�The enemy has got a face�he's
called Satan, he's in Falluja, and we're going to destroy him.��U.S. Lt Col
on the attack conducted by Cheney�s occupation forces on Fallujah in occupied
Iraq. [Italics added]
Association of ideas is a marvelous
mechanism of the mind. You may be thinking about how intriguing tap dance is,
and suddenly, you remember the first time you saw Gene Kelly doing it in a
film. The same phenomenon could happen when we think about Vice President Dick
Cheney. It is possible that the moment we think of him, the name of Halliburton
(Cheney�s former company that is making billions of dollars from the war on
Iraq) jumps to the foreground.
Halliburton, however, is only a
distraction from Cheney�s war. We can stop the distraction by employing
�targeted dissociation,� my term for voluntary termination of thought
progression. This is how it works: move Halliburton to the background, think of
Cheney and his reinterpretation of world history and relate that to Zionism,
the locomotive of the neoconservatives ideology for world power, and then,
think of Fallujah, the small Iraqi city the U.S. turned into rubble.
The instant we juxtaposed Cheney
to these new ideas, our original thought stops, discards Halliburton, and
begins searching for new relations with Cheney still at the center. Because
Vice President Cheney is a pillar of hyper-imperialism, he is a means to
understand America�s war on Iraq, and the militarist thrust to impose a durable
U.S. world hegemony.
Accordingly, I shall discuss Cheney from five viewpoints: 1)
Empire vs. imperialism; 2) U.N. resolutions as war alibis; 3) 9/11 as a
rationale for Iraq�s conquest; 4) interaction with Zionism and vice versa; and
5) Falluja as a symbol for Cheney�s �American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism.�
Empire vs. Imperialism
Although Cheney is a sharp thinker, he is a demagogue. To
the question of Klaus Schwab (founder of the Economic Forum in Davos), �Do you
consider the United States to be an empire?� Cheney
replied articulately by taking the essential definition of empire, removed from
it all references to imperialism, and reduced its meaning to the sole
possession of land.
Cheney: �If the United States were an empire, we
would currently preside over a much greater piece of the Earth's surface than
Both, Cheney and Schwab, politically limited the exchange on
the nature of the American state, and interchanged the meaning of two different
concepts��empire,� and �imperialism.� If congruity matters, the questioner
should have avoided the commonplace charge of empire, and asked Cheney, whether
he thinks, �U.S. world policy and willful wars constitute belligerent and activist
Cheney, catching on the simplicity of the premise,
insinuated the lack of a wider U.S. geographical encroachment on the planet
indicates the U.S. is not an empire.
the uproar about America becoming an empire and the caricatures depicting
Bush as Caesar, technically, the U.S. is neither an empire nor a republic,
but a presidential federated union that resembles a republic but acts like
an empire. As such, the U.S. exercises its imperialism or reach of empire
through military and economic dominance, rather than geographical
extension. Imperialism such as this has no need for conquered territories
to affirm its power. For example, during the 13-year American economic
blockade of Iraq, the U.S. affirmed its imperialist reach by forcing the
world to observe the sanctions without dispatching military forces in each
country to enforce it.
importantly, the U.S. is not an empire because it has no system of
countries that it militarily pacified as in the case of the Roman, British,
French, and Ottoman Empires. The example of postwar Japan and Germany or
current Afghanistan and Iraq, does not fit the requirements for pacified
territorial properties presupposing complete deference to the imperial
I partly endorsed Cheney�s parameters for empire, and considering that the
term, �empire� is not applicable to the U.S., then what would apply?
the United States is an imperialist state whose definition goes beyond
empire and beyond what Vladimir Lenin correctly gave to imperialism, which
was, �imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.� The key phrase to
define the United States of Cheney is, �hyper-imperialist state,�
whose ideology is a combination between imperialism, capitalist globalism,
Hitlerism, fascism, democracy, militarism, Christian fundamentalism, and
most importantly Zionism. Politically though, the U.S. has become a hybrid
entity in a totalitarian evolution, with Zionism acting as if it were a
genetic code of power passing from one administration to the next.
the word �imperialism� is based on the term �imperial,� empire and
imperialism are two different concepts. Empire is an obsolete form of
power consisting of a large system of lands, mostly contiguous as in the
Roman Empire, or disconnected as in the British Empire. In this system,
the imperial state administratively controls the provinces by direct
military and economic means aided by co-opted local classes.
hyper-Imperialism is more complex than classical imperialism and goes
beyond its simple political determinism. In the era of colonialism, many
European countries embraced colonialist imperialism as a means for
national grandeur and unlimited profits. Imperialism, therefore,
transcends nationalities and is feasible where means to practice it are
is an exclusive American phenomenon. This system exploits: 1) the current
unique position of the U.S. as a power without military rivals, and 2) the
absence of credible military, political, or economic deterrence opposing
U.S. interventionism makes the U.S. move with confidence to impose its
imperialist order on all those countries incapable of repelling such an
therefore, was partially correct when he stated the U.S. was not an empire.
