Iraqi resistance is only growing stronger . . . The insurgents are mostly Iraqi
citizens who are taking up arms, determined to drive us out. I don�t blame
them. We are occupying their country.��Iraq
veteran, Charlie Anderson, website: Iraq Veterans Against the War [Italics
Is Iraq another
chapter in the long history of the American policy of international
fascism, colonialism, and extermination against non-white peoples and
developing nations? Considering the evidence accumulated against the United
States in over 200 years, the answer is a firm yes.
The rise of the United States to the rank of a coercitive
superpower is a synthesis of supremacist ideologies and practices. Slavery,
settler colonialism, imperialist diktats, military interventionism, organized
military coupes in developing countries, mass destruction, financial piracy of
foreign funds deposited in American banks, blackmail and blatant robberies of
the wealth of nations as in Iraq, Libya, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, are just a
few articles of indictment against the United States.
From the Original Peoples, to Africans, Mexicans,
Nicaraguans, Filipinos, Palestinians, Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotians,
Salvadorans, Congolese, Guatemalans, Chileans, Peruvians, Indonesians,
Lebanese, Iranians, Afghanis, Panamanians, Iraqis, Libyans, Bosnians, Serbians,
Colombians, Grenadians, Haitians, Cubans, the list of nations that the US
attacked, brutalized, and violated their natural human rights in the name of
imperialist privileges is only partial and requires more detailing.
While the passing of time dimmed some of the violent crimes
committed by the United States, the violence against Afghanis and Iraqis is
still ongoing. Inevitably, George Bush�s imperialist wars on Arab and Muslim
states powerfully re-open the entire unedited chapters of the criminal conduct
of the United States abroad. Other forms of U.S. violence are psychological
such as the constant threat to intervene against any nation that opposes either
U.S. policies or Israeli imperialism.
Now that all conspiracies and maneuvers that led to Iraq�s
occupation are exposed, Iraq is not only another chapter in the annals of U.S.
atrocities, but also one among the most deliberate acts of violence ever
perpetrated against a nation. While initially George Bush camouflaged his
colonialist expedition under the pretext of searching for �illegal� Iraqi WMD
(Downing Street memos and Charles Duelfer�s report proved beyond any
speculation that Iraq�s so-called WMD did not exist and were just a pretext to
invade Iraq), he continues to pursue the slaughtering of Iraqis under new
rationales and frivolous pretensions.
At this stage of Iraq�s occupation, it is redundant to
reiterate that Bush�s basic motivation for invading and occupying that country
does not deviate from the primitive motivations that accompanied the
development of early civilizations: essential barbarity to possess or
control land and wealth owned by others.
Moreover, the charge of Nazi-fascism leveled against the conduct
of U.S. foreign policy, willful wars, willingness to murder tens of thousands
of defenseless people, and ultimately its colonialist ideology would definitely
acquire more strength by noting the recent "re-election" of George
Bush. However, the phenomenon whereby a majority of the population of an
imperialist state endorses their leaders� policies no matter what, is not
limited to the United States but also to the other two English-speaking
countries with heinous records of fascism and colonialism: Britain and
This could eventually confirm previous statements I made in
relation to the British culture of racism, territorial expansions, and
imperialism. That is, British imperialist culture and the supremacist beliefs
in the uniqueness of the �British Idea� have played a historical role in the
promotion of U.S. international violence. In 1886 Charles Wentworth Dilke, a
British politician summarized that idea as follows:
The idea which in all the length of my travels has been
at once my guide�is a conception, however imperfect, of the grandeur of our
race, already girding the earth,
which it is destined, perhaps, eventually to overspread.
In America, the peoples of the world are being fused
together, but they are run into an English mould. . . . There are men who say
that Britain in her age will claim the glory of having planted greater Englands
across the seas. They fail to perceive that she has done more than plantations
of her own�that she has imposed her institutions upon the offshoots of Germany,
of Ireland, of Scandinavia, and of Spain. Through America, England is speaking
to the world.
In New Zealand, we found the stronger and more energetic
race pushing from the earth the shrewd and laborious descendents of the Asian
Malays; In Australia, the English triumphant, and the cheaper races excluded
from the soil not by distance merely, but by arbitrary legislations; In India,
we saw the solution of the problem of officering of the cheaper by the dearer
Everywhere we have found that the difficulties which
impede the progress of universal dominion of the English people lie in the
conflict with the cheaper races. The result of our survey is such that as to
give us reason for the belief that race distinction will long continue, that
miscegenation will go but little way towards blending races; that the dearer
are, on the whole, likely to destroy the cheaper peoples, and that Saxendom
will rise triumphant from the doubtful struggle.
