Analysis
American Violence In Iraq: Necrophilia
Or Savagery?
Part 1 of a 5-part series:
Bully, cheat, kill, and conquer
By Kim Petersen and B.
J. Sabri
Online Journal Contributing writers
"As I write, highly civilized human beings are
flying overhead trying to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only
doing their duty, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream
of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed
bomb, he will never sleep any worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil."—George
Orwell
"War is necrophilia. And this necrophilia
is central to soldiering, just as it is central to the makeup of suicide bombers and terrorists. The necrophilia is hidden
under platitudes about duty or comradeship."—Chris Hedges
August 16, 2005—The strategic decision
of US imperialism to use 9–11 as a pretext to re-introduce into the present era a defunct 15th-19th century barbaric
colonialism is not only a monumental blunder portending cataclysmic disasters, but also an event that has already opened the
gates for generalized future wars.
Two concomitant manifestations characterized that
ill-fated decision: first, the open conversion of the US into a fascist, oppressive, and outlaw state; and second, the premeditated
extreme violence and wanton destruction that US civilian and military commanders have been inflicting through their military
on Afghanistan and Iraq to implement the hegemonic doctrines of Bush and the neocons.
In particular, considering the magnitude of
that violence and its historical implications and consequences, the present authors decided to investigate it in the wider
context of the ongoing US war against Iraq. The US is not alone in aggressing Iraq, but it is the kingpin; in fact, while
it is technically correct to call Iraq's invasion, a US-UK invasion, such denomination dilutes the crucial US role as the
sole chief engineer and the principal supplier of workforce and military hardware necessary to implement it.
On the other hand, although it is correct to state
that Iraq's occupation is a multinational enterprise with the participation of many US-vassal states such as Australia, Italy,
Poland, etc., the United States is the country that is directing the entire weight of the occupation. Consequently, and by
all standards of judgment, Iraq is an American-occupied country. Without the US invasion, the domino effect of violence initiated
by US President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and other neocons could have never happened in the first place.
Concentrating on the Iraq war is a fundamental prerequisite
to the understanding of the new wars of colonialist conquests ushered in by the United States under Bush. To begin with, one
cannot address the morally senseless American violence in the world, its application, and its rationales without considering
all factors contributing to its emergence as the primary philosophy of the United States under President Bush. However, a
basic approach to define the parameters of said violence resides in evaluating the environment in which the imperialist coalition
executes its strategy for world domination.
Notice that, while George Orwell is celebrated
for his views and elaborations in his novels such as Animal Farm and 1984, many people overlook the fact that
he made those elaborations to describe an oppressive state in general; nevertheless, many readers uncritically identified
such a state only with the former Soviet Union but never with the United States! This is odd. The US has been a police state
since its inception, but too few people wish to consider it. Why is that? At one point, it was hard for many people who believed
in the system to analyze its nature and policies, especially knowing that this system has adroitly mingled principles of manipulated
democracy with manifest fascist ideology and police state attributes. McCarthyism is an example; America under Bush is another.
Did Orwell think that a so-called democratic state
could exercise options that make totalitarian options pale by comparison? Orwell suggested such was possible, but what is
certain is that he correctly framed the issue of violence and killing as exercised by professional state-paid killers, otherwise
called enlisted or professional soldiers at the service of the system and its objectives.
On the other hand, war correspondent Chris Hedges
forced the general issue of violence into the complicated psychological sphere of necrophilia. This is very debatable and
does not reflect the objective-subjective situations where violence is the ultimate resolution for a conflict. Hedges did
not define necrophilia as being specific to context; thus he equated all forms of necrophilia as one and interchangeable under
the umbrella of "loving the dead." In addition, he loosely included in his term, soldiers, suicide bombers, and terrorists
without bothering to ponder on specific human conditions that allowed such denominations to emerge and consolidate.
Yet Hedges touched on a sensitive subject. Is killing,
especially in an environment of imperialist violence, a form of necrophilia? Despite its allure, this argument is fallacious
at the origin. Consider all of the following: Does a drug dealer kill a police officer to avoid arrest or to enjoy killing?
Does a soldier kill to defend himself, or to inflict death so he can achieve a predetermined political objective for his country?
