The Colossus of Baghdad: Wonders of the Imperial World  
 
Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch, 30 May 2007

Of the seven wonders of the ancient Mediterranean world, including the 
Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the Colossus of Rhodes, four were 
destroyed by earthquakes, two by fire. Only the Great Pyramid of Giza 
today remains. 

We no longer know who built those fabled monuments to the grandiosity 
of kings, pharaohs, and gods; nowadays, at least, it's easier to 
identify the various wonders of our world with their architects. Maya 
Lin, for instance, spun the moving black marble Vietnam Memorial from 
her remarkable brain for the veterans of that war; Frank Gehry dreamt 
up his visionary titanium-covered museum in Bilbao, Spain, for the 
Guggenheim; and the architectural firm of BDY (Berger Devine Yaeger), 
previously responsible for the Sprint Corporation's world headquarters 
in Overland Park, Kansas; the Visitation Church in Kansas City, 
Missouri; and Harrah's Hotel and Casino in North Kansas City, Missouri, 
turns out to have designed the biggest wonder of all -- an embassy 
large enough to embody the Bush administration's vision of an American-
reordered Middle East. We're talking, of course, about the still-
uncompleted American embassy, the largest on the planet, being 
constructed on a 104-acre stretch of land in the heart of Baghdad's 
embattled Green Zone, now regularly under mortar fire. As Patrick 
Lenahan, Senior Architect and Project Manager at BDY, has put it 
(according to the firm's website): "We understand how to involve the 
client most effectively as we direct our resources to make our client's 
vision a reality." 

And what a vision it was! What a reality it's turned out to be!

Who can forget the grandiose architecture of pre-Bush-administration 
Baghdad: Saddam Hussein's mighty vision of kitsch Orientalism melting 
into terror, based on which, in those last years of his rule, he 
reconstructed parts of the Iraqi capital? He ensured that what was soon 
to become the Green Zone would be dotted with overheated, Disneyesque, 
Arabian-Nights palaces by the score, filled with every luxury 
imaginable in a country whose population was growing increasingly 
desperate under the weight of UN sanctions. Who can forget those vast, 
sculpted hands, "The Hands of Victory," supposedly modeled on Saddam's 
own, holding 12-story-high giant crossed swords (over piles of Iranian 
helmets) on a vast Baghdad parade ground? Meant to commemorate a 
triumph over Iran that the despot never actually achieved, they still 
sit there, partially dismantled and a monument to folly; while, as Jane 
Arraf has written, Saddam's actual hands,"the hands that wrote the 
orders for the war against Iran and the destruction of Iraqi villages, 
the hands handcuffed behind his back as he went to trial and then was 
led to his execution are moldering under ground." 

It is worth remembering that, when the American commanders whose 
troops had just taken Baghdad, wanted their victory photo snapped, they 
memorably seated themselves, grinning happily, behind a marble table in 
one of those captured palaces; that American soldiers and newly arrived 
officials marveled at the former tyrant's exotic symbols of power; that 
they swam in Saddam's pools, fed rare antelopes from his son Uday's 
private zoo to its lions (and elsewhere shot his herd of gazelles and 
ate them themselves); and, when in need of someplace to set up an 
American embassy, the newly arrived occupation officials chose -- are 
you surprised? -- one of his former dream palaces. They found nothing 
strange in the symbolism of this (though it was carefully noted by 
Baghdadis), even as they swore they were bringing liberation and 
democracy to Saddam's benighted land. 

And then, as the Iraqi capital's landscape became ever more dangerous, 
as an insurgency gained traction while the administration's dreams of a 
redesigned American Middle East remained as strong as ever, its 
officials evidently concluded that even one of Saddam's palaces, roomy 
enough for a dictator interested in the control of a single country (or 
the odd neighboring state), wasn't faintly big enough, or safe enough, 
or modern enough for the representatives of the planet's New Rome. 

Hence, Missouri's BDY. That midwestern firm's designers can now be 
classified as architects to the wildest imperial dreamers and schemers 
of our time. And the company seems proud of it. You can go to its 
website and take a little tour in sketch form, a blast-resistant spin, 
through its Bush-inspired wonder, its particular colossus of the modern 
world. Imagine this: At $592 million, its proudest boast is that, 
unlike almost any other American construction project in that country, 
it is coming in on budget and on time. Of course, with a 30% increase 
in staffing size since Congress approved the project two years ago, it 
is now estimated that being "represented" in Baghdad will cost a 
staggering $1.2 billion per year. No wonder, with a crew of perhaps 
1,000 officials assigned to it and a supporting staff (from food 
service workers to Marine guards and private security contractors) of 
several thousand more. 

