CONTENTS
"WAR WITHOUT CONSENT": SECTIONS
ONE THROUGH THREE
SECTION ONE: THE CASE
AGAINST WAR
SECTION TWO: A HISTORY OF
THE GULF WAR
SECTION THREE: U.S. POLICY
AND OIL
SECTION FOUR: WELCOME TO THE
LIBERATION
1
INTRODUCTION
The original
purpose of this analysis was to address the possibility of a second war
between the U.S. and Iraq, and to make the case as strongly as possible
against that war. To that end, it attempts to address as many relevant
facts and issues involved as possible, including many of the facts and
issues used by those who argued in favor of the war. Contained here
is an expanded version of the initial analysis, with the addition of a
chapter on the European Union, and an entirely new section containing this
author's articles written during the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Obviously,
it was impossible to know exactly what would ultimately happen, and many
of the concerns and scenarios discussed here did not occur. However,
it is of utmost importance when facing a crisis such as this to consider
all of the possibilities, even at the risk of overstating some of the dangers
and "worst-case scenarios", especially when (as is the case) the worst-case
could be global warfare and the use of nuclear arms and chemical or biological
weapons. It would be unfair to edit out these discussions after the
fact, and they are preserved here not only out of fairness but because
the existence of such dangers only highlights the atmosphere under which
the U.S. chose to engage in warfare.
In an
effort to be as forthright as possible, it should be stated that any appearance
of bias in the tone of writing may be attributable to the truth that such
a bias does exist, although all attempts have been made to present the
facts themselves without any intention of misrepresentation. When
opinion or interpretation of the facts is presented, an attempt has been
made to state this clearly or pose such opinions and interpretations in
a way as to leave no doubt that conclusions are being drawn from the information.
It might
be noted that, in the final section containing discussion of news events
that occurred during the war, there is much more "editorializing" about
the facts than elsewhere in the analysis. These articles were written
separate from the first three sections, and were not originally intended
to be included in the anti-war analysis. They are contained here
for their obvious relevance to the subject matter, and for readers to perhaps
compare the concerns voiced earlier in the analysis with the actual course
of events during the war.
The initial
analysis will be broken into three parts. It begins with the most
serious issues concerning the effects of a potential war with Iraq.
Then, there will be a synopsis of the history leading up to the Gulf War,
events during the war, and the immediate aftermath.
Finally,
there will be an analysis of the issues surrounding U.S. interests and
policies with regard to oil, in both the Middle East and North and South
America, and the global implications of those interests and policies.
There is also included in this section an article on European policy regarding
the Middle East. This article was not originally part of the analysis,
but is included here to provide a wider perspective concerning potential
global developments and how the author interprets such events. This
last section will contain much more opinion and interpretation of the facts
than the rest of the early analyses.
The first
three sections of analysis have been structured in this way for a few reasons.
The facts concerning the current crisis with Iraq are the most immediately
important from a practical standpoint, and thus are dealt with first.
In addition, the issues which follow the first section are addressed here
precisely because of their relevance to the current crisis; thus, while
they are of no less importance, they must be relegated to a subordinate
position within the overall analysis. This being the case, the section
regarding the dangers of a second war with Iraq should be read as the primary
argument set forth, and the two following sections viewed as "supporting
material".
These
later two sections, while each is capable of standing alone as analysis
of their respective topics, also are interrelated, and when viewed outside
the context of the main argument regarding impending war, they can be taken
together as an analysis of U.S. policy in the Middle East irrespective
of the case made against waging another war with Iraq. The issues
discussed in the Gulf War section are based on historical facts, which
are (by and large) not open to personal opinion; in other words, these
things happened, these were (and are) U.S actions and policies.
2
As mentioned
earlier, the final section of the original analysis does fall to a large
extent into the realm of interpretation and opinion, but relies on facts
and events to draw conclusions which should seem at least reasonable (while
perhaps not necessarily likely in the opinions of some) to anyone who views
the evidence honestly. This last portion also considers some worst-case
scenarios, and while these are quite extreme as far as policy interpretation
is concerned, they are nevertheless plausible and worth mentioning.
Something
should also be said regarding the obvious omission here of any detailed
analysis of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, and the incredibly important
role that relationship has played in U.S. policy and diplomacy in the Middle
East. This omission is primarily because such a discussion is a whole
other work in and of itself, and would require a major deviation from the
central topic being addressed. Several excellent books have already
been written which deal with the subject probably as well as is possible
(Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle", and Said, "The Politics of Dispossession",
to name but two). Any half-attempts or abridged version of the facts
here would be worse than simply avoiding this issue and referring the readers
elsewhere.
Three
sources contributed much to the initial three sections of analysis.
The first is "The Fire This Time: U.S. War Crimes In The Gulf" by
Ramsey Clark (former Attorney General), which meticulously documents the
death and destruction suffered in Iraq during the first Gulf War, and how
the U.S. government manipulated Saddam Hussein into war. The second
is "War and Television" by Bruce Cumings. This book focuses on the
role of the media during war, and how the U.S. media colludes with the
government to manipulate or censor facts for public consumption.
The last one is the documentary film "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm" by Audrey
Brohy and Gerard Ungerman, which combines chilling facts and statistics
with footage to uncover the truth about U.S. actions during the war.
These 2 books and the film are the primary sources for the section on the
Gulf War.
Aside from these sources, most of the other information contained in the
early analysis was compiled from internet sites, primarily news and journalism
sites. These include: the study "Target Iraq: Imminent Threat Analysis",
by Priority Peace and Dr. Alan Gilbert, available at the Priority Peace
website; the "New York Times", "Washington Post", and "Financial Times
of London" sites; the "World Socialist Website"; "The Observer"; the "Sunday
Herald" of Scotland; various "Reuters" reports; the "Guardian"; the "Independent";
and the "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)" site.
On occasion, some indirect sources of reference are from reports on "The
Jim Lehrer News Hour" on PBS; CBS News; and occasionally from interviews
on "Charlie Rose", also on PBS. While not the source of specific
information, "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National
Security Advisor) was used as a reference (although surely not as he would
hope) for certain U.S. policy objectives analyzed throughout this text,
as were a few books by Noam Chomsky, notably "Deterring Democracy" and
"Towards A New Cold War" (revised addition).
Many other sources are noted within the text itself, such as interviews
and U.N. documents or U.S. govervnment documents, the documents easily
obtained from congressional representatives or Congressional Research Services,
and through the U.N. For information on Depleted Uranium, a good
source would be the Federation of American Scientists' web page on Depleted
Uranium Ammunition.
Anyone who wishes to confirm the accuracy of information provided here
can easily do so by refering to the three primary sources noted above,
as well as the internet sites. None of the facts here are hard to
find.
The articles in Section Four were written during the second U.S. war against
Iraq. These were written literally as events transpired, as the author
pulled information from multiple news sources each day (a process that
consisted of watching televison while listening to the radio, and reading
newspapers and internet news sites, all simultaniously). The sources
for these articles are well documented throughout the writing itself, and
many mainstream media sources were used to piece together what was happening.
Readers should note that most of the information and facts appearing in
these articles originated in the media sources cited in the text, and this
author can claim only minor credit for piecing together these multiple
accounts and reports. Majority credit must go to the original reporters
and media outlets responsible for the original reports. In particular
the author wishes to thank Robert Fisk of the Independent, not only for
the debt owed to him for many of the accounts in this text, but for his
continuing commitment to documenting truths that might otherwise never
be revealed (this should not be construed as suggesting Mr. Fisk was in
any way involved with this text, nor that this author has ever had the
pleasure of meeting him).
The purpose of reporting on the war in this manner was to compile multiple
accurate first-hand reports into one source, while also critiquing the
self-censorship that permeates our national propaganda machine (known as
"the U.S. media"). In addition, the articles attempt to show how a critical
observer can still catch glimpses of truth even within the sanitized lies
we are fed in this nation, and how the rewriting of history is easily witnessed
on a daily basis, right before our eyes if we will only pay attention.
It is the hope of this author that the information contained here will
assist in further educating readers about the horrors of war, the viciousness
of imperialism, and the extent to which governments will lie and distort
information to achieve those ever-present twin goals of power and profit.
Such knowledge is imperative, if we are to resist those policies, and someday
forge a society of equity and justice.
3
SECTION ONE:
THE CASE AGAINST WAR
"There is no 'just war'. There is
just war."
CHAPTER ONE
DEPLETED URANIUM
This analysis
begins by considering a danger not discussed by the U.S. government or
the media, although it is one threat that is dangerous to all parties involved,
and to the Middle East in general.
In the
production of nuclear weapons and at nuclear power plants, radioactive
waste is produced. While this waste has had much of its radioactive
property removed, it still remains toxic. What many people are unaware
of, however, is that this waste is not merely destroyed or stored safely
away.
The fact
is that much of this waste is given free to the Pentagon for the production
of weapons. For over a decade, the U.S. military has been producing
what is known as depleted uranium (DU) ordnance, using uranium 238 for
warheads on missiles, rockets, anti-tank weapons, armor piercing ammunition,
and possibly more.
Uranium
238 is considered the best material to produce these weapons for several
reasons: it is highly dense and thus excellent for penetrating armor
and bunkers; it is provided free of charge; it has residual effects, like
producing radioactive particle harmful and potentially fatal when inhaled,
swallowed, or as residue on skin and clothes; these particles can poison
the soil, water, food supplies; and other dangerous conditions which may
be desirable when occurring in an enemy territory.
When these
weapons are fired, the uranium bursts into flames, liquefies, and sears
through even the steel on heavily armored tanks. Any diesel fuel
vapors inside the tank explode due to the intense heat from the burning
uranium. The fire creates uranium oxide, spreading and contaminating
the corpses, equipment, and soil.
The dust
particles and larger pieces are scattered all over the battlefield, creating
radioactive, carcinogenic clouds of smoke. Uranium 238 settles in
the lungs, kidneys, testicles, and bones of persons exposed to its effects.
It also settles in the placentas of pregnant women.
Radioactive debris from DU weapons remains radioactive for over
4.5 billion years. In Minnesota and New Mexico, where DU weapon testing
occurs, the testing grounds are now permanently radioactive.
The facts
above clearly expose the danger of using these DU weapons, but the danger
has not stopped the U.S. from employing DU ordnance in warfare. The
results of this use have been catastrophic, and not only for the enemy
combatants and territories. Indeed, there have been a set of surprising
casualties resulting from the U.S. deployment of DU weapons, casualties
ignored by both the U.S. government and the U.S. media.
Who are
these hidden casualties? U.S. troops, European troops, and their
families.
The U.S.
used DU ordnance in the Gulf War, in the NATO bombing campaign in the Balkans,
in Afghanistan, and is now preparing to use these weapons in the impending
war with Iraq. From what has already been noted about these weapons,
the implications of their widespread use again are obvious. However,
to get an even clearer picture of what can be expected if DU weapons are
employed in another war with Iraq, consider the following facts (and facts
they are).
The first
confirmed use of DU weapons in battle was in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf
War. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, in an April 1991
report, confirmed the U.S. fired between 5,000 and 6,000 DU armor piercing
shells, and about 50,000 DU rockets and missiles, leaving tons and tons
of radioactive and toxic rubble in Iraq and Kuwait. The UKAEA report
also said the 40 tons of radioactive debris left behind could cause up
to 500,000 Iraqi deaths. The total number of all DU rounds fired
in the Gulf War comes to roughly 944,000, or 2,700 tons of weapons.
The Pentagon admits to "only" 320 metric tons of DU left on the battlefield
after the war, but Russian military experts claim the actual amount is
1,000 metric tons.
4
After
the war ended, U.S. troops began to show symptoms of what has since been
dubbed "Gulf War Syndrome". The numbers are staggering. About
one in three U.S. troops have developed symptoms to date; thus, out of
the roughly 600,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in the Gulf
during the period, there are between 125,000 to 200,000 who have suffered
from illnesses directly attributable to serving in the Gulf.
Over 183,000
Gulf vets have applied for disability. Over 9,700 Gulf vets had died
as of the year 2000. That is about 3 per day, every day, since the
war ended, and it does not include numbers for troops who have died in
the last 3 years.
What symptoms
have manifested in the U.S. troops? Mostly sicknesses consistent
with radiation exposure or toxic poisoning. Although there are some
soldiers whose illnesses are not readily attributable to radiation exposure,
in the vast number of cases such attribution has been made by the doctors
treating the troops.
