushing the US into a virtual resemblance to many totalitarian regimes. Indeed, beside Israel vs. the Arab states, the US is the only other power that dictates to others what they should do; in effect, the US is a dictatorial state. Does that make the US a dictatorship? On an international level, the answer is a categorical yes; on a domestic level the answer is no. A question: since special interest groups are leading the US into a dangerous game of world domination and making it a vicious world dictator, is it possible then that the US, could become a target for violent change by outside forces wanting to end its unilateral dictatorship over international affairs? In other words, are there powers who could claim entitlement to force a regime change in the US by military means? Could an X regime impose on the US a reciprocity rule whereas if the US wants to change that regime by force, that regime can counter-claim by invoking its inherent right for a reciprocal intent to change the US regime by force too?
For example, Mexico, based on her turbulent history with the US and despite NAFTA, feels constantly threatened by an overbearing US; therefore, Mexico demands that the US destroy its strategic weapons to appear less threatening; if the US were to refuse, Mexico would then threaten to lead “a coalition of the willing” to disarm the US! However, reciprocity as a natural reaction to an action will lose its naturalness, under the following condition: one of the antagonistic regimes cannot execute its right to reciprocity for calculations of military capabilities, and statistical uncertainties of the conflict. The other condition is when both regimes force each other to change through reciprocal physical termination by simultaneous destruction. The point of all this, is that regime change in any state is not the business of any other state including that of the hyper-empire.
Furthermore, the US who installed or supported countless dictators such as Shah Mohammed Pahlevi, Batista, Marcos, Suharto, Mobutu, Noriega, Pinochet, Galtieri; never liberated any colonial nation from the dictatorship of European colonialism, and itself is a colonialist power. As a result, the US looks cynically pharisaical when it tells us about her detestation of a dictator like Saddam! Although Washington installed and nourished Saddam to absolute power, his problems began when he lasted beyond the functional needs of the United States.
While imperialistic alibis dictated the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, pure entrenched racism dictated non-intervention in Rwanda. Besides, Rwanda fared extremely low on the scale of US hegemonic calculations and capitalistic opportunity. The example of a hunger-ridden Somalia, is not instructive either, the US went there, mainly, not for humanitarian purpose, but for econo-strategic considerations. As for East Timor, the US is commendable; but even here, aside from being a selective issue, it was a pure propaganda to mitigate her aggressive and belligerent image. In a sense, it is as a thief who steals ten thousand pounds of gold, and then makes a good deed by returning back one ounce of it to the rightful owner. A reminder: why did the US tolerate Suharto’s annexation of East Timor after the Dutch withdrew from half of the Island?
To conclude, it is not credible to view the American aggression as solidarity with the Iraqis that Washington claimed they were suffering under Saddam’s rule. It is true that Saddam’s rule was harsh and dictatorial. This however, is neither the point, nor should have been the excuse to invade and take Iraq. Further, what Washington carefully avoids mentioning, is that the quality of Iraqi civilian life has deteriorated to primitive levels only after America’s wars and sanctions (the period (1991-2003.) That period was only one third of Saddam’s total rule (1968 to 2003). A question: what was the US doing when the Iraqis were suffering under the other two thirds of the same rule, i.e., the period 1968 -- 1991? Answer: the US was busy selling him weapons and promoting his dictatorial narcissism.
Conclusion: motive number 2 is not valid.
Next in part 2: Theories numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6
B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American peace-activist. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
 Source, http//www.altx.com/ebr/riposte/rip8/rip8pop.htm