The New World Order:
The Growing Paradigm of U.S. Imperialism
Lauren W. Chan
Engineering 297C, Monday 4:15 Section
June 2003
The New World Order:
The Growing Paradigm of U.S. Imperialism
On March 21, 2003, the United States of America officially declared war against
Iraq on grounds that Iraq illegally possessed weapons of mass destruction. However, no
such weapons have yet been found. In March 2002, even before the facts had been
gathered, President George W. Bush told National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice,
“F--- Saddam. We’re taking him out.” (Bush, quoted by Elliot)
Instead, Gulf War II was the culmination of a decade of increasing hostility and
failed negotiations towards Iraq. After twenty days of fighting, Gulf War II ended on
April 9, 2003. Although its duration was trivial, the war has left an imprint on world
order. By attacking Iraq, the U.S. has positioned itself as a global bully who reorganizes
global resources to favor U.S. interests.
The Gathering Storm: How the U.S. became a
superpower
The United States under Bush has followed a
path of imperialism that shows frightening parallels
to Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. Bush and
Hitler have both capitalized upon propaganda to stir
up patriotism, used revolutionary war tactics, and
pushed their political agenda without regard to world
peace.
Figure 1. Ad comparing Bush to Hitler
in the framework of Hitler Youth.
2
Source of power. Although tension with Iraq had been building for a decade, the
immediate and strongest catalyst for Gulf War II was the terror committed on September
11, 2001. In a highly coordinated attack against the U.S., Al Qaeda, a terrorist network
masterminded by Osama bin Laden, hijacked four commercial airplanes and succeeded in
destroying New York City’s World Trade Center and in severing the Pentagon.
Following 9/11, Rice urged the president to think about “how...you capitalize on these
opportunities.” (Rice, quoted by Lemann) Because the attack was so atrocious, President
Bush was able to rally Americans in a “war against terrorism.” He immediately gained
approval to start the Homeland Security agency and pursue aggressive foreign policy.
Over time, national interest was transformed from fighting terrorism to “preventing the
accumulation of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of irresponsible states.” (Rice,
quoted by Lemann) In retrospect, 9/11 played into Bush’s hands as a means to stimulate
support for Gulf War II.
Similarly, Hitler’s agenda was furthered by a single event. The Reichstag fire on
February 27, 1933 was blamed on Communists but benefited the Nazis. The next day,
Hitler proclaimed a state of national emergency and invoked Article 48 of the Weimar
Constitution, Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State.
This suspension of civil liberties enabled the Nazi party to win a majority in the 1933
elections which in turn propelled Hitler to power. By taking advantage of crises, Bush
and Hitler can both be viewed as opportunists.
Propaganda. Having achieved momentum for their respective causes, Bush and
Hitler both maintained their momentum through the use of propaganda. The U.S. media
3
is inundated daily by news of possible terrorist attacks in order to maintain Americans’
fervor to fight the enemy. For example, on May 20, 2003, media reported a possible
upgrade in the terror alert level from yellow to orange due to increased whispering in the
terrorist communities. In past instances of orange alert, ordinary Americans have “started
feeling awful almost as soon as Tom
Ridge put the nation on high alert for a
terrorist attack.” (Anthony Lepre, quoted by
Cowley) According to Cowley, the
reason Anthony and other Americans feel
that way is because fear affects the brain by
generating stress hormones. These hormones
sever connections in the brain and, in extreme
cases, inhibit memory function. As if the
stress of the terror Figure 2. Newsweek cover 2/24/03. alert system was not
enough, the cover of the magazine, Newsweek, adds to the fear. As Figure 2 shows, the
cover serves as propaganda to visually link Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to
fear. An ordinary American looks pensive as thoughts of Saddam, Osama, the terror alert
system, and oil fields occupy his head. Although the article stresses the negative effects
of fear, the cover acts to the contrary by suggesting the connection between bin Laden,
Hussein, and fear. By keeping fear alive, Bush retains support for his war efforts.
