Is America an Imperialist Power? Iraq: A Case Study

IS AMERICA AN
IMPERIALIST POWER?
IRAQ: A CASE STUDY

STJEPAN T. BOSNJAK

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY
DATE: 14th October 2009
WORD COUNT: 14, 031
FOURTH YEAR HONOURS THESIS, FACULTY OF ARTS, EDUCATION AND HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT, VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number
Table of Contents 2
Table of Illustrations 3
Disclaimer 4
Notes on spelling, grammar, word
Count, Bibliography and Thesis
Presentation 5
Synopsis 7
Literature Review 8
INTRODUCTION 10
CHAPTER ONE 11
American official and public opinion 11
What is imperialism? 12
International Relations Theory 19
CHAPTER TWO 24
American Imperialism in the Past 24
The Military-Industrial Complex 28
CHAPTER THREE 31
Historical Background of Iraq 31
First and Second Gulf Wars 33
September 11 and the War on Terror 35
Operation Iraqi Freedom: The Third Gulf War 37
CHAPTER FOUR 41
THE FUTURE 44
CONCLUSION 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY 46
ILLUSTRATIONS 53






TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Clash of Civilizations world map
2. Map of the world according to American Military Command
3. Map of U.S. Territorial Acquisitions
4. Ten Thousand Miles from Tip to Tip, Political Cartoon showing America's
Empire
5. Map of Ottoman 'Iraq', showing the three vilayets
6. Map of Modern Iraq

















DISCLAIMER

This thesis is the product of my own independent research and the
conclusions reached are results of the research conducted. The material
within this thesis has not been previously submitted for academic
accreditation.

Stjepan Bosnjak


Signed:


Date: __________________




















NOTES ON SPELLING, GRAMMAR, WORD COUNT, BIBLIOGRAPHY AND THESIS
PRESENTATION

During research for this thesis I noticed many inconsistencies in spelling
and grammar. The spelling differences are mainly due to whether the author
concerned is British, American, Australian or has English as a second (or
even third) language. Unless using a particular word in a quote, or as part
of a title or institution (e.g. the American spelling of 'Defence' is with
's' replacing the 'c') all words will be spelt in the 'Australian' way. All
words contained within "…" are quotes. The grammatical differences are a
lot more varied. For example the word empire appears usually with a
lowercase first letter and the word Imperialism usually appears with a
capital I. This is how they shall be used throughout the thesis, except
when in a direct quotation, or empire is used as part of a proper noun, for
example 'British Empire'.

Many texts, from across the political spectrum do not use proper nouns for
things they wish to describe negatively. Thus left-wing authors often use
lower case letters when using terms such as 'President' or 'Secretary of
State', while right-wing authors often use lower case letters when using
terms such as 'Soviet Union' and 'Communism'. Unless using a direct quote,
I will be using proper nouns where appropriate. There are other 'isms' that
fluctuate as either capital letters or lower case, and not all are
consistent, but in most cases I will use capital letters when using those
terms.

Al Qaeda is spelt at least half a dozen different ways, but for
consistency's sake I have decided to spell it as al Qaeda, the 'a' in al
becoming a capital letter if it is at the beginning of a sentence. For the
same reason I have adopted the spelling 'Osama bin Laden', 'Saddam Hussein'
and 'Baath Party'. When American authors abbreviate 'United States' or
'United Nations' they do so by using the acronyms 'U.S.' and 'U.N.',
whereas authors from other nations tend to call the United States 'US' and
the United Nations 'UN' without the full stops. I will be using full stops
to separate letters in an acronym unless I am using a direct quote or am
using a military or economic acronym, because all the sources I have used,
including American authors, do not use them when discussing the military or
the economy.

When a monetary amount is given, unless otherwise stated it is in American
dollars.

Because there were two President George Bush's associated with Iraq, I used
the middle initials 'H.W' to differentiate the first and 'W' to
differentiate the second. Alternatively, in some places 'I' and 'II' are
used. I call George W. Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney instead of Richard
Cheney, because he is universally known as Dick. I decided not to call
Saddam Hussein 'President Saddam Hussein' because I feel the term
'President' should be reserved for democracies and that, as a blood thirsty
despot, Saddam Hussein was anything but democratic.

My reference system is the Oxford Footnoting system, with some exceptions,
where I felt it necessary to start some chapters with a quote from
prominent people. In those instances, the source is directly underneath the
particular quote. My Bibliography is in alphabetical order. My Bibliography
arrangement is of last name, first name, date, title in italics, publisher
and publisher location. Journal and newspaper articles have the date after
the title, because it seems neater that way.

All maps are at the end of the Thesis, after the Conclusion. They are
numbered and named. Their source is listed in the Bibliography.

The word limit is the word limit of the thesis only. It does not include
the words in the title, the table of contents, disclaimer, this note, the
synopsis, the Literature Review, the Bibliography or footnotes.













SYNOPSIS

This thesis will examine the concept of American Imperialism. Because of
the vast amount of literature on this topic and because of the thesis
limit, I have narrowed the focus to America's relations with Iraq, a
current event.

After my Introduction, I give the U.S. State Department's official goals,
followed by an assessment of Walter Russell Mead's theory that there have
been four streams in U.S. foreign policy.

I then examine many definitions of Imperialism from mainly Marxist
perspectives, namely, concerning money and the flow of capital. This is
because the most detailed theories of Imperialism are usually from a
Marxist point of view and most accusations of Imperialism pointed at
America come from the left. I also include Niall Ferguson's assertion that
America is Imperialist, but that this is a good thing, just like the
romanticized versions of British imperial rule.

Following this, I examine the arguments of Realism/Realpolitik, because
those who dispute assertions of American Imperialism and support American
foreign policy claim that America is simply playing the international
diplomatic game, which is a type of survival of the fittest.

I briefly touch on the Military Industrial Complex, because I believe that
it is an important aspect to understand when discussing American
Imperialism, though to examine it in more detail falls out of the scope of
this thesis.

To put things in perspective I give a brief overview of both Iraqi and
American history. The overview on American history is longer because I have
added information on American Imperialism in the past, focusing more on its
early history, including policies against the American-Indians, 'Manifest
Destiny' and the Monroe Doctrine. Though Iraq's history goes back thousands
of years, its account in this thesis is a lot shorter, with more of a focus
on its post British history.

Connected with this is the war on terror, because one of the reasons given
for the Invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was connected with al
Qaeda.

I then go into the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and discuss American-Iraqi
relations right up to the present day.

Before my conclusion, I give a commentary on the future of the both Iraq
and the United States.
LITERATURE REVIEW

A variety of texts have been used in this thesis. Many were used simply to
get a general background of the topic and have not been used as a source of
quotes, others have been used extensively. The main texts will be evaluated
in this Literature Review. So as not to clutter the review, bibliographical
details are given in the bibliography at the end of this thesis.

There are a multitude of definitions of Imperialism from every political
and philosophical standpoint. I focused mainly on the economic theories of
Imperialism. Texts that were sourced for this are Wolfgang J. Mommsen's
Theories of Imperialism which details a variety of theories of Imperialism;
Anthony Anghie's Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International
Law, which looks at Imperialism from a legal standpoint; Immanuel
Wallerstein's The Modern World System I, Capitalist Agriculture and the
Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century is the best
known work on world systems theory, a theory on Imperialism which separates
regions into 'core', 'semi peripheral' and 'peripheral' zones, with the
former the rich 'motherland' and the latter the subservient colonies;
Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri's Empire claims to be a new concept in the
field of Imperial theory, though it is mainly the advancement of
Wallerstein's theory; J.A. Hobson's Imperialism: A Study influenced almost
every examination of Imperialism after it was published, and this thesis is
no exception. Hobson's central theme was 'the Economic Taproot of
Imperialism', that all empires are motivated by profit, and they expand to
expand their markets to produce more profit and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's
Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism (originally The Last Stage of
Capitalism) essentially agrees with Hobson.

British authors with a positive romanticized view of Imperialism, due to
Britain's very successful history of empire are: Dennis Judd's Empire, The
British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the Present; Niall Ferguson's
works, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World and Colossus, The Rise and
Fall of the American Empire and Bernard Porter's Empire and Superempire,
Britain, America and the World;

For works on International Relations theory I used many works by Americans
from the 1950s, during the Cold War. These include: Hans Morgenthau's
Politics Among Nations, The Struggle for Power and Peace which links every
action with the pursuit of power; John W. Spanier's American Foreign Policy
Since World War II; Henry Kissinger's (a former Secretary of State during
the Cold War) Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Towards a Diplomacy for
the 21st Century ; Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations thesis
was written at a time when America was 'looking' for new enemies, following
victory in the Cold War.

I tried to obtain original, official texts where possible to get the
'legitimate' perspective. Every text reflects the agenda of the faction in
power, or the area where the text originated, U.S. Department of Defense,
for instance. Official texts used are: U.S. State Department's
International Information Programs; CIA World Fact Book's Map of Iraq;
three of George W. Bush's speeches, Presidential Address to the Nation,
2002 State of the Union and 'Mission Accomplished'; U.S. Department of
Defense's Map of Unified Command Plan's and updated casualty list; Dwight
D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address; United States House of Representatives,
House Committee on Foreign Affairs Jurisdiction; U.S. Department of the
Interior's U.S. Territorial Acquisitions; Charter of the United Nations,
Chapter VII; Nicaragua v United States of America, Judgment by the Court;
Australian Government's Defence White Paper 2009: Defending Australia in
the Asia Pacific Century 2030; George Washington's Farewell Address; U.S
Department of State and Office of the Historian's Ten Thousand Miles from
Tip to Tip.

Many works on America by left wing academics were also used. Left wing
academics are accused of being 'anti-American' by their detractors,
implying that they dislike every decision America makes. These works were:
Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance;
Chalmers Johnson's America's Empire of Bases and The Sorrows of Empire:
Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic; Christopher Simpson's The
Splendid Blonde Beast: Money, Law and Genocide in the Twentieth Century;
Edward Said's The Clash of Ignorance; Gore Vidal's Imperial America:
Reflections on the United States of Amnesia; M. H Hunt's Ideology and U.S.
Foreign Policy; W. E. Weeks' Building the Continental Empire: American
Expansion from the Revolution to the Civil War; Gale Courey Toensing's U.S.
Supremes rule against Native Hawaiians' land claims; Stuart Creighton
Miller's "Benevolent Assimilation", The American Conquest of the
Philippines, 1899-1903 and Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An
Indian History of the American West

Most non official writings on the Invasion of Iraq are from a left-wing,
academic, anti-invasion point of view. Also, most of these works contain a
background history on Mesopotamia, British rule, independence, Baath rule
and Saddam rule. These include: Anthony Arnove's Iraq, The Logic of
Withdrawal; Joseph Braude's The New Iraq, Rebuilding the Country for Its
People, the Middle East and the World; William R. Polk's Understanding
Iraq; Bob Feldman's A People's History of Iraq: 1963 to 2005; Antonia
Juhasz's Oil and the Bush Agenda and Roger Morris' The Gates Inheritance,
Part 2, Great games and famous victories.

Some works from a non-left perspective concerning Iraq were used. But most
of these works had their own agenda, such as L. Paul Bremer III's (who was
the American envoy to Iraq after the invasion) My Year in Iraq: The
Struggle to Build a Future of Hope, in which the only thing Bremer doesn't
credit himself with in the book is finding a cure for cancer. Other works
were: William L. Cleveland's A History of the Modern Middle East; Daniel
Altman's Connected: 24 Hours in the Global Economy; Joseph Stiglitz & Linda
Bilmes The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraqi Conflict
and Burnham, Gilbert, Lafta, Riyadh et al, Morality after the 2003 invasion
of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey.

Many of my sources on post invasion Iraq are from mass media outlets and
most media barons have their own agenda. Pre invasion, much of the
mainstream media agreed with the Bush II Administration's assessment that
Saddam Hussein connection with al Qaeda and that he had WMDs, now, post
invasion, 'conservative' media still supports the invasion, while 'liberal'
media opposes it. Media reports are also used to cite quotations by people
connected with the invasion, whether to support their own agenda or attack
the opposite agenda. The following are all media articles: Qassim Abdul-
Zahra's Iraq: No troops in cities after deadline; Mike Allen's Cheney: U.S.
'succeeded' in Iraq; Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters' Greenspan admits
Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m; Julian Borger's Bush team
'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before September 11; Nick
Juliano's Kucinich: 'We went to war for the oil companies' ; Reuter's KBR,
Fluor, Dyncorp win US Army contract, shrs up; Paul Kennedy's article Power
and Terror; Kirk Semple's Saddam Hussein is Sentenced to Death; Adam
Levine's Contractor sued for 'burn pits' in Iraq and Afghanistan; Allen
McDuffee's Empire's Architecture; Anthony Sampson's West's Greed for Oil
Fuels Saddam Fever; The BBC's Millions join global anti-war protests;
Comsec's Australian Stock Market report; Kim Gamel's Iraq to mark US
pullback from cities with holiday; Thomas Ferraro's U.S. Army paid bonuses
to KBR, despite deaths; Dick Cheney's Interview 'On the Record' with Greta
Van Susteren and 'Chris' Iraq Confirms capture of top al-qaida leader.

