Part 19: Colin Powell, the delirium of empire
By B.J. Sabri
Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 2, 2004, 21:41
are going to run the oil business. We are going to run it well, we are going to
take money; and it's going to help pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq because
there is money there.��Sen.
Richard Lugar, Hearing July 31- August 1, 2002, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
"If they turn on the radars we're
going to blow up their goddamn SAMs (surface-to-air missiles). They know we own
their country. We own their airspace . . . We dictate the way they live and
talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing,
especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."�U.S. Brig. General William Looney (Interview
Washington Post, August 30, 1999)
�You left me to suffer for four months in that damn Iraqi
prison,� exclaimed actor Richard Dean Anderson�s character Jack O�Neill of the
TV-series Stargate SG-1 at one of his former comrades. Of course, Jack O�Neill
told a fabricated story that the authors of the show put in his mouth.
Critically, it is not relevant whether the story of O�Neill has roots in events
experienced by a real or imaginary character. What was relevant, however, is
that the writers and producers of SG-1 inserted it intentionally to communicate
two messages through fiction.
The first, aimed at portraying O�Neill as a victim of that
�damn Iraqi prison,� at a time when U.S. forces were massacring tens of
thousands of Iraqis. The SG-1 episode is reminiscent of other Hollywood movies
depicting Native Indians abducting female settlers at a time when the cavalry
was killing and removing the Natives from their villages. (During the 1980s
Hollywood inundated the entertainment market with movies depicting tortured
American POWs in Vietnam, at a time, when the U.S. killed over 3 million
Vietnamese, and contaminated their soil with dioxin, a carcinogenic chemical
The second, aimed at inductive indoctrination where the
viewers could empathize with O�Neill, expand with their imagination on his
ordeal, and interpret his imprisonment as an event based on unqualified
It is reasonable to conclude that SG-1 producers had a
motive�to raise the mental apprehension of viewers susceptible to psychological
manipulation in reaction to unreality. If this were to happen, that reaction
might lead to developing a strong aversion towards Iraq and Iraqis, thus
justifying the ongoing violence against them. This is especially true, knowing
that empire-building think tanks, politically controlled media, and most
politicians have transformed Iraq from a small developing country into a
fearsome superpower, and Saddam from a local tyrant into a galactic villain
capable of destroying the world at whim.
Why did the politically motivated producers of SG-1 make the
O�Neill character tell a fabrication inessential for the plot? For starters, in
fiction, the license to fabricate a story is permissible. However, we are not
dealing with filmic fiction as in romantic classics, but with fiction injected
with a precise ideological message. Second, O�Neill was clearly not alluding to
imprisonment during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, where after three weeks of
American bombardment and land invasion, there was no regime or prison left to
imprison any invader. (Excluding Jessica Lynch�s story that media manipulation
transformed into a soap opera dramatizing the perils that U.S. soldiers faced
Was O�Neill alluding to the Gulf War-Aggression of 1991?
Most certainly, Iraq indeed captured a few Americans soldiers during that war.
The real picture of the Iraqi situation at the end of war was catastrophic, but
to Iraq only. After 42 days of intense bombardment where American bombers
dropped over 85 million tons of bombs, or what was equivalent to all bombs
dropped by all combatants in WWII, and after 100 hours of ground war, the Iraqi
regime capitulated. Saddam�s generals signed the cease-fire agreement under a
tent installed in the Iraqi city of Safwan near the Iraqi-Kuwaiti borders.
One of the 102 articles of the agreement that shackled Iraq
for over 13 years was a condition requiring Iraq to free American prisoners of
war immediately. Saddam, the �Hero of the Arab nation,� as he narcissistically
liked to call himself, agreed. Consequently, Iraq freed U.S. prisoners that
same hour. Logically, then, the maximum period of detention of U.S. POW�s,
should have been 47�49 days (the duration of military operations, and assuming
that O�Neill fell prisoner during the first day of hostilities) and not 120
days as O�Neil claimed.
How many POW�s did Iraq hold in that war anyway? U.S. papers
reported 17 prisoners; but I bet that Jack O�Neill was not one of them.
According to his fictional biography, O�Neill �was trained in the skills of
wilderness survival, special weapons and tactics, assassination, demolition,
chemical weapons, the manufacture and detonation of explosives, and is a field
expedience specialist.� A super man like that could never fail in the hands of
flabbergasted Iraqi soldiers; and if Iraqis really took him as a POW, surely he
could have found an easy escape from his improvised prison.
