Exceptionalism: A Wile for Imperialism
The
Imperialist Violence in Syria, Part 4 of 7 -
Part 1
By Kim
Petersen and B. J. Sabri
January 13,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- So far, we have argued that international and
regional interventions brought Syria to the present
violent point and that Western imperialist and
regional objectives (American, Israeli, European,
Saudi, Turkish, etc.) are at work throughout the
Arab world. It is also self-evident that all of
America's wars after WWII were about imposing its
dominance and confirming its aspiration to be a
super-hegemon. Moreover, American imperialism
(hyper-imperialism1)
is not only the model driving its
interventions, but also a mechanism to change
political and economic systems of other sovereign
nations to suite its imperialistic and economic
interests. The central motor of this type of
imperialism is the Zionist neocon doctrine to expand
the boundaries of American Empire and the strategy
to implement it—especially in the Arab World.2
Four forces
have been driving the rabid course of the United
States since the collapse of the Soviet Union:
aggressive, hyper-militarized capitalism;
belligerent ideology of empire; Israel and Zionism;
and a psychopathic sense of exceptionalism, with
this not being a force per se but an expedient to a
wider purpose. That is, America's claim of
exceptionalism is only a ruse to promote an
artificial notion of supremacism and thus
entitlement.
As for the
role of Zionism, and how it is shaping the other
three driving forces, this is a topic requiring
discussion beyond the scope of the present essay.
However, briefly described, Israel and Zionism have
become so entrenched inside the American ruling
system that all US policies regarding relations with
the Arab states are viewed with a Zionist Israeli
bias.
With
regard to US global outlook: while the American
system with its war machine, particular brand of
capitalism, and intimate ties with the military
industry is the soul of its imperialism, its
ideology of empire and creed of exceptionalism is
the religion. An added aggravating factor is the
unrestrained willingness—since the foundation of the
so-called republic—to inflict massive death and
destruction on others whenever recalcitrance or
disobedience arises. The mantra for this genocidal
lust is "Bomb them back into the Stone Age"—used
first by Gen. Curtis LeMay in his 1965
autobiography, and then repeated by every US
military commander till this very day whenever the
US wants to intimidate those who oppose it.3
For US
imperialism to impose its global hegemony, it needs
superior military power and an unrestrained
willingness for violence and aggression. A neocon
thinker of the Brookings Institution, Bruce Jones,
expressed the imperialistic passion with a 4-word
book title, "Still Ours to Lead" while using
214 pages of text to detail ways for protracted
control.
To begin
answering the question "why Syria?" let us
consider the following topic from recent American
political history. In the memoir of his White House
years (Waging Peace, Double Day & Company,
New York, 1965), President Dwight Eisenhower
denigrated President Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt
with unkind epithets and proposed that Saudi Arabia
and its kings become the spiritual leaders and
rulers of the Arab world. Eisenhower's aversion
toward Nasser was mainly motivated by the latter's
revolutionary decision to put Egypt on a course
independent from American and British interests such
as seeking the USSR's financing and technology to
build the Aswan Dam.
Eisenhower
even called the revolutionary transformation of
Egypt from a monarchy to a republic (1952) as a
change to dictatorship. The motive behind what
Eisenhower thought of Nasser and of the new Egypt is
transparent. Nasser embraced Egyptian and Arab
nationalism as catalysts for the new course of Egypt
and called for union between Arab states. A union
between Arab states is anathema to Washington;
Eisenhower saw it as a challenge to American
interests.
What
kind of man was Eisenhower? He was the Commander of
the Occupation Force in Germany that intentionally
exterminated (in the period 1944-49) over one
million German prisoners of war in American and
French camps through starvation, extreme calorie
restriction, and disease.4
What is the
connection between Eisenhower's position vis-à-vis
Nasser and Eisenhower's conduct in Germany? How does
this relate to violence in Syria?
