An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

The Brits made an imperial mess of Iraq back in 1930, now it is America’s turn!

We followed the fate of the French in Vietnam; are trying hard to imitate the Russians in Afghanistan; and now, our emulation-in-progress is of our beloved European cousins.  Who would ever think that it was an American philosopher (by way of Spain), George Santayana, who stated just a century ago, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  And American government leaders always seem to be the forgetful ones, although as it happens in all these cases, it is the American people who are condemned to pay the consequences in both blood and dollars.

We are not even speaking of millennia ago, or even centuries; only the recent past.  How can we be so forgetful as to how the British bamboozled a timid Iraqi Parliament, where the true nationalists lacked a voiced, into signing an agreement in 1930 that would have Iraq in turmoil with coup after coup until Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979?  And we all know what has happened since then.  Seventy-eight years later here we are, cramming down their throats an illegal “strategic alliance” that is similar in both content and tone to that Great Britain “imposed” on Iraq almost eight decades ago.

And I say illegal for both Iraq and the United States.  For Iraq, it’s a non-valid agreement since it will be contracted under duress from an occupier’s demands, whatever excuses are brought forward to obtain legitimacy.  For the US, it’s also an invalid pact unless it is subsequently ratified by the US Senate.  We are told that the wording in this strategic alliance has been crafted so as to “avoid such ratification.”  Nonsense, if the provisions in such agreement or alliance have the underlying intent of a treaty, it is a treaty; and as a treaty, constitutionally, it must be ratified.

True that the American Executive Branch has been operating for decades outside of the Constitution in taking the nation to war (undeclared war) and entering into treaties (or agreements) thanks to a spineless Senate and the de-facto consent of Americans, who really care little, or are brainwashed by the White House, unless the conflict turns sour.
It is remarkable that the two senators who will be contending for the highest office in the land next November, McCain and Obama, aren’t exercising their duty as senators, making this issue one of national concern, one to be handled with both transparency and care.  Malfeasance in office by members of the Senate made Bush’s invasion of Iraq fait accompli; once again, it will be malfeasance if the senate remains blind, deaf and mute to this travesty.

It is interesting that Barack Obama claims that “had he been a member of the Senate back in 2002, he would have voted against granting Bush permission to invade Iraq.”  Well, he is a member of the Senate now… but one hears little noise from him on this important issue, one that could keep the United States involved in the Middle East until the area runs out of oil or Israelis, whichever comes last .  Time for deeds, Sen. Obama!

Iraq does not appear to be willing to have the U.N. mandate extended beyond its current expiration date, at the end of this year; and the US really doesn’t care whether its effective control is through a mandate granted by the U.N. or an agreement with a government which may not be of unity or consensus.  The US must have a tacit control of Iraq’s oil while maintaining a solid military presence in that part of the world to counter not just Iran and its nuclear aspirations, but any “problems” that may emerge anywhere in Southwest Asia.

Although the hush-hush negotiations on the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) had reached an impasse by the second week in June – Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki referring the deadlock on what his government felt were critical sovereignty issues – both Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad (US) appear confident that an agreement will soon be reached since both countries are committed to a joint security pact.  Yes, we will have two caliphates out of Baghdad; one ran locally by Iraqis, the other ran by Americans as part of the Empire.

What remains to be seen, even if an agreement is reached, is whether the US Senate will once again capitulate to the White House, allowing its duties and responsibilities to be usurped by Imperator George W. Bush.  And whether the American people really give a damn now that they are paying over $4 per gallon of gasoline, soon projected to be $5, which when added to the other economic miseries the country is enduring calls for either a revolution or surrender.  My bet is on the latter.

Tags: american empire, Ben Tanosborn, colonialism, empire, Global, globalization, imperialism, military
Categories: Commentary, Global, Empire, Imperialism, military, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

For a glimpse of “The switch,” please scroll down to the “Preface,” which is presented on this page.

Russell Cole

(please do not confuse me with the actual author of “The Switch.”)

To Contact the author of “The Switch,” please use:

afanofWesClark@yahoo.com

If you are not convinced of this short story’s incisive insight as well as its enjoyable prose, from the “Preface,” please take my own word for it and obtain a full version of “the Switch,” via two methods described immediately below:

For “The Switch” in its entirety, please jump to a page where it is presented in html, by clicking though the following hyperlink:

http://web2sociology.com/papers/the_switch.html

Additionally, if anyone cares to obtain a PDF of “The Switch,” Please indicate so by emailing Russell Cole at:

russellcole@populistamerica

Preface

The Switch is a story built on the notion that, aside from those who are clinically insane, Bush supporters only exist due to being seriously ill-informed. But if you could wave a magic wand to make them all cognizant of the facts then his support would completely evaporate…and it doesn’t take magic to communicate information.

It starts off as a metaphor on how “progress” is a misnomer, but by page 3 the spanking begins. Yes, 40 pages is long, but that’s because there’s that much to spank him for. See for yourself why the mother of a soldier in Iraq said that she was honored to have read it and why a woman who rarely reads couldn’t put it down; and admitted afterwards that she shouldn’t have voted for Bush…

“Democracy is the most difficult of all forms of government, since it requires the widest spread of intelligence…” ~ Will Durant

“Freedom is always in danger, and the majority of mankind will always acquiesce in its loss, unless a minority is willing to challenge the privileges of its few and the apathy of the masses.” ~ R.H.S. Crossman

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“…A battering ram doesn’t work if you hold it sideways.” ~ Jeff Poster

Tags: american empire, colonialism, democracy, imperialism, military, money
Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

I agree that the hyperbole and rhetoric is deployed by all sides of this issue. However, there is a more fundamental dynamic that seems to be organizing this problem in a manner that prevents the relevant parties from coming under the direction of any form of multilateral internationalism. This condition results from the failure of Israel - similarly to the United States - to recognize international provisions for adjudicating these types of matters; implementations of international law that are nearly universally accepted. The United States, of course, fails to submit itself to very basic standards of international law because officials would be vulnerable to prosecutions for war crimes and other related crimes against humanity. Obviously, Israel is motivated by the same considerations as the United States.

Neo-conservatism is not an ideology that is limited in its scope to the politics of the United States. Neo-conservatism is simply the form that a more general ideology presents itself in the context of United States politics. I would describe this larger ideological phenomenon as the metropolitan discourse of Anglo Empire; an entity with which Israel is in collusion, and, in fact, an extension - a conclusion supported by reference to the Oslo Accords.

Remember, the Middle East assumed its current sociopolitical configuration from a source stemming from the vestiges of a colonialism that was organized and orchestrated not only by the British but by America as well. An example would be the protection of business interests that resulted in the British convincing Eisenhower to cause a regime change in Iran in order to thwart the nationalization of oil resources in that country that were intended to usurped control of the resources from British corporate interests. By helping the Americans procured for themselves a share of the exploits.

To put it in a nutshell, there are larger forces at work - which I am doing a poor job in identifying - that actively seek to prevent any resolution to this conflict, because if the Middle East was to resolve this issue it would effectively create a condition where Anglo interests could no longer impose themselves via a mechanisms, which it currently possesses, functions through its role as a broker of power; a capacity currently assumed through an extension of Anglo Empire that is essentially the Israeli regime.

Russ Cole

Tags: colonialism, foreign policy, hezbollah, israel, lebanon, middle east, neo conservatism, palestine
Categories: Commentary, Global, Russell Cole's Blog, Power, Empire
No Comments »