Iraq & Racist Neo-Imperialism – Part II
By Izeth Hussain –July 23, 2016
Izeth Hussain
In the concluding paragraph of the first part this article I asked: “If the promotion of a new world order based on democracy was not the real objective behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq, what was it?” In answering that question we must firstly bear in mind the full enormity of the horror perpetrated against the people of Iraq. It was not just one of the greatest crimes against humanity perpetrated during the post-Second World War era. It was one of the greatest of such crimes perpetrated during the entirety of human history. Just a few facts will eloquently testify to that charge.
Even before the Gulf War Iraq’s military power was negligible compared to that of the white behemoths of the West. After the Gulf War, it was non-existent. It had no weapons of mass destruction, and constituted no threat whatever to any country. Its people were subjected to cruel sanctions leading to the deaths of around 500,000 children, which former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright defended as justifiable. All that the Iraqi people wanted to do, just like ordinary humanity all over the world, was to send their children to school, try to make ends meet, and live out their lives as decent enough law-abiding citizens. Instead the horror of the 2003 invasion was gratuitously visited on their heads. It led to around the usually accepted figure of 600,000 deaths. That sober fact alone should suffice to establish that Bush and Blair have to be counted as among the greatest criminals of all time.
So what was the explanation for the Iraq war? The usual explanation is that the US wanted to grab Iraq’s oil. Even Raymond William Baker – whom I quoted in the first part of this article – so insightful about the crucial role of the Israeli factor behind the Iraq war, wrote as follows: “Finally, Iraq was the site of impressive oil resources. In global perspective, American control of Iraqi oil was judged critical to the potential great power rivals just over the horizon, notably China with its disturbing economic vitality and Russia with its resurgent nationalism. Should the American economy continue its decline, it was judged that Iraqi oil in American hands would be an extremely helpful lever in facing the Chinese, Russians, and other threats to American dominance”. That sounds a plausible enough rationale, and it could be persuasive, except that both the US and Britain had disavowed any intention of grabbing Iraqi oil, and nothing they have done contradicts that disavowal.
I would opt for a two-part explanation of the Iraq war. One is that it was an act of vengeance, of racist vengeance, for September 11 – that is the destruction of the twin towers. It is apparent from the Bush–Blaircorrespondence that it was that that made those two criminals start fantasizing about possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That correspondence establishes also that the decision to subject Iraq to mass destruction was made well in advance of 2003, and further that by his now notorious use of the word “whatever” – he would go along with the US “whatever” – Blair had committed to making Britain join in that mass destruction. Evidently the question of awaiting worthwhile proof pointing to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq never bothered Bush and Blair. All along they were grimly determined to wreak vengeance for September 11. But why do I call it “racist vengeance”? It was known that September 11 was an exploit of Saudi terrorists and that Iraq had nothing to do with it. The point is that the essentialising and stereotyping habit of mind that is typical of racists would make all Arabs share responsibility for September 11. Therefore not Saudi Arabia, an ally of the West, but Iraq, an enemy of the West, was subjected to mass destruction. Consequently Madeleine Albright thought it meet and proper that 500,000 Iraqi children should have died as a result of sanctions. That’s how mad racists can be.