Eisenhower
clearly embodied the violent bent of American
militarism and imperialism to impose its policies
regardless of cost. When the US decides something,
retreat is unlikely despite external objections. He
set the policy to confront Egypt and the Arab world
if these countries sought independence from Western
control. He portrayed Israel as a state surrounded
by enemies without ever spending a word on how it
came about to be a state. And he never mentioned the
name of Palestine or its adjective Palestinian in
his 700-page book. But Eisenhower's treatment of
German prisoners of war set the precedent for George
H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush to
impose a 13-year near total blockade of Iraq that
caused the death of over one million Iraqis from
malnutrition and lack of medicine. Eisenhower's
impulse for criminality is the same impulse that
drives all successive presidents including the
incumbent Barack Obama.
These criminal
American presidents cannot imagine retreating from
mass killing and mass destruction. Obama's criminal
policy in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan,
Palestine, and Afghanistan is no different from his
predecessors. George H. W. Bush expressed no retreat
with his words, "I will never apologize for the
United States." Mitt Romney echoed Bush's words
almost verbatim, "I will never apologize for
America."
In the
Egyptian example, when Nasser turned to the Soviet
Union, Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers charged
that Nasser was spreading communism; hence, stopping
his influence in the Arab world should become a US
priority. Yet, in suggesting that the Saud clan
become the rulers of the Arabs, Eisenhower displayed
historical illiteracy of the Arab nations and their
aspirations. Essentially, by consigning the Arabs to
the rule of Wahhabi rulers—whose hallmarks are
corruption, suppression of political dissent, fake
Islamic values cast to serve the ruling clan, buying
off foreign governments, lust for concubines, and
beheading of convicted inmates in public squares.5
Eisenhower's
idea was, however, not accidental. He envisioned
that the Al Saud's "appeal" as the "custodians of
Islamic shrines" would sedate the Arab Muslim masses
yearning for independence and a decent life. In
other words, the US of Eisenhower was already
thinking to turn Wahhabism into ersatz Islam and use
it as the Trojan horse to control the Arab nations
from inside by echoing the Marxist axiom, "Religion
is the opium of people." We can deduce what
Eisenhower was aiming to accomplish. He was
implicitly fantasizing to make Wahhabism the
dominant confessional ideology of Arabs and Muslims.
In this way, Arabs would be dominated through the
Wahhabist tool.
Can we read
Wahhabism as an imperialist tool of control?
Colonialist
Britain and its offshoot, the United States, share
the same culture, same background and ideology of
empire, same intelligence gathering, same
supremacism, and similar history of colonialism,
imperialism, militarism, and resort to genocide.
When Eisenhower advocated Al Saud to rule the Arabs,
he considered how to control Saudi oil of which
ARAMCO owned fifty percent at the time of its
founding in 1933. Wahhabism, therefore, was that
single imperialist tool to fend off any attack
against US imperialist interests in that region. In
doing so, Eisenhower was following in the footsteps
of Britain. Britain, as a former occupier of most of
the eastern and southern shores of the Arabian Sea
and the Persian Gulf, helped in the promotion and
spread of Wahhabism in the mid-19th century6
to harass and weaken the Ottoman Empire that was
occupying the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq,
and greater Syria.
But to see
Wahhabism as an imperialist tool, we need to know
what motivates US imperialism. Particularly since
Manifest Destiny, the American culture of domination
has been fixated on the notion that the world is an
object that only powerful, blessed-by-god US hands
can reshape, civilize, and democratize. Following in
the footsteps of countless American figures who
mythologized the stature of the American empire,
Zionist neocon Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz have
joined the brigade of US aggrandizers with their
recent book, Exceptional: Why the World Needs a
Powerful America. Conclusively, exceptionalism
is not just an artifice to dominate based on
supremacist notions of self—it is a tool to expand
the boundaries of US domination.