Illnesses
suffered by U.S. veterans of the Gulf War include: cancer and leukemia;
genetic defects; heavy metal poisoning; kidney damage; lung damage (these
last three are symptoms from the inhalation of dust particles of uranium
238); skin disorders and burns; hair loss; and children born with birth
defects (sometimes horribly deformed or stillborn). In some cases,
the spouses of these U.S. veterans have contracted similar illnesses, attributed
by their doctors to the exposure of the troops, who then passed the contamination
on through physical contact due to the high concentration of radiation
in their bodies, clothes, and body fluids like semen.
Doctors
who have been treating most of the veterans claim the evidence overwhelmingly
proves these patients suffer from radiation exposure or exposure to toxic
carcinogenic substances (this refers to the heavy metal poisoning symptomatic
of inhalation of uranium 238 dust particles, which as already noted results
in kidney and lung damage). Additionally, since these troops served
during a war in which they were exposed directly to DU weapons and the
resulting effects of these ordnance (toxic clouds, small and larger particles
of uranium, etc.), doctors therefore assert it is impossible to ignore
a direct connection to exposure to the DU weapons used by the U.S.
In a study
of Gulf War veterans, 67% of them had children with missing eyes, fused
fingers, blood infections, respiratory problems, and other extreme illnesses.
Birth defects can be caused either directly due to uranium settled into
the father's testicles, or because the mother was exposed (either in the
war or from the father) and the uranium settled in the placenta.
An example is Jayce Hanson, son of Gulf War veteran Sergent Paul Hanson
of the U.S. Army. Both of them were pictured on the cover of a "Life"
magazine special investigation issue focusing on Gulf War syndrome.
Jayce has no arms, his hands coming directly out of his shoulders.
His legs are severely swollen and no knees are visible.
U.S. troops
were not exposed to the effects of DU ordnance only when the weapons were
used, however. The FDA determined that even U.S. troops who were
only exposed to the DU weapons by being in military vehicles loaded with
these weapons, still received doses of radiation equivalent to one chest
X-ray every 20-30 hrs.
What is
the U.S. government's response to all of this medical and scientific evidence
pointing to DU ordnance as the source of U.S. troops' illnesses?
Denial.
The Pentagon,
after a lengthy study on "Gulf War Syndrome", concluded the cause cannot
be determined. Furthermore, the veterans of the Gulf War suffering
from this "syndrome" have been denied disability compensation and in many
cases treatment for their illnesses, since the U.S. government refuses
to admit any connection between the illnesses and the use of DU weapons.
For Iraq,
the result of the U.S. use of these weapons has been horrible. The
country is still littered with pieces of DU ordnance, and the ground all
over Iraq is contaminated, so Iraqis are still being exposed to the radiation
and toxicity from uranium 238. Hundreds of Iraqi children still die
every month from cancer, leukemia, kidney and lung disease, and other effects
of radiation poisoning attributed to U.S. DU weapons.
5
Children
are regularly born with severe birth defects, often without heads, or are
stillborn. The continuing effects have resulted in tens or possibly
hundreds of thousands of deaths and other illnesses over the last 12 years,
confirmed by multiple U.S. and international health organizations.
There
is also a danger to other nations in the region as well. Much of
the DU ordnance used during the Gulf War may have fallen on Iraqi positions
in Kuwait. Beyond even this danger to Kuwait, however, is the telling
fact that Saudi researchers have detected elevated levels of radiation
along Saudi Arabia's northern borders. Since it has been reported
that the air campaign in the war against Afghanistan also employed DU weapons,
and since any new war against Iraq will likely mean more DU ordnance falling
in that country as well, there is the very real danger of severe increases
in radiation levels across the Middle East.
There
is other evidence on the dangers of DU weapons providing a further glimpse
of what can be expected in a new war against Iraq. DU ordnance was
also widely used in the NATO war in the Balkans, with effects similar to
those that occurred in Iraq. After the U.S. bombing campaign ended,
NATO peacekeeping forces (or more accurately, NATO occupation forces) consisting
primarily of European troops moved into the bombed regions. Soon
after, the specter of radiation and heavy metal poisoning began to rear
its head yet again.
European
troops, especially Italians, began seeing an incredible increase in cancer,
leukemia, and other symptoms of radiation exposure. Some reports
have claimed cancer and leukemia rates as high as between 25 and 35 percent
in Italians serving in the Balkans. This led the Italian government
to request reimbursement from the U.S. for the medical costs, a fact reported
once in the "New York Times" and ignored in the media since.
In developments
similar to Saudi Arabia's discovery of increasing radiation levels, European
nations began detecting dramatic increases (reportedly as high as 25 percent
in some nations) in background radiation when winds blow from the Balkans.
Just as ominously, radiation in European water tables increased dramatically.
Like so many facts already stated, these were likewise largely ignored
in the U.S. media, and the U.S. government has so far denied responsibility
in the face of overwhelming evidence.
In November
of 2001, the U.N. General Assembly, under intense pressure from the U.S.,
voted 45-54 (with 45 abstentions) to reject an Iraqi request for a study
on the effects of DU weapons on Iraq. The Iraqi Health Ministry said
instances of cancer rose to 10,931 in 1997, an increase of 4,376 over 1989
(pre-Gulf War). The U.N. committee on disarmament and international
security voted 49-45 in favor of the proposal earlier in November.
Many U.N. diplomats said the reversal was due to heavy lobbying by the
U.S. against the proposal. Earlier in 2001, the World Health Organization
started a lengthy study on the effects of DU weapons.
A U.N.
subcommission, in August of 2002, issued a report stating unequivocally
that DU weapons violate the Genocide Convention; the Geneva Conventions
of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; the U.N. Charter;
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and the Hague Conventions of
1899 and 1907. The continued use of DU ordnance by U.S. forces is
in violation of the U.N. classification of these weapons as illegal.
Therefore, the U.S. is unquestionably in possession of banned weapons of
mass destruction, in violation of the relevant U.N. resolution, and is
threatening other nations with these illicit weapons; in other words, everything
Iraqi is accused of, the very reasons Iraq now faces an invasion.
The facts
presented here prove beyond any doubt how dangerous DU weapons are to enemy
combatants, to civilians, and to the environment where they are used.
Further, despite repeated denials by the Pentagon and U.S. government,
the medical evidence overwhelmingly suggests DU weapons also directly harm
U.S. and European allies' soldiers who are exposed to the side effects
of uranium 238. Finally, the U.N. has determined DU weapons are illegal,
so the use of such ordnance during battle violates international law and
is thus a war crime.
When these
facts are considered with a view towards the U.S. intention to employ a
new bombing campaign against Iraq that will dwarf any previous air assault
in history, it seems inescapable to conclude that such an attack will create
an immense danger for all Iraqis (troops and civilians alike), for the
environment in Iraq as well as its neighbors, and for U.S. and any allied
troops in the region.
6
CHAPTER TWO
WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION AND TERRORISM
The current
drive to war is being fueled by a single issue: weapons of mass destruction.
Whatever real motives may ultimately lie behind the Bush administration's
war policy, the questions about Iraq's WOMD program are the founding principle
of their argument for war. To legitimize a U.S. invasion, the U.S.
has focused on convincing the U.N. and U.S. citizens that Iraq has a large,
secret chemical and biological weapons program that is a direct threat
to the region and to the U.S. itself.
In attempting
to drum up support in America, the Bush administration has repeatedly conjured
images of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, saying again and
again that Iraq could give WOMD to terrorist organization, with Bush himself
saying Saddam Hussein plans to use al Qaida as his "forward army" to attack
the U.S. without leaving his "fingerprints". The invoking of September
11 has been a recurring theme in the administration's attempts to explain
the unique American determination to deal with the alleged "Iraqi threat".
However,
the facts regarding Iraq's WOMD and the actual threat posed to the U.S.
are quite different from the image put forth by President Bush and his
government. In fact, the most telling evidence contradicting Bush's
assertions of the "Iraqi threat" actually comes from the U.S. intelligence
community itself.
In a report
leaked to the media, the CIA stated that all intelligence they have gathered
suggests clearly that Saddam Hussein would not use Iraqi WOMD or give such
weapons to terrorists unless Hussein was attacked and felt he was surely
going to loose power. The report cites the fact that Iraq is isolated
regionally, without any allies, and was left so damaged and economically
weak after the Gulf War that it is unlikely Hussein could pursue any large-scale
WOMD programs.
Additionally,
the report notes that (contrary to repeated claims by the Bush administration
that Iraq has had "12 years" to come clean) Iraq was subjected to a rigorous
U.N. inspections regime which had, by 1998, eradicated roughly 95 percent
of Iraq's WOMD and facilities for producing such weapons. The CIA
further points out that Iraq has, since the Gulf War, been subjected to
constant surveillance by the U.S. (including spying by the U.S. during
the U.N. inspections) and over-flights by U.S. and British warplanes in
the "No Fly Zones".
All of
these facts lead the CIA to conclude that if Iraq does possess any WOMD
programs, it is a very small one and poses no clear or immediate threat
to either the U.S. or Iraq's neighbors. Also, due to the animosity
between Hussein and Islamic fundamentalists (because of Iraq's secular
government and repression of the Shiite majority), it is unlikely Hussein
would provide WOMD to groups who might very well use them to battle the
Iraqi regime.
The only
scenario the CIA imagines in which Iraq would use any WOMD or provide them
to terrorists, then, is the exact situation being created by the U.S. under
the pretense of preventing precisely what they are encouraging. This
is backed up by U.S. government statements that Hussein has ordered his
generals to prepare to use WOMD against U.S. troops. If this is true,
it merely highlights the CIA's point.
This conclusion
is likewise reached by British intelligence. The BBC obtained and
made public "top-level British intelligence reports" stating that there
are "absolutely no ties" between Iraq and al Qaida.
There
is an even more damning set of facts about the CIA denial of an Iraqi threat.
Currently, there are up to 30 CIA and other intelligence officials who
have sought refuge in Sweden after that nation granted amnesty for them.
These U.S. intelligence agents claim they are being silenced and threatened
by the Bush administration, and that they cannot speak freely about the
facts concerning CIA intelligence on Iraq. They also assert that
the administration demands intelligence reports be shaped to make the case
against Iraq, and apply pressure to CIA operatives who resist "politicizing"
the intelligence reports.
7
What are
these operatives saying that the Bush administration does not want to hear
(and does not want anyone else to hear, either)? That Iraq is not
a threat, that Iraq has no ties to terrorist, that Iraq probably has little
if any remaining WOMD, and that Iraq would not use these weapons against
the U.S. or anyone else unless faced with invasion. Actually, there
is one more claim made by these CIA operatives that is perhaps most important
of all: they say not only does the CIA not believe what President
Bush is saying, the CIA also does not believe the President really believes
what he is saying, either.
With respect
to the physical evidence of an Iraqi WOMD program, the simple fact is there
is so far no physical evidence. What have been found up to this point
are only the remains of warheads capable of delivering WOMD, and even these
appear to be what was left over after the first U.N. inspections.
UNMOVIC (the new inspection regime) says quite clearly that they have found
no physical evidence of an ongoing WOMD program.
The U.S.
has presented what it claims to be evidence of an Iraqi WOMD program.
However, there are serious problems with the U.S. case against Iraq.
First of all, when the U.S. first began presenting this evidence, it had
not yet provided any of its intelligence information to the U.N. inspectors,
which happens to be in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The inspectors
complained that had the U.S. shared this information with them, they could
have gone immediately to any suspect sites and determined if illegal weapons
production was occurring.
As a result
of this criticism, the U.S. began making its intelligence available to
the inspectors, giving them precise information the U.S. claimed would
allow inspectors to find Iraqi WOMD and production sites. Following
U.S. information sharing, inspectors began making "raids" and even traffic
stops to catch "mobile weapons facilities" based on U.S. intelligence.
The results were disappointing. UNMOVIC now say the U.S. intelligence
was useless, sending them on "wild goose-chases" that turned up absolutely
nothing. One inspector, very angry at the quality of U.S. information,
referred to the intelligence as "…bullshit after bullshit after bullshit…"
Hans Blix
has said, both in interviews and in his reports to the U.N., that while
there are still problems and issues to be overcome in the inspections,
the process is improving, Iraq is being more cooperative as time goes on,
and most importantly that the inspections should continue because they
are making progress. The feeling that inspections are working is
shared by many nations in the U.N., most notably France, Germany, and Russia.
There
is an aspect of the U.S. intelligence information that should be remembered.