Only that he manipulated technicalities to disguise the imperialist nature
of the American state, and artfully dismissed the contention by decrying
the size of geographical encroachment.
Emphatically, Cheney�s disclaimer of empire is an adroit evasion
to deflect the accusation of imperialism. Though technically it is not an
empire, the U.S. possesses countless features of empire. With military bases
(considered American territory) in 130 countries, with warships (mobile
American territory) ready to intervene anywhere, with its occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq, with its control of the U.N., with its ambassadors and
banks controlling national policies and economies of foreign governments, and
with myriad satellite states, the U.S. is not just an empire�it is a
Moreover, it is one thing that critics of U.S. imperialism
including myself tend to employ the term, �empire� to denote its dictatorial
multiform interventionism. It is another, when Cheney, an active exponent of
colonialist hyper-imperialism, reduces the complex concept of empire to just
one matter: territorial size.
Regardless, labeling the U.S. with any name is irrelevant.
Our dilemma should go beyond labeling to find effective ways to confront and
dismantle hyper-imperialism as an extremist, belligerent ideological movement
ruling the United States. In fact, regardless of how we define it, be it
un-empire, empire, kingdom, principality, republic, or a union of tribes, the
United States of Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz is the most dangerous imperialist state
that ever existed. Categorically, Cheney�s negation of empire cannot alter U.S.
truculent imperialist reality.
Cheney: U.N. Resolutions as War Alibis
Cheney�s reinterpretation of
recent Iraq history is a masterwork of imperialist fraudulence. In this field,
he beats outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell by innumerable grades. While
Powell depends on his prestige [sic] to deliver deceptions regardless of who
the audience is, Cheney depends on his ideological ax to reshape history in
front of preselected imperialist outfits sharing his philosophy of imperialism.
On October 10, 2003, Cheney gave a
speech at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington based Zionist think tank. For
this part, I selected a significant issue that the he addressed.
Cheney: �It was crucial that we
enforced the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Now, having liberated that
country, it is crucial that we keep our word to the Iraqi people, helping them
to build a secure country and democratic government. And we will do so.� (Applause)
A question: which of the following
conditions made the audience applaud Cheney: 1) U.S. �enforcement of U.N.
resolution,� 2) Iraq�s �liberation,� 3) Keeping the U.S. �word� to the Iraqi
people, 4) to build a secure country, or 5) to build a democratic government?
The answer is none. Members of the
Heritage Foundation could care less about any of the reasons that Cheney cited.
They applauded him only because he said, �We enforced . . . etc.� With the
pronoun, �We,� Cheney proclaimed the U.S., de facto, as the only world
authority that matters, and re-affirmed the permanent demise of the United
Cheney lied on many counts:
moved from the sentence, �It was crucial that we enforced the Security
Council resolutions,� to the sentence, �Now we have liberated the
country,� as if the events that happened between both actions were
worthless. And with that, he wiped out Iraq�s history and world events,
including the Gulf war, the 13-year sanctions for possession of weapons
that were destroyed, the inspections, U.S.-imposed U.N. resolutions, the
antiwar movement, the invasion, and finally the military occupation of
depicted the conquest of Iraq as liberation from dictatorship. Of course,
he did not mention that in the instant Saddam�s regime collapsed, the
Iraqi people passed from the iron grip of national dictatorship to the
genocidal fist of American colonialist dictatorship.
declared the U.S. as a �world cop,� when he proclaimed, �We enforced . . .
etc.� Because no international authority ever elected the U.S. for that
post, the American behavior is lawless at best and derives its strength
exclusively from America�s military power.
from the 9/11 rationale, Cheney did not explain why it had become,
suddenly, �crucial� for the United States to enforce U.N. Security Council
resolutions on Iraq. The question assumes particular importance in light
of: 1) up until Bush�s war, all U.N. members except the U.S., the U.K.,
Israel, and Fiji did not consider any further punishment of Iraq necessary
or warranted, and favored lifting of the sanctions, and 2) many world
states reopened their diplomatic missions in Baghdad.
Cheney never explained the nature of the emergency to attack Iraq, an
explanation however did exist. In Cheney�s vocabulary of imperialism,
�crucial� meant the fear of missing an opportunity to implement a decision
already taken to conquer the country with the second largest proven oil
reserves on earth, as well as to defeat the Arab world on behalf of
Israel. Why was the U.S. fearful of missing an opportunity? Answer: if the
U.S. were to delay its plan, the passing of time could have dimmed the
popular emotions consequent to 9/11 that Zionists tied to Iraq, and
allowed the world to look at it for what it was: an immense crime that
should have been investigated and its perpetrators punished. Lie number
1: the war on Iraq was not crucial. Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. from
any conceivable viewpoint.