For example,
after the United Stated had invaded and occupied
Afghanistan in 2001, it did not ask the Afghani
people to vote; it used a tool of Afghani tradition,
the Loya Jirga (Council), to select Hamid
Karzai—from the majority Pashtuns—as a "president"
of the American-shaped "democratic" Afghanistan. And
when the United States occupied Iraq, it used the
tool of the Shiite Marjaeya (highest body
legislating Islamic Shiite edicts) to preempt the
Iraqi Arab Shiite Muslims from rising against the US
occupation. On that occasion, the Marjaeya
abstained from issuing any fatwa to resist the
invaders. Shiite clerics Jawad al-Khalisi and
Muqtada alSadr were the exception. And with that
abstention, it agreed with the Americans via Ahmad
Chalabi and the al-Hakim clan, and the US managed to
impose its occupation regime on Iraq.
Shaping a
country or region according to imperialist models,
however, requires control by many means including
military. To achieve such control, American
ideologues of empire have created operative rules to
facilitate the launching of wars and interventions.
Specific objectives of an imperialist phase, their
long-term benefits, and tools needed to implement
them, are just a limited sampling of such rules.
Now, in trying
to understand what Eisenhower was thinking about how
the Arab nations should be ruled, we must mention
that his approach for control by proxy,
cohabitation, or auxiliary means, has been applied
before by all European colonialist powers in the
territories they colonized and before them by many
other powerful states and empires throughout
history. Moreover, we look at Eisenhower's idea of
control via auxiliary means (using religions, ethnic
animosities, sectarian rivalries, etc.) from a
conventional perspective: the American system (from
Washington to Obama) deliberately misreads how the
world works. Meaning, US ruling classes and their
capitalistic orders know that world societies want
to be free in choosing their path for change and
progress
The plan to
reshape the Arab nations from within is in tune with
the basic American modalities of domination. The
Eisenhower administration considered the use of the
Wahhabi tool along these lines: because Wahhabism's
primary precept requires people's total obedience to
their rulers, controlling the Arab and Muslim masses
through proxy Wahhabist regimes would be easier to
accomplish. So this American generalissimo had a
vision: submitting the Arab Muslims to the will (via
religious fatwas and edicts) of a Saudi "king"
indirectly implies obedience to the United States,
which protects Saudi rulers. (Note: obedience to
rulers is cited in the Quran [An-nisa
Surah: 4:59]. However, the
concept was taken out of context since the verse of
the Surah puts conditions on how obedience is
applied and what types of rulers deserve it.)
This is how Al
Saud generated obedience: the foundation of the
Saudi state (1932) was based on a pact between them
and the Wahhabi religious establishment—thriving
since the mid-19th century with the help of Britain,
which physically occupied most of the Arabian
Peninsula—that they rule while Wahhabi clerics
control all religious aspects of the state. These
include teaching their brand of Islam and
interpretation of the Islamic sharia (laws), school
religious curricula, graduating imams and muftis,
proselytizing, raising funds, but most importantly:
providing absolute obedience by the people to the
state. The direct result of such an arrangement was
that any resistance to or criticism of the Saudi
clan is automatically translated into contravention
of Islamic laws and even defection from Islam. (For
expanded information, and to understand how Saudi
rulers use Wahhabism (conveniently named, "Islam")
as an instrument of absolute state power, read
footnote #
7)
Still, to
render the idea of how Wahhabism controls the Saudi
people on behalf of Al Saud, consider the two
following examples. When over 500,000 US soldiers
camped in Saudi Arabia under the pretext of
defending it from an Iraqi threat (Operation
Desert Shield, 1990), Al Saud
reined in the objections of the citizenry via the
Wahhabi clergy. They issued fatwas supporting the US
military buildup and the looming American war under
the justification that Iraq was atheist because of
the Baath ideology of Arab Socialism.8
Unlike the
official Wahhabi establishment paid for and
controlled by the House of Saud—thus keeping the
establishment is in line with the aims and policies
of the United States via the ruling
family—mainstream Wahhabism broadly defined as
Salafism is militant and follows a pan-Islamic
ideology. This pan-Islamic ideology is not
necessarily anti-West or East. Rather it is centered
on one purported tenet: "defending Muslims" and
their lands anywhere in the world using the
strictest interpretations of Islamic sharia.