While this is not meant to discredit it out of hand, it is nevertheless
relevant. The U.S. "proof" has so far consisted primarily of satellite
photos and human intelligence (statements by people with reported knowledge
of the facts). With regard to the satellite images, these are presented
by Secretary of State Colin Powell. Secretary Powell is the same
man who, during the Gulf War, presented the satellite images supposedly
showing Iraqi troops massing at the Saudi border. These photos helped
secure permission from Saudi Arabia for U.S. troops to begin massing for
the eventual war against Iraq. These photos also happen to have been
falsified.
It is
now a matter of documented fact that other satellite images (obtained from
commercial satellites by journalists who hoped to get dramatic pictures
of the Iraqi troop build up) showed clearly, on three separate dates, that
no Iraqi troops were at the Saudi border. Undisturbed sand drifts
several days old were all over the roads to the Saudi border. No
Iraqi troops were present. Saudi Arabia even sent personnel across
the border to try to get an idea of the size of Iraq's forces, and returned
with the disturbing news that the U.S. information was false.
Thus,
Powell is not the most credible source for satellite images of Iraq.
The fact he gave false evidence of this type against Iraq once does not
necessarily mean he is doing so now, but it would be careless to simply
dismiss the issue.
Concerning
the U.S. intelligence gained through interviews with "knowledgeable Iraqis",
there is again a credibility problem. Actually, there are several
problems. As with the satellite images, testimony of Iraqi activities
presented to Congress and the U.N. prior to the Gulf War was later proven
false. The famous story of Iraqi troops pulling infants from incubators,
for one example, came from a 15-year-old girl who turned out to be the
daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and she was not even in Iraq at the
time anyway. Other witnesses who testified about Iraqi atrocities
were found to have given false names and backgrounds.
8
It is
unfair for the U.S. to say, "We were told this by people who we know are
telling the truth, but we can't tell you their names or prove they said
any of this." Intelligence of this type is not "proof", and it cannot
be verified. Besides, the information is largely attributed to Iraqis
who defected, so there is at least the possibility of bias. Most
important, however, is the fact that much of what these informants are
saying, such as the reports of mobile bio-weapons trucks, was not mentioned
by these same people when they were first interviewed after their defections.
It is months or even years later, when the U.S. is trying to prove Iraq
has WOMD, that these Iraqis conveniently claim direct knowledge of the
existence of WOMD capabilities.
Since
it cannot be verified that these claims were actually made, since the sources
may be biased, since the sources did not divulge this information in any
prior interviews, and since not a single claim has been proven anyway,
the quality of this "human intelligence" is not significant. If the
credibility of Secretary Powell is also taken into account, as it should
be under the circumstances, then the information becomes highly suspect.
This is
not to say Iraq lacks WOMD. It is a mistake for those opposing a
U.S. invasion to stake too much on the idea that Iraq does not have a WOMD
program, for if too much focus is put on such an argument, then opponents
of war risk embarrassment if WOMD are found or Iraq uses them during a
war. There is a distinct possibility Iraq does possess these weapons,
and while lack of evidence should be strongly pointed out, it should also
be stressed that the existence of WOMD would still not suggest a
danger to the U.S., or legitimize a U.S. invasion. It is important
to make the connection between these two points as often as possible, lest
war opponents find themselves in the position of having to backtrack on
their arguments and appear discredited.
Regarding
the question of Iraq's connection to terrorists, it should be remembered
that in the most recently released tapes from Osama bin Laden, he calls
for Muslims to support Iraq against U.S. aggression, but pointedly refers
to Saddam Hussein as an "infidel" and says he should be overthrown or killed
by Iraqis. Ansar al Islam, the Islamic organization battling secular
Kurds in northern Iraq, also denies any connection to the Hussein regime.
Beyond
these denials, there is other evidence that, as both the CIA and British
intelligence agencies say, no connection exists between Iraq and terrorists.
The terrorist
organization operating in northern Iraq, Ansar al-Islam, is operating in
the northern "No Fly Zone" and under constant U.S. surveillance.
Yet, the U.S. has not produced a single piece of evidence showing meetings
or weapons shipments connected to Hussein's government. As mentioned
earlier, Islamic terrorist groups have always opposed secular rule in Iraq,
and Hussein would (correctly) assume that such a group is actually a threat
to his government. There is no incentive for him to assist or provide
WOMD to a violent religious group within Iraq, especially since Iraq has
a Shiite majority.
Claims
by the U.S. that Ansar al-Islam was operating a chemical weapons production
facility were false. Journalists traveled to the site specified by
the U.S., and found a deserted building. U.N. inspectors likewise
visited the site and confirmed it had been deserted for some time.
Since this site was within the northern "No Fly Zone", being patrolled
by warplanes and under surveillance, it is unlikely WOMD could or would
have been produced.
An interesting
note about this particular site should be mentioned. It was built,
some time ago, with materials supplied by Britain, who were aware it was
reportedly a chemical weapons production site. Both the U.S. and
British media have largely ignored this embarrassing point.
The U.S.
makes much of the (alleged) fact that members of al Qaida are reportedly
inside Iraq, and that Abu Musab Zarqawi (leader of Ansar al-Islam) received
medical treatment in Baghdad. However, the Bush administration is
not accusing European governments of links to terrorists, even though the
exiled former head of Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar, is actually living
in Oslo, Norway, right now. As far as the assumption of a link to
terrorists because of their presence in Iraq, there are many groups in
Iraq, like the Kurdish separatists, but the U.S. is not alleging a "link"
to them, and al Qaida terrorists were in the U.S., yet nobody assumes a
connection there, either.
9
On the
issue of "supporting terrorism", it must not be overlooked that the U.S.
conducts training in terrorist tactics at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Previously named "The School of the Americas", this training is provided
to military personnel from foreign nations (primarily Latin American countries)
who consistently are found to use the training to terrorize civilians and
commit war crimes. There is much factual documentation of this.
The U.S. is, by the way, also the only nation in history convicted by the
U.N. World Court for supporting terrorism (in 1986, Nicaragua v. U.S.)
To make
a point about the hypocrisy of U.S. accusations towards other nations for
"aiding terrorists", remember that for many years fundraising for the Irish
Republican Army was allowed inside the U.S., despite their repeated terrorist
attacks against the British, and occasionally members of the IRA were within
the U.S. but not extradited to Britain. What of the fact that the
U.S. is sending millions of dollars and military support to the government
and army of Columbia, despite the fact that the Columbian military supports
and aids a paramilitary group designated as terrorists by the U.S. State
Department?
One final
note on WOMD. The U.S. military, who throughout the Cold War threatened
the whole world with a nuclear holocaust, if war broke out with Russia,
owns the largest stockpiles of WOMD. Allies against Germany in World
War I used chemical weapons, and the U.S. used atomic weapons twice against
Japan in World War II.
Additionally,
as described in Chapter One above, the U.S. produce depleted uranium weapons,
which are as deadly, or in some instances more deadly, than some chemical
and biological weapons, DU weapons themselves being a type of WOMD.
The U.S. still produce biological and chemical weapons, an important point
on this being that the anthrax attacks in the U.S. in 2001 were committed
with a strain of the bacteria produced at a U.S. military base, as admitted
by the Pentagon.
Thus,
any discussion about the legitimacy of invading Iraq over the issue of
the danger posed by WOMD should, if the discussion is to be honest, deal
first with the fact that WOMD are produced by a nation with a history of
using them against enemies and which admits to currently possessing such
weapons, namely the U.S., and the Middle Eastern nation with a large nuclear
arsenal: Israel.
In the
event, there does not seem to be compelling evidence that an Iraqi WOMD
program exists, or that if one did exist it would pose any threat to the
U.S. or the Middle East, even if the existence of an Iraqi WOMD program
were a legitimate reason for war in the first place (a point that is hardly
to be conceded). Further, there seems absolutely no reason to believe
that Saddam Hussein's regime has any connections to al Qaida, Ansar al-Islam,
or any other terrorist organizations at this time, and certainly no evidence
has been presented by the U.S. to establish such a link. Lastly,
if Iraq has or later develops WOMD, there is still no reason to conclude
Hussein would order their use or provide them to terrorists. No reason,
that is, unless the U.S. attacks Iraq.
As stated
at the beginning of this chapter, the Bush administration's case for war
has hinged on the issue of WOMD, and the related issue of possible links
between Iraq and terrorists. If this is the foundation for legitimizing
war, neither foundation nor legitimacy exists.
10
CHAPTER THREE
THE TERRORIST THREAT
Chapter
Two touched on the issue of terrorism as it is linked to the question of
Iraq and WOMD. This chapter intends to look at the issue of how a
war against Iraq is likely to increase anti-U.S. sentiment, potentially
increase the threat of terrorism against U.S. and European targets, and
ultimately disrupt regional stability throughout the Middle East.
A U.S.
war against Iraq will likely increase anti-American sentiments in the Middle
East. The build-up to war has already done so (and not just in the
Middle East). There are several reasons for this, beyond the obvious
objections to unilateral war. Many citizens of Middle East nations
feel there is a decidedly anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bias in U.S. foreign policy,
a feeling accentuated by the U.S.-Israel relationship. U.S. support
for regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and the former U.S. support for
the Shag of Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, point towards a U.S. policy
favoring governments friendly to U.S. economic (read "oil") interests,
with little regard for how those governments treat their citizens.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and U.S. support for Israeli repression
and violence against Palestinians, fits into this category as well.
This last
goes back to post World War I policies, when the West encouraged Arabs
to break from the Ottoman Empire, under the pretense that the allies would
recognize Middle Eastern independence. Obviously, that is not quite
what the allies actually had in mind, as the subsequent colonialism proved
(with Syria and Lebanon placed under a French mandate, Iraq, Palestine,
and Transjordan under a British mandate). The "right" for Jews to
a national homeland in Palestine was recognized in this same period.
It should also be remembered Kuwait was actually created by the British
government in 1921, by Sir Percy Cox of the Colonial Office, who took a
section of the Basra province from Iraq to cut Iraqi access to the Persian
Gulf.
U.S. policy
was no better in the following years. The CIA-backed overthrow of
the Mossadegh government of Iran in the 1950s, the CIA-backed overthrow
of the Kassem government in Iraq (leading to the Baathist take-over and
Hussein's rise to power) in the 1960's, both situations a reaction to nationalization
of western oil companies, are just two examples. There are others,
such as U.S. support for separatist factions across the region, U.S. manipulation
of oil through client states, U.S. arms shipments to warring nations (usually
both sides of the conflicts), and ultimately U.S.-led warfare against Middle
Eastern states. U.S. military and support for Israel, and U.S. funding
of Jewish settlements (largely through private donations) is another big
part of the over-all equation, when calculating the causes of anti-American
sentiment.
As can
easily be seen, there is much history that contributes to distrust of U.S.
actions and interests in the Middle East. It is, therefore, not difficult
to understand why another war against Iraq would increase animosity towards
the U.S. Whereas Americans are (for the most part) unaware of much
of the actual devastation that occurred in the recent U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan, and the even worse destruction caused during the Gulf War,
people in the Middle East are not. The apparent U.S. disinterest
with the death and ruin caused by its actions, coupled with apparent U.S.
lack of sympathy for the plight of Palestinians, only make matters worse.
Moreover,
the U.S. has made it clear that after a war with Iraq, the U.S. would maintain
an occupation force and U.S. control over the governing of Iraq for at
least one-to-two years, and the public discussions about U.S. control of
Iraq oil (some administration officials have said Turkey risks loosing
out on the "oil spoils" for its lack of support for a U.S. invasion) increase
opposition for U.S. policies in the region.
11
There
has also been much public talk about "reshaping" the region, as if there
is not even debate as to whether the U.S. (or any external power, for that
matter) has the right to "reshape" anything. Besides, when the U.S.
talks of "reshaping", two facts come immediately to mind. First,
that this "reshaping" has in the past, is currently, and is planned in
the immediate future to be carried out by warfare. It is understandable,
then, if Middle East citizens cringe at the thought of America "reshaping"
their region with bombs. Second, the U.S. opinion that the region
must be "reshaped" is based solely on U.S. interests, as has been said
publicly by many Bush administration officials. U.S. oil interests
are a top priority, but the strategic positioning of American military
power throughout the Middle East is the ultimate long-term goal, a fact
that should not be understated in deference to the "oil-interest" argument
against war.