When the BDY-designed embassy opens in September (undoubtedly to the 
sound of mortar fire), its facilities will lack the gold-plated faucets 
installed in some of Saddam's palaces and villas (and those of his 
sons), but they won't lack for the amenities that Americans consider 
part and parcel of the good life, even in a "hardship" post. Take a 
look, for instance, at the embassy's "pool house," as imagined by BDY. 
(There's a lovely sketch of it at their site.) Note the palm trees 
dotted around it, the expansive lawns, and those tennis courts 
discretely in the background. For an American official not likely to 
leave the constricted, heavily fortified, four-mile square Green Zone 
during a year's tour of duty, practicing his or her serve (on the 
taxpayer's dollar) is undoubtedly no small thing. 

Admittedly, it may be hard to take that refreshing dip or catch a few 
sets of tennis in Baghdad's heat if the present order for all U.S. 
personnel in the Green Zone to wear flak jackets and helmets at all 
times remains in effect -- or if, as in the present palace/embassy, the 
pool (and ping-pong tables) are declared, thanks to increasing mortar 
and missile attacks, temporarily "off limits." In that case, more time 
will probably be spent in the massive, largely windowless-looking 
Recreation Center, one of over 20 blast-resistant buildings BDY has 
planned. Perhaps this will house the promised embassy cinema. (Pirates 
of the Middle East, anyone?) Perhaps hours will be wiled away in the no 
less massive-looking, low-slung Post Exchange/Community Center, or in 
the promised commissary, the "retail and shopping areas," the 
restaurants, or even, so the BDY website assures us, the "schools" 
(though it's a difficult to imagine the State Department allowing 
children at this particular post). 

And don't forget the "fire station" (mentioned but not shown by BDY), 
surely so handy once the first rockets hit. Small warning: If you are 
among the officials about to staff this post, keep in mind that the PX 
and commissary might be slightly understocked. The Washington Post 
recently reported that "virtually every bite and sip consumed [in the 
embassy] is imported from the United States, entering Iraq via Kuwait 
in huge truck convoys that bring fresh and processed food, including a 
full range of Baskin-Robbins ice cream flavors, every seven to 10 
days." Recently, there has been a "Theater-Wide Delay in Food 
Deliveries," due to unexplained convoy problems. Even the yogurt 
supplies have been running low.

But those of you visiting our new embassy via BDY's website have no 
such worries. So get that container of Baskin-Robbins from the freezer 
and take another moment to consider this new wonder of our world with 
its own self-contained electricity-generation, water-purification, and 
sewage systems in a city lacking most of the above. When you look at 
the plans for it, you have to wonder: Can it, in any meaningful sense, 
be considered an embassy? And if so, an embassy to whom? 

The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland in the most recent issue of the New 
York Review of Books terms it a "base" like our other vast, 
multibillion dollar permanent bases in Iraq. It is also a headquarters. 
But what a head! What quarters! It is neither town, nor quite city-
state, but it could be considered a citadel, with its own anti-missile 
defenses, inside the increasingly breachable citadel of the Green Zone. 
It may already be the last piece of ground (excepting those other 
bases) that the United States, surge or no, can actually claim to fully 
occupy and control in Iraq -- and yet it already has something of the 
look of the Alamo (with amenities). Someday, perhaps, it will turn out 
to be the "White House" (though, in BDY's sketches, its buildings look 
more like those prison-style schools being built in embattled American 
urban neighborhoods) for Moqtada al-Sadr, or some future Shiite Party, 
or a Sunni strongman, or a home for squatters. Who knows? 

What we know is that such an embassy is remarkably outsized for Iraq. 
Even as a headquarters for a vast, secret set of operations in that 
chaotic land, it doesn't quite add up. After all, our military 
headquarters in Iraq is already at Camp Victory on the outskirts of 
Baghdad. We can certainly assume -- though no one in our mainstream 
media world would think to say such a thing -- that this new embassy 
will house a rousing set of CIA (and probably Pentagon) intelligence 
operations for the country and region, and will be a massive hive for 
American spooks of all sorts. But whatever its specific functions, it 
might best be described as the imperial Mother Ship dropping into 
Baghdad. 

Amazingly, despite complaints from Congress, the present U.S. 
ambassador is stumped when it comes to cutting down on that planned 
staff of his -- every one more essential than the last -- and the State 
Department is actually lobbying Congress for an extra $50 million to 
construct yet more "blast-resistant housing" on the vast site. Maybe 
this is what the "build and hold" strategy, pushed by many 
counterinsurgency types, really means. We'll simply plan in Washington, 
design in Kansas City, build through a Kuwaiti construction firm using 
cheap imported labor, and try to keep building out forever from our 
"embassy" in Baghad. 