Other works used in this thesis are: Steven Coll's The Bin Ladens, The
Story of a Family and its Fortune which portrays the bin Laden family as a
whole in a non terrorist light; Walter Russell Mead's Special Providence:
American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World, which puts forward
his theory that all of U.S. foreign policy is the result of interplay
between four competing strands and Gary Wasserman's The Basics of American
Politics which is a textbook on the mechanics of American Government,






INTRODUCTION

The United States of America is the most dominant power in human history.
Its influence exceeds that of the old Roman, Mongol, Chinese, Spanish,
Persian or British Empires. Territory-wise, the United States is as varied
as it is vast. At 9,363,563 square km[1] it is the fourth largest country
in the world. Its terrain ranges from the warm beaches of Florida and
Hawaii to the frozen northlands of Alaska, and from the Midwestern prairies
to the snow-capped Rocky Mountains. Yet, its influence stretches far beyond
its borders and since the collapse of the Soviet Union it has been the
dominant economic, political, military, and cultural force in the world.
But how did the United States reach this pinnacle of power? What has driven
U.S. foreign policy throughout its history? What is the 'best' term to
describe this political power? Popular terms within the U.S. include 'lone
superpower,' indispensable nation', reluctant sheriff,'[2] 'hegemon',
'hyperpower' and 'global leader'. Its opponents use terms with negative
associations, such as 'Imperialist' and the former Soviet Union's
propaganda referred to the United States as 'fascist'. Lastly, there are
those that acknowledge American supremacy's resemblance to Imperialism, but
for a variety of reasons use language to soften the term, such as 'informal
empire', 'American Exceptionalism' or 'liberal Imperialism' to distinguish
differences between the United States and other polities identified as
empires.

This thesis will briefly examine the history of U.S. foreign policy and the
trends that have driven it, as well as investigating different theories of
Imperialism to see whether the United States 'qualifies' as an imperial
power. I shall also be examining works by Realist International Relations
theorists as these provide the main argument for those who deny American
Imperialism. Because this question has spawned countless books to do it a
barely adequate justice would require me to go way beyond the word limit,
so I will focus on America's relationship to Iraq as a case study of
Imperialism. To do this, I will include a brief overview of Iraqi history,
including British rule, independence and American interference in its
affairs, including the two invasions and the occupation.

Connected with this is the 9/11 and the Global War on Terror. One of the
justifications for the Invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a close
ally of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. I will briefly be
examining if and how 9/11 changed U.S foreign policy. This thesis will
conclude with a chapter on the future of Iraq and the future of American
foreign policy.

Because the occupation is a current event, incidents may occur that render
some facts and opinions given within the thesis obsolete.
CHAPTER ONE

American official and public opinion

The term 'U.S. imperialism' triggers strong emotions and it can be used as
a political swear word. The U.S. administration, newspaper editors, many
academics and much of American public opinion deny that there is any such
thing. The official stated goals of U.S. foreign policy, as mentioned in
the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S State Department "to create a more
secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American
people and the international community."[3]

The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its
jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of
nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial
intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad;
International commodity agreements; international education; and protection
of American citizens abroad and expatriation."[4] Whether or not the United
States does this or not is open to debate.

The situation is complicated by differing strands within general U.S.
foreign policy. In his book Special Providence, the political scientist
Walter Russell Mead identified four such strands, named after influential
American statesmen. They all share certain themes, as well as having themes
in direct opposition to each other. The four themes are:

Jeffersonianism, after Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United
States. Jeffersonians are cautious of the 'outside world' and stress
isolationism and wariness of foreign entanglements, which they see as
detrimental to democracy and to the values of liberty and equality at
home[5]

Jacksonianism, after Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of the United
States. Jacksonians are 'populist', promoting stability and prosperity at
home, believing in weak central government and supporting military strength
to defend the homeland[6]

Hamiltonianism, after Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the
Treasury. Hamiltonians advocate foreign intervention, claiming that a
forward foreign policy builds and protects American interests, specifically
economic interests, which in turn strengthen American power and make the
world a more peaceful place[7]

Wilsonianism, after Woodrow Wilson, the 23rd President of the United
States. Wilsonians hold that the U.S. should spread 'American values' and
democracy around the world. These values are based on Christianity. To
'enlighten', others America needs to be actively involved in world
affairs[8]

All four strands have been evident in American foreign policy and it can be
argued that all advocate Imperialism. Wilsonianism and Hamiltonianism
advocate direct interventionism, whether to export U.S. values or U.S.
economic interests. Mead says that these two strands have fought for
ideological supremacy since World War I, due to their 'universal'
values[9]. As shall be seen, these two tendencies fall within J.A. Hobson's
definition of Imperialism.[10] Jeffersonianism, while being wary of
involvement in world affairs, believed in what came to be known as the
'Manifest Destiny' of the US to expand westward. Jacksonianism, which
supported stability and prosperity at home, implies that foreign
entanglements may be necessary to achieve this aim, i.e., pre emptive self
defence. Both of the latter assert in the preservation of 'American
Exceptionalism' and believe that "The specific cultural, social and
political heritage of the United States is a precious treasure to be
conserved, defended, and passed on to future generations."[11] Mead claims
that America's 'unprecedented success' in foreign policy is a result of
interplay, tensions and compromises between all four strands.

What is Imperialism?

Defining the term Imperialism is fraught with controversy and in this
section I will examine some of the major theories in the field. Wolfgang
Mommsen in his Theories of Imperialism states that the "original meaning of
'imperialism' was not the direct or indirect domination of colonial or
dependent territories by a modern industrial state, but rather the personal
sovereignty of a powerful ruler over numerous territories, whether in
Europe or overseas."[12] He argues that the notion of Imperialism later
acquired the meaning with the economic implications it now bears. He argues
that the notion of Imperialism later acquired the meaning with the economic
implications it now bears. It lost its connotation of a system based on the
pre-eminence of a European Imperial ruler and came to be generally
understood as signifying the expansion of a nation state beyond its own
borders for the purpose of acquiring overseas dependencies and if possible
unifying them in a world-wide empire.

The international lawyer Anthony Anghie also distinguishes between
colonialism and imperialism. He defines colonialism as "generally…the
practise of settling territories"[13], while 'imperialism' refers to the
practices of an empire. He cites Michael Doyle's definition of an empire:
a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the
effective political sovereignty of another political society. It ca be
achieved by force, by political collaboration, by economic, social or
cultural dependence. Imperialism is simply the process or policy of
maintaining an empire.[14]

The idea of the "Economic Taproot of Imperialism" was first explored in J.A
Hobson's seminal work Imperialism: A Study, published in 1902. In this
view, military aggression simply facilitates capitalist expansion. Hobson
argued that:
As one nation after another enters the machine economy and adopts
advanced industrial methods, it becomes more difficult for its
manufacturers, merchants and finaciers [sic] to dispose profitably of
their economic resources and they are tempted more and more to use their
Governments in order to secure for their particular use some distant
undeveloped country by annexation and protection…It is admitted by all
businessmen that the growth of the powers of production in their county
exceeds the growth in consumption, that more goods can be produced than
can be sold at a profit, and that more capital exists than can find
remunerative investment. It is this economic condition of affairs that
forms the taproot of Imperialism[15]

The invaders being and staying the racial minority is fundamental to
Hobson's argument distinguishing between Colonialism and Imperialism.
Colonialism is the extension of the nation into a new land, bringing with
it culture and language, with the people having full rights as citizens of
the homeland, because they are from the homeland as opposed to being
'native'. Hobson says Britain's only successful colonies in this sense were
Australasia and Canada. Imperialism, however, is "When a State advances
beyond the limits of nationality, its power becomes precarious and
artificial. This is the condition of most empires"[16] Hobson did not
discount other causes of Imperialism. He devotes an entire chapter to
Nationalism and its relationship with Imperialism.

Hobson's 'Economic Taproot' theory was subsequently taken up by Lenin in
his famous pamphlet Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin
wrote that,
Capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very
high stage of its development…Economically, the main thing in this
process is the displacement of capitalist free competition of capitalist
monopoly. Free competition is the fundamental characteristic of
capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact
opposite of free competition.[17]

Lenin essentially agreed with Hobson, but took his ideas further and
moulded them to his political philosophy of international socialist
revolution. Lenin and Hobson's work was further developed by Immanuel
Wallerstein, the father of World Systems Theory, in his book The Modern
World System. World Systems Theory rejects the idea of a First, Second and
Third World, preferring the terms 'core', 'semi-periphery' and 'periphery',
though they are not merely word substitutions. Wallerstein argues that the
modern capitalist, imperialist system has its beginnings in feudal Europe.
He defines a world system as "one in which there is extensive division of
labor. This division is not merely functional…but geographical."[18] This
geographical difference magnifies and legitimizes some groups within the
system to exploit the labour of others, and gain a larger share of the
profits.

Prior to modern capitalism, all world systems had transformed into empires,
which Wallerstein defines as "…a political system encompassing wide,
relatively highly centralized territories, in which the centre…constituted
an autonomous entity.[19] World economies are more profitable because an
empire is responsible for the administration and defence of its territory,
which takes energy and profits which could be invested in capital
development.

Mercantilism aided by Imperialism fulfils all the requirements of
Capitalism. Europe conquered weaker countries, exploited them and traded
the resources globally. Via exploitation of these labour and cheap
resources, Europe established a hierarchical trade system on an
international scale and started trading with the new markets it opened up,
as well as the other world markets.

Wallerstein's 'core states' refer to the advantaged areas of the world
economy. Core states have a strong national culture and this leads to
stability. It is this stability that allows it to dominate peripheral and
semi peripheral areas and take a disproportionate share of wealth. There
are no peripheral states, but there are peripheral areas because the
central 'state' authority is weak or non existent. This vacuum is filled by
the core states, who exploit the resources of the periphery. In between,
acting as a buffer are the semi periphery areas. They are either on their
way to becoming core states, or were once core states and are now on the
decline.[20]

Anthony Anghie argues that Colonization and empire were present at the
inception of international law because they existed before the concept of
the nation-state. Hence international law is concerned not only with
relations between nation-states, but with relations between civilizations
and peoples. These laws are relations of domination by nature, because he
says there is always a core and periphery[21]

On the other side of the political spectrum, Hans Morgenthau, one of the
intellectual fathers of the Realist school of International relations
theory, warns that the 'indiscriminate' use of the term Imperialism makes
it lose all concrete meaning. "Everyone is an imperialist to someone who
happens to take exception to his foreign policies."[22] Morgenthau himself
defines Imperialism as "a nation whose foreign policy aims at acquiring
more power than it actually has, through a reversal of existing power
relations-whose foreign policy, in other words, seeks a favorable change in
power status"[23] The view that Imperialism and any increase of power are
the same is held by two groups: Isolationists, who view any foreign policy
as imperial; and those who are against the policies of a particular nation,
such as anti-Americans and Anglophobes.

In their book Empire, the American authors Hardt and Negri note that
"Proponents praise the United States as the world leader and sole
superpower, and detractors denounce it as an imperialist oppressor"[24] Yet
both these views rest on the assumption that the U.S. has taken the mantle
of global power from Europe. Hardt and Negri argue that a new form of
sovereignty has emerged and that it conforms to neither view. "The United
States…and indeed no nation-state can today form the centre of an
imperialist project"[25] Classical Imperialism such as the extension of
national sovereignty during the 19th and 20th centuries is dead. The
position of America in Empire is a privileged one, as it is where Empire
began. The foundations of Empire are in the American Revolution, the United
States constitution, and in the writings of its Founding Fathers, mainly
the Federalist Papers. "The contemporary idea of Empire is born through the
global expansion of the internal U.S. constitutional project. It is in act
through the extension of internal constitutional processes that we enter
into a constituent process of Empire."[26] Hardt and Negri's argument falls
into the category of 'American Exceptionalism', a school of thought which
believes that the United States is somehow special and unique in the entire
history of the world. This is, they claim because only Americans believe
that a republic is the sole way of giving order to a democracy. The
American polity "which both constitutes a central power and maintains power
in the hands of the multitude"[27] can only arise through its system of
checks and balances. The difference between America and Empire is that
America has territorial boundaries, whereas one of the definitions of
Empire is by its total lack of territorial boundaries.

Hardt and Negri claim the United States went through four historical phases
towards the realization of imperial sovereignty. The first phase starts at
the Declaration of Independence and finishes at the end of the Civil War
Within this phase 'American Exceptionalism' began, because it was not
centralised, like Europe, and the American plains were open unpopulated
spaces. Hardt and Negri mention the Indigenous American peoples, as needing
to be pushed further and further away, but from what if there is not centre
of power in the republic?. The second phase starts with the European
Imperialism of President Theodore Roosevelt and finishes with President
Woodrow Wilson's idealism. The U.S. embarked on European style Imperialism
because they had reached the geographical limits of their republic. The
resistance to this brief 'aberration' in U.S. history from the multitude
was fierce, "How ferocious that repression was-and the stronger it was, the
stronger the resistance!"[28] The third phase starts with the New Deal,
though its roots are in the October Revolution of 1917 and finishes with
the protest movements of the 1960s. Those in power found themselves
"increasingly driven by the need to placate class antagonism"[29] The last
phase started when the third ended and finished with the dissolution of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. During this period the United States
"subordinated the old imperialist powers to its own regime"[30]

Following the end of the Cold War, the United States was the only nation-
state capable of exercising police power on a global level: "The (First)
Gulf War was the first time America could exercise this power in its full
form…the war was an operation of repression"[31] they argue. Hardt and
Negri claim that Iraq was not invaded because of strategic or ideological
interests, but because it was judged to have broken international law, and
the U.S. as the world police brought it to justice "not as a function of
its own national motives but in the name of global right."[32] Many powers
have claimed universality before, claiming their own culture to be the
'correct' one and innately followed the world over. If their culture was
not followed, then it was the responsibility of the powers to teach the
'uncivilized'. But legitimacy of Empire cannot be based on military might
alone. This is where the United States constitution comes into play, along
with the establishment of international organizations that are based within
the U.S. The constitution, with its 'exceptional' place in world history is
the only constitution equipped for extensive Empire. The international
organizations produce international juridical norms and reduce resistances
to their functioning. The sheer multitude of international 'organisms' and
the symbiotic networks that linked them alluded to a central legitimate
supranational authority.