No one
harnessed the power of militant ideological
Wahhabism better than the United States of Jimmy
Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. With the House of
Saud ready, for any number of reasons, to spend
billions of dollars in support of the US aims in
Soviet-invaded Afghanistan, Carter and Brzezinski
transformed Wahhabism from a creed mostly concerned
with the strict interpretations of the Quran and
dogmatic application of Islam into a warring
ideology (jihad) to fight the "atheist" Russians.
Some 30 years after the Soviet Union left
Afghanistan, new teams of US imperialists, neocon
Zionists, and Saudi rulers amplified the objectives
of "Afghanist" Wahhabism to create another tool
whose declared aim, as demonstrated by events, is
the disintegration of the Arab system of nations.9
The occasion leading to this planned
disintegration was the so-called Arab "spring".
Aside from the genuine Tunisian and Egyptian
uprisings (later contained and reversed by the West
and Saudi Arabia), it was not surprising that the
successive violent waves of that "spring" hit only
selected Arab countries (Libya, Syria, Yemen) not
yet subjugated to the US and Israel. Not only that,
but militant Saudi Wahhabism has gone beyond its
Afghanist model to become a multi-national force
directed specifically against the Arab Muslims.
Thus, after over 1400 years from converting to
Islam, Arab Muslims are now accused of apostasy and
deviation from Islam.
The reason
that we do not see the banners of armed Wahhabi
militants anywhere except in those selected Arab
states, is an evidence that their use is politically
and strategically coordinated between the US and
Saudi Arabia. It also points to a reasoned
conclusion: because these two countries are fighting
for similar objectives in Syria—removal of Bashar
Assad by means of armed groups financed and trained
by both, and isolation of Hezbollah to finish it
off—then these objectives unify them on three
fronts. 1) The US (and Israel) and the House of Saud
converged their forces to implement the US plans for
the partition of Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. 2)
To reward the Saudis for their role in implementing
these plans, the US would ease its pressure on them
while promoting their sense of becoming a regional
military power as evidenced by their war of
aggression against Yemen—publically justified as an
opposition to Iran's assumed penetration in the Arab
world. But the threatening Saudi stance against Iran
has a hidden target: destroying Islam from within by
openly declaring the Shiite Muslims as apostate and
heretic. This has radicalized the conflict within
Islam and within the Arab nations, divided Muslims
in good and bad according to Wahhabi metrics, and
made religious violence an acceptable way to resolve
political problems. 3) The redesign of the Middle
East would make of Saudi Arabia and Israel the pivot
of a new alliance that would define the future of
the Palestinian Issue and the Arab world. (For more
information on the emerging alliance between Saudi
Arabia and Israel, read note
10.) (For an
overview on Saudi animosity toward Shiism, which is
incidentally the official confessional creed of
Iran, see note
11,
12.)
With regard to
how the US strategically spreads spurious "Jihadist
ideologies", we must mentions that immediately after
9/11, new terms started to circulate
massively—Islamic, jihad, radical Islam, holy war,
etc. (We do not know who are the people editing the
website Washington's Blog.com. But the
article, “Sleeping
With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al
Qaeda Led to 9/11,” gives
considerable information on how the United States
used Saudi Wahhabism in its wars. More information
can be searched online.)
While
controlling the Arab masses from within (as with the
examples of the Gulf Sheikdoms now called emirates,
states, or kingdoms) has been an effective method,
controlling them by external means is direct,
violent, and has all the imprints of classical
colonialist imperialism. Comprehending how these
policies work brings us a step closer to understand
the wider meaning of violence in Syria.