The "war
on terror" is yet another cause for concern in the Middle East. It
is certainly true the U.S. seems concerned only with Islamic terrorism,
ignoring terrorism when it is conducted by U.S. client states like Israel
or Columbia (to name just two examples). Using the threat of terrorism
to justify an invasion of Iraq, when as noted in the previous chapter there
is no evidence of an Iraqi link to terrorists, merely heightens the perception
that the U.S. is conducting a war against Arabs and Islam in general, under
the guise of fighting terror. If the "war on terror" where truly
that, it would involve U.S. actions against all terrorist groups and states
that sponsor terrorism (not to mention shutting down the U.S.'s own terror-training
camp at Fort Benning). To the extent the U.S. ignores any terrorism
except Islamic terrorism, it reveals the rhetoric as hollow, and thus not
reflecting real U.S. intentions.
Arab leaders
throughout the region have repeatedly warned the Bush administration not
to underestimate the rising anti-Americanism in the Middle East, or the
potential for it manifesting in violence should the U.S. attack Iraq.
They are concerned for the stability of their regimes as much as for the
safety of Americans. A tide of anti-Americanism, expressing itself
violently, could direct itself towards the U.S.-friendly governments in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and perhaps others.
Those governments
are, therefore, worried about the side effects of anti-Americanism.
This is not to say the internal collapse of those regimes would necessarily
be bad, simply that it would lead to much bloodshed, and regardless the
current governments recognize the dangers and are vocal about them.
The opposition
to the U.S. will likely increase recruitment prospects for terrorist organizations.
Indeed, Osama bin Laden has released tapes calling for Muslims to rise
up and wage war against the U.S., a call that is gaining support.
Besides the clear danger this poses in general, there is the CIA memo,
mentioned earlier, to consider. If the U.S. invades Iraq, an increase
in terrorism would be accentuated by the danger of Iraq, backed into a
corner, providing WOMD to these terrorists, as predicted by the CIA.
All of the U.S. fears about WOMD in the hands of terrorists could be realized.
The U.S.
has increased the terror alert nationwide again, and the government publicly
and repeatedly says the U.S. must be prepared to expect threats of terrorism
against citizens if and when war occurs, all the while still clinging to
the argument that war is necessary to decrease the threat posed to the
U.S. It seems obvious that a U.S. war against Iraq will do nothing
to protect the U.S., and will only increase the danger of attacks against
U.S. citizens everywhere.
12
CHAPTER FOUR
PREEMPTIVE WAR AND
UNILATERALISM
Although
the U.S. is working feverishly to gain U.N. sanction for a war against
Iraq, the efforts do not appear successful. President Bush has said,
however, that the U.S. will go to war with or without U.N. approval.
An invasion, "preventative" according the administration, "preemptive"
by actual definition, would be illegal on several grounds. In fact,
the words "preemptive" and "unilateral" have appeared in U.S. statements
lately, along with the more benign-sounding "preventative".
Unilateral
warfare violates international law. Secretary General Kofi Annan
has said publicly that a U.S. invasion without the approval of the Security
Council would violate the U.N. Charter. A reading of the Charter
proves this is definitely true.
Article
2, Sections 1 through 4 recognize the "sovereign equality" of all nations
and restrict the use of force (and the threat of such force) against "the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Article
24, Section 1 grants the Security Council the authority "for the maintenance
of international peace and security", and Section 25 states explicitly
that "[t]he Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out
the decisions of the Security Council". Articles 33 through 43 outline
the duties and authority of the Security Council to settle disputes between
nations, and restrict the use of force not sanctioned by the Council.
A U.S. war against Iraq would clearly violate the U.N. Charter if the invasion
were carried out without approval.
Likewise,
Article 2, Sections 4 and 7 recognize the "political independence" and
"sovereignty" of nations, and it is reasonable to conclude that overthrowing
or assassinating Saddam Hussein violates the "political independence" of
Iraq. "Regime change" and "political independence" appear to be a
bit mutually exclusive. The question of "regime change" and how it
should be achieved is the topic of much debate. Not much is said
about whether it should be achieved. Another problem with the U.S.
plan is that actually targeting Saddam Hussein for death violates U.S.
laws, which explicitly forbid the targeting of foreign leaders for assassination
(even, it must be noted, during wartime).
The Bush
administration repeatedly claims that it does not need further U.N. approval
for a war against Iraq, saying Resolution 1441 already provides authority
for action. This argument is seriously damaged by the obvious fact
that, if the U.S. believed it to be true, they would not be attempting
to get a Security Council Resolution formally authorizing force.
Further, the claim ignores the overwhelming majority of opinion in the
U.N. that Resolution 1441 did not grant approval for war (military action
must be conducted explicitly through the Security Council, as noted above).
U.S. attempts to obtain a second Resolution are directly in response to
this fact. Thus, claims that authorization already exists appear
absurd in light of U.S. action and U.N. objections.
There
is not a small bit of irony in the fact the Gulf War was fought because
of unilateral action by Iraq, when it invaded Kuwait over the issues of
illegally priced oil, slant-drilling, and the fact the Kuwaiti oil fields
in question were seized by Kuwait from Iraq a few years earlier when Iraq
was at war with. The U.S. and U.N. response to Iraq's "unilateral"
use of force against Kuwait is obvious.
It is
legitimate to note that the U.N. is not even considering military action
against the U.S. if it "unilaterally" invades Iraq. More to the point,
it is difficult to reconcile the U.S. policy of violating international
law and the U.N. with the reason it is being done – to punish Iraq for
violating international law and the U.N. Who will punish the U.S.
for these violations? Apparently, not the U.N.
U.S. violation
of international law would remove the validity of opposing such violations
by other nations, emphasizing the hypocrisy of both U.S. "unilateral" action
and U.N. inaction against U.S. policies. This will create a global
atmosphere of instability, as it puts into question the strength and validity
of the U.N. and international law, opening the door for any nation to act
"unilaterally" for "self defense".
13
It must
be pointed out, however, that despite some statements that this would set
a "dangerous precedent", in fact "preemptive warfare" in violation of international
law is not a new concept or practice. Nazi Germany did it repeatedly,
all the while claiming its acts were "preemption" of other nations' aggressive
intentions. Israel used the policy to justify the 6-Day war, afterwards
admitting (although this is rarely pointed out) that Israel never actually
was in imminent danger at all. There are numerous examples of Soviet
"preemptive" claims, as well. It goes without saying that this is
dubious company to keep, if the U.S. is to make "preemption" part of its
foreign policy.
Actually,
that is a bit deceptive, for the U.S. already has a history of "preemptive"
warfare, so the idea is not new for America, either. Grenada, Panama,
Afghanistan (remember, the Taliban did not execute the September 11 attacks)
are all part of the U.S. tradition of "preemption", just to name some recent
examples. What makes the notion of "preemptive war" new is that it
is openly called what it is, although peripheral concerns are still added
(WOMD, "liberating" Iraqis, etc.). The inclusion of the actual terms
"preemptive" and "preventative" in political dialogue signals the real
change.
In yet
another bit of irony, if the U.S. policy of "preemption" is indeed legitimate,
then there are two nations who have perhaps the strongest claims to such
a policy: Iraq and North Korea. It is, of course, doubtful
that the Bush administration would accept this argument to justify an attack
by those nations on the U.S. However, this simply illustrates the
danger (and hypocrisy) of "preemptive" policies, and how the idea may be
adopted in places the U.S. would most certainly not like to see it used.
The U.S.
push for war and the Bush administration's assurances that the U.S. will
act unilaterally if need be, has severely strained U.S. relations with
much of the world, especially Europe. This in turn has caused problems
within the U.N. and NATO. Worldwide, public opinion (even in countries
where the governments might be supporting the U.S. war plans) is overwhelmingly
against the U.S. invasion. The generally held view is that the U.S.
is an aggressive, arrogant, self-interested nation that wants to ensure
its own global domination, and which expects the rest of the world to simply
nod and smile.
This impression
of the U.S. is exasperated by the comments and actions of U.S. government
officials and some of the U.S. pro-war public, such as the ridiculous behavior
of smashing French automobiles in public, pouring French wine down sewage
drains, and renaming French Fries and French Toast "Freedom Fries" and
"Freedom Toast". Worse still are the statements by U.S. congressional
representatives that, were not for the U.S., the French "would all be speaking
German right now" (the French could replying by saying, "if not for French
support and shipments of arms and supplies during the Revolutionary War,
the U.S. would still be a colony of Britain"). This does nothing
but reinforce the negative image of the U.S.
Within
the U.S. itself, there are many reservations about an invasion of Iraq,
and a large number of Americans oppose the war. However, even among
those who support the war, the vast majority still tempers their support
with the condition of UN approval, refusing to support "unilateralism".
Protestors numbering in the millions have marched and rallied, worldwide
and within the U.S., and a significant number of U.S. cities (as of this
writing, the number was 145, including New York City) have adopted ordnances
opposing war with Iraq.
As mentioned
earlier, all of this negative opinion of the U.S. has served and will continue
to serve in the future to fuel anti-U.S. actions worldwide which will help
to drive more people (not only in the Middle East—remember John Walker?)
into the arms of militant organizations or terrorist groups which directly
threaten U.S. citizens.
U.S. isolation
globally can negatively impact the country in many ways, from economic
issues like energy (oil embargos) and trade (tariffs, boycotts of U.S.
goods, or embargos of U.S. goods), to U.S. participation in the U.N. and
NATO, all of which is possible and much of which is already being considered
by many nations. Austria has refused to allow transport through its
territory of U.S. troops or supplies, for example.
"Unilateralism"
will only lead to instability where it is applied, in the nation applying
it, and for the entire world. Acting in violation of international
law, the U.N. Charter, and against the wishes of a large and vocal opposition
internally and abroad fits the definition of only one type of nation:
a "rogue state".
14
CHAPTER FIVE
ECONOMICS AND WAR
If the
U.S. goes to war, the timing could not be worse, from an economic standpoint.
The U.S. economy is still doing poorly (as is most of the world economy),
unemployment is rising, and several large U.S. industries (the airlines,
for example) are warning that a war could mean massive layoffs and further
loss of profits, possibly leading to bankruptcy for some companies.
Energy costs worldwide are increasing (an issue addressed in more detail
below). A war could make all of these situations much worse.
The U.S.
federal deficit is estimated to remain at about $300 billion per year,
before the costs for a war are figured into the budget, not to mention
the costs of post-war occupation. Cities and states across the U.S.
are in a budget crisis now, due to lack of funds to run education, policing,
and health programs (largely due to cuts in Federal funding to states).
A war
would add an estimated $200-to-$300 billion to the Federal deficit, and
the additional cost of a U.S. post-war presence in Iraq is expected to
easily run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. This means worsening
budget constraints in the future, so the ability of the Federal government
to adequately fund important programs (including education, policing, and
health programs at the state level) may further diminish.
Congress
is about to enact some form of President Bush's huge tax-cut, trimming
almost another one trillion dollars (maybe more) from the Federal budget.
Such huge losses of budgetary dollars, at a time when the U.S. is about
to go to war, will enhance the financial difficulties.
War will
likely drive up energy costs, especially if Iraqi or U.S. bombings destroy
oil wells. During the Gulf War, U.S. bombs ignited Iraqi oil wells,
refineries, and storage tanks (this is discussed in detail in the history
of the Gulf War, below), taking months to extinguish. A similar scenario
could occur if the U.S. attacks again, especially since the U.S. plans
a bombing campaign much larger than in the previous war. The U.S.
claims Iraq is preparing to detonate oil wells in the event of war, a claim
denied by Iraq, but nevertheless one more possibility to keep in mind.
Availability
of oil will likely diminish even if oil wells survive intact, since production
will obviously cease during the war. Assuming the Iraqi government
is overthrown, there will be at least a temporary lack of functioning authority
to insure production continues; presumably, the U.S. will get production
going again, but only after the war is over.
A war's
effect on the oil markets will almost surely cause the price to rise regardless
of supply, for a few reasons. Because of uncertainty about what will
happen to the oil fields, how soon they will begin pumping again, and exactly
who will get the profits, the price of oil can be expected to increase.
Or, cynically, the profiteering that took place by energy companies in
winter of 2000 might lead some to conclude that artificial price-hikes
will take place, simply because war would create a public assumption that
higher prices for oil/gas/energy are justified. Already, some states
have begun investigations of energy companies precisely due to suspicions
of price gouging.
The situation
in Venezuela must not be forgotten either. Interestingly, Iraq has
actually been increasing oil production to make up for lost production
in Venezuela, but has not received credit for helping reduce energy shortages.
The Venezuelan oil market seems to be mostly out of crisis, but the tensions
that still exist could manifest again and create another shortage of South
American oil. While not an imminent danger, the crisis was alleviated only
a very brief time ago. Its immediacy should caution the U.S. not
to ignore the uncertainties that exist in the energy market.