Aside from fear as a mechanism of control, Bush uses propaganda to glorify the
strength of the U.S. The sensationalized rescue of POW Jessica Lynch provides a prime
example of this tactic. On April 1, 2003, Navy SEAL, Army Ranger, and Marine
4
commando units stormed Nasiriyah General Hospital where Lynch was being treated.
Because “you don’t have perfect knowledge when you go in of what resistance you will
face” (Lapan, quoted by AP), the units broke down the front door of the hospital,
handcuffed hospital officials, and pumped a steady stream of fire throughout the raid.
These dramatic images were captured by the American media and designed to glorify
U.S. military might. In contrast to the story published by the U.S., the BBC released a
report stating that the blitz was unnecessary. After interviewing dozens of hospital
officials, the Associated Press determined that Lynch had been treated very well and, in
fact, Iraqi doctors had been planning on releasing her the day after her rescue. According
to Dr. Hazem Rikabi, “If they had come to the door and asked for Jessica, we would have
gladly handed her over to them. There was no need for all that drama. Why the show?
They just wanted to prove they were heroes. There was no battle.” (Rikabi, quoted by
AP) Pentagon officials justify the validity of U.S. actions by citing the volatile conditions
in Nasiriyah and a doctrine of the military to use overwhelming force in such situations.
Regardless of which story is true, this controversy shows the amazing propaganda that
Bush has used to stir patriotism in the U.S.
Hitler used a similar strategy. A master propagandist, he shaped public opinion
into hatred against Jews, gypsies, and the disabled by glorifying Aryans. Acclaimed as
the “most powerful piece of propaganda ever produced,” Hitler commissioned Leni
Riefenstahl to document the 1934 Nazi party rally in “Triumph of the Will.” Through
footage of gatherings, marches, and parades, the film promoted Nazi ideals. It showed
Aryans as strong and dominant, projecting an image of perfection. Since Aryans were
faultless, the problems of Germany had to come from Jews, gypsies, and the disabled.
5
Like Bush, Hitler found an enemy for the German people to unify against. Propaganda
lended legitimacy to Bush and Hitler’s war efforts.
Emasculation of peacekeeping organizations. With public opinion of their nations
on their side, Bush and Hitler disregarded the opinion of the international community by
starting wars. The U.S. led the United Nations Security Council inspections into Iraq’s
irresponsible arms building. However, the Security never passed a resolution to wage
war. (In fact, the only resolution passed concerning Iraq occurred one week after the
advent of Gulf War II to address humanitarian efforts there.) Bush launched a preventive
war against Iraq against the vocal objections of France, Germany, and Russia and without
U.N. support.
Nearly identically, Hitler sidestepped the League of Nations in his empire
building efforts. Prior to World War II, he ignored all disarmament treaties established in
the Treaty of Versailles and built an arsenal. In addition, Hitler drew his allies, Japan and
Italy, out of the League of Nations. Without these countries, Britain and France were
each reluctant to act without the other, which rendered the League of Nations irrelevant.
The League of Nations was unable to contain Hitler and his vision of a Third Reich, just
as the United Nations was unable to stop Bush and his quest to promote U.S. interests.
Because the U.S. in the 21st century and Germany in the late 1930’s were standalone
superpowers, Bush and Hitler, respectively, were strong enough to ignore international
sentiment in their pursuit of aggressive imperialism.
6
Attack mechanisms. In Gulf War II, Bush used a modified version of Hitler’s
blitzkrieg. The concept of the blitzkrieg, or lightning war, is to take a target by surprise
and overwhelm it with large amounts of firepower in a short amount of time. Oftentimes,
Hitler harnessed the combined powers of the Luftwaffe, SS, police, and army to carry out
blitzkriegs.