This brief survey would not be complete without mention of the work of
Niall Ferguson. The theme of Ferguson's Colossus, The Rise and Fall of the
American Empire is the suggestion that the United States of America is an
empire, but the only problem with this is that not enough people within the
United States accept this. Throughout its history only critics of U.S.
Foreign policy, right wing and left wing, at home and abroad have used the
term 'American Empire' and they use it is a prejudicial sense. Instead of
an American Empire being a stain on America's image, Ferguson argues that
it is for the good for every nation on earth if the US meddles in their
internal affairs. Americans must embrace their role as a paternal,
benevolent ruler of nations in need of guidance before they become failed
states. Ferguson uses the British and Roman Imperial models to compare and
contrast the American Imperial model.

The British justified their empire with the claim that they weren't doing
it for themselves, but to benefit all humanity. Ferguson believes that
there has been a world power vacuum since the implosion of the British
Empire in the 1960s. He argues that "the world embarked on an…experiment to
test the hypothesis that it is imperialism that caused both poverty and
wars"[33] and "that hypothesis has been largely proved false,"[34] putting
him at odds with the anti-Imperialists of the Hobson tradition who argue
that wars are fought for economic Imperial gain. Ferguson believes that the
US must step up to continue where Britain left off. Ferguson laments that
if the United States is indeed an Empire, it is a very strange empire,
schizophrenic in nature, constantly arguing with itself. It seems to
acquire land only reluctantly, and only after its seeming inevitability.
Americans shy away from the long term commitments of manpower and money
that are an intrinsic part of empire. American society does not understand
that with great power comes great responsibility, and the United States is
the greatest power in history, yet the public remains in denial. The
conclusion of Ferguson's earlier book Empire: How Britain Made the Modern
World is a plea for America to accept its Imperialist destiny[35]

Dennis Judd, in his widely read book Empire links racism, economics,
military might and how the British Empire started. "Empire gave people
already generally antipathetic to foreigners and convinced of their own
unique place in the world further grounds for such beliefs,' he writes:
"Empire was consequence as well as cause of world-wide patterns of trade
and the world wide deployment of military and naval power."[36] "The
irresistible proliferation of capitalism", he continues, "led to a
continuing expansion of the Empire. Improving technology, the superiority
of British weaponry the supremacy of the Royal Navy all conspired to subdue
a variety of foreign foes."[37] Further, "The Empire helped to maintain
Britain as a military power on an equal footing with the great Continental
powers of France, Germany and Russia".[38] It was simply trying to catch up
because almost every other European state were getting colonies and England
was in great danger of falling behind and being invaded by one of the
continental powers. At the end of the 16th century Britain began trade with
Asia, forming the English East India Company in 1600. Britain's aims were
purely commercial. It wanted oriental goods.

However, after the Industrial Revolution, if one follows Hobson's 'Economic
Taproot of Imperialism' argument, Britain and the other European powers
needed access to raw materials to fuel industrialization and to create new
consumer markets for people to purchase those goods, and it was only
advances in technology that allowed Europe to explore and subjugate
different peoples from around the world, drawing them into European
capitalist economies. Judd also notes that, at the beginning of the Cold
War formal empire was giving way to informal economic Imperialism, and that
somewhat surprisingly, while the empire was being dismantled, trade was
actually rising and that this was helping Britain find a new role in the
postcolonial world. Ferguson disagrees, in the last paragraph of Empire:
How Britain Made the Modern World quoting former U.S. Secretary of State
Dean Acheson "that Britain had lost an empire but failed to find a
role."[39] Ferguson says that America has taken Britain's old role yet
denies this role comes with empire, which is as much fact today as it was
throughout Britain's three hundred year reign.

International Relations theory

International Relations theory is another field to which we can turn for
insights. A foreign policy guided by Realpolitik can also be described as a
realist foreign policy. Realpolitik is related to the philosophy of
political realism and can be regarded as one of its foundations, as both
implicate power politics because they imply operation according to the
belief that politics is based on the pursuit, possession, and application
of power. According to this theory, America is simply playing the
international diplomatic game and is winning, it might be argued sometimes
reluctantly, due to its isolationist past. It is merely pursuing its
interests.

Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations is considered the 'bible' of
realism. Morgenthau states that there are two competing schools of thought
that govern modern political thought. The first, which he doesn't name, but
which we may call idealism, believes "in universally valid abstract
principles…It assumes the essential goodness and infinite malleability of
human nature."[40] The competing school is realism which sees the immediate
aim of all politics as a struggle for power. Ultimate aims may vary
(freedom, security etc,) but despite the ends, the means is always the
same. Many believe that the struggle for power is temporary and will
disappear if given the right conditions. The argument has been made in
regards to the emancipation of colonies, removal of trade tariffs,
democracy and as already discussed, capitalism. Military power is the most
important factor governing the political power of a nation in international
relations, but Morgenthau warns that if a nation has to use military power,
then political power is diminished and military power overtakes political
power in the struggle for power, because using military means that politics
has failed.

Morgenthau, who was the intellectual guide for post-World War II foreign
policy, devotes some pages to the question of Imperialism. He claims that
not every foreign policy aimed at increasing the power of a nation is
imperialist, as long as the pursuit of power leaves the existing power
structures intact.[41] He also argues that not every foreign policy aimed
at preserving an existing empire is imperialist. Unless an empire is trying
to destroy another empire, again it is merely enforcing the status quo.[42]
He is also dismissive of economic theories of Imperialism[43] because they
claim legitimacy based on limited historical and isolated experiences. He
concedes that the Boer War, the inspiration for Hobson, was fought for
economic reasons, but it is the only one and refers to Hobson's theory as
the 'devil theory'[44]. Wars show economic objectives in a subordinate
role, in that victory brings economic advantages and defeat disadvantages.
But these effects are not t he real issue, merely by-products.
Precapitalist imperialisms share with those of the capitalist period the
tendency to overthrow the established power relations. They aim for
dominance in a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic manner.[45]

According to Morgenthau's interpretation, the United States was
imperialistic in the past, because it undermined the existing power
structures to make itself more powerful. But it seems absurd to suggest
that once it reached superpower status, its actions no longer were
imperialistic. In the case of the invasion of Iraq because political power
failed and military power was used, Morgenthau would interpret the Bush
Administration's actions as a failure of Realpolitik, because he doesn't
acknowledge the idea of the military-industrial complex.

The controversial Henry Kissinger is perhaps America's most famous –or
infamous—foreign policy advisor. Secretary of State under several
administrations, he has also published numerous books on foreign policy and
is wanted in some countries for war crimes charges, In his 2002 book Does
America Need a Foreign Policy?, Towards a Diplomacy for the 21st Century he
addresses the question of whether America is an Imperial power, calling the
question 'America at the Apex: Empire or Leader'[46], implying that it can
be only one or the other. The book was written prior to the events of 9/11.
In the 2nd edition, published after 9/11 but prior to the invasion of Iraq,
he includes an afterword, discussing America's role in the post 9/11 world.
He says that American pre-eminence is unrivalled by any power in history in
every way imaginable and that "America exercises an unparalleled ascendancy
around the globe."[47] The reason for this is due to America's advanced
system of technological education, which has become the prerequisite for
any county seeking long term power. It "supplies the sinews of a society's
strength and vitality; without it, all other types of power (economic,
military and political) will wither."[48]

Despite never explicitly defining Imperialism, Kissinger addresses the
'perception' of American Imperialism (he refers to it as domineering-
imperial) by the left and the conflicts these perceptions cause with those
of the right. The left see the United States as the "ultimate arbitrator of
domestic evolutions all over the world"[49] and they equate foreign policy
with social policy. Kissinger disagrees with this assertion because it
depreciates the fact that America was victorious in the Cold War. He also
disagrees with the assertions to those on the right, who he says believe
that the "Soviet Unions collapse came about more or less automatically as
the result of a new American assertiveness expressed in the change in
rhetoric"[50] and that the solution to the world's problems is American
intervention (the view held by Ferguson, as previously discussed).

He claimed that the perception of American Imperialism is due to "the
inevitable result of America's unique position as the sole remaining
superpower and would exist no matter how the United States conducts its
diplomacy."[51] This is despite the United States specifically rejecting
imperial pretensions, having no imperial structure and its pronunciations
of goodwill. America does have a chance to become an empire, but Kissinger
warns against it, saying that "The road to empire leads to domestic decay
because, in time, the claims of omnipotence erode domestic constraints…A
deliberate quest for hegemony is the surest way to destroy the values that
made the United States great."[52] In an empire, every international issue
becomes a domestic issue and this leads to internal struggles.


The Middle East poses a problem to the United States, because it is the
only area in the world where the two strongest regional powers (Iran and
Iraq) have been hostile to American interests. Traditionally, America would
side with one of the powers against the other, to somehow form the a
balance of power, but in the case of both nations, at the time of writing
this was impossible, mainly because of the blow to America's international
reputation.[53] With the exception of the Middle East, American troops are
stationed all around the world because America considers itself "both the
source and the guarantor of democratic institutions around the globe."[54]
But the Middle East doesn't conform to these Wilsonian ideals, namely
because there are no democracies to defend. It is because of a lack of
diplomatic options in dealing with either Iran or Iraq that America
maintains so many military forces in the region.[55]

Kissinger identifies several questions to American foreign policy. He says
it should not be based on Realism or Idealism, rather a hybrid of the two
and this is the real challenge of foreign policy, though with America's
tradition of exceptionalism will be easy to achieve. The reason for this is
because "Excessive 'realism' produces stagnation; excessive 'idealism'
leads to crusades and eventual disillusionment."[56] He also cautions that
the United states needs to "recognise its own preeminence but to conduct
its policy as if it were still living in a world of many centres of
power"[57] He encourages 'universal humanitarian intervention', saying that
West European nations have also adopted this approach.[58] Kissinger's
final words of Does America Need a Foreign Policy? "The war on terrorism is
not the ultimate test of American foreign policy, which is, above all, to
protect the extraordinary opportunity that has come about to recast the
international system"[59] reiterates his plea for American Exceptionalism
not to throw away the spoils of being the victor of the Cold War.

Finally, we should not neglect Samuel Huntington in this discussion of
realist policy in the post-Soviet world. Huntington's influential article
The Clash of Civilizations was first published in 1993 in Foreign Affairs.
Due to the attention it received, Huntington subsequently published a book
of the same name in 1996, in which he explores his themes further.
Huntington's essential argument is that
the fundamental source of conflict in the new world will not be
primarily ideological or primary economic. The great divisions among
humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.
Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs,
but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between
nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of
civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between
civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.[60]

The challenge for the west is to make sure that its culture gets stronger
and fends off the other cultures which he believes threaten it. For a map
of Huntington's world, look at Illustration I: Clash of Civilizations world
map on page 53.

The thesis caused wide spread controversy within academia, with Edward Said
famously responding with his article The Clash of Ignorance in which he
argued that Huntington has merely rehashed the 'West versus the Rest'
cliché. Following 9/11, Huntington gained a degree of popularity outside of
academic circles as his thesis was used to describe the events occurring,
not as 'blowback' for past grievances against U.S. foreign policy, but as
the beginning of a struggle between the western and Muslim civilizations

Huntington's thesis may be described as a Macbeth type self fulfilling
prophesy. I believe the broad principles are applicable as the reasoning
behind some conflicts around the world, namely in the Former Yugoslavia.
The U.S. is the dominant nation within the western culture and western
culture is currently the global dominating force. Yet the spread of
globalisation which is also an example cultures are intermingling. In all
societies we find examples of culture. A simple example is food. In the
west we are able to go to a Chinese restaurant without leaving the country
we are in. In China, people are able to go to McDonalds, without leaving
China. Most non western cultures who are opposing the west are using
western ideals in their opposition, ideals such as democracy, Nationalism
and 'freedom' all have their origins in the west.


















CHAPTER TWO

American Imperialism in the past

No constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for
extensive empire.—Thomas Jefferson to President James Madison,
Apr 27, 1809

History has largely confirmed Jefferson's imperial enthusiasm. When the
United States first came into existence, the original 13 states began
aggressively expanding west and south, annexing territory from Native
Americans, European Powers, Mexico and other small independent states that
existed around its borders, most notably Texas. Gore Vidal claims the first
American 'conquistador' was President James K. Polk. After acquiring Texas,
Vidal says "Polk deliberately started a war with Mexico because, as he
later told the historian George Bancroft, we had to acquire
California."[61] To get a visual understanding of American continental
conquests, see Illustration 3 - Map of U.S. Territorial Acquisitions on
page 55.

