Imperial madness

It is fear that underwrites the neo-conservati ves' agenda and they will do everything necessary to fan the flames, writes Ramzy Baroud

---

If the invasion of Iraq was a desperate attempt to guard the interests of the ill- defined American empire then the experiences of the last 20 months may well be the beginning of the death knell that has always sounded before the disintegration and collapse of great empires.

The American public was duped into backing two wars, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, thinking that by preemptively eliminating the supposedly gathering danger in these two countries another 9/ 11 scenario would be averted. The administration in Washington, however, had other goals in mind, and they had nothing whatsoever to do with countering terrorism. Indeed, they are likely to fuel the spiral of violence and counter violence. None of which should be taken as suggesting that the war on Afghanistan was devised on the same pretexts as the later war, or that Washington's rulers adhere to the same political, ideological or self-motivated philosophies.

The narrative now emerging indicates that Iraq was the prize sought by neo- conservative elements within the US administration a full decade before 11 September, 2001. While justifications for the war were modified in line with political developments Israel's security was, and remains, a focal point. The neo- conservatives are not labelled the "Likudists" of Capital Hill for nothing. Indeed, some among their number have served as advisers to past Israeli governments.

But the war party's interests are not limited to those of Israel, or to any other single factor. Strategic control over oil reserves, obstructing China's growing economy, defending the reputation of a weakening empire, hunting for Pentagon contracts: none of these can solely be responsible for driving the ambitions of Washington's hawks, not even when you add to this already heady brew the fact that religious fanaticism has a more institutionalised and far-reaching influence in Washington than anywhere else in the world, save, perhaps, for in Israel and Iran.

To preserve these interests and widen them to reach other troubled -- for which read exploitable -- spots around the world the average American must be kept very afraid.

When in fear people huddle, seeking salvation and deliverance. They learn to trust, becoming more gullible and easily manipulated. In times of fear presidents like George W Bush can be re- elected. (It is telling how Bush's popularity fluctuates according to the terrorism scale alert. The closer any imminent threat is said to be the more trustworthy he is deemed.)

Commonsense is filtered out of public discourse by the prism of fear. Context, history and cultural sensibility are abandoned. Racist talk show hosts ride the wave to the end: Nuke the Arabs, France or any other who dares question the way of the righteous, the mighty, the proprietors of manifest destiny.

Shoot to kill becomes the prevailing doctrine, taking precedence over the profusion of international laws forged out of a century of conflict and war. The general is given the right to decide who will live and who will not, which city will stand and which will be razed. Peace is no longer an objective, but death for its own sake. "We didn't get rid of the insurgency in Falluja, but we definitely killed a lot of them," said one US spokesman.

But the American public, however frightened it can be made of the uncertain future, can still not be allowed access to information on the ongoing genocide in Iraq. Details must be hidden from the public. "The best information strategy," Robert Kaplan, a leading neo-conservative, writes in the Atlantic Monthly, "is to avoid attention- getting confrontations in the first place and to keep the public's attention as divided as possible. We can dominate the world only quietly, so to speak. The moment the public focusses on a single crisis like the one in Iraq, it becomes a rallying point around which lonely and alienated people in a global mass society can define themselves through an uplifting group identity."

Only by exposing the public to a controlled narrative, blending the half- truths of the self-censoring corporate media with those of the propaganda- driven official account, can the "rascal multitudes" be kept under control. And to this we must add the occasional and well-calculated manipulation of terrorism alert levels and the unleashing of racist media pundits who insist that only by mass-murdering distant and little understood "rag-heads" can Americans live in peace.

But even during such benighted times commonsense cannot be discarded altogether. Why agitate a conflict with Iran if the Pentagon is struggling to deploy a meagre 5,000-7,000 additional troops in Iraq to fight an already lost war that has kept 139,000 US troops busy fighting a few thousand lightly armed Iraqis? Why would a moderate like the outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell insist on provoking difficulties on the Iran front without any evidence? Hasn't America had enough of his stockpilesof weapons of mass destruction ruse? Why is the Israeli media -- the Jerusalem Post in particular -- frantically arguing that it was Iran that was the threat to Israel's security all along, and not Iraq? (Oops, we invaded the wrong country again). It won't be long before serious talk about the army draft is introduced and it won't be to secure America but to further the narrow interests of Washington's warmongers.

9/11 didn't break America. It constituted an opportunity to make it stronger and to rally international support. What is really hurting America, diminishing its spirit, its reputation, and eventually its relevance, is this endless lust for war by a coalition of Armageddon-crying, neo-conservative pro-Israeli ideologues, aging generals who are adamant about bringing democracy by killing everyone who dares to question their motives, and a president who seems to believe that he is here to save the world. To make this wretched discourse more digestible to the public we are inundated with the wisdom of a growing gaggle of experts to provide justifications for why it was necessary for the US to take on, or take out, half of the world. Like stock market experts they rationalise the debacle after it unfolds.

The insurgency in Iraq is not nearing an end. In fact "the daily number of attacks and incidents in Iraq is now running at more than 100 per day, or double what it was before the Falluja offensive began," according to a Knight Ridder article. Yet the desire is growing in Washington to go after other "rouge states": the neo- conservatives' "total war" cannot possibly be realised in Iraq and Afghanistan alone.

What this means for the future of empire is unclear. The only thing that is certain is that no positive scenario can stem from this ongoing calamity. And since one per cent more Americans voted for Bush than for John Kerry, the president has secured the mandate -- from God and the people -- to carry on with the fight against forces of darkness, the "axis of evil".