The signs
are not encouraging. Not only the U.S., but also the world, faces
serious economic problems, and a U.S. war against Iraq could easily send
economies spiraling downward. Huge deficits, rising energy costs,
cuts in essential state programs, higher unemployment, and bankrupt businesses
could be among the casualties of this war.
15
CHAPTER SIX
HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS
These final
two chapters will deal with perhaps the most important reason to avoid
a war with Iraq: the humanitarian cost paid by the Iraqi people should
a war take place. Little or no commentary is necessary, as the facts
and numbers speak loudly and clearly for themselves.
To begin
with, here are some important (and disturbing) numbers to consider.
The World Health Organization estimates 100,000 direct and 400,000 indirect
civilian casualties from the war, in their December 10, 2002 U.N. report
"Likely Humanitarian Scenario". The W.H.O. report estimates "as many
as 500,000…to a greater or lesser degree…" will be injured. Regarding
refugees, the U.N. estimates that 2 million Iraqis will be displaced, including
900,000 seeking refuge in neighboring countries.
Further,
the report notes "…the outbreak of diseases such as cholera and dysentery
in epidemic if not pandemic proportions is very likely", and "…39% of the
population will need to be provided with potable drinking water".
The U.N. also warns that 2.03 million children under five, and one million
pregnant women, will face moderate to severe malnutrition due to a war.
Lack of adequate U.N. humanitarian relief (due to the suspension of the
"Oil for Food" program) will overwhelm attempts to assist Iraqis, of whom
16 million (60 percent of Iraq's population) rely completely on food rations
provided by relief efforts. Suspension of these programs, according
to the Food and Agricultural Organization representative in Iraq, "…will
be really disastrous…starvation will come like this [snaps his fingers]".
Any U.N.
agencies and international relief NGOs able to provide assistance assume
they will work with the U.S. military (according to the same UN report),
despite the fact this violates the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol
I, Article 81, which demands humanitarian operations must be independent
of those engaging in war. The effectiveness of relief efforts in
the midst of an ongoing military campaign can be imagined.
Although
the Bush administration says publicly that civilians will not be targeted
and that U.S. war-plans are designed to limit innocent deaths, those very
war-plans call for the targeting of civilian infrastructure. Electrical,
sewage, and water treatment facilities are all targets, as are hospitals
and some "military targets" residing within civilian population centers.
There is absolutely no way to target such sites without causing massive
civilian casualties (as happened in the Gulf War, and discussed in detail
in the history of the Gulf War below). As a result, the humanitarian
crisis during and following the war will be even worse, due to these war-plans.
As mentioned
in Chapter One, U.S. depleted uranium weapons have been extremely deadly
to Iraqis, and the intense level of bombing expected if war occurs will
be devastating. Cancer, leukemia, kidney and lung disease, birth
defects, and other serious health effects will likely exceed those seen
after the Gulf War. Toxic and carcinogenic clouds, poisoning of the
soil, and further environmental damage from the DU bombings can also be
expected on a large scale.
Other
humanitarian concerns arise from the danger of instability and ethnic or
religious conflicts. Different ethnic and religious groups may attempt
to exert control in their regions of dominance, reacting to one-another's
exertion of control, settling old scores (a danger to the ruling class,
discussed below), etc.
Northern
Iraq in particular may see much instability and bloodshed. There
is very real potential for harsh treatment of Kurds, due to Turkish fears
of Kurdish independence. This may lead to repression of Kurds who
want autonomy, and in turn may spark a Kurdish uprising, leading to civil
warfare, possibly even expanding into Turkey. Such fears could convince
Turkey to preemptively repress Kurds in Turkey, to prevent them from joining
Kurds in Iraq. In addition, the U.S. has an agreement with Turkey
for Turkish troops to move into northern Iraq to help "stabilize" the area,
based on Turkey's aforementioned fears, and U.S. concerns both about stability
and about Kurdish seizure of Iraq's northern oil fields.
16
As mentioned
earlier, there is the threat of possible reprisals against ethnic members
of the previous ruling class. Years of repression by Hussein's regime
could cause an explosion of revenge-killings, as often happens in such
circumstances. It could begin as soon as a war starts in anticipation
of eventual U.S. success, before any U.S. troops or relief workers could
prevent reprisals.
Besides
the danger to the environment from the U.S. DU weapons, there are other
environmental concerns. Possible destruction of power plants and
(if indeed they exist) chemical plants, and the possible destruction of
oil wells, would lead to major environmental damage.
In the
event Iraq does have and uses any chemical or biological weapons against
U.S. troops, or if they are launched at Israel, there is a high probability
that one or both would retaliate with nuclear weapons (the U.S. and Israel
have each publicly stated they would consider the option, with Israel explicitly
saying they would respond to WOMD in kind), the U.S. saying repeatedly
that the use of nuclear arms "has not been ruled out". This would
cause unthinkable civilian casualties and destruction, and long-term health
and environmental effects, both in Iraq and in the entire region.
Thinking
in terms of worst-case scenarios, it is possible that the use of nuclear
arms (again, not necessarily a probability but a publicly-stated option
that would be more likely if Hussein orders the use of WOMD as the U.S.
claims he has ordered) would cause unrest in the region that could lead
to a coup in Pakistan by military leaders opposed to the U.S. (there is
much such sentiment in both the public and military in Pakistan).
This would place nuclear weapons in the hands of an anti-U.S. government
that may use those weapons, especially if either the U.S. or Israel were
to use nuclear weapons on Iraq. There is, then, the potential for
a wide war across the Middle East in which Israel may become a combatant,
and a war that may involve the use of nuclear weapons by several parties.
On Mar.
11, the Pentagon tested what they say is the largest conventional weapon
in the U.S. arsenal—a 21,000 pound MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst) that
bears a striking resemblance to an atomic blast. This weapon will
replace the "daisy cutter" BLU-82 15,000 lb. fuel-air explosive.
Smaller fuel-air bombs with a blast over-pressure of 200 psi cover an area
over 1000 feet long, and the "daisy-cutter" had a blast overpressure of
1,000 psi, so one can imagine it covers an area of over 5,000 feet or about
a mile. This new MOAB, then, must cover an incredible area, comparable
in size to tactical nuclear weapons and artillery.
If this
bomb also incorporates depleted uranium (this is currently unknown, although
the weapon is intended for use against heavily shielded sites, and DU ordnance
is typically used for such targets), then the added radioactivity it would
spread compounds its danger (and the comparison to a low-yield nuclear
weapon).
It should
be noted that this weapon, because of its huge blast range and immense
power, is likely (as Pentagon spokesmen suggest) to be used against bunkers
and command and control centers, partly to target Hussein. Such targets
exist in the more densely populated areas of Iraqi cities; hence, the use
of this weapon could possibly occur where massive civilian casualties would
obviously be caused. It must be said, in fairness, that Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld says the U.S. has not decided for certain that
this weapon will be used in Iraq; but he also says Iraq should get the
clear message that the U.S. has such weapons and is willing to use them
(as well as nuclear weapons).
The evidence
is clear that a U.S. war against Iraq will cause a terrible humanitarian
crisis in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands
of injuries, hundreds of thousands malnourished, hundreds of thousands
starved, hundreds of thousands of refugees, destruction of infrastructure,
severe damage to the environment – all of this can be expected as a result
of war. These figures should be kept in mind when the Bush administration
refers to this as a "just war" and a "war of liberation.
17
CHAPTER SEVEN
IRAQ AFTER A WAR
Although
"liberation" is a commonly stated goal for a war against Iraq, in fact
the U.S. post-war plan calls for a U.S. military commander to run Iraq
(much like in Japan after WWII), followed by a transfer of control to a
U.S. civilian administrator. The "blueprint" for an Iraqi government
is being based on the post-war government in Afghanistan, which ended up
being a U.S.-installed government, not based on any of the choices of the
Afghan groups "consulted".
With the
differing ethnic and religious groups in Iraq having a history of animosity
and violence towards each other, it will be difficult to get a representative
democratic government, without concern for the repression that might occur
to some of the minorities such as the Kurds. This is, of course,
aside from the obvious concern for the repression that is actually inherent
in any "occupation", even a "liberating occupation".
As mentioned
in the preceding chapter, there is the very real possibility of civil warfare
at least in some regions (the northern Kurdish zone, for example, where
secular Kurds face not only the Turks and U.S. who both intend to repress
rebellion, but also the presence of Ansar al-Islam). It will be difficult
to contain civil strife, requiring a large-scale military presence and
all the obvious problems (economics, physical dangers, the "liberation-under-massive-military-control"
issue, etc.) that such a large force would entail.
There
is a serious question regarding the control and autonomy of Iraqi oil.
U.S. officials have (surprisingly) been quite open and frank in stating
that the U.S. intends to ensure control of the oil, however it ends up,
will be exerted a way that benefits U.S. interests. Although this
is in complete contradiction to President Bush's public claims about Iraqi
liberation and the oil issue, Pentagon and other U.S. plans released to
the public are very explicit about U.S. control and administration of Iraq's
oil supply.
This chapter
will now end on a "selfish" note, regarding how a post-war Iraq might not
turn out as the U.S. hopes. Indeed, based on the suggestions below,
a truly "liberated" Iraq could look very disturbing to other nations in
the region.
This difficult
(for the U.S. and its client-states in the region) issue concerns the Shiite
nature of the majority of Iraqis. Ultimately (no matter how the West
feels about the subject), the Iraqis have a right to self-determination
in their choice of government (as stated in the U.N. Charter and President
Bush's repeated public promises) and should be allowed to pursue their
own destiny. The fact is, however, there is a very strong probability
that (assuming, of course, the Iraqis are actually aloud to chose a government
without U.S. interference) whatever government Iraq chooses will reflect
the majority's Shiite nature to some degree.
Since
they have had their beliefs repressed for so long under Hussein, it might
be reasonable to expect Iraqis to adopt a religious government. That would
bring multiple possibilities into play (for example, would a religious
government resemble Iran's?), some of which may have a very ominous impact
on the U.S. and other nations friendly to the U.S., like Saudi Arabia.
This is only recognition of these possible developments, not a judgment
of them nor a condemnation of such an outcome (indeed, it could be argued
that this would benefit the region in the long run); but they are certainly
serious developments for the Middle East and the West.
It is
clear, then, that there are many issues regarding the shape of a post-war
Iraq that do not bode well for the U.S. or Iraqis. For the U.S. to
invade Iraq and overthrow the government in the midst of so many dangers
to Iraq, the U.S., and the region as a whole, would be folly.
18
SECTION TWO:
A HISTORY OF THE GULF WAR
"Those who refuse to learn from history
are forever doomed to repeat it."
CHAPTER EIGHT
IRAQ BEFORE THE WAR
Iraq was
one of the more prosperous Middle East nations, regarding its level of
industrialization. Iraqi citizens enjoyed high literacy rates, a good standard
of living for the region, free health care, and free education all the
way through college.
Iraq had
a secular government, not enforcing Islamic laws. Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait (U.S. allies) are monarchies, with no voting, no equality for women,
women must wear veils in public, etc. These are about the same legal
standards as Iran (although there is voting in Iran), compared to Iraq,
in which women have the same rights as men. Granted, it was and is
still a dictatorship with much repression, but no more so than other countries
which enjoy relations with the U.S. or which have in the past.
Indeed,
the U.S. supported Iraq for many years of Saddam Hussein's rule, mostly
during the Iraq-Iran war. The U.S. supplied arms to Iraq and even
the materials used by Iraq to manufacture WOMD, which they used against
Iran with U.S. support. It was the Reagan/Bush administration that
blocked Congressional attempts to place sanctions against Iraq for its
use of WOMD, and Colin Powell was an active participant in blocking those
Congressional attempts.
When roughly
5,000 Iraqi Kurds were gassed, the U.S. still supported Iraq, even going
so far as to deny Iraqi responsibility for the gassings. The U.S.
blamed Iran (based on a study conducted by the War College which ignored
the eyewitness testimony of Kurds who insisted it was Hussein's regime
that used the gas), continuing to deny that Iraq gassed the Kurds until
September 8, 1988, six months after the very worst incident at Halabja
in March of 1988. Prior to September 8, the U.S. also ignored Kurds
protesting the gassing with a hunger strike at the U.N.
There
had long been border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait. During the
Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait "unilaterally" moved its border north 900 miles into
Iraq, seizing the Rumaila oil fields with no prior claim, no justification
whatsoever. Contrary to U.S. denials, invoices prove the U.S. supplied
Kuwait with slant-drilling techniques and equipment, which Kuwait used
in the Rumaila oil fields to tap into the oil on the Iraq side of the border
(the new "border" Kuwait created, remember).
