by
Girard Newkirk
Noam Chomsky quite often refers to the U.S.
invasion of Iraq as a "test run" in what seems to be
the modus operandi of the Bush administration
regarding American hegemony. The propaganda machine
comprised of the U.S. government with the complicity
of the corporate media apparatus, effectively sold the
majority of the American citizenry on the idea that
Iraq was an imminent threat to U.S. security. There
were other factors that led to this conclusion which
do not require discourse, but in opposition to the
majority of the world the U.S. and Great Britain have
set the blueprint for what is to come in the realm of
global politics. Let us analyze the implications of
this "test run" and attempt to discern what is next in
the wonderful world of Anglo-American hegemony.
Although there has been much discourse
regarding how the calamities of 9/11 changed the
world, for the sake of this essay I would like to
divulge into the implicit ramifications of it. The
United States has the world's largest economy that is
highly reliant on the black gold that finds its home
in huge quantities under the sand of the Middle
East. In order to protect the common interest, which
is just a euphemism for the elite interest, the U.S.
must have a means to control this region.
Traditionally, policymakers have chosen not to do this
directly because in the grand scheme of things, it is
far less efficient and it gives the perception that
you are a global hegemony. The U.S. has combated this
perception by employing puppet regimes or client
states to perform the ostensible functions of
governing Middle Eastern countries, yet really
protecting the investments of U.S. and British global
oil conglomerates. For the puppets, they received
generous subsidies from the British and the U.S. as
well as the security of the world's most powerful
militaries. This had been the structure of Middle
East relations for the last 50 years or so and it has
been relatively effective but with one glaring
drawback. Even though the U.S. essentially controls
the minds of the Arab leaders there was still the slim
possibility that things could go awry and the backbone
of the global economy could be crushed. The oil
embargo of 1973 illuminated this possibility and
highlighted the vulnerability of the industrialized
countries if there wasn't a cheap supply of oil.
As stated earlier, the client state has been
the conduit for the U.S. to maintain its level of
control over the region. Partially due to economics
but mostly due to politics. Although sometimes naive,
the American populace has traditionally been reluctant
when it comes to engaging in foreign adventures around
the globe, particularly when it involves military
intervention. This concept has protected the client
regimes from a more aggressive foreign policy agenda
by the U.S. and Great Britain. It has actually caused
the U.S. to be far more diplomatic with these
countries than would be expected considering its
violent proclivities when it comes
to protecting interests.
September 11, 2001, was the ultimate
legitimizer for military aggression in the Middle
East. Now, the once pacifistic American populace has
become vicious sanguinaries and are willing to accept
even the most radical foreign policy agenda if it is
cloaked in defeating terrorism. The "Evil Arab" seed
was already planted with Saddam after the first Gulf
War so it was relatively easy to manufacture consensus
among Americans as to his iniquitous disposition.
Iran seems to be next but, Saudi Arabia might be
higher on the list of terrorist states that need to be
eradicated, than they think. After all they possess
the world's largest supply of untapped oil reserves
and anyone with the IQ of a shrunken raisin could
connect the Saudis with 9/11. So client states
beware the Anglo-American alliance has just been
issued a blank check when it comes to military
interventions and they intend to cash in.
Mr. Girard Newkirk contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN)
from North Carolina, USA. He writes on most of the
issues regarding the Middle East, religion and its tremendous impact on the
world as a Political Theorist.
Source:
by the same author:
