Who benefits from the War in Iraq and Afghanistan?
August 17, 2010
following article is the slightly edited version of the speech Mr. Sunic gave on
August 7, 2010 at the
of the NPD (National
near the town of Goerlitz, Germany.
Sunic’s live speech in German can be accessed on the VOR radio broadcast. The original text in German (“Wem nutzt der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan?”) will shortly appear in the NPD monthly Deutsche Stimme.
The text that follows was translated into English by the author.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, dear friends. Thank you all for being here. Many thanks for the invitation to our friends, the NPD chief Mr. Udo Voigt and Mr. Gerd Finkenwirth. Also many thanks to a lovely young lady Silvana for her professionalism and her kindness. I’d like to extend also my best greetings from my friends in the USA and from my colleagues from the American Third Party Position, our Chairman, William Johnson, Prof. Kevin MacDonald, the radio host of Political Cesspool, James Edwards, and many, many other valiant members. Our recently launched party shares many similar ideas and pursues similar goals.
Instead of raising the question “who benefits from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq,” one might just as well ask the question: Who was the instigator of these two wars? The latter question does not sound very specific and provides a treasure trove for various conspiracy theoreticians. Wild speculations about the true motives of these wars are of no interest for us despite the fact that some of these conspiratorial allegations may be true. What we wish to find out is how these two wars were justified from the standpoint of international law and how they were legitimized by public discourse.
By the way, conspiracy
theories, often ascribed to proverbial right-wingers, are not only the hallmark
of right-wingers. The ruling class in the West does not shun
using different types of conspiratorial
vocabulary whose prime purpose is to demonize and criminalize the political foe.
In addition, the liberal system resorts frequently to conspiracy theories in
order to justify its military interventions. Months before the invasion of
From my own experience I could
give you some firsthand illustrations of this conspiratorial vocabulary.
As a young man in communist
It is important to analyze how the liberal politicians and their warmongers manipulate public discourse. On the one hand we are bombarded by a litany of horrific labels, such as “war on terror”, “Islamo-fascism”, and “Al Qaeda terrorists”; on the other, we must daily stay tuned to their sentimental utterings such as the “fight for human rights,” “multicultural tolerance”, or “freedom for Afghan women.” The German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not sound credible at all when she recently rendered homage to fallen German soldiers and the enduring commitment of German troops in Afghanistan, “which serves the interest of our country.” The entire address by Chancellor Merkel was teeming with theatrical verbiage, better known in Germany as “cemented language” (Betonsprache), once commonly used in former communist East Germany.
Regardless of the hyper-moralistic lexicon used by the Western ruling class, empirical evidence regarding the true motives for the US commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan is very sparse if not completely absent.
A Balance Sheet
The war in
Any war anywhere in the world
must be always preceded by cultural warfare. The
Even after nine
years of war in Afghanistan, even after seven years of
Iraq, the security climate in the Middle East and Afghanistan, or for that
matter in the entire West, has not improved. It has deteriorated. There is far
more terrorist threat today than eight or nine years ago. One can argue that the
risk of Islamic terrorism in Europe and the
And what happened with European
politicians during that time? In
2001, during the deployment of US troops in Afghanistan, as well as two years
later during the invasion of Iraq, the consent of the European allies was
difficult to come by. European NATO members, apart from their servile policies
Only two decades ago all East
European countries were allies of the Soviet Union; they became NATO members
just a decade ago. The political and cultural mimicry of Americanism — albeit
with a broken Slavic accent — in this part of Europe is more widespread than in
Germany or in France.
The other reason is that the bulk of politicians and academics from the Baltics to the Balkans, is made up of rebranded communist apparatchiks and their progeny. In order to cover up their own criminal past, or for that matter their former communist terror policies, they needed to become more Catholic than the Pope, i.e. more Americans than the Americans themselves.
Hence the reasons
Eastern Europeans politicians can now be far better manipulated and
are far easier to bribe into political servility than Western European
politicians — with the exception of Russia. Once upon the time East European
politicians made obligatory pilgrimages to
American Political Theology
The beneficiaries of these two wars were, at least at the beginning
of the hostilities, US neoconservatives and the state of
Sure, it goes without saying that an Israeli journalist, but also many left-leaning Jewish American scholars, such as Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein can easily get away with such an anti-Israeli rhetoric. Its is questionable what type of grammar, let alone language structure a non-Jewish intellectual, or some “right-winger” would need to use in order to express the same judgments.
Over one hundred years US politicians and their advisors have tapped into the Old Testament in quest of their notion of the political. Many American politicians have adopted their political conceptualization from the ancient Hebrew thought. One hundred and fifty years ago it was the ante bellum secessionist South which became the symbol of absolute evil; later, at the beginning of the 20th century, the symbol of the absolute evil became the “bad German” and shortly afterwards the proverbial “Nazi.” During the Cold War it was temporarily the role of Communists in the Soviet Union to play the bad guys. As there are today no more Communists, no more Fascists, no more Southern Segregationists, some substitute had to be urgently looked for. So for many American Bible do-gooders the Ersatz was to be found among the so-called Islamo-fascists, or Islamic terrorists.
Soon this new category of
absolute evil expanded to include the Palestinian Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah
and “rogue states”, like Iraq, Syria
and Iran. Geopolitically, these states, including
It is wrong, therefore, to solely blame the Israelis and US neoconservatives, or for that matter the Jews for these two wars. They were or may still be the beneficiaries, but much of the popular support for this “make-the-world-safe-for-democracy” political theology comes from the millions of Christian-Zionists.
Their spirit of chosenness has
had its offshoot in a secular ideology of human rights, taken now for granted as
something humane and indispensable by the entire world. Yet it is in the name of
human rights that the worst mass crimes are
often committed. It is in the name of “human rights” that many non-conformist
intellectuals can be easily shut up. When a self-proclaimed democrat talks about
human rights, one should raise a critical question: “What happens then to those
who do not fit into the category of humans or democrats?” Logically, they must
be tagged as beasts and animals and therefore, cannot be re-educated, but must
be physically wiped out or shut down. Let us try to picture what was crossing
the mind of young American pilots who flew over
Christian-Zionists bear some of the responsibility for these two wars. Their self-serving idea of some special divine election does not lead to better understanding among different nations and different races, but to endless and futile wars.
Dr. Sunic (www.tomsunic.info)
is a writer and former