"I think arguably over the past several years no
single person on this planet has had the blood of more innocent men, women, and
children on his hands." --U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the
killing of Zarqawi [Source]
As I discussed
previously, Beeman defined his idea of social engineering in terms of Iraqi
factions warring for decades. The obvious outcome that Beeman and other imperialist
thinkers expect from such a war is demographic, confessional, and social
structure changes of the Iraqi society. Beeman, however, omitted important
facts about pre-invaded Iraq.
the Kurdish struggle for secession from Iraq, there were no Arab �factions�
warring among themselves before the invasion. In addition, the name faction is
a misnomer and does not apply to millions of people with identical religion but
two different schools of thought. This means that U.S. Zionism was determined
to invent two notions: 1) factions, and 2) war among them. It is necessary to
repeat that such a war could not begin without two consequential catalysts: 1)
a macro event such as the assassination of Hakim, and 2) terrorists acts
against the Shiite that the U.S. regularly attributes to Sunnis. Zarqawi�s
invention, therefore, was that indispensable element toward the project of
�social engineering� of Iraq.
Second, based on
what epistemological parameter did Beeman envision that these factions would
fight each other for decades, how did he predict that unless he was privy to
information on a protracted American occupation, the Somolia-ization of Iraq,
and continuous instigation for war?
hawks in the White House would not listen. They were so wedded to the
fantasy scenario that the removal of Saddam in an act of "creative
destruction" would result in the automatic emergence of democracy. They
brushed aside all warnings.
Beeman avoided translating the phrase: �The hawks in the White House� to
plain English, which is, �Jewish and Christian Zionists," also known as,
Neocons. Second, Beeman falsified history. The Zionist neocons� rationale for
invading Iraq was never about establishing �democracy� -- the U.S. created the
new rationale after the casus belli for invading Iraq to �disarm Iraq from
�WMD� turned to be only a pretext for invasion since Iraq no longer possessed
WMD as Hans Blix�s inspections revealed even before the invasion. By choosing
to mention the establishment of �democracy� in Iraq, Beeman was merely engaging
in re-writing history through deliberate obfuscation of solidly established
implicate Zarqawi or Islamic terrorism in the assassination of al-Hakim?
Particularly why did Beeman flagrantly forgo his promised, �Obituary, Last
Sermon, and Biography of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, but instead
delved into launching his Zionist campaign to partition Iraq based on a
spurious history that the U.S. and Israel have been repeating endlessly?
On one hand, while
Beeman did not relate the assassination of al-Hakim to �Zarqawi� or Islamic
�terrorism," he, on the other, launched a stratagem to implicate other
Shiite clerics in the assassination. His intent was apparent: create the
impressions that Iraq was passing through a vortex of confessional violence
that by its nature was alien to, or independent from the American occupation
and its objectives. In another words, the U.S. had nothing to do with it.
We can see where
Beeman was going with his elaboration when he, �authoritatively� and without
evidence, named culprits in the assassination. His was a precise task: always
attribute American violence in Iraq to others.
When Beeman limited
the names of the killers to the Iraqis only, he sought to achieve two outcomes
favorable to the occupation:
One: he implied
that violence in Iraq is a result of strife by Iraqi �factions� vying for
power, while it is universally known that in occupied Iraq there is no power
but that of the occupiers. (For the record, the same day U.S. boots
trampled over Iraqi soil, the American propaganda machine began spreading the
notion of so-called factions, thus transforming Iraqi political forces that
emerged from the occupation to �factions," which, generally, convey the
image of disorganized personal associations.
Second: by that
same implication, he exonerated the United States and, of course, Israel from
any liability. Meaning: after the invasion and occupation, The United States
would like us to think that, as its own violence terminated with the fall of
Iraq, the U.S. became �extraneous� to the violence happening across the
occupied country. According to the administration, this violence happens solely
because new Iraqi forces are now vying for power in �liberated� Iraq.
In all that,
however, one thing was amiss: the U.S. pretended and acted as if its tanks,
armored vehicles, and killers in uniform were not roaming on Iraq�s national
territory to re-shape the configuration of its new colony. The ruse of the American
extraneousness to violence in Iraq would never work. Categorically, the U.S.
could never conquer Iraq without generalized violence against all potential
forces that might hinder its march to conquest. Violence, rapes,
assassinations, wholesale mass destruction, targeted explosions, and mayhems
are the means of communication with the occupied Iraqis to deter resistance.
the analysis of Beeman�s article, I have to identify an important pillar of the
general strategy of misinformation on Iraq. Because the underpinning of Iraq�s
occupation rests on Bush�s premise that the U.S. remained in Iraq to fight
�terrorism," analyses by American imperialist and Zionist thinkers
automatically coincide with that same premise. The reason being, any dissonance
between the propaganda lines of the Establishment and its myriad propagators
could uncover details that might complicate the process of converting the
military occupation into a permanent conquest.
the above, while Beeman committed no discrepancy with the Neocon Regime, he,
nevertheless, planned to interpose his Zionist agenda in this frivolous �last
sermon," thus exposing the planning of U.S. Zionist imperialism about the
future of occupied Iraq. Remember, we are dealing with an intricate plan.