The situation
deteriorated even further. Iraq had complained repeatedly that Kuwait
was selling oil at prices lower than those set by OPEC, and Iraq alleged
this was being done specifically to harm the Iraqi economy. In fact,
there is much evidence to support Iraq's claims. This evidence also
implicates the U.S. government.
On Aug
8, 1988, one day after the Iraq/Iran war ended, Kuwait began to radically
increase oil production and drive down oil prices from $21 to $11 per barrel,
costing Iraq $14 billion per year at a time when Iraq's war-ravaged economy
needed the funds to rebuild. Kuwait then demanded immediate repayment
of loans made to Iraq during the war with Iran, loans totaling $30 billion.
Iraq, its economy weakened by the eight-year war, could not possibly repay
the loans immediately.
A memo
surfaced of a meeting between Kuwaiti Brigadier Fahd Ahmed al-Fahd, director
general of Kuwait's Department of State Security, and CIA director William
Webster, on Nov. 22 of 1989, concerning "…[steps] to take advantage of
the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on
that country's government…" This memo [submitted to U.N. Secretary-General
de Cueller in 1990 by Iraq after it was captured prior to the invasion
of Kuwait] has been authenticated by many experts and the CIA itself confirms
the meeting took place, but they deny Iraq was discussed.
Beginning
in 1988, the U.S.-Iraq relationship took a sudden, sharp downturn.
Publicly, the U.S. began to use harsh terms referring to Iraq, putting
strict sanctions on funds and materials to Iraq. In private, however,
Iraq was told that this was merely public rhetoric, and the U.S. was saying
relations would improve again.
19
On July
18, 1990, Iraq began massing troops at the border with Kuwait. Saddam
Hussein spoke personally to U.S. Ambassador Glaspie on July 25, asking
for the U.S. position regarding the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait.
Government transcripts show Glaspie replied as follows: "We have
no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait…James
Baker [then-Secretary of State] has directed our official spokesmen to
emphasize this instruction". Glaspie's own cables to the State Department
confirmed this officially when the cables were released to the U.S. Senate
that same month.
This seemed
to give Iraq the go-ahead to invade. There is still debate about
whether the U.S. meant to give only the go-ahead for an invasion concerning
the border dispute, not for Iraq to seize the oil; or whether the U.S.
decided it was time to make a major move against Iraq, and so gave the
approval to gain an excuse to launch a war. The point is largely
academic, since the difference hinges on the distinction between approving
"a little aggression and invasion" or "a lot of aggression and invasion".
There
are some clues as to U.S. intentions. One clue is the positioning
of six U.S. warships in the southern Gulf. General Schwarzkopf was
in the region, preparing U.S. Central Command specifically for an Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait, under War Plan 1002-90 (the military plan for war in
Persian Gulf to protect U.S. strategic interests and a plan which specifically
designates Iraq as the enemy combated). These war-games were being
conducted when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Central Command (CENTCOM) plays
an important role in U.S. Middle East policy, and is discussed further
in Section Three of this analysis.
Furthermore,
the U.S. knew tensions between Iraq and Kuwait had been increasing for
months, and that Iraq was massing troops at the Kuwaiti border. When
taken together, remembering the U.S. ambassador's comments to Hussein,
it is impossible to reach any conclusion except that the U.S. knew Iraq
planned to invade, was preparing for it, and most importantly they encouraged
it.
Another
set of facts should also be noted at this point, merely to highlight the
hypocrisy and dishonesty of U.S. comments during the build-up to its invasion
of Iraq. The U.S. repeatedly claimed Kuwait would be "liberated",
that "freedom" would be restored, that Saddam Hussein's government was
a "gangster" regime. As already said, Hussein's government is certainly
a brutal dictatorship. But how does Kuwait's government hold up in
comparison?
Kuwait
was, at the time of the invasion, a monarchy like Saudi Arabia, with the
same limited rights, and lacking democratic institutions and freedoms.
Political parties were banned, only males whose forebears lived in Kuwait
before 1920 are allowed to vote, and women have no civil rights.
The Kuwaiti "justice" system made a mockery of the phrase. Wide-scale
tortures and executions, imprisonment, and searches of homes, all (obviously)
without judicial processes.
Women
are "imported" for maid and nanny work from the Philippines, Sri Lanka,
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other poor nations. They are not
paid, are refused their passports if they try to leave, are beaten and
raped regularly, are forced to work horribly long hours. The embassies
of the women's countries of origin are regularly inundated with women seeking
refuge after having escaped from their employers.
This shows
how hollow are the U.S. claims of "liberating" the Kuwaitis by returning
them to the theocratic rule of a monarchy, much as the U.S. intends to
"liberate" Iraqis into the freedom of a U.S. military occupation for several
years. True "liberation" of Kuwait would have entailed a bit more
than simply forcing Iraqi troops out.
Iraq invaded
Kuwait on August 2, 1990. However, after consultations with King
Hussein of Jordan on August 3, Saddam Hussein agreed to begin withdrawl
from Kuwait by August 5 (indeed, on August 3, Iraq sent an official communique
announcing it would begin to withdraw its troops from Kuwait on August
5) as long as no condemnation of Iraq was adopted by the Arab Leaue summit
in Cairo on August 2-3. After speaking with Jordan's King Hussein,
Egyptian President Mubarak said he would not introduce a resolution condemning
the invasion.
And then
that is exactly what Egypt did. Egypt decided to introduce the resolution
after U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kelly warned the Egyptian Foreign
Ministry that Egypt "…can be sure that in the future they will no longer
be able to count on America" for military arms if a resolution was not
introduced at the summit. Of course, Iraq then reversed its decision
to withdraw.
20
The U.S.
introduced Resolution 660 at the U.N., condemning the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait, on August, the day of the invasion. On Aug. 3 the U.S. faxed
the full text of Resolution 661 to the Security Council, calling for sanctions
on Iraq, and freezing Iraq's foreign assets. It had only been 24
hours since the invasion, and all of this had already transpired.
Also on
Aug. 3 Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Colin Powell met with Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan,
showing him photos from U.S. satellites which supposedly showed Iraqi troops
massing at the Saudi border. The photos convinced the ruling Saud
family to agree to meet with a U.S. delegation (this delegation consisted
of Cheney, Powell, National Security Agency Deputy Director Robert Gates,
General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Defense Department aide Paul Wolfowitz).
They met
with King Fahd, and convinced him to allow U.S. troop deployments in Saudi
Arabia; but the U.S. had to agree to claim U.S. troops had been requested
by Saudi Arabia, to defend the Saudi border. By this time, King Fahd
knew the exact nature of the Iraqi troops "massing" at his border, a point
returned to below.
In Congressional
hearings in October, Congress heard testimony from witnesses who told them
about severe Iraqi human-rights abuses within Kuwait. A 15-year-old Kuwaiti
girl named "Nyirah" said she witnessed Iraqi troops pulling babies out
of incubators and tossing them on hospital floors to die. Other witness
told stories of mass rapes and torture. President Bush began quoting
the tale of the "incubator babies", once even giving an exact number of
312.
Now, some
facts about the satellite photos and the Congressional testimony.
Commercial satellite images of the Saudi border proved beyond any doubt
the U.S. lied about the Iraqi troop build up. There was not a single
Iraqi troop near the Saudi border on August 8, nor on September 11 or September
13. "U.S. News and World Report" quoted a CENTCOM commander who said
there was "…no hard evidence that [Iraq] ever intended to invade Saudi
Arabia". There is one final piece of evidence (as if any more were
needed). Prior to King Fahd's meeting with the U.S. delegation on
August 6, the King sent a team of Saudis across the border into Kuwait
to confirm Iraqi troop strengths. The troop strengths they reported
were: zero.
The testimony
about Iraqi atrocities also proved to be false, in particular the "incubator
babies" tale. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti
Ambassador to the U.S. She was not even in Kuwait during or after
the invasion. These facts were known by those who arranged the Congressional
hearings. Other witnesses who testified at the hearings were found
to have falsified their identities, and most of the claims of other attrocities
by Iraq have been discredited or disproven.
Iraq repeatedly
requested talks to settle the crisis, offering several proposals throughout
August for an Iraqi withdrawl, and pressed for talks again in November.
However, President Bush refused to negotiate, and on November 29 the U.N.
passed Resolution 678, authorizing the use of force if Iraq did not withdraw
from Kuwait by January 15. All the while, the U.S. continued to build
a huge military presence in Saudi Arabia. This force eventually reached
about 550,000 U.S. troops plus forces from France, Britain, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, and other countries.
President
Bush ordered the deployment of 40,000 troops by August 11; 100,000 by September
4; 200,000 by October 15; and an increase to 400,000 by Oct. 30.
The President received no Congressional authorization whatsoever until
January 12, when the build-up had reached its peak, and only five days
before the President gave the order for war.
21
CHAPTER NINE
THE GULF WAR
The U.S.
launched Operation Desert Storm on January 17, at 7:00 pm (during "primetime"
television hours). What followed was a 42-day aerial bombardment,
consisting of over 109,000 overflights. Over 88,500 tons of explosives
(more than 80 million pounds of bombs) were dropped on military placements,
with an average of one overflight every 30 seconds every minute of every
day for the entire 42 days. Within the first hour, 85% of all electrical
power in Iraq was destroyed.
During
bombing, targets were not limited to military sites. On February
13, the Amariyan bomb shelter full of women and children was bombed twice,
killing between 1000 and 1,500 people. While the U.S. claims only
about 400 civilians died, there are two pieces of convincing evidence which
seem to prove at least 1000 people were certainly in the bunker:
first, the sign-in sheet at the bunker listed 1000 names, and witnesses
say people stopped signing in later in the evening; second, the shelter
has 1,500 beds, and was so full that night that people were sleeping in
the halls.
Only 17
Iraqis survived, and most were sleeping in the hall due to the lack of
bed space. Dr. Mouloud, President of the Algerian Red Cross, testified
at the March-April European Parliament hearings on war crimes that he personally
counted 415 dead children. The doctor at the shelter testified that
over 1000 people were at the shelter.
Although
the Pentagon has publicly claimed the shelter was being used as a "military
facility", the U.S. air surveillance of this neighborhood was frequent,
with hundreds or more civilians seen entering and leaving the shelter each
day. "The Nation" reported on June 3, 1991 that Pentagon evidence
shows the bunker was targeted with a GBU-27 laser-guided bomb (carried
by a F-117 Stealth bomber) because it was reserved for the Iraqi elite
and their families. It was hoped Saddam Hussein would be present
and thus assassinated, or that at least the attack would kill the families
of Iraq's High Command.
This is
only one example of many bombings resulting in large numbers of Iraqi civilian
casualties. Moreover, there is much evidence civilian targets were
purposely bombed. In September, Air Force Chief of Staff Michael
Dugan told reporters referring to a list of only military targets, "That's
a nice list of targets…but that's not enough," then proposed an additional
list including Iraqi power stations, roads, railroads, and domestic petroleum
production sites. He was fired days later for revealing targets that
were, in fact, eventually hit by U.S. bombing raids.
Most infrastructure
damage occurred in the first few weeks of the air campaign using the very
"smart" weapons that were supposed to prevent civilian casualties.
These "smart" bombs (which in theory allow for pin-point targeting to insure
the intended sites are hit) destroyed Iraqi water treatment, electrical,
communication, and transportation facilities, as well as oil refineries,
in those first weeks. Furthermore, the Pentagon has admitted it targeted
civilian structures to "demoralize" the population and to "exacerbate the
effects of the sanctions".
So how
much non-military damage was done by U.S. bombings in Iraq? What
follows is a fairly detailed but still only partial list. And it
is staggering.
Iraqi
electrical plants were hit with Tomahawk cruise missiles, laser-guided
GBU-10 Paveway II bombs, as well as free-fall bombs. 31 water and
sewage systems were hit with bombs and missiles: water purification
facilities nationwide were fully incapacitated; all eight of Iraq's major
multifunctioning dams were hit over and over (which destroyed flood control,
water storage, irrigation, and hydroelectric power); every single irrigation
system serving Iraq's agriculture and food processing, storage, and distribution
were bombed, cutting food production immediately in half.
Food warehouses
were hit all over the nation (including all of Iraq's General Company Foodstuffs
warehouses in one province). 90 percent of poultry production was
totally destroyed, and over one-third of the 10 million sheep herds were
decimated. The country's biggest frozen-meat storage and distribution
center was destroyed, and grain silos all over the country were also destroyed.