Does another soldier kill because he has a license to kill although he is not in mortal danger? Or does that same soldier
kill out of sadism or because of racist anger? Does a so-called suicide bomber kill and get killed in the process to reverse
the objective of an invading foreign soldier, or does he just kill to inflict death because he is seeking spiritual catharsis,
as is claimed by certain imperialist thinkers and advocates of war?
Hedges then uses the term "terrorist" without due
respect or clarity to the definition of the term. US troops killed over 2000 Fallujans under the criminal pretext that they
were terrorists because they opposed the occupation of their city and country. So, hypothetically, if a Fallujan (in defending
his life and that of his family) kills an American aggressor, would that killing constitute an act of necrophilia?
In addition, does the charge of necrophilia apply
to a military commander, or better yet, to a commander-in-chief, when he launches a war of mass killing without provocation
although he himself has never directly killed any one?
Still, despite the shortcomings in Hedges'
argument, his definition of violence in a military setting as necrophilia has a merit, but not in the sense that he
suggested. Bush and US Defense [sic] Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not order the killing of tens-of-thousands of Iraqis because
death and killing charm them or because they experience erotic arousal every time an American bomb chars beyond recognition
the erstwhile living bodies of defenseless Iraqis.
The matter is very different. Bush and his fascist
clique are psychopathic killers, shaped and nurtured through ideological indoctrination, although they may never have pulled
a trigger. Bush and Rumsfeld did not order mass destruction because they enjoy it. They ordered killing to conquer countries
and plunder their wealth for large corporations, the oil industry, military industry, and related service contractors, as
well as to tinker with the dream of placing the world under the control of American power and its proxies. Killing and violence,
therefore, are merely a means to an objective. Defining or trying to categorize this type of modern savagery is, however,
another subject.
Regardless of "our" objection to the notion
of necrophilia as it applies to the wars of American imperialism, there were a few situations where Hedges may have surmised
it correctly. One instance is when (immediately after the invasion of Afghanistan) it was reported that George Bush told the
Washington Post, each time a member of al-Qaeda network is killed, an "X" is put on a presidential scorecard. Not only
that, but Bush added, "I'm a baseball fan. I want a scorecard." [1]
Without a doubt, Bush's deviant behavior is consistent
with a seriously deranged personality that enjoys gratuitous death. In fact, how could Bush have known which al-Qaeda member
was or was not devastated in Afghanistan by daisy cutters and possibly by nuclear tactical weapons, as many sources and foreign
intelligence hint at? [2]
Stating that Bush experienced emotional pleasure
from the death of people assumed to be al-Qaeda members without due process and without the minimum verification requirement
of identity or culpability is easy to confirm by noting the following psychological status. Sport fans regularly go into ecstasy
or even momentary delirium when their favorite team wins. The process whereby simple emotions transform from an ordinary response
to an ecstatic demonstration of boiled emotions denotes a spasmodic internal pleasure. If, Bush can get his rapture from looking
at a scoreboard on a baseball field or while sitting on a sofa in his home, then he can certainly experience similar pleasure
when he sees a scorecard on the death and destruction he ordered. Is that necrophilia? You judge. Incidentally, although poignantly
passed over in the media, Bush is the same president who pounded the air with his fist and chortled, "Feels good!" following
his launching the invasion of Iraq. [3]
Further examination of the situation is revelatory.
On the anniversary of granting fictitious sovereignty to the Iraqis, 30 June 2005, Bush definitely flirted with necrophilia
when he stressed that all the killing and mayhem in Iraq is worth it. Former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright expressed
the same genocidal feelings of the current war president; but before Albright, Truman epitomized the necrophilia paradigm
when he said many years after the incineration of Hiroshima that, given the same circumstances, he would do it again.
The question now: How does George Bush translate
and widen his lust for imperialist violence, be it necrophilic or otherwise?
With the following words, "And to those . . . who
are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces," the self-anointed war President
Bush, mixing theological inferences and patriotic themes, implored young American citizens to join the armed forces of the
United States. But the cause was not patriotism—this term is inapplicable to the wars of America that were never in
self-defense or to ward off foreign powers that could threaten the US' existence. Rather, the purpose is to supply a fresh
work force for the wars of civilization as envisioned by the imperialist and Zionist ideologues of the United States.
