Ziad Shaker elJishi

Little has changed from the time the reigns of power in the imperialist center have been transferred from George Bush senior to Bill Clinton and from George W. Bush junior to Barak Obama. During this time we had witnessed-during their collective rule- several horrific holocaust type events starting with Iraq and ending in Libya.

Between Clinton and Bush junior there was the death of an estimated 3 million Iraqis. Around half of which took place during the ruler-ship of the democrat Clinton through economic sanctions and another equal amount murdered during the ruler-ship of the republican George W. Bush junior through war and the occupation of Iraq. This of course not counting the number of Iraqis murdered at the hand of George Bush the father during the first gulf war.

One thing has been consistent in the last two decades of this reign of terror, and that is, that since 1990 millions have died in Iraq at the hands of the direct actions of four US presidents and their British and other allies and we witness the same taking place today in Libya this time through the direct actions of Barak Obama and his French other imperialist allies.

President Saddam Hussein was killed by George Bush junior and Ossama Bin Laden was killed by Barak Obama. Both presidents were involved in the invasion and the continued tragic occupation of Afghanistan where millions of Afghanis continue to suffer a brutal occupation and to be targeted today by imperialist policies of both administrations.

What is going on? Why has there been a consistent thread of war, aggression, and occupation in this long stretch of US presidents spanning two decades ?

Common in the media and academia has been several political theories attempting to explain this mad cycle of war, killing, military aggression, and occupation mainly spear-headed by the United States on a global scale and in particular targeting Arab and Muslim countries.

The geopolitical ideas of Johan Rudolf Kjellén a Swedish political scientist in the early 20th century explained how countries expand and shrink in their constantly changing borders and geography as a result of changing politics. As such countries could lose or gain territory influenced by the changing political balance of power around them.

Samuel Huntington presented to the world his faulted theory of the clash of civilizations. Here people's religion and cultural difference were inevitably going to drive the world into conflict. Huntington was better off to call this a clash of empires not far-removed from the way the old Roman empire- resurrected today in the form of the US empire- would lead conquests against other nations! He would have been more accurate if he did.

As it stands though Huntington believes people's religion and culture are a source of unavoidable conflict. He, like Ossama Bin Laden, may argue that this is a religious war, when we know better.

What Huntington should have pointed to is the empire like features of the new Roman empire resurrected in the form of the US of today with its foreign imperialist policy practices. Trying as it does to gain absolute military and economic power on a global level. What we on the left side of politics commonly refer to and understand to be imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism!

Is it so hard to see that when imperialism and imperialist policy exist that there is no outcome possible but war, aggression, and human tragedy ?

Fukyama and his neoconservative movement outspoken advocates were more inconspicuous than Huntington. They preached that America had an obligation to use its military might to attack countries opposed to its policies or that threaten it or that threaten its interests. This resulted in the Bush doctrine of 2002 which necessitated the need for the US to use pre-emptive military wars of aggression on nations deemed a threat to its security or economic interest. Fukyama and other neoconservatives urged that US presidents such as Bush junior go on war offensive in Iraq and Afghanistan. With this understanding it is clear to see how neoconservativism has been the ideological backdrop of what transpired in Iraq and fueled the wars of aggression led by the two Bushes and that manifested itself in the now recognized Bush doctrine of 2002.

Incidentally, there are those around us today who are vying for political power in the US who will continue this neoconservatives policy such as John McCain and the Tea Party followers of Sarah Palin. So we might see them take power again with obvious implications to what might transpire as a result soon to be seen on a world scale if they succeed in assuming power in the US.

To understand the actions of Obama today in his war of aggression against Libya and his continued aggression in Afghanistan one needs to see the ideological backdrop to his thinking in the form of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism a political movement that must have been inspired by the work of Milton Friedman of the Chicago school of economics in the 1960s and in its advocacy for government deregulation measures to enable the creation of free market economies around the world. Neoliberals advocate that US presidents step in through military force to make economical changes that benefit and facilitate the creation of so-called free market economies.

This neoliberal thought necessitates that the US attack countries who oppose the entrance of big businesses in particular targeting national-states that are considered rogue states with 'dictator' rulers. It conceals its imperialist policies and wars of aggression through the use of media ploys that call for democratic rule and human rights protections against tyrant rulers to justify mainly economic expansion plans on behalf of transnational corporations and big businesses.