Moreover, even if SG-1 producers loosely based the character
of O�Neill on a true former prisoner of war in Iraq, they modified his
fictional biography to fit an indoctrination pattern. Thus, the ultimate
purpose of O�Neill�s ordeal was to create drama, empathy, anger, and a false
version of history.
Needless to say that I used �Jack O�Neill�s fabricated tale
of imprisonment,� as a metaphor for Colin Powell�s fabrication on Saddam�s
readiness to incinerate America with his nuclear bombs or to launch chemical
attacks against American shores with drone aircrafts. After the invasion,
Powell went beyond the fabrication of deceptive stories to fashion theories on
America ruling a conquered country that ceased to exist as a sovereign state.
To frame those theories around a dynamic Iraqi situation
where American Modified and Accepted
Hitlerism [AMAH] has surpassed all milestones of barbaric Nazism, it is
imperative to state that while Nazism did not hide its ideological rationales,
the executioners of AMAH have only one rationale left�the extermination of
countless Iraqis to implement the expansionist objectives of hyper-imperialism.
The daily indiscriminate killing of hundreds of people in all Iraqi cities from
Fallujah, Ramadi, Najaf, Al-Sadr, Baghdad, Samarra, Baaquba, Kut, Talaafar,
Qaim, to Basrah, etc., leaves no doubts on the changing nature and scope of the
U.S. invasion, and the psychopathic determination to inflict irreparable damage
on people who tenaciously refuse to succumb to Zionist-American colonialism.
We shall begin examining Powell�s theories on Iraq by asking
a rhetorical question, �What is the basic similarity between Colin Powell and
National Public Radio [NPR] in relation to Iraq and the Middle East?� Answer:
both represent and propagate the ideas and positions of hyper-imperialism.
There is a difference though; while Powell is dexterous at confounding the
fundamental issues before him, NPR is an expert at passing them un-debated
through subtle dialogues.
NPR that boasts huge audiences who swear by its excellence
takes its reputation from the unsubstantiated assumption that it is an unbiased
public organization formed to give balanced information. NPR supposedly
accomplishes this balance by presenting two opposing views on a subject. This
could be true for certain domestic matters, but when dealing with foreign
policy affairs the supposition of balance does not apply.
However, because of its presumed balanced debate, NPR is as
insidious as the establishment that created it. The reason being, most of its
opposing views are structurally similar and lack critical or constructive
antagonism. In short, they coincide in principle, elaboration, objectives, and
tone of argument. This is not accidental; because NPR is a controlled medium,
it follows a direction and path of thinking in line with its controllers. Among
the methods of preemptive control, is the selection of debaters. For example,
did you ever see NPR invite Noam Chomsky to debate Colin Powell on the invasion
of Iraq, or Al Sharpton to debate Donald Rumsfeld on the same issue?
At this point, who controls NPR?
In terms of strategic conquest, NPR, and extending that to
its TV counterpart PBS, is the most ambitious conquest that Zionism has ever
achieved on American soil. I can attest this by noting that most of NPR
programs on Iraq and the Middle East, as well as most of its anchors and debate
managers (with long careers inside the organization) rotate on Zionist ideology
Why did I say strategic conquest? Answer: NPR is the most
shrewd and active medium serving the long-term objectives of hyper-imperialism
in shaping perceptions and debates. Its influence on the audience even
surpasses that of commercial stations, because the inclusion of the word
�public� in its name projects trust and invokes sincerity. In a sense, the
conquest of NPR as well as PBS is even more important than the conquest of the
Congress and political apparatuses of the United States�who controls the mood,
perception, political direction, and thought of the American people, can
control all the rest.
What makes NPR�s conquest important is that it subsists on
donations from large corporations tied intrinsically to the imperialist
project, on individual contributions, and most importantly on public money.
NPR, indeed, chews over one billion dollars a year from American tax dollars.
Where else can a special interest group find such a bonanza to divulge
On September 10, 2004, NPR discussed Iraq, again, by citing
the case of Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) who is under
criticism for mishandling the post-invasion situation in Iraq. NPR
hypocritically attempted to present an evenhanded appraisal of Feith�s case by
giving two viewpoints.
The first view by Frank Gaffney, president of the neo-conservative
think tank, Center for Security Policy, lasted over 80 seconds. Gaffney
asserted that the attack against Feith is partisan, because Feith is �very
effective� in doing his job. He then added that those who attack Feith �want to
diminish his effectiveness� [sic]. Gaffney, as expected, did not miss the
occasion to mention his scheming theory on the cosmic failure of the American
occupation. He insinuated that the occupation has become difficult �because of
30 years of dictatorship�!