Due to their dispossession in America's early bloody expansion, Native
Americans believe that the United States was Imperialist from the start, a
view they are not alone in sharing. Where it was too weak to invade and
annex, the United States sought other means to get land. It made treaties
with Native Americans and then broke them and it purchased land from
European Powers (notably the Louisiana Purchase). This was done in the name
of 'Manifest Destiny', the belief that the United States was 'destined' to
expand from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean and eventually
encompass all of North America, excluding Mexico, as it would mean non
Anglo-Saxons would be part of the United States. This era, which is most
often associated with the years between 1815 and 1860, largely defined the
borders of the continental United States as they are today.

In his first address to Congress in 1829, President Andrew Jackson (Sharp
Knife to the Indians) recommended "the propriety of setting apart an ample
district west of the Mississippi…to be guaranteed to the Indian tribes, as
long as they shall occupy it,"[62] even though enactment of such a law
would break all the treaties made with the Indians to the east of the
river. Jackson was convinced that Indians and whites could not live
together in peace and that his plan would make possible a final promise
which never would be broken again. His recommendation was made law a year
later and all the land west of the Mississippi that was not part of the
States of Louisiana, Missouri or Territory of Arkansas was set aside as
Indian country. No whites were allowed to settle there and this was
'enforced' by border guards. This did not last as several states were soon
created from this Indian country and all the land that was won from Mexico
during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) happened to be 'Indian land'.

To justify the constant breaches, Manifest Destiny was invented, a term
which:
lifted land hunger to a lofty plain. The Europeans and their descendants
were ordained by destiny to rule all of America. They were the dominant
race and therefore responsible for the Indians-along with their lands,
their forests and their mineral wealth. Only the New Englanders, who had
destroyed or driven out all their Indians, spoke against Manifest
Destiny.[63]

In 1860, there were probably 300,000 Indians in the United States and
Territories, most of them living west of the Mississippi.[64] During the
nineteenth century, the U.S. government offered bounties for the scalps of
Native Americans and, perhaps more fundamentally, provided free farmland
and other business opportunities to settlers willing to encroach on Native
American territories.[65]

The ideological sister to Manifest Destiny was the Monroe Doctrine,
elaborated by President James Monroe in his message to Congress in 1823.
This aimed to guarantee the autonomy of all the independent nations of the
Western Hemisphere against further European interference for the purpose of
oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny. The
Monroe Doctrine said also that the American continents were not to be
considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.
However, the nations which the doctrine was supposed to protect resented
the way the United States assumed its own superiority over them. Many
actually feared 'The Colossus of the North' far more than they feared any
European nation.

Anthony Anghie identifies a similarity between current U.S.-Iraqi relations
and those between the early white Americans and the Indians. He argues
that both have been seen as threats to the security of the United States
and, following an American response to this 'security threat' both
challenge an American system of government that is extended to incorporate
them, even while ostensibly enabling them to retain important aspects of
their own identity.[66]

Manifest Destiny was followed by the acquisition of overseas territories.
The Spanish-American War of 1897-1898 continued growing the number of
America's overseas possessions, leading to the first claims that America
was now an Imperial power, as discussion of the 'salt water fallacy' below
will explain. The Kingdom of Hawaii was America's first overseas
possession. The Royal Family had been overthrown in an American backed coup
in 1893 and annexed in 1897.[67] American tensions with Spain were due to
American support of the Cuban revolutionaries against Spanish oppression,
drawing comparisons with their own fight for independence. William Randolf
Hearst, the first media tycoon sent the artist Frederic Remington to Cuba
to report on the Cuban revolt against Spanish oppression. ""There is no
war," Remington wrote to his boss. "Request to be recalled." In a famous
reply, Heart cabled "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish
the war""[68] Tensions ignited into War when the American battleship Maine
blew up in Havana. Blame was placed on the Spanish, though later it was
proven that it was
accidental and the Spanish were not involved.

America easily defeated the Spanish and the 'Paris peace treaty'
transferred the Spanish territories of Puerto Rico and Guam to American
sovereignty, where they remain to this day. Also, in exchange for a $20
million payment to Spain, the treaty awarded the United States the entire
Philippine archipelago, over three thousand islands located off the coast
of China and Vietnam, "The payment was important to America's leaders,
proof that they were not, as some critics charged, engaged in a 'land grab'
similar to those of the other imperialist powers at the time."[69] In fact,
anti-imperialist forces were so strong in the Senate that the peace treaty
itself was ratified by only a one vote majority.[70] For an excellent
political cartoon that captures the anti-Imperialism of the period, look at
Illustration 4 - Ten Thousand Miles from Tip to Tip on page 56.

The United States held the Philippines as a colonial possession under very
'European' circumstances. The concept of the 'white man's burden', where
non-European cultures are seen as childlike and that white people
consequently have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural
development of, people from non Western backgrounds until they can take
their place in the world by fully adopting Western ways was developed by
Rudyard Kipling's poem of the same name, in response to America's actions
in the Philippines. In the case of the Philippines, the Americans used them
to help kick the Spanish out of the Philippines on the promise of gaining
independence, and then claimed that the "…United States had a clear duty…to
redeem the Filipinos from savage indolence and habits, and set them in the
pathway of the world's best civilization."[71] Eventually, under President
Wilson, the first steps to Filipino independence were mooted, though Wilson
regarded Filipinos as "children [who] must obey as those are in
tutelage."[72] It wouldn't be until after the end of the Second World War
that the Philippines gained their full independence.

In the early 1900's, President Theodore Roosevelt—historian and
propagandist for Manifest Destiny—gave new life and meaning to the Monroe
Doctrine. Any weakness or brutal wrongdoing on the part of any of the
smaller American nations, he observed, might tempt European countries to
intervene. Roosevelt asserted that the Monroe Doctrine required the United
States to prevent such justified intervention by doing the intervening
itself. Under this 'big stick' policy, the United States sent armed forces
into the Dominican Republic in 1905, into Nicaragua in 1912, and into Haiti
in 1915. President Woodrow Wilson continued Roosevelt's policy. But Wilson
promised that the United States would never again seek one additional foot
of territory by conquest.

After World War I, British geopolitician Halford MacKinder wrote "Who rules
East Europe commands the Heartland (Russia, China and the Middle East). Who
rules the Heartland commands the World-Island (Eurasia and Africa). Who
rules the World-Island commands the world."[73] Nicolas Spykman paraphrased
this phrase in a reply to MacKinder's thesis "Who controls the Rimland (the
peripheral areas of Eurasia) rules Eurasia; who rules Eurasia controls the
destinies of the world."[74] This aptly described the Cold War. The Soviet
Union and its puppets controlled the 'Heartland' and the United States and
its puppets controlled the 'Rimland'. Following the fall of the Soviet
Union, The United States held incredible influence over the whole
'Heartland', except, perhaps in the People's Republic of China.

Following World War II, British writers and politicians started using the
term 'salt water fallacy' to describe what they saw as American hypocrisy
towards Imperialism and colonialism at a time when the Americans were
'encouraging' the European powers to dismantle their overseas empires. The
salt water fallacy is generally defined as believing that territories
separated by sea from the metropolis are somehow less legitimately part of
a nation's dominions than contiguous lands.[75] If one includes Scotland
and Wales as part of the British Empire, 99% of the British Empire was
separated by the 'metropolis' by sea. Most of these overseas possessions
have since gained independence, though the contiguous lands of Scotland and
Wales still remain part of Britain. The hypocrisy that the British
complained of was that the United States and the Soviet Union were
continental empires, whereas the sea separated British possessions from the
homeland. Perhaps the new superpowers used salt water to separate the
'core' and 'peripheral' states as defined in world systems theory?

The U.S. Constitution is noticeably short when it comes to territorial
acquisition and governance. There is no express clause concerning the
acquisition of territory. The Admissions Clause provides that:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, but no new
State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State, nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or
Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States
concerned as of the Congress.[76]

Almost all American territories that are not states are candidates for
statehood, but to illustrate how rarely statehood is granted, Puerto Rico
was a candidate for statehood in 1899, just as it is a candidate for
statehood in 2009.

The U.S. declared its independence on July 4, 1776, some 233 years ago.
Even many of those who deny that the U.S. is an Imperialist power today
agree that it used to be Imperialistic and that this 'small aberration' in
U.S. history began when the Spanish-American war began in 1898, and ended
on July 4, 1946 with the granting of Filipino Independence. That 'small
aberration' is a period of 48 years, just over a fifth of U.S. history.
This does not include continental expansion before 1898 or aggressive
Realpolitik since World War II.

The Military Industrial Complex

The United States maintains enormous military forces, with bases and
personnel on all continents except for Antarctica. This was not always the
case. In his valedictory address, President George Washington warned that,
"Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government
inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to
Republican Liberty."[77] Before World War II, with the exception of the
Philippines and some marines and gunboats in Latin America, the Caribbean
and China, very few US military personnel were stationed overseas. With the
onset of the Cold War, America's military-industrial machine expanded
enormously. As President Dwight Eisenhower, himself a soldier, noted:
[the] conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large
arms industry is new in the American experience…In the councils of
government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We
should take nothing for granted.[78]

Arguably, those with enormous military power will use it, and the informal
American empire does not hesitate to do so. Chalmers Johnson has written
extensively on America's military presence abroad, which he links to a form
of Imperialism, arguing that the "vast network of American military bases
on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of
empire."[79] He terms it the 'Empire of bases'. Though these bases are
structurally, legally, and conceptually differently from colonies they are
'micro colonies' in that they are beyond the completely beyond the
jurisdiction of the 'occupied' nation.[80] This is due to the "status of
forces agreements" (SOFA) the United States nearly always negotiated with
the independent 'host' nation, a modern version of the nineteenth century
western imperialist practice of 'extraterritoriality', where a westerner
charged with committing a crime in another country was turned over to a
diplomatic representative of his country to be tried under his country's
laws and not the laws of the nation the crime was committed. The United
States was the first nation to demand 'extralegality', when following the
Anglo-Chinese Opium War of 1839-42 it demanded the Chinese not subject
their 'barbaric laws' to white men.[81]

SOFAs are written so that national courts cannot exercise legal
jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel stationed in their country who
commit crimes against local people. Since service members are also exempt
from normal passport and immigration controls, the U.S. military has often
taken the option of simply flying an accused rapist or murderer out of the
country before he or she can be taken brought to trial. Johnson says this
is endemic in the Pacific bases.[82] Because the United States does not
look like a militarized country, it's hard for Americans to grasp that
Washington is a war capital, that it garrisons much of the planet (the
military are largely based overseas, not in America, hence it does not seem
militaristic) and that the norm is for Americans to be in military conflict
at any time.

The Pentagon's budget is equal to the combined military budgets of the next
15 nations. This is equal to about 40-40% of the world's total defence
spending.[83] This money has ensured that American military power is
unprecedented in all of human history. U.S. military influence is now
indeed global. Taking away the stalemate of Nuclear weapons, which several
other countries possess, no other nation has anything remotely matching
U.S. military capabilities. On land, the United States has 9,000 M1 Abrams
tanks, the rest of the world has nothing that can compete. At sea it
possesses nine 'supercarrier' battle groups, the rest of the world has
none. In the air, it possesses three different kinds of undetectable
stealth aircraft. The rest of the world has none.[84] The United States
military is the world's first truly global military. As can be seen in
Illustration 2 - Map of the world according to American Military Command on
page 54 the whole world has been separated into separate U.S. military
zones.

American militarism does have its supporters. Hardt and Negri argue that it
is not the fault of the United States that it has been called upon by the
'world' to protect and add further legitimacy to these supranational
authorities. They use the example of "the Roman Senators asked Augustus to
assume imperial powers of the administration for the public good, so too
today the international organizations…ask the United States to assume the
central role in a new world order"[85] They say that even if the U.S.
Military was disinclined to do so, it would still have to answer the
constant calls to maintain peace and order. Empire resides in a world that
continually calls it into existence. Jonathan Morris says that the U.S. is
doing the U.N. job of enforcing resolutions and should not be punished for
it.[86]















CHAPTER THREE

Historical Background of Iraq

Firstly, we need to sketch in some of the historical background to the
intervention in Iraq. Like most states, Iraq looks as far back into history
as possible to support their claims of sovereignty and nationhood. However,
like most non-European countries, Iraq is an 'artificial state', and only
came into existence in 1921 under British tutelage. The area of what is now
Iraq included what the ancients called Mesopotamia, the land between Tigris
and Euphrates rivers. Within Mesopotamia some of the greatest cultures in
antiquity emerged.[87] In 1534, the Ottoman Turks seized the region,
splitting it into three very distinct vilayets, each with a separate ethnic
entity and named after a city in each -Mosul, in the north, with a
predominantly Sunni Kurdish population; Baghdad, in the middle, with its
Sunni Arab population; and Basra in the south, with its Shiite Arab
population.[88] To get a visual of what Iraq looked like when it was split
into its vilayets see Illustration 5 – Map of Ottoman 'Iraq' – showing the
three vilayets on page 57. From the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
the Ottoman Empire declined in the face of European power. Britain moved
into the Persian Gulf in the 1800s to protect its trade routes with India
and by World War I, it had become interested in Mesopotamia's oil
resources.

