The Circular Logic of Empire

George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, soaring to new Orwellian heights in their disinformation campaign regarding the criminal occupation of Iraq and the (likely) forthcoming criminal assault of Iran, have managed to perfect the circular logic of empire and state terror in the modern age.

Why did the United States invade Iraq? Why is it escalating that war? Why is it likely to attack Iran? Why is it the most belligerent and threatening country in the world?

I have probed the first question, and the third, to a lesser extent, hoping that it would go away. The second is mostly academic; the 21,500 additional military personnel (why the overuse of the term "troops"?) to be sent to Iraq on top of the current 150,000 will make little difference; they're not supposed to, despite what Bush may contend, and, thanks to his unfortunate genetic/psychological disposition, actually believe. Escalation/"surge", in the eyes of the neoconservatives and death-worshippers of the American Enterprise Institute, is simply a means of rebuking the American public for daring to question war policy. Frederick Kagan, son of noted racist barbarian Donald, is responsible for the "new" "strategy" that has occupied the American (and foreign) corporate media for the past month. Kagan, for those who don't know, was an original signatory of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses", wherein Bush administration foreign/military policy was outlined before its election in 2000.

When Bush, in his televised fictions of January 11th, announced a larger American military presence in Iraq, supposedly to streamline that pitiable nation's road to democracy and stability. The current civilian death rates in Iraq notwithstanding, this is laughable because the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want an American withdrawal from their country, as I have mentioned before. If Mr. Bush were concerned about the creation of a democracy in Iraq, which he is not, the will of the Iraqi people, if not the American people, would perhaps matter to him. However, it does not. So, despite the opinions of the involved populations, which tend markedly and increasingly towards support for a full American withdrawal within 12 months, the United States, bastion of truth and freedom, will in fact take exactly the opposite available position. So much for democracy.

As to stability, there is little indication that the United States contributes to it, and more than a little evidence that it hinders it (also see "Bush, Lies, & Iran"). But, necessitating permanent occupation, that is in line with administration policy.

Bush and Rice have been appealing to the support of "moderate" Sunni Arab regimes, like Saudi Arabia, with its secular, tolerant judicial system, human rights record (see previous post), commitment to democracy, and wealth distribution. In a sea of Islamofascism, verily, Saudi Arabia is a bastion of secular enlightenment. Similarly, Egypt and Jordan are "moderate" Arab regimes, a fact confirmed by the pluralism, openness, and democracy of both.

In the absence of an official definition of "moderate", a gift with which Dr. Rice has chosen not to privilege us, we can assume that she is simply referring to the states with the worst records of authoritarianism and human rights abuses in the region, with governments that happen to acquiesce to American hegemony, without which they most likely could not endure.

State department spokesman Tom Casey, among others in the Bush administration, has called Iran "the leading state sponsor (of terror) in the world." Little evidence is ever presented for this, either, as it is assumed that people will automatically assume that support for Hezbollah (classified as a "resistance movement" and not a terrorist group by the US-backed Lebanese government), Hamas, and Islamic Jihad qualify it as the largest state sponsor of terror. This is nothing but an outright lie; maybe we can just credit it to the administration's world-renowned honesty. As many (including myself, of course) have pointed out, since World War II, the United States government has been the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. It continues to be.

The largest dose of irony, if it can be called that, came later in Bush's speech when he stated his commitment to the sovereignty of Iraq. As Bush was stressing Iraqi sovereignty, his military was in the process of violating that sovereignty by kidnapping Iranian diplomats in Arbil without the knowledge of the Iraqi government or the Kurdish regional government. Being the figurehead of a regime that illegally invaded and continues to illegally occupy Iraq, threatening its government and strong-arming it into service to the Empire, the President's clarity on this issue was obviously appreciated, not least by the Iraqi people themselves.

Perhaps Mr. Bush was not talking about Iraq's sovereignty, per se, but actually America's sovereignty in Iraq. As long as there are American hordes in Iraq, building massive bases for ground troops, jet fighters and bombers, without consultation or concern about the opinions of the Iraqi people or the virtual puppet regime in the Green Zone, all talk of Iraqi sovereignty is purely rhetorical, somewhere up there with the tooth fairy and the white man's burden.

The fourth question asked above--"Why is [the United States] the most belligerent and threatening country in the world?"--is significant, and not challenging for anyone with an appreciation of modern history. In the context of Iraq and its precursor, Vietnam, others have offered good analysis, be they libertarian socialists like Noam Chomsky, American-style pro-business libertarians like Ron Paul, old-style conservatives like Patrick Buchanan, or committed and principled pacifists like the revered-but-not-heeded Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Behind the corporate profit-making rationales, the drive for hegemony, and the likely bizarre psychological traumas of American (and all) hawks, we must realize that the logic of empire is circular and therefore cannot be debated. In the mainstream political discourse, the debate we see is simply on tactics: Democrats may claim to be smarter imperialists, Republicans stronger ones, &c. What we never see is a questioning of the logic that leads to aggression and war. This is significant.

Here is an example of the circular logic of empire. The United States must control Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran because it must control all Middle East oil. It must control all Middle East oil because it must control all oil. It must control all oil so that it may exercise "critical leverage" on fast-rising economic adversaries in Northeast Asia, namely China and Japan, and to a lesser extent the powers of Europe. It must exercise critical leverage on these economies because then it can control them. It must control them to preclude their independence from American desires and corporate interests mostly based in the US. It must preclude their independence because then they could access Middle East oil without American control. Control for the sake of control.

It is, in the end, all about control, with little tangible gain for the American people. Thus the need for grand rhetoric, deception, and mass delusion on an unprecedented scale. This is why the real debate about American aggression in the guise of "the Global War on Terror" is relegated to the shadows, to those brave enough to speak what the rest of the world knows, that the Bush Administration doesn't give a damn about terrorists or American lives, but that it does give a damn about control of Middle East (and indeed global) energy resources. Control for the sake of control.

Speaking of circularity, get your head around this.

The Oil Wars are not about American energy security in the face of the Moloch of Peak Oil, as some believe--though they're close. The Oil Wars are not about the American way of life, which will hopefully end sooner rather than later. Needless to say, they are not about democracy, freedom, or terrorism--except that visited upon the people of the Middle East by the global oil protection force. I needn't go in depth, I already have. The key point: profits are to be made, and hegemony to be exercised.