Consequently, we must bring into the discussion
another issue: the plan behind the systematic
destruction of Syria (and Iraq, Libya, and Yemen)
and the destabilizations of all Arab states cannot
be separated from the general plan to dismantle and
destroy the Arab system of nations called the Arab
world. And, although not Arab, Iran belongs in this
mix as its inclusion points to a dynamic used in
pushing imperialist aims—dividing and
conquering—through amplification and demonization of
confessional differences.
From the
moment in which Britain promised Palestine to the
Zionist movement, from the moment oil was discovered
under Arab soils, and considering the quasi
homogeneity of Arab societies across their vast
lands, devising a plan to keep them under continuous
Western colonialist control has been an objective.
In such a plan, any of the following items is
equally important: 1) preventing projects of Arab
unity to weaken their collective power, 2) promoting
sectarian and ethnic conflicts as a means to erode
state power, 3) destabilizing the Arab system
through Israel, 3) preventing solutions to the
Palestinian issue to antagonize the Arabs and pushed
them into Western hands, and 4) imperialist control
of oil and other resources.
As for Arab
unity, the plan has been around since the secret
British-French Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 to
partition the previous Arab provinces of the Ottoman
Empire. Yet, with all Arab nations in Western Asia
and North Africa obtaining their independence from
European colonialism after WWI and WWII, the idea of
Arab nationalism and unity survived the Western plan
to partition them into separate entities and
continued to be an unconquerable ideological force.
Above all, the single most important catalyst that
pushed the Arabs to a common ground was their
rejection of a Jewish Zionist European state on Arab
Palestine.
Kim
Petersen is a former
editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He
can be reached at
kimohp@inbox.com
B. J.
Sabri is an observer of
the politics of modern colonialism, imperialism,
Zionism, and of contemporary Arab issues. He can be
reached at
b.j.sabri@aol.com
NOTES
-
B.
J. Sabri, The Hyper-Imperialist Paradigm,
Parts
Part 1,
Part 2,
Part 3,
Part 4,
Dissident Voice, 2003
-
Free
Republic,
Empire Builders: Neoconservatives
and their Blueprint for U.S. Power,
Note: originally published by the Christian
Science Monitor in 2003
-
Quoted in the New York Times Obituary,
Gen. Curtis LeMay,
an Architect Of Strategic Air Power, Dies at 83,
2 October 1990. Quoted in Spartacus Educational,
“Curtis
LeMay.”
Quoted in History News Network, “Bomb
them Back to the Stone Age: An Etymology.”
-
James
Bacque, Other Losses, Third Edition,
Talonbooks, Vancouver, 2011.
-
GRAPHIC:
Rare & Illegal Footage Shows Public Beheadings
in Saudi Arabia
-
David Livingstone,
Globalists created Wahhabi
Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global
State
.
-
Saudi
Basic Law of Governance
-
Judith Miller,
WAR IN THE GULF:
Muslims; Saudis Decree Holy War on Hussein,”
New York Times, 20 January 1991.
-
"The
Greater Middle East Project”
(An extensive multi-link document)
-
“Unholy
Alliance” between Saudi Arabia and Israel . . .
* For an
American Zionist view, Atlantic piece,
Israel and Saudi
Arabia: Togetherish at Last?
* For an imperialist view, WSJ piece,
Saudi Arabia
Reluctantly Finds Common Ground With Israel About
Iran.
* For an Israeli perspective,
Jerusalem Post,
"Israeli-Saudi
relations best kept quiet"
* The Times of Israel:
In very rare public
meet, Israeli, Saudi officials name Iran as common
foe
* Arutz Sheva,
Saudi Official Shakes
Hands with Israelis in Rare Meeting
-
Al-Monitor.com,
Why Salafists see Shiites as
their greatest enemy
-
Washingtonsblog,
The Real Reasons Saudi Arabia
Hates Iran
|