During the Great War, the British captured Mesopotamia, and in 1920 the
League of Nations awarded them a mandate over the area. The British renamed
the country Iraq and picked Faisal, the recently deposed King of Syria and
a son of Sharif Husayn of Mecca, which made him a descendent of the Prophet
Muhammad to rule as their puppet, a role Faisal himself acknowledged.[89]
The setting up of this bastard kingdom forced the amalgamation of the three
very distinctive vilayets into a single country, which has caused problems
to this day. To see what post 1920 Iraq looks like, view Illustration 6 -
Map of Modern Iraq on page 58.

During the 1920s, British advisers retained controlled the Iraqi government
from behind the scenes and retained control of Iraq's army, foreign policy,
finances, and oil resources. Under pressure from Iraq's independence
movement, Great Britain signed a treaty with Iraq in 1930. The treaty
promised British military protection and eventual independence for Iraq. In
return, Iraq promised Britain continued use of British air bases in Iraq.
Petroleum had already been discovered by this stage. The British mandate
over Iraq ended in 1932, and Iraq became an independent nation, but the
British returned during World War II because of the fear of Axis takeover
of the oilfields.

In 1950 and 1952, the Iraqis signed new agreements with foreign oil
companies. The 1952 agreement gave Iraq 50 per cent of the profits from oil
drilled there. Iraq's oil revenues rose dramatically afterwards. The
government used some of this money to build hospitals, irrigation projects,
roads, and schools, but the money coming into Iraq also caused serious
inflation. In 1958, army officers overthrew the government and declared
Iraq a republic under General Abdul Karim Kassem. Kassem reversed Iraq's
pro-West policy and accepted economic and military aid from Communist
countries. Kassem set up land reform programmes to assist the poor. He also
developed an industrial base. Iraqis had never accepted the right of
outsiders to define their country's borders and in 1961, on the eve of
Kuwaiti independence, Iraq laid claim to the small emirate. The claim was
not internationally recognized. Further tensions came to light in 1961 when
Kurdish leaders demanded autonomy within Iraq and a share of the revenues
from oil fields. Kassem rejected the plan. In response, the Kurds revolted.
A cease-fire was declared in 1964.

In 1963, army officers and members of the Baath Party assassinated Kassem
and inaugurated a period of turmoil. Facing an inquiry into American
involvement, a CIA officer joked at a senate committee "The target suffered
a terminal illness before a firing squad in Baghdad."[90]The army officers
Abdul Salam Arif and Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr were installed as president and
prime minister. "To consolidate control, the party…carried out a systematic
campaign of slaughter of communist militants and sympathizers. In its
campaign…the Baath Party relied on lists supplied by the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency."[91] When Arid died in 1966, his brother, Abdul Rahman
Arif, became president. Al-Bakr overthrew Arif in 1968 and reestablished
Baath control. Party leaders wrote a new constitution in 1970 that
institutionalized the party's control of the government. Al-Bakr supported
further socialist economic reform and stronger ties with the Soviet Union.
During al-Bakr's presidency, following the loss to Israel in the 1967 Six
Day War, Saddam Hussein gained influence within the government, by holding
important party and government posts[92]. In 1973, the Iraqi government
completed a take-over of foreign oil companies in the country. After oil
prices increased dramatically later that year, Iraq made huge profits.
Saddam Hussein became President of Iraq in 1979 and immediately set about
eliminating threats to his power.



First and Second Gulf Wars

In September 1980, aided by the United States, Iraq invaded Iran, provoking
the First Gulf War. The war resulted in part from boundary disputes, from
Iran's support for the rebellious Kurds, and from the efforts of Shiite
leaders in Iran to incite rebellion in Iraq's Shiite population. Iranian
air attacks on major cities wounded and killed many civilians. The war also
severely damaged Iraq's economy. Bombs damaged oil facilities in southern
Iraq, and trade through the Persian Gulf was disrupted "War damage…
exceeded $67 billion."[93] Iraq and Iran finally agreed on a cease-fire in
August 1988. The eight year war was a stalemate, with an estimated 500,000
deaths on either side.[94]

Iraq had also run up debts with Kuwait and other countries, but it still
emerged from the conflict as the second-strongest military power in the
Middle East. Only Israel was stronger. Iraq accused Kuwait of lowering
world oil prices by producing more oil than was allowed by OPEC, and of
taking Iraqi oil from the Rumalla oil field, a petroleum deposit lying
beneath both Kuwait and Iraq. In addition, Iraq had always claimed that
Kuwait should be part of Iraq; when Iraq was created by the British in the
early 1920's, Kuwait was not included in the new state against Iraqi
wishes. By seizing Kuwait, Hussein hoped to capture that country's oil
wealth for Iraq, raise Iraq's status in OPEC, and wipe out a large part of
Iraq's debts. Hussein also sought better access to the Persian Gulf. Iraq's
coastline was short, but that of Kuwait was long, and included an excellent
harbour.

It had run up debts with Kuwait and other countries as a result of
fighting the war. However, Iraq emerged from the conflict as the second-
strongest military power in the Middle East. Only Israel was stronger.
Hussein argued that Iraq had become the chief regional power should thus be
recognized as such by his neighbours. As leader of the Arab world, Iraq
should receive help from other Arab countries in rebuilding its economy.
OPEC should help Iraq by raising world oil prices and disagreeing with how
much of its foreign debt should be cancelled and the amount of economic aid
it should receive from Kuwait and other Arab countries in return for his
protecting them from foreign aggression.

Iraq accused Kuwait of lowering world oil prices by producing more oil than
was allowed by OPEC, and of taking Iraqi oil from the Rumalla oil field, a
petroleum deposit lying beneath both Kuwait and Iraq. In addition, Iraq had
often claimed that Kuwait should be part of Iraq. As mentioned previously,
when Iraq was created by the British in the early 1920's, Kuwait was not
included in the new state. Kuwait gained its independence in 1961, Iraq did
not recognize it until 1963. By seizing Kuwait, Hussein hoped to capture
that country's oil wealth for Iraq, raise Iraq's status in OPEC, and wipe
out a large part of Iraq's debts. Hussein also sought better access to the
Persian Gulf. Iraq's coastline was short, but that of Kuwait was long, and
included an excellent harbour.

On August 2, 1990, the Iraqi military crossed the Kuwait border and within
24 hours was in complete control of the country. Saddam Hussein dismissed
international condemnation of Iraq's action, arguing they should also
condemn Israel's continued occupation of Palestinian lands. Hussein tried
to image himself as a hero for standing up to Israel and the United States.

The U.N. Security Council passed several resolutions condemning the
invasion as soon as it had happened and imposed sanctions on Iraq. At the
same time, the United States sent troops to Saudi Arabia to protect the
Kingdom. It became head of an international coalition of almost forty
states. The Security Council authorized coalition members to expel Iraqi
troops from Kuwait if Iraq failed to withdraw by January 15, 1991, which it
failed to do.

Coalition forces in the Persian Gulf totaled about 670,000 troops, 3,500
tanks, 1800 combat aircraft and 200 ships. The vast majority came from the
United States. Iraq had about 500,000 troops in Kuwait and southern Iraq as
well as about 4,500 tanks and 550 combat aircraft.[95]

On February 24 coalition forces launched a major ground attack into Iraq
and Kuwait, codenamed by the U.S. military 'Operation Desert Storm' They
encountered little resistance from the Iraqi army and Iraq withdrew from
Kuwait two days later, though Hussein ordered the destruction of Kuwait's
oil wells. More than half of the state's 1,300 wells were set on fire,
pouring thick smoke and gases into the atmosphere. 1.75 billion litres of
oil were poured into the Persian Gulf. The resulting oil slick threatened
to contaminate Saudi Arabia's desalination facilities. The environmental
damage was incalculable.

Iraq accepted a formal cease-fire on April 6. Under the cease-fire
agreement, Iraq promised to pay Kuwait war damages and agreed to the
destruction of its biological and chemical weapons, its facilities for
making such weapons, and any facilities it might have for making nuclear
weapons. U.N. inspectors were later assigned to supervise the destruction.
Deaths among coalition troops totaled about 370. Coalition bombing
shattered Iraq's already shaky economy. Water and electricity supplies were
disrupted or destroyed, which led to civilian deaths in the postwar period.


Encouraged by the Americans, rebellions against Saddam Hussein by Kurds in
northern Iraq and by Shiite Arabs in the south rose up. These revolts were
suppressed ruthlessly. Many Shiites fled into Iran, and Kurds took refuge
in the mountains bordering northern Iraq and Turkey. U.S. and other
coalition troops established refugee camps and non U.N. sanctioned safety
and air exclusion zones in north and south Iraq to protect the Kurds and
Shiite Arabs.[96]

During the rest of the 1990s, The U.S. would occasionally bomb Iraq in
reference to Iraq's reluctance to allow U.N. weapons inspectors inspect its
facilities. This would later play a major role in President George W.
Bush's argument that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and
that it would use them if not stopped[97].

September 11 and the War on Terror

On September 11, 2001, the single most important and recognizable act of
sub-state terrorism ever occurred. It was also the most devastating attack
ever on U.S. soil. If one discounts the multitude of conspiracy theories
and focuses on the official version eighteen men hijacked four planes-using
little more than airline cutlery-and crashed them into four separate sites
in the U.S. At 8.46am, American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North
Tower of the World Trade Centre (W.T.C.) in New York. At 9.03am, United
Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the W.T.C. At 9.38am,
American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in Washington.
Lastly, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania.
The passengers of Flight 93 had decided to fight their hijackers. It has
been speculated that the last plane was headed for the White House. In all,
over 3,000 people from over 90 countries lost their lives that day. Blame
for the attacks was placed on al Qaeda, a terrorist group based in
Afghanistan and headed by Osama bin Laden. President George W. Bush
declared a 'War on Terror', and the United States, supported by a vast
majority of the world's governments demanded that the ruling Taliban regime
in Afghanistan surrender bin Laden to them[98].

Bin Laden was a war hero to many in Afghanistan for his American backed
exploits against the Soviets in the 1980s. The Taliban asked for proof that
Osama bin Laden was involved. None was shown. Afghanistan was invaded on
October 7, 2001, by a coalition consisting of members from almost 50
nations. It was justified by United Nations Charter Chapter VII, article
51, a nation's right to self defence[99] which President George W. Bush
expanded to pre-emptive self defence, in his 'Bush Doctrine'. It was named
by the American military 'Operation Enduring Freedom' (OEF). It later came
to light that the Bush II administration had decided on September 10, 2001
to oust the Taliban regime by force[100] meaning that 9/11 was used as an
excuse for something already predetermined. Despite many quick victories,
destroying many Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds, America and its allies
soon became bogged in Afghanistan, unable to capture bin Laden and fighting
a guerilla war not only with the remaining Taliban and al Qaeda, but with
local warlords as well. At the time of writing, in October 2009, America is
still in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden's whereabouts are still unknown.

To most Americans, comfortable in their sense of absolute superiority, the
attacks were a complete surprise. During the weeks and months that
followed, every media channel within the United States devoted itself to
covering the attack twenty-four hours a day as anticipation that another
attack would occur verged on the hysteric. Despite the huge surge in
displays of patriotism that followed, many people struggled to answer the
question 'Why do they hate us?' As already discussed, some turned to Samuel
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations for answers, while others found comfort
in the rhetoric that 'they hate our freedom. Chalmers Johnson says that
"the most common answer was jealousy"[101] Osama bin Laden himself stated
in his 'Letter to America'
You are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You
are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its
Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and
desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure
nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your
Creator.[102]

Terrorism is the calculated use of violence -or threat of violence, via
intimidation or coercion-by a group of individuals against civilians in
order to attain their goals, usually political, national or religious to
distinguish them from criminals, who also engage in similar tactics. The
groups most usually identified as 'terrorists' can actually be classified
as 'sub-state terrorists', because actions by nation states can also be
terrorist in nature. In fact, the only nation to be convicted of terrorism
is the United States itself, for mining Nicaragua's harbors.[103] Modern
sub-state terrorists stage their attacks in spectacular fashion to
encourage media attention, therefore spreading their message to a wider
audience, as well as psychologically affecting a wider audience. Yet, since
the 9/11 attacks, 'terrorism' has been publicized by members of the
American government as some sort of a political ideology, one that is
overwhelmingly linked to Islam and wishes to destroy the west. This
promotes Said's idea of the 'other', as described in his already mentioned
Clash of Ignorance and the belief that Muslim extremism and terrorism is
one mass monolith headed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which are one and the
same. And Saddam Hussein was supposedly one of them and sells weapons to
them[104] though in mid 2009 former Vice President Dick Cheney admitted "On
the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11, there was never
any evidence to prove that"[105]

Operation Iraqi Freedom: The Third Gulf War

Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or
enemies, but as liberators.—General F.Stanley Maude, speech to the
people of Mesopotamia, March 19, 1917

We've made clear we would oppose any outside interference in Iraq's
road to democracy.—White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer, Press
Conference April 2003

Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of WMDs and his willingness to use
them, or supply them to others willing to use them against the United
States was used as a pretext to launch the Invasion of Iraq, because it
fell under the 'Bush Doctrine' of pre-emptive self defence, This is despite
the United States having the most powerful military in the world,
possessing WMDs other powers can only fantasize about. The 'Bush Doctrine'
extends the concept of self-defence well beyond traditionally understood
boundaries of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. The commonly accepted view of
self defence is that it is permitted only if an attack by an adversary is
imminent. President Bush II interpreted that the concept of an 'imminent'
threat should be expanded to correspond with modern realities and, in
addition, that 'emerging threats' could also be subjected to pre-emptive
self defence. This extends the scope of self defence considerably,
particularly given that this 'emerging threat' is presumably to be assessed
by the state seeking to use force. This would eliminate any of Morgenthau's
'imperial' powers wishing to change the status quo. Iraq was not alone;
President Bush II named Iran and North Korea as Iraq's fellow members in an
'Axis of Evil'.[106] No less than ten senior members within the
Administration had been members of a 1990s think tank 'Project for the New
American Century' which advocated, amongst other things, the rapid
expansion of American power, by war, if necessary, and the removal of
Saddam Hussein from power.