(Quoted in The Imperialism Reader by Louis L. Snyder,
published by D. Van Nostrand, 1962, page: 112�113) [Italics added]
A simple comparison of the above with the opening paragraph
of the introduction to the National
Security Strategy of the United States 2002 as prepared by the National
Security Council, reads:
The great struggles of the
twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive
victory for the forces of freedom�and a single sustainable model for
national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. . . . [Italics
Of course, the phrase �single sustainable model� is
the key phrase for imposing the imperialist order of English America
(Anglicized and naturalized ethnic groups makes part of the Dilke�s concept of the
English mould) on the world, coincides with Dilke�s theme: �she
[English Britain] has imposed her institutions upon the offshoots of
Germany, of Ireland, of Scandinavia, and of Spain. Through America, England is
speaking to the world.�
No doubt, Dilke�s beliefs in the supremacy of the English
Idea, thus the right to colonize and exterminate had unified Britain and its
progenies, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, predominantly English Canada,
Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) during white rule, and South Africa (Afrikaner-British
alliance) after the end of British-Boer War and during Apartheid. After the
demise of the British colonialist empire and America becoming a nuclear
superpower, those same racist cultural and imperialist bonds have survived,
amplified, and still rule and unify the official attitudes of the U.S.,
Britain, and Australia.
Seen from this perspective, the re-elections of George Bush,
Tony Blair, and John Howard is a confirmation that the mentality, rationales,
and the lure of colonialism that once destroyed countless non-white peoples
around the world, are the same that are now obliterating Iraq so the economic,
ideological, and religious causes of the United States can prevail. If we�and
we must�add the Zionist factor to American politics, the cauldron of
colonialist ambitions and imperialist emotions that animates the foreign policy
of the United States toward Arabs, Muslims, and the rest of the world would
begin to bubble.
The revival of the gruesome principle of violent territorial
conquest under George Bush, however, deserves special treatment in view of the
special ideological merging of convenience between Christian Zionists, Jewish
Zionists, traditional imperialists, and in a subaltern role, Zionists from all
extractions: Iraqi, Muslim, Arab, Afghani, Indian, etc. (I shall discuss those
in the upcoming parts.)
If Zionism and by extension Israel were not involved in the
war against Iraq, how was it possible then that the so-called war on terror has
effectively become the highway to post 9/11 colonialism in Palestine,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Arab and Islamic worlds that have
enormous problems with Israeli colonialism via the Palestinian issue? More
importantly, and in relation to Iraq: Is post 9/11 U.S. colonialism a sudden phenomenon
in the American way of thinking, or a product of long-term planning?
No. The brazen reemergence of U.S. colonialist �passions� in
its Bushian clothes was not a sudden blooming of attitudes, mentalities,
philosophies, or inclination for imperialism. In fact, U.S. fondness to
colonize and to exercise military control over rich or strategic lands was
never dormant and continued unabated since the foundation of the United States.
The American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ever-expanding network
of military bases in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Central and Southeast
Asia, as well as in the Horn of Africa are just the latest endeavors of a
United States controlled by fascist cliques, ideologues of imperialism, and
colonialist adventurers from all origins.
Yet, despite known facts of U.S. history, multitudes of U.S.
apologists from all backgrounds consider the United States, euphemistically, a
country made by war, but
without specifying what kind of war, against whom, and why. This is a deliberate
strategy aimed at obfuscating the true nature of the American state.
In fact, America�s wars (with the debatable exception of WW
II) have nothing in common with the classical concept of war. That is, in
self-defense or when two countries resort to military means to resolve
outstanding political, financial, or territorial claims. While Iran�s counter
war against invading Iraq is the classical example of self-defense, the war
between Britain and Argentina for the repossession of the Malvinas Islands was
the product of territorial dispute. To conclude, in the reported example, and
at the end of military hostilities, none of the belligerents changed the
adversary�s political or economic order.
In contrast, American wars (in both, pre- and post-impendence
eras) be they in the Americas, Asia including the Middle East, the Balkans,
Latin America, and Africa were always offensive and shared one specific agenda:
colonialist expansion and world domination.
As a result, the United States was not a country made
by classical wars or just any war, but by unilateral wars of settler
colonialism, aggression, and imperialism.
Pre-independent America expressed this type of war through colonialist
policies, territorial expansions and annexations, and deportation, as well as
by the extermination of the Original Peoples of the United States. Independent
America, instead, developed its wars to include both, colonialism and
imperialism. Wars to establish this form of power over foreign lands have one
aim: reordering the social, economic, cultural, and military systems of the
invaded land in order to exploit, colonize, or control it. Iraq, of course,
makes part of this American pattern. Non-American examples of war of
colonialism include the French colonization of Algeria and the Soviet
entrenchment in Eastern Europe.