Bush took the blitzkrieg concept and added a contemporary dimension to it: real
time media coverage. Peter Arnett, a veteran war correspondent, likened the war to “an
action movie, only this is real.” (Arnett, quoted by Franklin) Using the infrastructure built
by the Information Revolution, the war was essentially transformed into a real time action
movie creating a new genre of fighting termed “shock and awe.” Bush first demonstrated
the U.S.’s tremendous firepower and theatrics in an attack on Baghdad on March 28,
2003. Within two minutes, three hundred cruise missiles destroyed two dozen buildings
in a calculated attempt to take down Saddam Hussein. Reporters, embedded in U.S.
troops, instantly relayed news of the attack back to the American public. The ensuing
reaction encompassed both shock at the lightning fast speed in which devastation was
dealt and awe at U.S. military power. Bush and Hitler chose shock and awe and
blitzkrieg, respectively, as their primary tactics of war to gain competitive advantage
through speed, surprise, and brutal force in their attacks. These factors allowed them to
quickly establish dominance over their enemies.
The New Paradigm: Positioning the U.S. as the world superpower
By orchestrating Gulf War II, the U.S. has flexed its immense global muscle. In
its aftermath, a new paradigm is emerging where the U.S. maintains its economic
7
dominance by policing the actions of other nations and rearranging international borders
and regimes when deemed necessary.
Repercussions in the Middle East. Even though they were not directly involved in
fighting, Iraq’s neighbors were affected by Gulf War II. One Saudi Arabian man,
Abdurrahman Saad Muhanna, described his concerns for himself and his family. Like the
Americans after September 11, "we are living in fear," he said. (Muhanna, quoted by
Fleishman) The war upset the internal affairs of Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Palestine,
Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
For Saudi Arabia, the war could have major effects on its economy. As the
world’s top leader in oil production, Saudi Arabia yields considerable power in setting oil
prices worldwide. Saudis fear that their power could be undermined by the handling of
Iraq’s oil. "I'm not comfortable in my life anymore," said Khalid Subaiye. “ These attacks
will take us backwards. They will hurt our economy and our relations with other
countries.” (Subaiye, quoted by Fleishman) Because it will take time to rebuild Iraq and
fully install a new regime, Iraq’s oil impact will be delayed and Saudi Arabia must brace
for a reaction down the road. Samer Shehata, Mideast expert at the Center for
Contemporary Arab Studies, predicts that “the U.S. oil industry will post a major
challenge to Saudi Arabia’s position as market leader.” (Shehata, quoted by Moran)
In Turkey however, the war’s effects immediately took a toll. Ignoring NATO
ally ties, Turkey rejected a $15 billion deal from the U.S. for use of airspace and ground
deployment of troops. In response, Turkish stock markets plummeted. Already laden with
IMF loan repayments, Turkish markets dropped 11.6%. Meanwhile, currency value
8
dropped 5% and traded at 1.67 million lira to the U.S. dollar. Since then, the Turkish lira
has appreciated against the U.S. dollar. As of June 4, 2003, the Turkish lira traded at 1.43
million to the U.S. dollar. However, rumors imply that Central Bank Governor Sureyya
Serdengecti may resign because of the pressure-filled responsibilities of fighting inflation
and raising the Turkish economy. Turkey’s interactions with the U.S. resulted in
destabilization of its markets and currency and, by doing so, have caused considerable
effects on the Turkish economy.
Economic dominance. The U.S. oil industry and government leaders steadfastly
deny that oil was a motive of the war. However, the U.S.’s participation in the Oil for
Food Program demonstrates the blatant contradiction between rhetoric and action. Started
in the 1990’s, the program provides humanitarian relief - food, electricity, agriculture,
and health – to Iraq in return for oil exports. Upon the commencement of Gulf War II, the
U.N. Security Council, including the U.S., unanimously voted to renew the program.
Although Operation Iraqi Freedom
was auspiciously undertaken to
liberate the Iraqi people from the
dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the
U.S.’s underlying motive was Iraqi
oil.
Strategically, Bush had to
unseat Hussein to gain access to its
oil. Before the start of the war,
Figure 3. Facetious ad showing Bush
speech with oil company logos added.