The U.S. military named the invasion 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' (OIE). As
opposed to the widespread international support America enjoyed for the
First Gulf War and for the OEF, the United States was only supported by a
small group of nations termed the 'Coalition of the Willing', and even then
the support in those nations was controversial. Even before OIE began, mass
protests were staged around the world against the invasion.[107]

OIE. began on the 20th March 2003 and on the 1st of May 2003, on board the
USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush II stated "Major combat operations in
Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies
have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and
reconstructing that country."[108] It became known as the 'Mission
Accomplished' speech, due to the prominence of a banner displaying those
words during President Bush's speech. 139 Americans soldiers died during
this time frame. Not surprisingly, despite being linked by President Bush
II as its allies, Iran and North Korea did not send military aid to Iraq.

Osama bin Laden released a tape with his views on the invasion
I am rejoicing in the fact that America has become embroiled in the
quagmires of the Tigris and Euphrates," he wrote in October 2003. "Bush
thought that Iraq and its oil would be easy prey, and now here he is,
stuck in dire straights, by the grace of God Almighty. Here is America
today, screaming at the top of its voice as it falls apart in front of
the whole world[109]

Bin Laden saw Iraq as "a rare and essentially valuable chance in every
sense of the word to mobilize the ummah's potential and unchain it…take off
to the battlefield in Iraq to cut off the head of world infidelity."[110]
He made no secret of his disdain for the secularist Baathist Saddam
Hussein, but this, of course could not justify the American occupation, he
said "It is true that Saddam is a thief and an apostate, but the solution
is not to be found in moving the government of Iraq from a local thief to a
foreign one."[111] When the United States announced increases in the reward
money available for his capture or death, Osama retaliated by announcing
his own reward schedule, in units of gold, for the murders of prominent
Americans.

Despite 'Mission Accomplished', there was still much to be done in Iraq.
President Bush, in his speech to the United Nations attempted to explain
why America was still in Iraq
The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government for the
people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic process. This process
must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried, nor
delayed by the wishes of other parties. And the United Nations can
contribute greatly to the cause of Iraqi self-government[112]

As we can see, no mention is made of WMDs, or Saddam Hussein's links with
al Qaeda, and the focus has now shifted to helping the Iraqi people attain
democracy and embrace 'universal' principals. At the time of writing, in
October 2009, there have been no WMDs found in Iraq and the WMD reason is
no longer taken seriously. Vice President Dick Cheney said that the
invasion was "worth doing"[113] and "We have succeeded in creating, in the
heart of the Middle East, a democratically governed Iraq. And that's a big
deal. And that is, in fact, what we set out to do."[114]

The American ambassador to Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III has been a career
diplomat, but had since worked in the private sector.[115] But an
ambassador is only a diplomatic representative of a foreign nation. Bremer
was head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and his role was
closer to that of a Roman Proconsul or British Viceroy, than an ambassador.
Bremer himself acknowledged "I would be the only paramount authority figure-
other than dictator Saddam Hussein-that most Iraqis had ever known"[116] As
'ambassador', his immediate superior should have been Secretary of State
Colin Powell, but Bremer actually answered to Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld[117], indicating the American military was involved in every
aspect of post invasion Iraq. A new American 'mega embassy' is being built
in Baghdad by Halliburton and when complete will be the size of Vatican
City, the world's smallest country and cost $1 billion a year to run.[118]

It seems clear that most Iraqis, perhaps with the exception of the Kurds
want the United States to leave. From mainstream media accounts, though it
appears that only an isolated group of Baathists, aided by its al Qaeda
allies (which we know to be completely false) and directed by Saddam
Hussein are resisting the Americans[119], and the rest welcome the U.S. as
benevolent liberators, who freed them from Saddam's blood thirsty reign.
Then, when Saddam was captured on 13th December 2003 and the insurgency
continued, (non American) foreign intervention was blamed, and a
provisional Iraqi Government would solve things, which it didn't. So
elections in January 2005 were held, to elect a temporary Government to
draft a Constitution, and still the resistance continued. Certainly there
are non American foreigners fighting Americans in Iraq, but they are in the
minority.[120][121] Saddam Hussein was put on trial by the CPA for crimes
against humanity and sentenced to death on 5th November 2006[122] and was
hung on 30th December 2006. Bombings swept the country in retaliation.

The United States agreed to pull its troops out of Iraqi urban centres by
30th June 2009 and hand over control to the local authorities. A national
holiday was declared.[123] However, the pull out meant that there were
still tens of thousands of troops stationed in bases outside the cities.
Following the pull out there were some suicide bombings, which, tragically
for Iraq was nothing out of the norm. President Barack Obama announced a
'full' withdrawal by August 31st 2010, though this 'full' withdrawal will
leave 50,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq.[124]

As mentioned, by the time Bush declared victory in his Mission Accomplished
speech, 139 Americans soldiers had died. The numbers were to continue to
rise, with 4,352 American soldiers having died at the time of writing,[125]
yet these figures are insignificant in comparison with Iraqi casualties. An
article published in The Lancet, the British Medical Association journal,
estimates that between the invasion on 20th March 2003 and October 2006,
654 965 Iraqis died, the vast majority of them violently. Pre invasion,
there were 5.5 deaths per thousand per year in Iraq, but since then the
ratio has escalated to 13.3 per thousand[126] Many more people have died
since the 'liberation' of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, than during any year
during his rule. Iraq is still not at peace and by any criterion, Bush's
invasion has been a disaster. There has been a fearful loss of life,
massive disruption of a society, and it cannot be said that the world is a
safer place. None of the pretexts for the invasion can stand serious
scrutiny, so the question must be asked, why did President Bush launch
Operation Iraqi Freedom?

The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is a hybrid of some of Mead's
strands. Elements of Wilsonianism, Hamiltonianism and Jacksonianism are all
prevalent. Then President George W. Bush used the spread of democracy and
'universal' values as a reason for the invasion. After the invasion,
American based multinational companies took over the running of Iraq's
economy. And lastly, Saddam Hussein was publicly linked to the 9/11
attacks, making him a 'legitimate' target in the War on Terror.

CHAPTER FOUR

Yet what lies behind the rhetoric, much as Bush himself might have believed
it? Why, out of the dozens of countries it could choose to 'introduce
democracy' to would the United States invade Iraq? Arguably, the answer is
that Iraq has the world's second largest known oil deposits at around 112
billion barrels[127] (behind Saudi Arabia) and is strategically located in
the region with over half of the world's proven oil supply. Such an area
would be an ideal region for the United States to expand its markets. Alan
Greenspan, the "world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the
Iraq war was 'largely' about oil."[128]

Just how crucial is oil to the world's economy? In a word: very. It is the
blood of industrialization. Oil powers jet planes and provides the base
material to make plastic toys, it can be separated into individual
compounds that reinforce countless industries, from paint to
pharmaceuticals. "In 2005, the world used roughly eighty-four billion
barrels of oil a day. The price of that oil, at an average of $50 a barrel
was $1.5 trillion-close to 3.5% of all the income the global economy
generated in 2005."[129] In 2004, the cost was $33 a barrel; in October
2009 it costs around $70 a barrel.[130] For an example to put oil in
perspective, you can buy the world's annual supply of wheat at 'just' $100
billion. For the same price you would only get about twenty days worth of
oil. And oil is more important than its 3.5% share of the world economy,
because when the price of oil rises, the price of everything else rises,
leading to inflation. Because of all these factors, Henry Kissinger says
that oil is exempt from the 'supply and demand' of liberal market economics
because it is a national security challenge.[131]

Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were former oil company
executives before turning (or returning) to politics. They would be well
aware of the importance of oil in economics and of Iraq's oil potential. As
well as securing its own oil supplies, geopolitically, the United States
would like to control the access to oil by potential rivals to world power
as much as possible. "Western oil interests closely influence military and
diplomatic policies, and it is no accident that whole American companies
are competing for access to oil in Central Asia, the U.S. is building up
military bases across the region."[132] Shifting some of its bases from
Saudi Arabia to Iraq, will improve Saudi-American relations.

China's consumption rose 40% between 2001 and 2005, and its economy grew by
the same amount.[133] Unlike the United States, China does not have its own
raw materials, including oil. This would help explain why the United States
wishes to keep as much oil of out China's reach as possible. A united
Europe is another threat to American dominance and it also lacks raw
materials. Securing the world's second largest reserve of oil would also
reduce American dependence on OPEC, which would be appealing to many
Americans who cannot imagine their nation being subservient for anything.
The U.S. could also to a great degree manipulate world prices.

American behavior once it captured Iraq strongly lends weight to the oil
theory. When U.S. troops entered Baghdad they moved quickly to protect the
Ministry of Oil, "but were indifferent to looters who spent two days
ransacking the National Museum of its priceless antiquities"[134] that was
part of an orgy of pillaging and violence that took place following the
breakdown of Saddam's rule. Following the establishment of the occupation
authority Iraqi oil has been sold "below world prices to British and
American oil firms by fiat." The very first contracts to drill for oil
after the invasion were handed to American companies on no bid contracts by
Iraq's Oil Ministry.[135]

To accomplish all of these geostrategic aims, tremendous capitalist
investment is needed. More than 150 U.S. based companies were awarded
contracts to rebuild Iraq. American companies were preferred over any
international or local companies. Indeed, the contracts were usually
awarded without any competitive bidding process and conducted in total
secrecy. These contracts combined were worth over $150 billion. Vice
President Dick Cheney's former company Halliburton, which provides
construction, technical support and services to oil related industries,
received the largest contract, worth more than $12 billion.[136]
Halliburton's former sub company KBR "is the Pentagon's largest private
contractor in Iraq, where it has been paid more than $22 billion to provide
logistics, meals, laundry and other services to U.S. troops."[137] These
duties used to be done by soldiers, but governments the world over have
begun to outsource 'non essential duties'. Halliburton has since been sued
by members of the U.S. military citing incompetence and 'cutting corners',
including their waste 'management' (burning huge amounts of garbage using
rocket fuel)[138] and faulty wiring "linked to the electrocution of at
least four soldiers and one contract"[139] (for which it was paid
performance bonuses). In addition Halliburton was found to be charging the
Defense Department "for 36 percent more meals than it actually
delivered…[and] also overcharged the government $61 million for fuel."[140]
Halliburton's ultimate aim is to become an oil producer and supplier,
instead of just a provider of equipment to others.

Ambassador Bremer didn't blame the bombings of Iraq by American planes for
a decade, the crippling sanctions, nor the destruction caused by the
invasion for Iraq's terrible economy. The reason was "Saddam's economic
mismanagement, lack of investment, and cockeyes socialist economic
theory"[141] The solution to him was obvious: Neo-liberal capitalist
expansion and market economics. The United States plans to create a Middle
East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) with Iraq as the first member and the rest of
the region to follow by 2013.[142] The U.S. consultancy firm BreaingPoint
Inc. was commissioned to come up with this idea, and then paid $250 million
to make it a reality. With the exception of oil, Iraq's whole economy was
to be denationalized, and purchased by foreign (American) interests and
taxes were lowered "to levels previously only dreamed about by U.S.
corporation"[143] in a series of regulations designed to outlive the
occupation. Iraq was to be the "the perfect example of the…capitalist
dream."[144] A more accurate description would be to call it a foreign
capitalist dream. U.N. Security Council resolution 1483 is meant to avert
this because this constitutes as 'looting' the economy of defeated country.
These policies were further compounded by moves to lift restrictions on the
importation of goods, i.e. the forcible opening of Iraq's markets. Local
manufacturers were placed at a severe disadvantage because they could not
compete with foreign (American) goods due to lack of infrastructure and
access to raw materials. This, along with Bremer firing the entire Iraqi
military, caused "nearly seven in ten male workers to be unemployed"[145]
who in turn join the armed resistance groups.

MEFTA can be traced back to Hobson's 'Economic taproot of Imperialism'
theory from more than a century earlier. The U.S. Government has no
interest in making Iraq its fifty-first state. What it is interested in is
opening up markets to American corporate interests and blocking that
regulating access to that market to other nations. This is aided by
installing a government that is subordinate to American economic interests.