Curiously, if the conquest of half of North America (United
States) did not come about through premeditated extermination and colonialism,
then how did it come about otherwise? We know that the United States bought
Louisiana and Alaska, but did it buy the American West? Regarding this issue,
it is instructive to note that many analysts and historians in ideological
alliance with imperialism revise history to present the U.S. under a benign
light. These revisionists of American history move along five strategic routes:
- By the
assertion that the U.S. ended its colonialist experience after reaching
the shores of the Pacific Rim in the West, the Rio Grande in the South,
and by renouncing the annexation of Canada in the North. This assertion,
of course, implies that the United States permanently renounced
rebaptizing the United States as an �anti-colonialist� state simply
because Woodrow Wilson at the end of WW I, announced his 14-point
program, for a new world, which while it paid lip service to
imperialist idealism, was actually a subtle proclamation for the
continuation of colonialism.
(a) Declaring the US as an anti-imperialist state based on the tireless
mentioning of the diatribes between F.D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill
on the question of the British colonies, and (b) jumping over the
distinction between colonialism and imperialism of which, both men were
ideological believers despite imperceptible subtleties.
intentionally gliding over the annexation of Hawaii, the 52-year
colonization of the Philippines, the still active possession of Puerto
Rico, opposition to European decolonization in the Third World, as well as
the installation of myriad military bases around the globe that are the
physical appendixes of colonialism. Did I forget to mention the active US
support for the Zionist occupation of Palestine? Dialectically, any one
who supports any type of colonization is necessarily a believer in its
causes and economic advantages.
presenting the Cold War confrontation between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. as
a struggle between democracy and totalitarianism, but in the process, they
deleted all references to imperialism and colonialism that characterized
the essence of both, Soviet Communism and American so-called democracy.
Within this frame of thinking, did the US invade Iraq to
colonize it? Of course, that was one among many other fundamental motivations
and to execute it, Bush followed a historical precedent: the America frontier outpost
or fort. The modern
version of this precedent is the following modality: subvert current
international laws that prohibit it, invade, occupy, install permanent
military bases (forts), and then consolidate the status quo despite objections.
Permanent bases, therefore, are the clue to Bush�s
colonialism in Iraq. In fact, Bush�s undeclared rationale to persist with his
war rests on two principles: (1) to force the Iraqi people through systematic
destruction and mass killing to accept the occupation regime, hence the
conquest of their country, and (2) to extract concessions from an American-appointed
Iraqi �leadership� to install military bases on Iraqi soil.
Generally, wherever there is an American military base, the
country where that base exists is dialectically in a strict subaltern
colonialist or imperialist relationship with the United States. For example,
while Italy, South Korea, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Japan, Panama, Saudi Arabia, etc.
maintain a semblance of independence, the U.S., largely, is the undeclared
ruling power of their foreign policy and international commitments. If the
relationship between those countries and the United States rests on reciprocal
acknowledgment of sovereignty or state-to-state equality, and not that of
imperialist subordination, then why do we not see any of their military bases
in the United States?
More crucial than the presence of U.S. military bases are
U.S. military interventions and wars. Functionally, these are a symbiotic
combination between indirect colonialism and direct imperialism. For instance,
since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar,
United Arab Emirates, and Oman had, de facto, become American protectorates and virtual colonies (indirect
colonialism) while maintaining nominal sovereignty under American military
coercion (direct imperialism.)
Regardless of how the US implements these relationships, its colonialist
and imperialist expeditions in the world share three repetitive traits: (1)
supremacist fascist ideology based on the given right of the United
States; (2) deliberate mass destruction or extermination of adversaries as in
the case of the Original Peoples of the United States; and (3) massive violence
with deliberate intent to inflict mass destruction with connotations of
genocide as in the case of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
Does the U.S. takeover of Iraq fit in this pattern? And if
it does, is Iraq then another chapter in the US voluminous book of murderous
colonialism and fascism? If we compare the U.S. conquest of Indian and Mexican
territories, as well as that of the Philippines to the onslaught on Iraq, the
modalities are similar. All of these wars were wars of conquest and shared the
same common denominators that I mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
In the case of Iraq, after 15 years of U.S. blockade, wars,
economic sanctions, invasion, and ongoing occupation, overwhelming signs point
in the direction of colonization. In fact, despite the splendid failure of
the U.S. occupation, and considering that U.S. imperialists may never win
Iraq, practical norms dictate that Iraq is now a full-fledged American
I said colony and not country because the
concept of an occupied country is not applicable here. France, for example, was
an occupied country during WW II, but Hitler did not aim at changing France�s
religion, domestic and national structures, or partition it into cantons. On
the other hand, the U.S. is restructuring Iraq in all sectors in order to
conquer it�this is colonization.
In the meanwhile, how do U.S. fascism, colonialism, and
extermination apply in occupied Iraq, and what are the steps the U.S. has taken
to transform it into a colony? Finally, how does all this relate to my
postponed discussions on John Endicott, Alexander Hamilton, and the Iroquois
Confederacy as an example of Indian issues?
Next: Part 35: When an American
Hulagu invades Mesopotamia
J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.