The Splendid Failure of Occupation

[NNN0LHI]

http://onlinejournal.com/iraq/091005Sabri-36/091005sabri-36.html

September 10, 2005—Considering U.S. machinations, maneuvers, spins, lies, and changing rationales to invade and occupy Iraq, is it not surprising that the Bush regime survived and still rules the United State?

Two structural pillars support Bush’s survival: (1) the military power of the United States—it shields the U.S. government from international accountability, (2) the anti-democratic, corrupted, and monopolistic nature of the American political order—while the people are impotent to prosecute the crimes of the system, the system will never prosecute itself.

Ideologically though, the Bush regime survived by managing hate, fear, and propaganda. But, propaganda is the natural terrain on which the regime thrives. Take the swift defeat of Iraq after three weeks of massive bombardment and land “skirmishes” (Baghdad fell without resistance), Bush depicted it as a demonstration of American prowess and technology. Militarily, however, taking into account the formidable military power of the U.S. vis-à-vis Iraq—already collapsing under a 13-year old U.S.-U.N. siege—that depiction is worthless. snip

Furthermore, it is now about time to revise the term “dictator” to name a regime’s strongman, for reasons that having nothing to with opposing or accepting dictatorship, but for the way that Washington is using that term. First, when a strongman ends his alliance with Washington, this turns him immediately from a “man whom we can deal with,” “moderate,” or a “president” into a “dictator.” Second, the noun, “dictator” has become a weapon of propaganda and a motive for war against nations that oppose Washington’s polices.

A recent example of a strongman’s imperialist rehabilitation is Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf. When Musharraf overthrew the elected government of Pakistan and became, de facto, the “dictator” of Pakistan, the U.S. called him, in fact, “dictator” and “military ruler,” and Britain slammed Pakistan with sanctions. But when he allied himself with Washington and London after 9/11, he became, “His Excellency, President Musharraf.”

[tocqueville]

1. one of the most intresting parts of the article :

"Arguably and as it concerns the imperialist history of the United States, it does not matter which president or politician is employing aggression, intervention or mass destruction to achieve empire. It could be Jefferson, Jackson, Taylor, Hamilton, Polk, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Bush Jr. As if per hereditary rituals, every four or eight years, the sitting American president must designate an enemy and immolate it on the altar of American supremacist racism, political ideology, and capitalistic greed. In short, U.S. violence makes part of a larger national scheme or a national tradition.

The basic tenets of this tradition pivots around one and only one purpose: destroy anyone that stands in the way of the American Power. German historian Karl Dietrich Bracher exemplified my concept of the American tradition when he discussed Nazism..."

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Three structural pillars, not two.

Two structural pillars support Bush’s survival: (1) the military power of the United States—it shields the U.S. government from international accountability, (2) the anti-democratic, corrupted, and monopolistic nature of the American political order—while the people are impotent to prosecute the crimes of the system, the system will never prosecute itself.

And don't forget #3, the media whore, corporately controlled un-free press who willingly and eagerly shilled and covered up for the boy king and his gang of corrupt robber barons.