THE FUTURE

What sort of country is Iraq going to be? Could it be some form of
federation under an American appointed Iraqi leader? A return to the
Hashemite Monarchy is not out of the question. Could it in future be ruled
by a Shia fundamentalist government? Or could it be a Sunni Arab secular
regime? Or a 'guided democracy' (dictatorship) under a military junta or a
single strongman? Or a United Nations 'mandate' like in Bosnia Hercegovina?
One county, two countries or three? All of these scenarios are possible.
Will America continue to keep troops stationed in Iraq, as it does in
dozens of other nations around the world?

Meanwhile, in the United States, the failures in Iraq, like the earlier
failures in Vietnam, will have a chastening effect. Almost surely, America
will be more loath to get involved in another venture of this kind and will
toy with 'isolationism', though, much like post Vietnam, 'isolationism'
means getting proxies and third parties to do America's bidding. Joel
Fitzgibbon, Australia's Minister for Defence, concedes that the challenges
to Australia's power is the end of the unipolar moment "the almost two
decade-long period in which the pre-eminence of our principal ally, the
United States, was without question"[146] though the Defence White Paper
judges that America will still be the most powerful nation in the world in
every aspect.[147] In this unipolar world, the United States views that, in
its strategic interests, it must keep as many coalition partners as it is
able to.

It seems inconceivable that the United States will not go to war again. Yet
going to war is not an act to be undertaken lightly. It is an act that,
stripped of the nationalist flag waving and the reckless machismo bravado,
ignoring the relentless media and government propaganda, is about men and
women brutally killing and maiming other men and women, while trying to
stay alive. The physical and mental costs of war live on long after the
last shot has been fired.






CONCLUSION

As the brief look into the history of American Foreign policy shows, the
U.S. was undoubtedly an imperial power, driven by the same ambitions and
philosophies as those of the traditional (i.e. European) powers. In fact it
seems the only possible pre-requisite that the United States does not meet
is that it has no Emperor or alterative hereditary head of state, making it
a 'Republican Colonial Empire', instead of a monarchical one. The question
of whether the United States is still a colonial empire is less black and
white. The U.S. has stopped acquiring foreign territories for itself, for
now, though some argue that the land the large number of U.S. military
bases across the world can be considered U.S. soil and that America's
version of the colony is the military base. Also the United States still
possesses sovereignty over territories such as Guam and Puerto Rico. Its
history of interventionism which it still continues to pursue today is
another worrying aspect that points towards Imperialism. In a case of
history repeating itself, the actions taken in Iraq are almost the same as
the actions taken in the Philippines in the late 19th Century, which is the
most commonly cited reference towards U.S. Imperialism.

Some say U.S. Imperialism began with the invasion, annexation and purchase
of Native American and European territories on the North American
Continent, the Imperial rhetoric of the Founding Fathers and claim that it
has not ended, pointing to territories still under US control and regarding
foreign policy since Filipino Independence as Imperialistic.

Major powers continue to cynically exploit international law to support
propaganda claims against their rivals. They call for strict enforcement of
international sanctions when it suits their purpose, but they ignore
rulings by international courts when it is opportune to do so. In recent
years U.S administrations (and the media, "opinion leaders" and so on) have
consistently invoked international law to justify actions against Libya,
Iran, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, and other enemies du jour. U.S. leaders
usually present themselves as the only real defenders of international
order in a world that would otherwise be cast into anarchy. Yet they
maintain an icy silence when the law is less to their liking, as when the
International Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled that the U.S mining
of Nicaraguan harbours constituted serious international crimes. There is
an old saying that is sometimes used to describe U.S power: 'When America
sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold', it is better than catching
S.A.R.S.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdul-Zahra, Qassim, Iraq: No troops in cities after deadline, The
Associated Press, 27th April 2009, obtained
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/04/ap_iraq_deadline_042709/,
accessed 29th April 2009

Allen, Mike, 2009, Cheney: U.S. 'succeeded' in Iraq,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20014.html accessed 26th March
2009

Altman, Daniel, 2007, Connected: 24 Hours in the Global Economy, Pan
MacMillan, London

Anghie, Anthony, 2004, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of
International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Arnove, Anthony, 2007, Iraq, The Logic of Withdrawal, The New Press, New
York

Baldor, Lolita C., Ranks of al-Qaeda in Iraq dwindle, The Associated Press,
25th June 2009, obtained on
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-
alqaeda_25int.ART.State.Edition1.4ba373f.html, accessed 1 July 2009

Baldwin, Claire, Ultra-rich want their children to know the ropes, Reuters,
8th October 2009, obtained
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5975BY20091008, accessed 11th
October 2009

Beaumont, Peter & Walters, Joanna, Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as
deaths put at 1.2m, The Guardian, 16th September 2007, obtained
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline, accessed 9th
June 2009

bin Laden, Osama, 2002, Letter to America, The Guardian Newspaper,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver, viewed 20th
September 2009

Borger, Julian, Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day before
September 11', The Guardian Newspaper, 24 March 2004,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2, viewed 1st
October 2009

Braude, Joseph, 2004, The New Iraq, Rebuilding the Country for Its People,
the Middle East and the World, Basic Books, New York

Bremer III, L. Paul, 2006, My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future
of Hope, Simon and Schuster, New York

Brown, Dee, 1970, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the
American West, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York

Burnham, Gilbert, Lafta, Riyadh et al., 2006, Morality after the 2003
invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey, published in The
Lancet, volume 368, Number 9545, October 21-27, 2006

Bush, George W., Presidential Address to the Nation, 7th October 2001,
transcript obtained http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/10/print/20011007-8.html, viewed
1st October 2009

Bush, George W., 2002 State of the Union, 29th January 2002, transcript
obtained http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/,
accessed 1st October 2009

Bush, George W., 'Mission Accomplished', 1st May 2003, transcript obtained
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml, accessed
1st October 2009

Cleveland, William L,.2004, A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview,
Oxford

Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, obtained
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml, viewed 23rd
September 2009

Cheney, Dick, Interview 'On the Record' with Greta Van Susteren, Fox News
program, 2nd June Edition

Chomsky, Noam 2003, Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global
Dominance, Allen & Unwin, NSW

'Chris', Iraq Confirms capture of top al-qaida leader, Chinaview, 28th
April 2009, obtained http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-
04/28/content_11275650.htm, accessed 29th April 2009

Coll, Steven, 2008, The Bin Ladens, The Story of a Family and its Fortune,
Penguin Group, New York

Comsec, Australian Stock Market report, 7th October, 2009, obtained on
http://www.comsec.com.au/Public/NewsAndResearch/AusStockMarketreports.aspx,
accessed 8th October 2009

Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV, Section 3, Clause
I

Doyle, Michael W., 1986, Empires, Cornell University Press, Ithaca

Eisenhower, Dwight D., Farewell Address, January 17, 1961, obtained
http://www.usa-presidents.info/speeches/eisenhower-farewell.html, accessed
11th October 2009

Feldman, Bob, 2005, A People's History o Iraq: 1963 to 2005, Towards
Freedom, obtained http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/596/60/,
accessed 12 June 2009

Ferguson, Niall, 2003, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, Penguin
Books, Victoria

Ferguson, Niall, 2004, Colossus, The Rise and Fall of the American Empire,
Penguin, London

Ferraro, Thomas, U.S. Army paid bonuses to KBR, despite deaths, Reuters,
20th May 2009, obtained
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN20528711, accessed 25th
May 2009

Fitzgibbon et al., 2009 Defence White Paper 2009: Defending Australia in
the Asia Pacific Century 2030, Australian Government, Department of Defence

Gamel, Kim, Iraq to mark US pullback from cities with holiday, The
Associated Press, 24th June 2009, obtained
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiq
GwD990KACG1, accessed 25th June 2009

Hardt, Michael & Negri, Antonio, 2000, Empire, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge

Hobson, J.A, 1902, Imperialism: A Study, Allen & Unwin, London

Hunt, M.H, 1987, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy, Yale University Press,
New Haven and London

Huntington, Samuel P., 1993, The Clash of Civilizations, published in
Foreign Affairs, Summer Issue

Huntington, Samuel P., 1996, The Clash of Civilizations, Simon & Schuster:
New York


Ignatieff, Michael, The American Empire; The Burden, 5th January 2003, The
New York Times, obtained http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/the-
american-empire-the-burden.html accessed 23rd July 2009





International Information Programs, obtained on the U.S. Department of
State website,
http://usinfo.state.gov/pub/ejournalusa/foreignpolagenda.html viewed 10th
May 2009


Johnson, Chalmers, n.d, America's Empire of Bases, obtained
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.html viewed 10th May 2009

Johnson, Chalmers, 2004, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and
the End of the Republic, Verso, London

Judd, Dennis, 1996 Empire, The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the
Present, HarperCollins Publishers, London

Juhasz, Antonia, 2007, Oil and the Bush Agenda, The Spokesman, Surging for
Oil issue (no.94)

Juliano, Nick, Kucinich: 'We went to war for the oil companies' June 16,
2008, obtained on
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_We_went_to_war_for_0626.html
accessed 4th May 2009

KBR, Fluor, Dyncorp win US Army contract, shrs up, Reuters, 28th June 2007,
obtained http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2833255320070629,
accessed 5th May 2009

Kissinger, Henry, 2002, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Towards a
Diplomacy for the 21st Century, Touchstone, New York

Kennedy, Paul, Power and Terror, Financial Times, 3rd September 2002

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, 1973, Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism
(originally The Last Stage of Capitalism), The People's Publishing House,
Peking

Levine, Adam, Contractor sued for 'burn pits' in Iraq and Afghanistan, CNN,
April 28th, 2009, http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/contractor-sued-
for-burn-pits-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/, accessed 11 May 2009

Map of Iraq, 1998, Obtained from the CIA World Fact Book
http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact98/121.htm accessed 2 September
2009

Map of Ottoman Iraq, showing the three vilayets, Rebirth of the Mosul
Vilayet? (Part II), obtained
http://www.ekopolitik.org/ekopolitik/UserFiles/Image/ekopolitikmv.jpg
Accessed 5th October 2009

Map of Unified Command Plan, 2008, obtained from U.S. Department of Defense
website
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2009/0109_unifiedcommand/images/uni
fied-command_world-map.jpg Accessed 1st October 2009

McDuffee, Allen, 2008, Empire's Architecture, obtained
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3458/empires_architecture/, accessed
4th May 2009

Mead, Walter Russell, 2001, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and
How It Changed the World, Random House, New York

Miller, Stuart Creighton, 1982, "Benevolent Assimilation", The American
Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, The Murray Printing Co., Westford

Millions join global anti-war protests, BBC News 17th February 2003,
obtained http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2765215.stm, accessed 20th April
2009

Mommsen, Wolfgang J, 1977, Theories of Imperialism, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
Gottingen

Morgenthau, Hans, 1948, Politics Among Nations, The Struggle for Power and
Peace, Alfred a Knopf, New York

Morris, Jonathan David, 2003, America's UN-witting surrender, obtained
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/morris/030916, accessed 11 April 2009

Morris, Roger, The Gates Inheritance, Part 2, Great games and famous
victories, Asia Times 26th June 2007, obtained
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF26Ak08.html accessed 3rd March 2009

Nicaragua v United States of America, 1986, Judgment of the Court, obtained

http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/70/9973.pdf?PHPSESSID=05fad554ae9feec6f32e8fcea282db53
viewed 20th August 2009

Operation Iraqi Freedom U.S. Casualty Status, Fatalities as of 9th October
2009 obtained http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf, accessed 12th
October 2009

Polk, William R., 2006, Understanding Iraq, I.B Tauris, London

Porter, Bernard, 2006, Empire and Superempire, Britain, America and the
World, Yale University Press, Bury St Edmunds

Said, Edward W., 2001, The Clash of Ignorance, The Nation, obtained
http://www.thenation.com/docPrint.mhtml?i=20011022&s=said viewed 2nd March
2009

Sampson, Anthony, West's Greed for Oil Fuels Saddam Fever, Observer, 11th
August 2002

Semple, Kirk, Saddam Hussein is Sentenced to Death, New York Times, 5th
November 2006, obtained
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-
saddam.html?_r=1&em&ex=1162875600&en=a28b7d91d06de1ba&ei=5087%0A, accessed
8th May 2009

Simpson, Christopher, 1993, The Splendid Blonde Beast: Money, Law and
Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Grove Press, New York

Spanier, John W., 1968, American Foreign Policy Since World War II,
Frederick A. Praeger, New York

Stiglitz, Joseph & Bilmes, Linda, 2008, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The
True Cost of the Iraqi Conflict, Allen Lane, London

Ten Thousand Miles from Tip to Tip, political cartoon from 1898, obtained
from U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913 accessed 15 August 2009

Toensing, Gale Courey, 2009, U.S. Supremes rule against Native Hawaiians'
land claims, obtained
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/hawaiialaska/42395937.html,
accessed 9 April 2009

United States House of Representatives, House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Jurisdiction, obtained
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/about.asp?nav=jurisdiction
viewed 10th May 2009

U.S. Territorial Acquisitions, National Atlas of the United States, United
States Department of the Interior, obtained on
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/territory/pagetacq3.pdf
accessed 5th October 2009