Therefore, we should think of Kuwait, Iraq�s �WMD," Non-Fly Zones,
sanctions, Inspections, U.N. irrelevance, invasion, occupation, Zarqawi,
assassinations, genocide, �terror," etc., as one vast amalgam of
interrelated scrambled images (schemes) that in order to read, we must first
separate to regroup them next, only this time, we place the descrambled images
in consequential order.
As I stated, one
among these schemes is the partitioning of Iraq through a ruse called
�federalism� as invented by U.S. Zionists with Leslie Gelb, Joseph Biden, and
Henry Kissinger leading the campaign. To be categorical, federalism,
centralism, or whatever is fine, if to decide it is a free nation and free
institutions. But, neither Iraq nor its institutions are free. How can a
country be free if over 158,000 American soldiers, over 120,000 American
civilians, over 100,000 hired multinational mercenaries and contingents from
the �coalition of the bribed� and over 120,000 Latin Americans, Africans, and
Asian workers (brought into Iraq to perform menial jobs for Bush and his Nazi
killers in uniforms) occupy, crush, and filth its national soil?
Once again, how
does the assassination of al-Hakim relate to the partition of Iraq?
Let us go about
this methodically. The importance of Beeman�s article is that he was one among
the early American pioneers (he wrote his article in September 2003, long
before the neocon Democrat Joseph Biden, Jr., launched his campaign to partition Iraq in
2006) who indirectly outlined the partition of Iraq based on an assassination
of a religious figure.
Take for example
the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. To our knowledge, no one
proposed that his assassination must serve as an igniter for 1) a black-white
civil war, and 2) the partition of the South of United States into a Southern
Baptist black sector, and Southern Baptist white sector.
Congruently, why do
U.S. propagandists consider the assassination of Muslim scholar: Mohammad Baqir
al-Hakim, as the catalyst for Iraq�s civil war and inevitable partition unless
the project for a civil war was the locomotive guiding the assassination? Forcefully,
who gave the occupying power the right to divide people they first destroyed
and now occupy, unless the planned violence that should lead to partition has a
much wider scope and latitude?
With this in mind,
we shall analyze Beeman�s principle platforms: re-interpreting history
according to the objectives of contemporary Zionism, which is, Israeli imperium
over the Arabs, and 2) advance theories on how to correct what the Zionists
call, the mistakes of British imperialism in Iraq.
With the following
statements, Beeman took a decisive turn in driving forward several platforms
that constitute the basic philosophy of contemporary Zionism -- U.S. Zionism,
in particular, differs from the Zionism of Hertzel in many respects. Chief
among these is that Hertzel did not postulate on an Israeli empire nor was he
capable to envision an Israeli regional imperialism via a future world power
called the United States.
Iraq was three provinces of the Ottoman Empire before World War I. It was
cobbled together by the British for their own convenience after that conflict.
Analysis: it is
true that Britain who conquered Iraq from Turkey on March 17, 1917 merged those three
provinces into a nation-state after the end WW1. But, it is also true that the
Ottoman Turks (former colonial rulers) conquered those same provinces from one
unified structural unity called Iraq. In fact, since after the Arab Muslim
caliph, Omar bin Al-Khattab founded Basra in 636, and since after the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur
founded Baghdad in 762, Iraq, whose historical territory extended
from Mosul in the north, to Baghdad in the center, and to Basra in the south,
was one indivisible territory until Holagu destroyed the caliphate in 1258.
enjoyed national identity 1350 years before a band of Zionists and imperialists
such as Leslie Gelb, George Bush, Joseph Biden, Max Boot, and James Baker
advocated dividing it consequent to another colonialist conquest.
To conclude, the
fact that the Ottomans re-organized their Iraqi colony into three provinces,
and the fact that the British re-arranged those same provinces into a modern
nation state, does not change by one infinitesimal iota Iraq�s
historical continuity as a land that experienced great civilizations, empires,
statehood, and colonialism. It is not a coincidence, however, that Iraq earned
two reputations: Historians call it, the cradle of civilization, and
Arabs call it, the pinnacle of eternal glory.
In addition, the
Ottoman Empire, as the colonial power that ruled the Arabs (since the early 15th century) under the pretense of an
Islamic caliphate, re-organized all of its Arabic colonies in provinces (Wilayat).