9
Grant Aldonas, U.S. undersecretary of commerce, stated that a war in Iraq, “would open
up this spigot on Iraqi oil, which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the
performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil
consumers.” (Aldonas, quoted by Moran) With low production costs, oil generates $12.3
billion in export revenues per year for Iraq. Iraq currently possesses 112 billion barrels of
oil and ninety percent of oil fields are yet undiscovered. Together, these reserves are
worth roughly 1.1 trillion dollars, making Iraq second only to Saudi Arabia in oil
resources. Iraq’s fortune in oil gave Saddam international leverage.
By removing Saddam from control, Bush destroyed Iraq’s oil commitments.
Saddam had guaranteed much of Iraq’s oil reserves to France, Russia, and China.
Analysts predict that it will take at least three years before the Iraqi government is well
established enough to begin forming long term oil commitments. Obviously, France,
Russia, and China wanted to avoid this situation and therefore chose to oppose Gulf War
II. As a beneficiary of voided oil commitments, the U.S. instigated attack on Iraq. Each
country’s position on the war was formed to maximize economic objectives.
Adding more suspicion into the fray, top U.S. government officials hold
stunningly close ties to the oil industry. Bush served as director of Harken Energy Corp.,
Cheney as CEO of Halliburton Energy Services, and Condoleeza Rice as a Board
member of Chevron. In fact, Chevron later named a super-tanker after her. Perhaps the
officials’ relationships to American energy companies contributed to the decision to
attack Iraq for oil.
10
Demonization of enemies. The U.S. has engaged in an active campaign to solidify
support for its actions. A prime example from Gulf War II is the demonization of Saddam
and Iraq. Prior to the war, daily reports damaged the reputation of Iraq by alleging ties
between Iraq and Al-Quaeda and describing the threat of Iraq’s warheads. Children who
did not watch the news could be indoctrinated through their video games. Popular
favorites included Gulf War Simulator and Quest for Saddam. Another diversion
available was “Iraqi Most Wanted” playing cards, with Saddam the most wanted as the
Ace of Spades. The playing cards are so widespread that the media broadcasts news
about these individuals with references to their card rank and suit. Fans can purchase
decks both online or from street vendors in major cities. Through many creative means,
the U.S. government convinced Americans to unite against Iraq.
Figure 4. “Iraqi Most Wanted” Playing Cards
Nations who dare stand against the U.S. are demonized by the American media
and government as well. In comparison to the demonization of Iraq however, France has
escaped easily. The U.S. government implicated France in selling military equipment to
Iraq and aiding Iraqi leaders in escaping to Syria. In response, Capitol Hill stopped
selling French fries and French toast in the cafeteria, opting instead for “Freedom fries”
11
and “Freedom toast.” This shift in nomenclature is reminiscent of WWII where the U.S.
renamed sauerkraut as “liberty cabbage,” dachshunds as “liberty dogs,” and hamburgers
as “liberty steaks” as anti-German propaganda. These acts have infuriated France. The
French Foreign Ministry urged diplomats to “count the untrue accusations” (The Week)
in the U.S. media. Jean-David Levitte, French ambassador to U.S., reacted by accusing
the U.S. of fueling “an ugly campaign to destroy the image of France.” (Levitte, quoted
by The Week)
Aggressive foreign policy. Iraq is only the most recent event in a string of acts of
aggression by the U.S. Following the acts of terror on September 11, 2001, the U.S.
believed that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan. The U.S. subsequently
invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime. Rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan
continue to this day.
The U.S. has historically positioned itself as the central mediator in Mideast peace
talks. Riddled with thousands of years of violence and conflict, Palestinians and Israelis
both lay claim over Jerusalem and the Palestinians struggle to establish a separate state
from Israel. Bush has negotiated with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian
Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to develop a Mideast road map to peace. Under the
plan, leaders would spend the next few years drawing permanent borders between Israel
and Palestine, end hostilities, and establish an independent Palestinian state by 2005.