Vidal, Gore, 2004, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of
Amnesia, Nation Books, New York

Wallerstein, Immanuel, 1974, The Modern World System I, Capitalist
Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth
Century, Academic Press, London

Washington, George, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796, obtained
http://www.bartleby.com/43/24.html, accessed 11th October 2009

Wasserman, Gary, 2006, The Basics of American Politics, 12th Edition,
Pearson Longman, New York

Weeks, W. E, 1996, Building the Continental Empire: American Expansion from
the Revolution to the Civil War, Chicago University Press, Chicago

World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1999, San Diego, California, USA








ILLUSTRATION 1 - Clash of Civilizations? world map


ILLUSTRATION 2 - Map of the world according to American Military Command


ILLUSTRATION 3 - Map of U.S. Territorial Acquisitions



ILLUSTRATION 4 – 'Ten Thousand Miles from Tip to Tip' Political Cartoon
showing America's Empire










ILLUSTRATION 5 - Map of Ottoman 'Iraq', showing the three vilayets



ILLUSTRATION 6 – Map of Modern Iraq


-----------------------
[1] United States in Brief section in World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia,
1999, San Diego, California, USA
[2] Chalmers Johnson, 2004, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and
the End of the Republic, Verso, London p.284
[3]International Information Programs, obtained on the U.S. Department of
State website
http://usinfo.state.gov/pub/ejournalusa/foreignpolagenda.html, viewed 10th
May 2009
[4] United States House of Representatives, House Committee on Foreign
Affairs
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/about.asp?nav=jurisdiction,
viewed 10th May 200
[5] Walter Russell Mead, 2001, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy
and How It Changed the World, Random House, New York pp.177-180
[6] Ibid pp.220-221
[7] Ibid pp. 99-103
[8] Ibid pp. 135,138, 147-48, 172
[9] Ibid p.175
[10]J.A Hobson, 1902, Imperialism: A Study, Allen & Unwin, London
[11] Mead, Special Providence p.175
[12] Wolfgang J Mommsen, 1977, Theories of Imperialism, Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, Gottingen p.3
[13] Anthony Anghie, 2004, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of
International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p.11
[14] Michael W. Doyle, 1986, Empires, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
p.45
[15] Hobson, Imperialism pp.80-81
[16] Ibid, p.8
[17] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1973, Imperialism, The Highest Stage of
Capitalism, The People's Publishing House, Peking, p.104. According to Eric
Hobsbawm, Lenin never claimed that this was the highest stage of
capitalism, but merely 'the latest'. The title of the book was changed
after his death. See Eric Hobsbawm, 1994, The Age of Empire, 1875-1914,
Abacus, London, p.12.
[18] Immanuel Wallerstein, 1974, The Modern World System I, Capitalist
Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth
Century, Academic Press, London p.349
[19] Ibid p.15
[20] Ibid p.149
[21] Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law
p.xi
[22] Hans Morgenthau, 1948, Politics Among Nations, The Struggle for Power
and Peace, Alfred a Knopf, New York p.58
[23] Ibid p.53
[24] Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, 2000, Empire, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, p.xiii
[25] Ibid p.xiv
[26] Ibid p.182
[27] Ibid p.161
[28] Ibid p.174
[29] Ibid p.176
[30] Ibid p.179
[31] Ibid p.180
[32] Ibid
[33] Niall Ferguson, 2004, Colossus, The Rise and Fall of the American
Empire, Penguin, London p.173
[34] Ibid
[35] Niall Ferguson, 2003, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World,
Penguin Books, Victoria p.377
[36] Dennis Judd, 1996, Empire, The British Imperial Experience from 1765
to the Present, HarperCollins Publishers, London p.6
[37] Ibid p.9
[38] Ibid p.4
[39] Ferguson, Empire, p.381
[40] Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations p.3
[41] Ibid p.59
[42] Ibid
[43] Ibid p.61
[44] Ibid p.62
[45] Ibid p.64
[46] Henry Kissinger, 2002, Does America Need a Foreign Policy?, Towards a
Diplomacy for the 21st Century, Touchstone, New York p.16
[47] Ibid p.17
[48] Ibid p.24
[49] Ibid p.19
[50] Ibid
[51] Ibid p.287
[52] Ibid pp.287-288
[53] Ibid p.187
[54] Ibid p.17
[55] Ibid p.187
[56] Ibid p.208
[57] Ibid p.288
[58] Ibid p.21
[59] Ibid p.318
[60] Samuel P. Huntington, 1993, The Clash of Civilizations, published in
Foreign Affairs, Summer Issue, p.1
[61] Gore Vidal, 2004, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States
of Amnesia, Nation Books, New York pp.44-45
[62] Dee Brown, 1970, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of
the American West, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York p.5
[63] Ibid p.8
[64] Ibid p.9
[65] Christopher Simpson, 1993, The Splendid Blonde Beast: Money, Law and
Genocide in the Twentieth Century, Grove Press, New York p.6
[66] Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law
p.288
[67] Gale Courey Toensing, 2009, U.S. Supremes rule against Native
Hawaiians' land claims, obtained
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/hawaiialaska/42395937.html,
accessed 9 April 2009
[68] Johnson, Sorrows of Empire p.40
[69] Ibid p.42
[70]Stuart Creighton Miller, 1982, "Benevolent Assimilation", The American
Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, The Murray Printing Co., Westford,
pp.24-30
[71] M.H Hunt, 1987, Ideology and U.S Foreign Policy, Yale University
Press, New Haven and London p.81
[72] Noam Chomsky, 2003, Hegemony or Survival, America's quest for global
dominance, Allen & Unwin, NSW p.64
[73] John W Spanier, 1968, American Foreign Policy Since World War II,
Frederick A. Praeger, New York p.3
[74] Ibid
[75] Bernard Porter,2006, Empire and Superempire, Britain, America and the
World, Yale University Press, Bury St Edmunds, p.64
[76] Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV, Section 3,
Clause I
[77] George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796, obtained
http://www.bartleby.com/43/24.html, accessed 11th October 2009
[78] President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961,
obtained http://www.usa-presidents.info/speeches/eisenhower-farewell.html,
accessed 11th October 2009

[79] Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire, p.1
[80] Ibid p.35
[81] Ibid
[82] Ibid p.36
[83] Paul Kennedy, Power and Terror, Financial Times, 3rd September 2002
[84] Ferguson, Colossus p.16
[85]Hardt and Negri, Empire, p.181
[86] Jonathan David Morris, 2003, America's UN-witting surrender, obtained
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/morris/030916, accessed 11 April 2009
[87] Joseph Braude, 2004, The New Iraq, Rebuilding the Country for Its
People, the Middle East and the World, Basic Books, New York, p.4. Sumer,
was the birthplace of the world's first civilization, which began about
3500 B.C. and flourished until about 2000 B.C.
[88] William L. Cleveland, 2004, A History of the Modern Middle East,
Westview, Oxford p.205
[89] Ibid p.207
[90] Roger Morris, The Gates Inheritance, Part 2, Great games and famous
victories, Asia Times 26th June 2007, obtained
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF26Ak08.html accessed 3rd March 2009
[91] Anthony Arnove, 2007, Iraq, The Logic of Withdrawal, The New Press,
New York p.51
[92] Cleveland, History of Modern Middle East p397 & pp.408-409
[93] Ibid
[94] Bob Feldman, 2005, A People's History o Iraq: 1963 to 2005, Towards
Freedom, obtained http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/596/60/
accessed 12 June 2009
[95] First Gulf War article in World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1999,
San Diego, California, USA
[96] Johnson, Sorrows of Empire p.232
[97] Ibid p.229
[98] George W. Bush, Presidential Address to the Nation, 7th October 2001,
transcript obtained http://georgewbush-
whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/10/print/20011007-8.html, viewed
1st October 2009
[99]Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII,
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml, viewed 23rd
September 2009
[100] Julian Borger, Bush team 'agreed plan to attack the Taliban the day
before September 11', The Guardian Newspaper, 24th March 2004,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2, viewed 1st
October 2009
[101] Johnson, Sorrows of Empire p.4
[102] Osama bin Laden, Letter to America, The Guardian Newspaper, 24
November 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver,
viewed 20th September 2009
[103] Nicaragua v United States of America, 1986, Judgment of the Court,
obtained http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/70/9973.pdf?PHPSESSID=05fad554ae9feec6f32e8fcea282db53
viewed 20th August 2009 p.2
[104] Johnson, Sorrows of Empire p.231
[105] Dick Cheney, Interview 'On the Record' with Greta Van Susteren, Fox
News program, 2nd June Edition
[106] George W. Bush, 2002 State of the Union, 29th January 2002,
transcript obtained
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/, accessed
1st October 2009
[107] Millions join global anti-war protests, BBC News 17th February 2003,
obtained http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2765215.stm, accessed 20th April
2009
[108] George W. Bush, 'Mission Accomplished', 1st May 2003, transcript
obtained http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml,
accessed 1st October 2009
[109] Steven Coll, 2008, The Bin Ladens, The Story of a Family and its
Fortune, Penguin Group, New York, p568
[110] Ibid
[111] Ibid
[112] George W. Bush, 'Speech to the United Nations General Assembly',
September 23, 2003, transcript obtained
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030923-4.html, accessed 1st
October 2009
[113] Mike Allen, 2009, Cheney: U.S. 'succeeded' in Iraq,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20014.html accessed 26th March
2009
[114] Ibid
[115] L. Paul Bremer III, 2006, My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a
Future of Hope, Simon and Schuster, New York p.4
[116] Ibid
[117] Ibid
[118] Allen McDuffee, 2008, Empire's Architecture, obtained
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3458/empires_architecture/, accessed
4th May 2009
[119] Arnove, Iraq p57
[120] Lolita C. Baldor, Ranks of al-Qaeda in Iraq dwindle, The Associated
Press, 25th June 2009, obtained on
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-
alqaeda_25int.ART.State.Edition1.4ba373f.html, accessed 1 July 2009
[121] 'Chris', Iraq Confirms capture of top al-qaida leader, Chinaview,
28th April 2009, obtained http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-
04/28/content_11275650.htm, accessed 29th April 2009
[122]Kirk Semple, Saddam Hussein is Sentenced to Death, New York Times, 5th
November 2006, obtained
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-
saddam.html?_r=1&em&ex=1162875600&en=a28b7d91d06de1ba&ei=5087%0A, accessed
8th May 2009
[123] Kim Gamel, Iraq to mark US pullback from cities with holiday, The
Associated Press, 24th June 2009, obtained
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwK_CSpBxsNuVUEaDuOwmSSCiq
GwD990KACG1, accessed 25th June 2009
[124] Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Iraq: No troops in cities after deadline, The
Associated Press, 27th April 2009, obtained
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/04/ap_iraq_deadline_042709/,
accessed 29th April 2009
[125] Operation Iraqi Freedom U.S. Casualty Status, Fatalities as of 9th
October 2009 obtained http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf,
accessed 12th October 2009
[126] Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta et al, 2006, Morality after the 2003
invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey, published in The
Lancet, volume 368, Number 9545, October 21-27, 2006 p.1421
[127] Bremer, My Year in Iraq p.61
[128] Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters, Greenspan admits Iraq was about
oil, as deaths put at 1.2m, The Guardian, 16th September 2007, obtained
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline, accessed 9th
June 2009
[129] Daniel Altman, 2007, Connected: 24 Hours in the Global Economy, Pan
MacMillan, London p.157
[130] Comsec, Australian Stock Market report, 7th October, 2009, obtained
http://www.comsec.com.au/Public/NewsAndResearch/AusStockMarketreports.aspx,
accessed 8th October 2009
[131] Kissinger, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? P.195
[132] Anthony Sampson, West's Greed for Oil Fuels Saddam Fever, Observer,
11th August 2002

[133] Altman, Connected p.158
[134] Johnson, Sorrows of Empire p.234
[135] Nick Juliano, 2008, Kucinich: 'We went to war for the oil companies'
, obtained on
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_We_went_to_war_for_0626.html
accessed 4th May 2009
[136] Antonia Juhasz, 2007, Oil and the Bush Agenda, The Spokesman, Surging
for Oil issue (no.94) p.11

[137] KBR, Fluor, Dyncorp win US Army contract, shrs up, Reuters, 28th June
2007, obtained http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2833255320070629,
accessed 5th May 2009

[138] Adam Levine, Contractor sued for 'burn pits' in Iraq and Afghanistan,
CNN, obtained
April 28th, 2009, http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/contractor-sued-
for-burn-pits-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/, accessed 11 May 2009
[139] Thomas Ferraro, U.S. Army paid bonuses to KBR, despite deaths,
Reuters, 20th May 2009, obtained
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN20528711, accessed 25th
May 2009
[140] Polk, William R., 2006, Understanding Iraq, I.B Tauris, London p.205
[141] Bremer, My Year in Iraq p62
[142] Juhasz, Oil and the Bush Agenda p.9
[143] Arnove, Iraq p17
[144] Polk, Understanding Iraq p.205
[145] Ibid p.206
[146] Joel Fitzgibbon, 2009, Minister's Preface in Defence White Paper
2009: Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century 2030, Australian
Government, Department of Defence p9
[147] n.a, 2009, US Strategic Primacy in Defence White Paper 2009:
Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century 2030, Australian
Government, Department of Defence p32