A person who spoke for all but 10 seconds, and managed to
say that Feith failed in his job as seen by the continuing insurgency,
therefore he has to leave, presented the second viewpoint. I cannot appraise
the political views of the second person, because his name was inaudible, and
my attempt to get his name by contacting NPR gave no result. However, he did
not sound as an opponent of Iraq�s occupation, but only vaguely critical of
It does not require extreme intuition to conclude that both
personalities, whom NPR interviewed, were decidedly two thinkers of U.S.
marauding imperialism theatrically bickering on a trivial issue of colonialist
management. In any case, before NPR finished its well-presented indoctrination
session on Feith and Iraq, it made sure that we heard Feith himself come
forward in his own defense. Feith, in Powell-esque lingo, commented without
discussing his personal situation, that 9/11 provided the rationale for
invading Iraq. That is it; and with just a few words, NPR effortlessly
transmitted its indoctrinating message, thus ending the debate on the
occupation of Iraq.
The road from NPR debates to Powell�s theories is short.
Both share similar ideological patterns and political motivation. Regardless of
this similarity, there is a slight methodical difference. While NPR depends on
solid experience when dealing with issues that require systematic
indoctrination, Powell, proceeds from the assumption that his �aura,� would
compensate for his theoretical incoherence. Powell�s views on Iraq are such,
that when he elucidates on them, he leaves a trail of confusion. It is as if
his brain�s dendrites cannot multiply fast enough to accommodate his delirium
of empire. The following is a synopsis of Powell�s theories arranged without
importance or dated sequence.
Powell�s Theory on How Long the U.S. Intends to
Stay in Iraq
In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation
[BBC] on 9/14/2004, Powell made a statement that requires we harness all of our
logical means to dissect the meaning of his chatter. �Thus spoke Powell�: �The
U.S. does not want to stay in Iraq a day
longer than necessary, but will not
leave until an Iraqi constitution and administration are properly in place.�
Powell, waiting for
a definition of the U.S.�s Iraqi stay from higher quarters in Washington and
Tel Aviv, chose to condition that function and expanded the time required to
accomplish it. By casting his intentions in such terminology, he intentionally
convoluted his thought to avoid falling in the trap of making undesired
statements, which could expose the true intent of the Bush administration.
He could have
simply said, �Whether you like it or not, we invaded and occupied Iraq, but we
will leave according to the following schedule; then he would proceed to
disclose the time-table. Instead of clarity, Powell opted to navigate on the
ripples of nonsense. If Powell would repeat his interview with the BBC today,
and taking into consideration the fierce anti-occupation resistance, Powell would
probably say that the U.S. is committed to leave Iraq, but not before killing
the last resistance fighter in the country . . .
The question is,
�Why does the U.S. insist that Iraqis have a constitution?� Did the U.S. invade
Iraq so Iraqis can have a constitution? What would happen if the Iraqis refuse
to adopt an American-written constitution, or decide to change it? How is it
important for Iraqis to have a constitution while being massacred by F-16�s and
Apache helicopters? Who set the relation between freedom from occupation and
constitution, and according to what standards of logic?
Of course, Powell
could not have postulated such questions or attempted to answer them; and that
is because any person conversant with current international laws can demolish
his thesis on the spot. Eventually, the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council
appointed by the U.S. did pass an interim constitution, and eventually the U.S.
did install an interim Iraqi government, so why is the U.S. not leaving?
It is instructive in this regard to discuss the U.S.
practice of encroaching imperialism. Once the U.S. dominates a place, its
rulers immediately project long-term presence by inventing all ruses possible.
Briefly, the United States has refined its mechanism at the game of stretching
time to fit the objectives of exploiting colonialism and imperialism.
For example, it took the
U.S. 52 years to leave the Philippines, but not before leaving military bases
in the country. As for the U.S. intrusion in the world in relation to expanding
time, the Palestinian example is powerful. Fifty-five years after the U.N
illegally partitioned Palestine into two states, Jewish, with non-Palestinian
inhabitants from diverse national ancestries, and Palestinian, with all
original inhabitants, George Bush appears on the scene to design an endless
�roadmap� for the Palestinians to have a state on what is left of their
ancestral land. (The U.N. planned Palestinian state never materialized,
primarily because of Arab complicity and USA-Europe-USSR collusion.)
Another example of
American determination at expanding time is the economic sanctions against Iraq
consequent to its invasion of Kuwait. Once the U.S. applied the sanctions, they
remained in place for over 13 years. The U.S. did not want to lift them until
Iraq is free of WMD. Once the U.N. disarmed Iraq from its modest WMD, the U.S.
still did not want to lift them under the pretext that Saddam was cheating.