committed two sequential contradictions when he stated that, �We [the
U.S.] enforced U.N. resolutions.� Was he talking about the same
organization that the U.S. considered irrelevant? First, if the U.N. was
irrelevant, then its resolutions were irrelevant. Therefore, the U.S.
should not have bothered implementing them. Second, if the U.N. was
irrelevant by Bush-Cheney�s standards, then the U.S. effectively dissolved
it by ignoring its authority. Accordingly, the U.S. strategy versus the
U.N. was evident: by virtually dissolving the U.N., the U.S. would become
instantly the highest authority on earth.
omitted two important facts. First, in the summer of 2002, Iraq accepted
U.N. resolutions to resume inspections and granted unconditional access to
all sites previously restricted. Second, the U.S. blocked the inspections
and forced the U.N., under the threat of going to war with or without it,
to issue resolution 1441, which categorically, never authorized the U.S.
to wage any war unilaterally.
Cheney omitted two additional fundamental facts. First, the U.S. failed to
garner enough votes for a new resolution declaring Iraq in material breach
of previous Security Council resolutions, which meant the U.N. but not the
U.S., can authorize applying the severe consequences it threatened but not
specified in resolution 1441, which, incidentally, only Blair, Bush,
and Sharon interpreted as meaning war. Second, since a majority of the Security Council did not
consider Iraq in material breach, then categorically the U.S. is not
authorized to speak collectively on behalf of a council that did not
the U.S. falsely declared it went to war to enforce U.N. resolutions, did
the Council officially protest the lie? The answer is no. Not only did the
complicit imperialist Security Council not protest, but also absorbed
insults, denigrations, and vilifications, and ended by legalizing the
criminal occupation of Iraq. It took U.N.�s compliant secretary-general 14
months after the invasion to declare the war illegal, but of course, his
�ingenious discovery� has no relevance to the status quo of the world
today. Lie number 2: The Security Council did not, explicitly or
implicitly, authorize war on Iraq.
Cheney compressed two big lies in the space of one sentence, he passed to
�the mother of all lies,� otherwise called, �the liberation of Iraq.�
Thirteen months after Cheney�s speech to the foundation, the U.S. is still
occupying Iraq, while fighting an intense anti-occupation revolution. Lie
number 3: Cheney did not liberate Iraq, but he conquered it.
to have a linguistic tic, Cheney employed the word �crucial� to depict the
emergency for war on Iraq, and then immediately reused it to depict the
U.S. commitment to �keep its word� to the Iraqi people. Cheney cannot show
evidence that substantiates his claim that the Iraqi people solicited him,
William Kristol, a.m.
Rosenthal, or Richard Perle to liberate them from Saddam. So, why should
Cheney keep a word, never solicited? Lie number 4: the Iraqis never
requested that the U.S. liberate them from Saddam�s dictatorship in
exchange for occupation.
this phrase, to �Help them [the Iraqi people] to build a secure country,�
Cheney demolished the recent history of Iraq with a bulldozer. Since
immediately after the Gulf War, Iraq not only lost its sovereignty, but
also its security. With no-fly zones, with losing control over its money,
with the blockade and 13-year sanctions, and with a one-way war of
attrition, Iraq, caught between Saddam�s dictatorship and U.S. Zionist
imperialism had no security left�none whatsoever.
After a devastating first war (1991) with over 400,000
killed, 13 years of blockade, sanctions that killed over 1.5 million, 12-year
war of attrition, and yet another devastating war of conquest (2003) with over
100,000 killed and still counting; and after 19 months since the crusading army
of Cheney occupied Iraq, did Cheney build a secure Iraq?
After the U.S. dismantled Iraq�s
economic and social structures, and as master terrorist John Negroponte is
ruling Iraq by cluster and Napalm bombs and destroying Iraq�s historical cities
one by one, did Cheney build a secure Iraq for the Iraqis?
After the U.S. effectively
deprived the Iraqis of all elementary forms of security, including personal
safety, health, psychological, future, financial, and societal development, is
Iraq really a secure country?
The answer to all these questions is no. With a
cannibalistic economy, with oil revenue financing the occupation, with over
100,000 Iraqis killed, with 70 percent of the population unemployed, with the
U.S. fomenting a civil war, and with hospital and university systems laying in
ruin, Iraq, decidedly, is not a secure, but a catastrophically failed nation.
Without a doubt, Iraq, albeit was ruled by a dictatorship
and despite many years of hardship, was on its way to recovery until the U.S.
ended its fragile security and turned it into an occupied ravaged land and
divided it according to confessional and ethnic lines to divide and rule.
Finally, as the U.S. is bogged down in a fierce
anti-occupation war of liberation, Iraqis can no longer find any security as
long as the occupation persists. As for Cheney�s reference to a democratic
government and all that outdated colonialist propaganda, I discussed that
subject in part 20
of this series.
Next: Part 24: Dick Cheney: rewriting history with a shovel
Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. Email: email@example.com.