The combination of the devastated irrigation systems and the massive loss
of food supplies spelled disaster for Iraq.
22
28 civilian
hospitals and 52 community health centers were bombed. The only baby
milk powder factory in the Middle East was attacked on 3 consecutive days
(and leveled). The student health clinic and school were bombed (a
total of 676 schools were bombed). Clearly, civilian sites suffered
massive attacks.
Civilian
industrial infrastructure was not spared, either. 11 oil refineries
and 5 pipeline and production facilities were bombed, 3 oil tankers were
sunk (with 3 others set on fire), and major oil storage tanks were also
bombed. In addition, endless numbers and types of manufacturing plants
and worksites were also destroyed.
There
is also other disturbing evidence of purposeful attacks against civilians
by the U.S. military. U.N. Secretary General de Cuellar was informed
on February 7, 1991, in a letter from Jordan's ambassador, that during
the 8-day period from January 29 to February 5, 40 Jordanian citizens were
killed or wounded by U.S. bombing on the Baghdad-Amman highway.
In fact, U.S. bombing of roads and civilian traffic was common in the Gulf
War according to witnesses (some of them U.S. servicemen). This was
also evidenced by the destroyed and burning buses, trucks, vans, taxis,
and cars (all of them civilian vehicles) littering the Baghdad-Amman highway.
Another
form of U.S. attack has had long-lasting effects on Iraqis. As mentioned
earlier, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority confirmed the U.S.
fired between 5,000 and 6,000 DU armor piercing shells, and about 50,000
DU rockets and missiles. This created tons of radioactive rubble
all over Iraq.
The UKAEA
report noted the 40 tons of radioactive debris could cause 500,000 deaths.
Hundreds of Iraqi children die every month the effects of radiation poisoning,
and in Basra an average of one or two children are born severely deformed
every day, due to their mothers' exposure to radiation.
To this
day, many cash-starved Iraqis hunt for pieces of metal debris to sell for
extra money. This metal is mostly from Iraqi tanks hit with DU anti-tank
weapons, and it is highly radioactive, as are the areas where the tanks
are located. These bombed-out tank carcasses are strewn all over
Iraq, and continue to contribute to the poisoning of Iraqis.
All of
these facts stand as clear evidence of a U.S. military policy, which targeted
the civilian population of Iraq. The consequences of this policy,
acting together with the sanctions imposed upon Iraq, ultimately cost hundreds
of thousands of Iraqi civilians their lives.
On Feb.
21, the Soviets announced that Iraq offered to fully and unconditionally
withdraw from Kuwait. Incredibly, President Bush refused, saying
over and over that there would be "no negotiations", demanding Iraq withdraw
from Kuwait (which Iraq had just offered to do and which President Bush
had just rejected) by February 23 or a ground attack would begin.
Iraq began withdrawing its forces from Kuwait, apparently by the February
23 deadline. The proof of this is that the U.S. ground offensive
that began on February 23 encountered no resistance, and Iraqi troops were
already in the process of retreating when U.S. troops finally did encounter
them.
Iraq did
not announce the withdrawal officially until February 26. Even then,
however, U.S. forces did not stop their attacks for two more days (in fact,
attacks occurred after the cease-fire, as discussed below). The U.S.
ground offensive consisted of simply encircling retreating Iraqi soldiers
and slaughtering them, as well as bombing the retreating troop columns.
The most famous example occurred on February 26, on the Basra road.
U.S. planes bombed both the front and rear of the road of a 7-mile section
of vehicles, and then massacred the people trapped in the middle (mostly
civilians fleeing Kuwait, according to U.S. troops who witnessed the attack
and who saw the carnage afterwards). A 60-mile stretch of road out
of Umir Quaar contained the burned, bombed, convoy of retreating Iraqi
tanks, cars, howitzers, and anti-aircraft guns that were attacked as they
attempted to flee Kuwait. This was one of the two major Iraqi convoys
retreating from Kuwait City that were attacked. There was not a single
survivor of the 60-mile convoy described above, but about 450 people survived
the other aerial assault.
In testimony
before the European Parliament hearings on the Gulf War in March-April
of 1991, Mike Erlich of the Military Counseling Network testified: "…hundreds,
possibly thousands of Iraqi soldiers began walking toward [a]…U.S. position
unarmed, with their arms raised in an attempt to surrender…the orders for
this unit were not to take any prisoners…[t]he commander of the unit began
the firing by shooting an anti-tank missile through one of the Iraqi soldiers…everybody
in the unit began shooting…it was a slaughter."
23
News reports
on March 31 (approved by the Pentagon and military) confirmed that U.S.
troops destroyed Iraqis in vehicles with white flags of surrender attached
to them. This report appeared in a lengthy "New York Newsday" article
by Knute Royce and Tim Phelps. It contains many other very disturbing
details of the mass slaughter of retreating and surrendering Iraqis by
U.S. and allied forces.
A cease-fire
was agreed to on February 28,1991, although attacks by U.S. troops on Iraqis
did continue after the cease-fire, when during a 4 hour battle, U.S. troops
killed thousands of Iraqis who were not yet aware of the cease-fire agreement
(and the U.S. troops, while they had speakers and megaphones to inform
the Iraqis of the cease-fire, chose not to do so). This is described
as the biggest battle between U.S. and Iraqi troops. Not a single
U.S. soldier died.
Something
must be said about the issue of the burning oil fields in the war.
The U.S. government and media state as an undisputed fact of history that
Iraq set fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells. However, the facts seem to
suggest another conclusion, one that is now ignored in the official history
of the Gulf War.
It is
a proven and documented fact that Iraqi oil refineries and oil storage
facilities were burning by early February, eventually totaling 800 oil
fires. Most of these are documented to have been started by U.S.
bombing, sending oily black rain to Iran in January (within the first two
weeks of the war), and Iran began reporting multiple incidents of black
rain on January 22. On February 23 the Pentagon itself actually confirmed
50 fires were already burning, and Rear Admiral Mike Cornell told reporters,
"…there's the possibility that some of our strikes may have had some collateral
damage to start a fire." A pall of smoke covered Kuwait for over
a week before President Bush accused Iraq of setting fire to Kuwaiti oil
wells.
On February
23, the Iraqi oil fields in Rumaila erupted in flames following a massive
U.S. bombing attack. This attack was the first confirmed use of U.S.
napalm in the war. This is a fact, confirmed on February 23, 1991,
by U.S. pilots of Marine AV88 Harrier aircraft. Journalists filmed
napalm being loaded onto the aircraft, and the pilots confirmed to the
media that they were indeed using napalm in their attacks.
On January 25, fully one month before the accusations against Iraq were
made, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a gag order on its researchers,
but the Livermore National Laboratory made the memorandum public on May
1991. The memo said, "D.O.E. Headquarters Public Affairs has requested
that all D.O.E. facilities and contractors immediately discontinue any
further discussion of…environmental impacts of fires/oil spills in the
Middle East…" Therefore, the U.S. and D.O.E. were aware of oil fires
and spills in the war-zone only 8 days after the start of the U.S. air
attack. Additionally, the Landsat-5 and NOAA-11 satellites confirmed
smoke plumes several hundred km long rising from Iraqi oil refineries and
oil reserves.
Iraq was
accused of igniting the fires by blowing the wellheads on the oil wells.
There is a problem with such a claim – blowing the wellheads rarely sets
the well on fire (partly because igniting the wells requires an intense
heat not created by simply exploding the wellhead), and in fact it is actually
a method used to extinguish fires.
The oil
wells could have been ignited by the massive U.S. bombings noted above,
confirmed to involve the use of napalm. Napalm creates exactly the
intense heat needed to ignite the wells.
Perhaps
the most compelling evidence of U.S. bombings as the culprit of the oil
fires, however, comes from firefighters. U.S. firefighters in the
Gulf attempting to put out the fires at the Kuwaiti oil fields have confirmed
publicly, on several occasions, that U.S. bombs litter the oil wells.
For one example, in "Life Magazine" in June 1991, firefighters were quoted
as saying they found unexploded U.S. and allied bombs "everywhere…[w]e've
seen them in the hundreds" (quote from Mike Miller, a U.S. firefighter
in Kuwait).
There
is not a shred of physical evidence suggesting Iraq set fire to the Kuwaiti
oil fields, nor does the accusation of blowing the wellheads appear to
be reliable as a method for setting the fires. However, the U.S.
is known to have used napalm and other bombs in attacks on the Kuwaiti
oil wells, and unexploded U.S. ordnance is all over the area. Additionally,
napalm would be an ideal weapon for igniting the wells. Finally,
it is a fact that hundreds of oil wells in Iraq seem (as the Pentagon admits)
to have been ignited by U.S. bombings, and smoke from Kuwaiti oil wells
was seen long before Iraq was accused of setting fires. While this
does not prove for certain who started the fires, the truth seems obvious.
24
CHAPTER TEN
AFTER THE WAR
This chapter
will begin with the cease-fire, and discuss the situation in Iraq since
the war ended. The final death-toll, however, will not be discussed
until the end of the chapter. This allows the concluding of accounts
about events at the end of the war, before the detailed analysis of casualties
is conducted.
After
the cease-fire, the U.S. had the opportunity and means to stop the Iraqi
suppression of a Kurdish uprising. However, the U.S. allowed Iraq
to put down the rebellion, in order to prevent "instability" in Iraq, and
to avoid problems with Turkey (which opposes Kurdish autonomy). There
were uprisings in southern Iraq as well, which the U.S. also permitted
Hussein's troops to suppress. Gerneral Schwarzkopf, in the documentary
film "Hidden Wars of the Gulf", states that he was ordered to inform the
Iraqi military could use their helicopters, which the Iraqi troops promptly
used in putting down the rebellions.
These
multiple cases of Iraqi troops suppressing rebellions were taking place
directly in front of U.S. and allied forces, who were under orders not
to interfer. Some U.S. soldiers say they witnessed attacks on Kurdish
and Shiite civilians, but were under orders not to act. In public,
President Bush was calling on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and this
was broadcast into Iraq by the U.S., which promised to support any rebellions.
The U.S.
imposed "No Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq, supposedly to protect
Kurds and other Iraqis from attacks by Hussein's forces. It is difficult
to reconcile this claim with the U.S. policy of allowing Iraqi troops to
suppress rebellions, often killing large numbers of Kurds and Shiites.
In the
event, the U.S. and British warplanes subsequently bombed Iraqi radar and
anti-aircraft sights while patroling these "No Fly Zones". These
areas were imposed on Iraq by the U.S.; they were not part of any U.N.
resolution, and the U.N. was never consulted about this matter. Therefore,
the "No Fly Zones" violate international law, and the U.S. bombings of
sites within these areas (hundreds of bombing raids have been conducted
since the war ended) violate both international law and the U.N. Charter.
An inspection
regime was instituted after the cease-fire. While it is true that
there were tensions for the 7 years of inspections (including those caused
by the U.S., as when the U.S. put spies on the inspection teams – a fact
that is not even disputed by the U.S.), ultimately the inspectors were
able to fully dismantle Iraq's nuclear facilities, and by 1998 the inspectors
reported that Iraq's WOMD programs were 95-98 percent dismantled.
The inspection regime was halted in 1998. Inspectors voluntarily
left when they were told a U.S. attack against Iraq was imminent, and the
U.S. began Operation Desert Fox. Inspectors did not return again,
until 2003. Since that time, the U.S. government and the media have
claimed that Iraq kicked the inspectors out.
As already mentioned, at most 5-percent of Iraqi WOMD programs were left
when inspections ended, 5-percent of a program it took Iraq years to acquire.
With regard to the discussion in Section One on WOMD, the fact is Iraq
has had only a little over 4 years to rebuild its WOMD program (assuming
it has even done so), and would have been doing so while under U.S.-British
overflights, with an intense sanctions program in place, and with U.S.
satellites ever-vigilant. It is difficult to imagine Iraq could have
a built a WOMD program capable of threatening its neighbors, let alone
the U.S.
The sanctions
imposed on Iraq after the war have left if wrecked. Food is rationed
due to inadequate supplies, with 16 million Iraqis (60-percent of the population)
relying on the "Oil For Food" program just to avoid starvation. Iraqis
also suffer from an almost complete lack of health care. Medicines
desperately needed are forbidden under the sanctions, and doctors are helpless
to treat many patients, especially children. This lack of health
care is all the worse in light of the effects of DU weapons.
25
The destruction
of sanitation and water treatment facilities cannot be remedied as long
as sanctions are in place. With a wrecked economy and a war-ravaged
infrastructure, living conditions in Iraq are deteriorating rapidly.