As the global police force, the U.S. has arranged world order to suit national
interests. This trend is not an accident, but part of a plan by the U.S. government to
continue aggressive foreign policy. Rice identified that, “there is a big global threat...that
12
has started shifting the tectonic plates in international politics. And it’s important to try to
seize on that and position American interests and institutions and all of that before they
harden again.” (Lemann) The U.S. is now warning Iran and North Korea to abandon their
nuclear arms programs. Will they be the next target of U.S. domination?
Conclusion
The actions of the U.S. have not gone unnoticed by the international community.
The U.S. is seen as vultures for cashing in on business generated by attacking Iraq. For
instance, Bechtel has been appointed as main contractor to rebuild Iraq. This project
involves rebuilding 90% of Iraq at an estimated cost of $680M. In addition, U.S.
companies have already begun to compete for a piece of Iraq’s oil. Among the companies
bidding are Halliburton, Schlumberger, Weatherford, Baker Hughes, and Fluour.
Foreign nations have responded with varying degrees of backlash against U.S.
businesses abroad. In some cases, foreign nations are entering alliances to oppose U.S.
dominance. For example, Saudi Arabian company Abdul-Aziz Al-Qahtani Group and
Figure 5. Protestors in France oppose Gulf War II.
13
Iranian company Transfo signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on May 18,
2003 to collaborate on research efforts. Although the deal itself is not particularly
significant, it shows the close relations between Middle Eastern states. Ridh Amr, Iranian
Under Secretary of Energy, cited the strong relations between the two countries and
emphasized the objective of “strengthening the relations between the two countries...to
enhance ties among the Islamic countries.” (Amr, quoted by SPA)
The U.S. must realize that its actions have both positive and negative effects. U.S.
businesses gain revenue by spearheading projects in Iraq, but in doing so, the U.S.
sacrifices its nobility and integrity in international opinion. The U.S. unseated Saddam’s
dictatorship from Iraq, but to rebuild the country, the U.S. commits itself to years of
occupation and increasing debt. Although stocks are rallying, job reports are still dim and
the value of the U.S. dollar is falling. Altogether, these factors indicate a weakening U.S.
economy. To combat a weakening economy, the U.S. must readjust its practices to regain
financial health.
The history of British occupation of Iraq from 1914 to 1958 should serve as a
guide to the U.S. government. The U.S. aims to establish a stable, unified, democratic
Iraq while benefiting U.S. business interests. Similarly, Britain’s move was designed to
protect British business interests in Iraq. Despite Britain’s attempts to stabilize Iraq
however, Iraq experienced a major anti-British revolt in 1920, five tribal and nationalist
uprisings in Kurdistan between 1919 and 1936, and Shi’i tribal rebellions in 1935-36.
The U.S. must also be prepared for a long and bumpy period of occupation in Iraq.
14
The U.S.’s motivation in toppling Saddam has been questioned by nearly
everybody in the world. If the U.S. truly had humanitarian ideals in mind, they must now
prove it by making legitimate efforts to establish a strong democratic state in Iraq. As the
British experience teaches, the U.S. military will have a difficult time combating Iraqi
nationalism. Correspondingly, the U.S. must allocate its budget to plan for a large
investment into Iraq. Should the U.S. achieve its goals in Iraq, Bush will show the world
that the U.S. is a dominant, yet benevolent superpower.
15
Appendix A.
Bibliography
Ankara – Turkish Daily News. “Wholesale prices drop in May.”
Accessed 6/4/03.
Arraf, Jane and Harris Whitbeck. “War vote shatters Turkish markets.”
Accessed 6/4/03.
Associated Press. “Rescue of Lynch met no resistance.”
Accessed on 6/4/2003.
Carlile, Jennifer, ed. “World Reax.”
Accessed on 5/20/03.
Churchill, Allen (ed). Eyewitness: Hitler. New York: Walker and Company, 1979.