As an outpost, this vast compound reeks of one thing: imperial 
impunity. It was never meant to be an embassy from a democracy that had 
liberated an oppressed land. From the first thought, the first sketch, 
it was to be the sort of imperial control center suitable for the 
planet's sole "hyperpower," dropped into the middle of the oil 
heartlands of the globe. It was to be Washington's dream and Kansas 
City's idea of a palace fit for an embattled American proconsul -- or a 
khan. 

When completed, it will indeed be the perfect folly, as well as the 
perfect embassy, for a country that finds it absolutely normal to build 
vast base-worlds across the planet; that considers it just a regular 
day's work to send its aircraft carrier "strike forces" and various 
battleships through the Straits of Hormuz in daylight as a visible 
warning to a "neighboring" regional power; whose Central Intelligence 
Agency operatives feel free to organize and launch Baluchi tribal 
warriors from Pakistan into the Baluchi areas of Iran to commit acts of 
terror and mayhem; whose commander-in-chief President can sign a 
"nonlethal presidential finding" that commits our nation to a "soft 
power" version of the economic destabilization of Iran, involving, 
according to ABC News, "a coordinated campaign of propaganda, 
disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international 
financial transactions"; whose Vice President can appear on the deck of 
the USS John C. Stennis to address a "rally for the troops," while that 
aircraft carrier is on station in the Persian Gulf, readying itself to 
pass through those Straits and can insist to the world: "With two 
carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to 
friends and adversaries alike. We'll keep the sea lanes open. We'll 
stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. 
We'll disrupt attacks on our own forces.... And we'll stand with others 
to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this 
region"; whose military men can refer to Iraqi insurgents as "anti-
Iraqi forces"; members of whose Congressional opposition can offer 
plans for the dismemberment of Iraq into three or more parts; and all 
of whose movers and shakers, participating in the Washington Consensus, 
can agree that one "benchmark" the Iraqi government, also locked inside 
the Green Zone, must fulfill is signing off on an oil law designed in 
Washington and meant to turn the energy clock in the Middle East back 
several decades; but why go on.

To recognize such imperial impunity and its symbols for what they are, 
all you really need to do is try to reverse any of these examples. In 
most cases, that's essentially inconceivable. Imagine any country 
building the equivalent Mother Ship "embassy" on the equivalent of two-
thirds of the Washington Mall; or sailing its warships into the Gulf of 
Mexico and putting its second-in-command aboard the flagship of the 
fleet to insist on keeping the sea lanes "open"; or sending Caribbean 
terrorists into Florida to blow up local buses and police stations; or 
signing a "finding" to economically destabilize the American 
government; or planning the future shape of our country from a foreign 
capital. But you get the idea. Most of these actions, if aimed against 
the United States, would be treated as tantamount to acts of war and 
dealt with accordingly in this country, with unbelievable hue and cry.

When it's a matter of other countries halfway across the planet, 
however, Americans largely consider such things, even if revealed in 
the news, at worst tactical errors or miscalculations. The imperial 
mindset goes deep. It also thinks unbearably well of itself and so, 
naturally, wants to memorialize itself, to give itself the surroundings 
that only the great, the super, the hyper deserves. 

Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem "Ozymandias," inspired by the arrival in 
London in 1816 of an enormous statue of the Pharaoh Ramesses II, comes 
to mind: 

"I met a traveler from an antique land

Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,


Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, 

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

?My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay


Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,

The lone and level sands stretch far away."

In Baghdad, Saddam's giant hands are already on the road to ruin. 
Still going up in New York and Baghdad are two half-billion dollar-plus 
monuments to the Bush imperial moment. A 9/11 memorial so grotesquely 
expensive that, when completed, it will be a reminder only of a time, 
already long past, when we could imagine ourselves as the Greatest 
Victims on the planet; and in Baghdad's Green Zone, a monument to the 
Bush administration's conviction that we were also destined to be the 
Greatest Dominators this world, and history, had ever seen. 

From both these monuments, someday -- and in the case of the embassy 
in Baghdad that day may not be so very distant -- those lone and level 
sands will undoubtedly stretch far, far away.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a 
regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the 
American Empire Project and, most recently, the author of Mission 
Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and 
Dissenters (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch 
interviews.

Copyright 2007 Tom Engelhardt

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