As such, Bilad al-Sham (Greater Syria: current Syria, Lebanon, entire occupied
Palestine, and Jordan), Bilad al-Iraq (the country of Iraq, conquered in 1534), Wilayat al-Hijaz and Najad (current
Saudi Arabia), Wilayat Masr wal Sudan (the province of Egypt-Sudan),
Libya, Tunis, and Algeria were all Ottoman administrative units. Yet, all of
these colonialist arrangements have no relevance to the historical continuity
of Iraq or any other Arab state that history shaped despite the colonialist
will of European powers.
Yet, even before
Britain occupied it, the Ottoman Empire that occupied Iraq before Britain
conquered it, had always given it its Arabic name: Wilayat al-Iraq (literal
translation: the province or state of Iraq). Moreover, Ottoman documents had
always acknowledged that the Province of Basra and the Province of Baghdad had
formed the core of Arabic Iraq. But, most importantly, Iraq, as the supreme
headquarters of the Arab Abbasid Empire, had extended
through vast Asian and African territories, thus by force of its previously
achieved geographical preponderance could claim any territory it previously
dominated. [See maps: one, two, and three).
Who set the rule
that Zionism can claim a land (Palestine) it never inhabited, but Iraqis cannot
claim land it once dominated? My point is not about a hypothetical or
revanchist Iraqi colonialist imperialism; rather to argue a point that Zionists
insists upon ad nauseam, and that is, Britain created Iraq.
Let us argue this
point: what is the big deal that Britain merged three provinces under its occupation
into one? An occupying power can do anything it wishes with an occupied land.
Just look at Iraq today where the U.S. is attempting to convert that merge into
partitioned provinces! Remember, at its apogee, colonialist Britain occupied
twelve million square miles of the planet; as such, it re-arranged the face of
Earth, its nations, national histories, and distribution of its ethnic groups.
The most recent
example before Iraq is when the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, and Italy
dismembered Yugoslavia and severed Kosovo from Serbia. Still, not even the
dismemberment of Yugoslavia is a valid example for Iraq. Despite their Slavic
origins and almost identical languages, Bosnians, Croatians, Kosovars,
Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbians, and Slovenians are distinct as national
identities and religions. Arab Iraq, on the other hand, is ethnically and
religiously homogeneous despite the natural presence of minorities.
Czechoslovakian example does not apply to Iraq. It is true that Czechs and Slovaks
are different despite similarity, but is also true that no foreign power forced
the splitting of the former unified country. That was an accord between
differing parties. In Iraq, however, the U.S, invaded Iraq with one objective
and that is to divide it and rule it. As a byproduct of that objective, even an
independent Kurdish state lacks legitimacy: the Kurds did not obtain it through
negotiation or war of liberation from Iraq but through the invasion of
imperialist armies and the concession of military bases to the Unites States
Curiously, we know
that the current crusading mentality of the supremacist West has its own
fixations with certain cultural albatrosses, and self-admiration for
technological advancements that some exchange as an equivalence for
civilization in the pure sense [please read below]. But, what we do not know is
the following: by what logic does the U.S. feel it is entitled to undo what
Britain had done in Iraq (despite the fact that Britain designed the boundaries
of Iraq to suit its colonialist interests)? Answer: there is no logic except
unaccountability. Indeed, U.S. entitlement derives from its unaccountability to
do what it wishes since no world power can engage it militarily (at least at
the current time) to stop its foolish march for total empire -- yet, a lesson
to all: the Iraqi Resistance stopped that march with simple, Improvised
albatrosses in the age of hyper-imperialism: some Western thinkers like to
re-cast the ancient war between Spartans and Persians as a war between
�freedom� and �tyranny�! But, if the Persian incursions in the Mediterranean
were, of course, imperialist expeditions, how can these thinkers reconcile the
fact that Sparta was the prototype of an aggressive and offensive militarism
that crushed Athens and its culture?
What cultural or
imperialist paradigm can we surmise from this attitude to the Persian-Spartan
war? Answer: any war or conflict that happens between two nations: one situated
in Europe or the Americas, and the other outside those boundaries (excluding
Israel) is necessarily a war between �good� and �evil.")
A question: does
the fact that Britain designed the modern boundaries of Iraq qualify it as an
artificial state? Is the project to partition Iraq into three zones of control
(�states�) is a way to de‑artificialize it? Or, what is exactly hiding behind
the idea of that project? Again, is the �Zarqawi� hoax or American terrorism in
Iraq fundamental to accomplish it?
Next: Part 15 of 23
B.J. Sabri is an
Iraqi-American anti-war activist. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org