It is ludicrous that a man such as Bush makes an
appeal like that, considering that he was one among many privileged Americans who circumvented the military draft by all means
possible to avoid being shipped into America's aggression on Vietnam and nonetheless Bush deserted his post thereafter. [4]
As expected, Bush employed the term "patriotism" and its conceptual force as a focal point of his call. Just what kind of
force is patriotism, anyway?
Author Aldous Huxley illuminated the dark side of
the force underlying "patriotism" in plain but powerful words: "One of the great attractions of patriotism, it fulfills our
worst wishes. In the person of our nation, we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with
a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."
Bully and cheat! But, was that not how the US of
Bush and the UK of Prime Minister Tony Blair foisted their invasion and occupation first on Afghanistan and then on Iraq?
If bullying and cheating were the tactics of choice to execute Bush's imperialist-colonialist project, the practical consequences
produced by the occupation regime are dire in meaning and long-term effects, not only on the Iraqi people, but also on the
occupiers themselves. By principle and logic, an aggressor has no right to claim victimization, as the aggressed can rightfully
do.
Hence, resolutely, there should be no sympathy for
any aggressor, or any empathy with the aggressor's pain and suffering. This is an important tenet of natural law that, by
its force and logic, no one should deny or denigrate. Incidentally, the same tenet exists in many American courts, where a
cold-blooded killer could receive a death sentence without regret.
How can the violence that the Bush-Blair Junta heaped
on Iraq be framed in concrete terms? Aside from filling Iraq with depleted uranium, disease, and mass killing in the name
of its imperialist dominance, what are the basic traits of its violence in Iraq?
In part two, this question shall be answered by
citing first Human Rights Watch (HRW, a US NGO specialized in mitigating, for public consumption, the excesses of US violence,
acting in effect as an apologist of US aggression). Notwithstanding this negative appraisal of HRW, this organization could
not avoid but alluding to US atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere.
Furthermore, we shall discuss another aspect
of US violence: ideological violence at home, and the confusion that reigns supreme over the minds of numerous Americans.
In fact, while US physical violence in Iraq is occupying the center stage because of the continuing daily meat grinding of
Iraqi citizens at the hands of the occupiers, a sizeable majority of the US population is still walking around like drugged-out
zombies repeating a slogan impregnated with ignorance and permeated with support for violence: Support the troops!
ENDNOTES
[1] Toby Harnden, "Bush keeps photo hit-list of enemies," Telegraph, 4 February 2002
[2] Debka Intelligence Files, "Tactical nukes deployed in Afghanistan," WorldNetDaily.com, 7 October 2001
[3] Martin Merzer, Ron Hutcheson,
and Drew Brown, "War begins in Iraq with strikes aimed at 'leadership targets,'" Knight Ridder Newspapers, 20 March 2003
[4] Ian Williams, author
of Deserter: George Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past (Nation Books, 2004), in a personal communication:
"The evidence is clear that Bush used his personal family influence to secure a coveted slot in the Air National Guard—which
protected him from conscription and posting to Vietnam. Then he moved to Alabama and did not turn up for duty at his Texas
airbase, nor at the bases in Alabama, even while the war was continuing. At this time, lesser mortals who did the same thing
were prosecuted and drafted. . . . As for how he got away with it . . . Firstly, there was a pruning of all records from the
Texas Air National Guard, secondly, there were a lot of people who had colluded in the cover up and had a vested interest
in keeping it quiet. . . . Secondly, there is an immense deference to authority in the American media, which predisposes editors
against scrutiny of presidential behavior. . . . Finally, there is the gullibility of a faith based electorate. Time and again
when speaking on radio in the heartland, I came across callers who sincerely believed that Bush was a veteran, not least because
he kept appearing at Veterans' rallies and at military bases, usually in some form of military garb. There are millions of
people in America who believe what is convenient for their faith systems."
Kim Petersen is a writer living in Nova Scotia, Canada;
B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American antiwar activist. You can reach them at petersen_sabri@hotmail.com.
Copyright © 1998-2005 Online Journal
Source: Online Journal