After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and could not find any WMD, clairvoyant
Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed that Saddam transferred them to Syria. When after a
year and half from the invasion, the U.S. still cannot find a trace of these
imaginary weapons, Tony Blair, the farting sphincter of Britain, sternly
warned, �We will find them one day.�
The search for an
Iraq �constitution, democracy, and peaceful existence� therefore, follows the
same pattern of time- elasticity as invented by U.S. imperialists.
Interestingly, since the U.S. propagandistically insists that Iraq have a
constitution, is it reasonable to assume that after the U.S. forced the U.N. to
designate it as the occupying power, has now moved to force the Iraqis to
legalize their own occupation? In this respect, a constitution written by the
U.S. and adopted by Iraq should provide an Iraqi cover to U.S. objectives
including a permanent U.S. presence in the country. In addition to this twisted
legalization, said constitution should also pave the way for the conversion of
Iraqi state-economy to predatory and outdated 19th century laissez-faire capitalism
thus facilitating U.S. control of Iraqi oil, rights to own military bases on
Iraqi soil, oil to Israel and diplomatic relations with it.
As for the idea of
a federal Iraq in the interim constitution, this is a strategic Israeli idea
with incalculable regional and world consequences that yet to be seen.
Pointedly, the U.S. is not interested in a federal Iraq, nor did it invade it
to make it federal. The final project is to dismember Iraq. In a sense,
federation based on ethnic or sectarian lines, is a scheme to redesign the
world in small cantons to implement imperialist control. A careful study of the
interim constitution provides many clues on U.S. objectives, and we shall study
that in the upcoming parts of this series.
is this new paradigm, �The U.S. does not want to stay in Iraq a day longer than
necessary, but will not leave until . . ." that Powell catapulted in our
direction? If illogic were an orphan seeking a parent, it should have no
problem adopting Powell. Is Powell suggesting that a simple function such as
writing a constitution should expand endlessly in time and space?
It is evident that
Powell was temporizing to give U.S. imperialism a chance to implement its
design, while the task of writing the so-called �permanent Iraqi Constitution�
and the building of �Iraqi democracy� could proceed endlessly.
Much before Powell theorized on converting Iraq to an
American colony through elaborate pre-conditions for sovereignty, Joseph Nye,
Jr., a former State Department official and author provided a precedent. Nye
criticized European powers for giving independence to their colonies after
WWII, the emergence of the USSR as a superpower, and the relentless struggle of
colonial people. Curiously, what was Nye�s rationale? Nye stated in racist
terms that the people of the colonies were not yet fit to rule themselves. Nye
overlooked one important fact though. Europeans did not relinquish profitable
colonies voluntarily; occupied nations fought to gain their independence.
As for an Iraqi administration, what did Powell have in
mind? Answer: the U.S. installed Ayad Allawi, a fascist Iraqi with a criminal
record and strong ties to the CIA and the British intelligence.
Powell was shopping for more time. Time to subdue the
anti-colonialist Iraqi revolution, time to make pro-American Iraqi lackeys
acceptable to the people, time to make the American people accept the death of
their sons and daughters for false patriotism, and time to make the world adapt
to the Zionist Pax Americana.
Before ending this discussion, I find it important to quote
Enver Masud, founder of the Wisdom Fund, an interfaith organization based in
Washington, DC. In a competent article entitled, �New Iraq Constitution a Pretext for Exploitation�
Masud writes, �Israel does not have a written constitution. The British do not
have a written constitution. The U.S. constitution provided few benefits for
the majority of Americans for over 150 years. So why must the Iraqis wait for a
new constitution before the U.S. occupation force transfers power to them?�
Although Powell is a man of many theories, he is a
remarkable paradox. He talks about freedom, while he is an occupier. He talks
about democracy, while impeding it. He talks about sovereignty, while denying
it. He talks about the human rights of Iraqis, while stampeding over them. He
calls the Iraqis resisting occupation �foreign fighters,� while he is a foreign
invader. He talks against terrorism, while doing it. He talks about Saddam
using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people, while he used radioactive
depleted uranium against them. He talks about Saddam�s mass graves, while he
transformed all of Iraq into a massive grave.
To conclude, Powell is the most Machiavellian character in
the Bush administration�he is reconstituting violent colonialist slavery, while
standing on a pulpit preaching freedom.
Next: Part 20: Colin Powell, the missionary of colonialist
Sabri is an Iraq-American anti-war activist. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor