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