Online Journal
Front Page 
 Special Reports
 News Media
 Elections & Voting
 Social Security
 Editors' Blog
 Reclaiming America
 The Splendid Failure of Occupation
 The Lighter Side
 The Mailbag
 Online Journal Stores
 Official Merchandise
 Progressive Press
 Barnes and Noble
 Join Mailing List

Analysis Last Updated: Jan 4th, 2007 - 01:08:31

The Zarqawi affair, part 14 of 23
By B. J. Sabri
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Nov 17, 2006, 00:54

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

"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.

First: excluding 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?

Beeman: The 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.

Analysis: first, 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 events.

Did Beeman 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.

Before reprising 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.

Having established 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.

Beeman: present-day 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.

Curiously, Iraq 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.

Even the 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 and Israel.

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 Explosive Devices!

(About cultural 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:

Previously published

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9

Part 10
Part 11
Part 12
Part 13

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Top of Page

Latest Headlines
The New World Order and education
Chokepoint! The geopolitical stakes of the Saffron Revolution
Why Burma is not Iraq
Old times were not good times
End the disgrace of Guantanamo
Cato�s trade report: Blinded by ideology
Ukraine divided between East and West
Lebanon and Syria: The politics of assassination
A Fed panic and a massive bailout of American banks paid for by the entire world
The era of global financial instability
America�s hegemonic status slipping away
U.S. banks brace for storm surge as dollar and credit system reel
The meaning of that Kerry fracas In Florida
Rejecting ad hominem attacks and arguments
9-11, six years later
Soup kitchen U.S.A.
Bin Laden is right about the unwarranted influence of America�s global �defense� corporation
Bipartisan consensus pushes for Iran attack
American economy: R.I.P.