> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://redflag.org.au/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # FROM THE ARCHIVE—US imperialism (November 2002) - URL: https://redflag.org.au/article/from-the-archive-us-imperialism-november-2002/ - Published: 2026-09-10T05:33:27.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-10T05:33:27.000Z - Author: Mick Armstrong - Tags: History, Imperialism *Four weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the US invaded Afghanistan. By early 2002, the Bush administration began making the public case for invading Iraq, declaring the country part of an “axis of evil” with Iran and North Korea. Undersecretary of State John Bolton soon expanded the list to include Cuba, Libya and Syria. (The name “axis of resistance”, including Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, was reportedly coined in response to all this.)* *It became clear very quickly, however, that the analysis laid out in our 12 September editorial was substantially correct. In March 2022, Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s national security adviser, admitted to the New Yorker’s Nicholas Lemann that, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, she had asked senior national security staff to think about how to “capitalise on these opportunities”, which were “shifting the tectonic plates in international politics” to US advantage. “I really think this period is analogous to 1945 to 1947”, she said. “And it’s important to try to seize on that and position American interests and institutions and all of that before they harden again.”* --- It is obvious to more and more people that the \[impending\] US war on Iraq has got absolutely nothing to do with defending democracy or stopping “terrorism”, let alone with liberating the people of Iraq. It is a good old-fashioned imperialist war—like when the British sent in the gunboats to prove to the locals who was boss. The September 11 terrorist attacks were a godsend for George Bush. They gave the US establishment carte blanche to accelerate military expenditure, crack down on dissent at home and to adopt a much more aggressive posture on the world stage. Following hard on the heels of the Afghan war, the war on Iraq is just another step by the US ruling class to assert its military and economic dominance over global capitalism. But why Iraq? At one level it doesn’t matter all that much to the US who they attack. They are out to demonstrate that the US is the sole superpower that can assert its might right across the globe, and provided they are victorious, the Pentagon planners don’t care whether the next target is North Korea, Sudan, Colombia, Central Asia or Libya. The strategists of Bush’s “war on terrorism” have spelt it out very clearly—they are planning permanent war, with the US military engaged in country after country. They want to establish a US armed presence in every corner of the globe and over the next decade they want to launch a first strike nuclear attack somewhere. The US ruling class increasingly see the enormous military superiority they have over all their capitalist rivals as their key bargaining chip to shore up the profits of US multinationals and to force their economic competitors in Europe, Japan and China to make concessions to them in terms of opening up markets for US goods. Taking out Iraq will be a graphic illustration to all the other powers of the US’s willingness to resort to force to protect its interests. There are of course additional factors. To start with—oil. The Middle East has long been of central importance to US imperialism because of its enormous oil reserves—control over which is vital to the interests of all the advanced capitalist powers. By putting an upstart like Saddam Hussein in his place, not only does the US military defend the economic interests of its multinational oil companies, it also gives the US vital leverage over Japan and the European Union, which are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US itself. Partly it is settling scores with Saddam. The US backed Saddam’s brutal rise to power in Iraq to crush the powerful working-class movement there and to secure Western interests. They armed him to the teeth with chemical and biological weapons. But then he got too big for his boots, and as with so many other US-backed dictators—Milosevic in Serbia, Noriega in Panama, the Taliban in Afghanistan—they moved to eliminate him. The problem was that Saddam was more cunning than most; he managed to survive defeat in the Gulf War and has played fast and loose with the US for years. His defiance encourages other lesser powers to stand up to US hegemony. This makes him a marked man whom Bush is determined to eliminate. Cutting Saddam down sends a message to every other US client state—don’t step out of line or you’re next. The other reason that Iraq and Afghanistan are important to the US is China. The US establishment sees China as the rising power that will become its chief economic and military rival over the next 50 years. The US’s wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are aimed at sending a warning shot across China’s bows—don’t get too uppity, the US is still number one. It is also about securing vital US military bases on China’s western borders. The US already had military bases on China’s eastern flank—in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan—and had built up friendly relations with India. Now the US has gained military bases in Afghanistan, the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and significantly increased its military presence in the Middle East.