Cowley, Geoffrey. “Our Bodies, Our Fears.” Newsweek, 2/24/03.
Eisenstadt, Michael and Eric Mathewson, editors. U.S. Policy in Post Saddam Iraq:
Lessons from the British Experience. Washington DC: The Washington Institute for Near
East Policy, 2003.
Elliot, Michael and James Carney. “First Stop, Iraq.” Time Magazine, 3/31/03.
Fest, Joachim. Speer: The Final Verdict. New York, Harcourt, Inc., 1999.
Fleishman, Jeffrey. “Attacks change life in Saudi Arabia.” Accessed on 6/4/03.
Franklin, Nancy. “TV Goes to War.” The New Yorker Magazine, 3/31/03.
Kaplan, Fred. “Bully Bush.” Accessed on 5/20/03.
Koppes, Clayton R. and Gregory D. Black. Hollywood Goes to War: How Politics,
Profits, and Propaganda Shaped World War II Movies. New York: The Free Press, 1987.
Lemann, Nicholas. “The Next World Order.” The New Yorker Magazine, 4/01/02.
Machtan, Lothar. The Hidden Hitler. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
Moran, Michael and Alex Johnson. “Oil: The Other Iraq War.”
Accessed on 5/20/03.
16
Noah, Timothy. “Banning French Fries.” Accessed
on 5/20/03.
Reifenstahl, Leni. Triumph of the Will. 1934
Remnick, David. “September 11, 2001.” The New Yorker Magazine, 9/24/01.
SPA. “Saudi, Iranian Companies Sign Cooperation Accord” Accessed on 6/4/03.
Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970.
Wyden, Peter. The Hitler Virus: The Insidious Legacy of Adolph Hitler. New York:
Arcade Publishing, 2001.
The Week Magazine. Volume 3 Issue 107. May 30, 2003.
17
Appendix B. Slides from Powerpoint presentation
Slide 1
The New World Order
The Growing Paradigm
of U.S. Imperialism
Lauren W. Chan
Slide 2
Move towards
Imperialism
Slide 3
Parallels to Nazi Germany
Bush and Hitler
employ
opportunistic
moves to gain
power
www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/ Forum6/HTML/000546-6.html
18
Slide 4 U.S. propaganda
also fear through
Parallels to Nazi Germany terror alerts
U.S. Germany
Source of Power
9/11 Reichstag fire
Propaganda
Glorification of military Glorification of Aryans
Destruction of World Organizations
United Nations League of Nations
Attack Mechanisms
Shock and awe Blitzkrieg
Slide 5
Analysis of Gulf War II
Slide 6
Economic Motives
Russia
France
China
maine.indymedia.org/ search-process.php3?medium=image
19
Slide 7 Video games: Gulf
War Simulator,
Demonization of Enemies Quest for Saddam
Playing cards “Freedom” Fries
Video Games
radio.boisestate.edu/.../otherprojec
ts/ potato/fries.htm
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../news/ 2001/01/18/wirq18.xml
Slide 8
Slide 9
The New Paradigm
20
Slide 10 Mediate
Israel/Palestine
Global Dominance conflict
Gulf War II signals a new era of aggressive Monitor North
U.S. foreign policy. Korea’s warheads
“Now is our time Monitor Iran’s
to step up and warheads
take the lead.”
- Condoleeza Rice,
National Security
Advisor
www.britains-smallwars.com/ gulf/land.html
Slide 11
Economic Ramifications
Iraqi dinar soaring U.S. companies compete for
against U.S. dollar piece of Iraq business:
Halliburton, Schlumberger,
Millions of U.S. Weatherford, Baker Hughes,
dollars to rebuild Fluour
and stablize Iraq
Bechtel appointed to rebuild
Increasing U.S. debt Iraq (estimated at $680M)
Weakening U.S. economy U.S. viewed as vultures
Backlash against U.S. Imperialism
Slide 12
Questions?
21