Neoliberals believe that the role of US presidents are to instigate political actions that target states much like the Libyan state today and the Iraq state before that prevent the entrance of big businesses into lucrative markets especially those with rich natural resources of oil deemed critical for US interests (mainly unabated consumerist waste of energy in the 'free world'), as is the case in Iraq or Libya where huge reserves of oil were nationalized and outside the control of major foreign companies .

If we survey the situation of the Arab countries today we can decipher clearly two political groups. Those in the camp of the US empire and those opposed to the US empire.

Those in the US camp are clear to decipher however those opposed to the US empire oppose it to varying degrees. There are those trying to coexist with the US camp through negotiations and those opposing the US camp vehemently and mainly through military action.

The Arab gulf states are an obvious choice for a representative of those in the US camp, while countries as Saddam Hussein's state of Iraq and now Libya and Syria are considered opposed to the US although to differing degrees. Clearly, the most militant to the US today is in the form of the Iraqi resistance led by the Baath party in Iraq which is currently combating with great success the viscous and illegal US occupation.

Both Libya and Syria (that have been backed by Iran) once tried to negotiate a coexistence with the US are now driven into a military confrontation by the US and have apparently fallen out of favor with the US neoliberalists and neoconservatives alike.

Why is that ?

To explain this let us first consider the case of the countries that are in the US camp. For the countries that gain US favor and trod US policies and act as an implementer and executor of US imperialist dictates, policies, and economic directives their safety is guaranteed by the US. However, to gain entrance into this exclusive club is necessitated by two requirements. One is enabling US big business to take equal if not more control of these Arab markets and in particular control of their natural resources mainly oil in the case of the Arabs.

The second requirement for entrance into the favor of the US and for membership of this exclusive club is to give recognition and normalize relations with the Zionist state of "israel". Those countries who accept the US led Camp David Accords as a base for normalizing relations with "israel" gain US favor and acceptance and those opposed are considered rogue, lose favor with the US, and are targeted.

Obviously, such countries in Arabia have that enjoyed great US favor received economic aid both in the form of military and political support most notably Mubarak's Egypt which was the first to sign the Camp David peace accords with "israel". Those who joined later such as the King of Jordan with the signing of the Wadi Arabah treaty and most recent has been the peace treaty offered to "israel" through the King Abdullah peace treaty of 2002 that the majority of Arab regimes signed on to in the famed Arab league summit meeting in Beirut during that time, including Syria.

So despite the back and forth dealings with the issue of normalizing relations with the Saudi-led initiative of recognizing and normalizing relations with "israel" since 2002 and the back and forth negotiations taking place in-between Iran and its Arab allies with the US imperialists over a co-existence formula, why has the US targeted countries such as Syria and Libya today and is working hard to infiltrate the Arab Spring countries such as Egypt and Tunis that recently toppled their tyrant leaders through popular revolts; as the US neoliberals today work hard to fragment countries such as Sudan and now Yemen ?

The answer to us in the Arab nationalist camp has been obvious and well understood. National-states must be destroyed by US imperialist neoliberals/neoconservatives to favor entrance of big businesses into their countries and to take control of their reserves of oil. It is clear that the neoliberals in the US have decided that Iran backed countries such as Libya and Syria must be toppled in order to push forth a more "israel" compatible government along the way of a Malki in Iraq and a Karazai in Afghanistan.

Finally we can not ignore the larger global geopolitical game taking place today on an international level in-between the US neoliberals on one hand and China and Russia on the other hand. Both Libya and Syria have backed and supported China and Russia and their economic access to vital projects in Libya and Syria and have been given preference in defiance of the US and its allies and sought as an alternative to US based businesses. Something the neoliberals of the US can not tolerate as they compete with China and Russia for access to the region.

So in conclusion the wars in Libya and Syria are directed by neoliberal imperialist policies of the US to breakdown the national state in favor of a client state subservient to US economic interests and geopolitical strategic interests in both Asia and Africa as they compete with China and Russia for these markets.

The war of aggression which we are witnessing today has nothing to do democracy nor human rights it is about economics. It is about the US objectives:

-liquidate opposing national states in the region

-facilitate the entrance of American big businesses

-take control of oil

-guarantee security for "israel"

-weaken the geopolitical position of regional powers such as Iran and international powers such as China and Russia in these markets

As such Muaamer AlQadaffi and Bashar Alasad become 'dictators' and 'human rights' abusers and no longer can be tolerated.

Through an understanding of the reasons highlighted above we opposed to US and Western imperialism must stand firmly in support of Libya and Syria and their defense of their national states against American neoliberal imperialist plans of aggression and exploitation.

-###-

By Ziad Shaker elJishi