Millions are sick, and malnourishment and starvation are rampent (especially
in children). As many as 1.5 million or more Iraqis have died due
directly to the effects of sanctions (about 125,000 deaths every year since
1991). The ultimate irony of the situation is that Saddam Hussein
is stronger and more in control of Iraq due to the sanctions (Powell himself
admitted that sanctions have strengthened Hussein's regime).
Estimates of Iraqi troops killed during the war differ, with the U.S. official
estimate provided by General Schwarzkopf to Congress being 100,000 Iraqi
military dead, the British intelligence estimating as many as 200,000 Iraqi
soldiers killed, and the French military intelligence claiming the Iraqi
troops killed did indeed number about 200,000. It is likely that
the number lies somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000.
Estimates
of civilian casualties in Iraq are a matter of great dispute, but even
the lowest estimates by the U.S. are still quite alarming. U.S. Census
Bureau researcher Beth DaPonte's report set the figure at 13,000.
The organization promptly tried to fire her, and adjusted the figure down
to 5,000 "direct" civilian deaths. That number is in complete contradiction
with documented counts by relief organizations, and personal counts on
the ground by health officials and U.S. personnel.
A civilian
count of only 5,000 is absurd, considering the amount of bombs the U.S.
dropped in population centers; the number of civilian homes and apartments
that were totally destroyed; the number of Iraqis injured who later died
in hospitals; and the documented fact that 1,000 or more died in the Amariyah
bomb shelter in one single bombing. There is much other evidence
suggesting a significantly higher death-toll.
In the
summer of 1991, Navy Secretary John Lehman spoke to the California Bohemian
Grove (a gathering of wealthy persons and political leadership in the U.S.),
and Lehman quoted a Pentagon estimate of 200,000 Iraqis killed during the
Gulf War. This Pentagon estimate has never been officially made public,
and was only reported because a "People Magazine" journalist secretly gained
access to the Bohemian Grove compound. Although it is unclear if
this number includes the Pentagon's estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi troops,
this would still leave an estimate of 100,000 civilian.
The little-known
Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal (initiated
by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and completely unreported
by the U.S. media) conducted a highly detailed investigation using U.S.
estimates; on-the-ground teams who investigated within Iraq during the
war and after; and interviews with Iraqis, relief organizations, U.S. soldiers,
and other knowledgable sources. The Commission concluded the minimum
Iraqi civilian death-toll from the beginning of the war until February
of 1992 to be 150,000 dead.
This estimate
includes "tens of thousands" of infants who died from lack of milk formula
and medication. In the fall of 1991 (just months after the cease-fire),
UNICEF reported over 85,000 children were expected to die by the end of
1991 from malnutrition if drastic relief was not provided (it was not,
partly due to the U.S. insistance that the U.N. maintain sanctions prohibiting
food and medicine that could have helped save many of those 85,000
children).
With these
figures, it is possible to reach a few conclusions about the minimum civilian
death-toll due to the Gulf War (a number that must include Iraqis who died
in the war's immediate aftermath, as those deaths are directly attributable
to the effects of U.S. bombings). The lowest estimate is the Census
Bureau figure of 5,000 (adjusted down from 13,000); the Pentagon
estimate of 200,000 that may have included 100,000 military casualties,
leaving 100,000 non-military; the 85,000 children who would die according
to estimates by UNICEF without immediate aid, which never came; and
finally, the "very conservative" 150,000 estimated to have died by the
beginning of 1992, according to the lengthy and in-depth investigation
by the Commission of Inquiry.
Hence,
there are 3 estimates which are all around the 100,000 range, compared
to the 5,000 estimate from the Census Bureau. Notice that even the
low estimate of 5,000 "direct" casualties is over a total of only 46 days,
meaning over 100 civilian deaths per day, on average. This is the
absolute lowest estimate given.
26
With UNICEF
predicting 85,000 children would die by the end of 1991, with the Pentagon
implying 100,000 civilian deaths, and the Commission of Inquiry saying
at least 150,000 civilians died by early 1992, it seems very plausible
that tens of thousands of civilians were killed during the war and immediately
afterwards. The evidence for such a conclusion is simply too convincing
to ignore. None of these figures takes into account the number of
civilians who have died due to DU weapons exposure.
Consider that
of roughly 550,000 U.S. soldiers, anywhere from 20 to 30 percent appear
to suffer from effects of DU exposure, an almost 10,000 have died.
Using these figures as a basis, that translates into roughly 20,000 deaths
per million people. Also consider that Iraqis actually suffered more
exposure, over a much longer period of time, than the U.S. troops.
It is reasonable to conclude the number of Iraqi deaths from DU exposure
is in the tens of thousands.
As noted
earlier, most estimates by the W.H.O., multiple relief organization, and
other NGOs who have investigated the issue, report that up to 1.5 million
Iraqis have died as a direct result of the U.N. sanctions. While
this figure, like the DU estimates, is not a "direct" result of the U.S.
bombings themselves, they are nevertheless "direct" casualties of war to
the extent the radiation and sanctions are "direct" results of the war.
Nevertheless, the number of Iraqis who died during and since the war is
an enormous casualty rate, whichever figures one chooses to accept.
There
is one final note about the Gulf War. The Commission of Inquiry mentioned
above reported its findings to the International War Crimes Tribunal.
This Tribunal held hearings in 20 nations, and in over 30 cities in the
U.S. After the Commission reported its findings, and after hearing
from many witnesses, the international panel of 22 judges issued its verdict
on February 29, 1992.
Charged with
(among other charges) war crimes and crimes against humanity were President
George Bush; Vice President Dan Quayle; Secretary of Defence Dick Cheney;
Chairman of the JCS Colin Powell; and Commander of Allied Forces General
Norman Schwarzkopf.
In front
of an audience of 1,500, with 80 or more international foreign journalists
present (although no U.S. media reported this event, which made headlines
across the rest of the world), the Tribunal read the verdict to a "spontaneous,
thunderous and lengthy standing ovation…" from the crowd.
"Guilty"
on all counts.
27
SECTION THREE:
U.S. POLICY AND OIL
"Those who try to rule the world
forget who will inherit the earth."
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE QUESTION OF OIL
This portion
of the analysis will look at U.S. foreign policy, and the question of how
oil influences policy. To begin, consider a few facts about Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and Afghanistan.
Iraq has
11-percent of the known world oil reserves, almost half that of Saudi Arabia
(with 25-percent). Iraq is positioned (along with Kuwait) to allow
control of shipping in the Persian Gulf. Iraq borders Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait, both potentially at risk of civil unrest within their Islamic
public. It also borders Iran (one of the so-called "Axis of Evil",
along with Iraq and North Korea), which also has oil fields and which has
an Islamic government. It has been recently announced that Iran has
an advanced nuclear program.
Remember
that U.S. bases exist in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, and U.S. forces
will soon be based in Iraq after a war. Thus, U.S. military forces
will be in position to control about 40-percent of the world's oil, not
to mention the oil supplies in the U.S. and South America (Venezuela
is expected to open its oil industry to "privatization", i.e. domination
by U.S. oil companies). The total amount of oil under direct or indirect
U.S. control will be enormous.
Going
back to Iran for a moment, the U.S. animosity towards Iran, as evidenced
by the phrase "Axis of Evil", coupled with the revelations about Iran's
nuclear program, and the designation of Iran as a "state sponsor of terrorism",
should lead that country to view the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq with
some alarm. With massive forces already in place at bases in Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan, the U.S. could easily mount a quick
campaign against Iran next, under the same "preemptive" arguments used
in the case of Iraq. Terrorism, WOMD, and the Islamic nature of Iran's
society and government could be used as a pretext for seizing Iranian oil.
It is
entirely feasible that, if the U.S. does move into Iran next, ultimately
the U.S. will be in effective control of over half the oil in the world,
as soon as the end of this year or by the summer of 2004 (perhaps a more
ideal time for a war with Iran, since it would come just before the next
Presidential election). In addition, the U.S. would have a huge military
presence across the region for the first time in history, with forces in
Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan, Bahrain,
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and a few other periphery states
(notably, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and Djibouti in the Horn of
Africa). This is not to mention the Israel and Turkish support for
the U.S. in the region.
Dominance of
the Middle East (beyond simply the question of controlling oil, as we shall
see) is of major strategic importance for U.S. hegemony in the world, and
the U.S. military now stretches from the Horn of Africa up to the Persian
Gulf, across the Middle East, and into central Asia and the Indian Ocean.
Control of the Central Eurasian continent has been a U.S. objective for
some time, with the likely effects that would entail, effects we will turn
to momentarily.
Afghanistan
is important for U.S. policy for several reasons, having nothing to do
with the "war on terror". Afghanistan is positioned to funnel oil
from the region, and Russia planned to build a pipeline through Afghanistan
to the Black Sea region. Obviously, it is to Russia's advantage to
pipe as much oil to the Black Sea as possible, as it puts Russia in a position
of power regarding oil exporting and shipping. U.S. control of Afghanistan
means pipelines will direct oil away from the Black Sea region, towards
the Mediterranean Sea instead. The point of this is not only to enhance
U.S. dominance, but also to weaken Russia's ability to exert influence
in Central Eurasia or over Middle East oil.
Regarding
the Mediterranean Sea, U.S. control of this shipping area (especially as
a route for Middle Eastern oil, diverted away from the Black Sea) is certainly
of vital importance. The key to such domination of the Mediterranean
is, of course, the Suez Canal. What this means for the future of
Egypt might be imagined, and a move by either the U.S. directly or its
clients in Israel (or both) to grab portions of Egypt should be expected
in the future. Syria, too, will probably fall prey to this policy,
especially since a large pipeline from Iraq extends directly into Syria
and could be used to further U.S. shipping in the Mediterranean Sea.
28
Now it
is easy to see the U.S. control not only of half the world's oil, but the
pipelines and shipping routes as well, all under the watchful eye of a
large, sprawling military presence capable of moving quickly to suppress
any unrest or challenge to U.S. dominance of the region. The U.S.,
then, becomes de facto ruler of energy supplies for the entire globe, with
the most powerful military force in the world policing that rule.
In addition, this exertion of U.S. hegemony is pointed right at Central
Eurasia, home to over half the population on Earth. The strategic
importance of all of this cannot possibly be missed.
To focus
directly on oil again for a moment, consider the amount of money involved
in this equation. Saudi Arabia has the ability to pump about 10 million
barrels of oil per day, and Iraq can pump up to about 5-7 million barrels
of oil per day. That is around 17 million barrels. Add to that
Iran and Kuwait's production, and it is about 20 million barrels of oil
every day. At $20-$30 per barrel, that comes to $400-$600 million
dollars, every single day. In a year, that amounts to $144-$219 billion.
These numbers, remember, are only for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq.
Stating
these facts in simple terms, it looks like this: the most powerful
military in the world sits on roughly $100-$200 billion dollars worth of
the world's energy supply, shipping and pipelines for that energy supply,
and roughly half or more of the world's population. If the numbers
for Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and South American (mostly
Venezuelan and Mexican) and U.S. oil supplies and profits are considered,
then the figures rise to somewhere around $200-$250 billion, perhaps as
high as $300 billion or more, depending on prices and the U.S. ability
to control OPEC, a fact which emerges once U.S. dominance of the oil supplies
is firmly established.
Moreover, by
2020, the Persian Gulf will supply between 54 and 67-percent of the world's
oil (according to the National Energy Policy released by the White House's
task force); and the U.S. Energy Information Administration says Saudi
Arabian oil production will rise to over 22 million barrels per day by
2020, with Iraq reaching up to 10 million per day (or more, since the U.S.
government believes Iraq actually has an additional 400 billion barrels
of unexplored reserves, besides its 112 billion barrels of proven reserves).
With this
in mind, the current drive by the Bush administration to open Alaska to
large-scale drilling for oil, as well as the move to begin further offshore
drilling in California and Florida, takes on more important meaning.
Alaska
holds enough oil to contribute a few million new barrels per day, meaning
an additional $20-$30 million per day, or almost $10 billion per year.
It also allows for expanding the U.S. percentage of global energy supplies.
Additionally, there is a long-term policy objective, albeit a "worst-case"
scenario, in which the expansion of drilling in U.S. territories and coastal
regions plays a significant role, but will get to that a bit later.
Something
needs to be said about the origins of the U.S. military build-up in the
Middle East. In 1980, after announcing, "An attempt by any outside
force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
assault on the vital interests of the United States…such an assault will
be repelled by any means necessary…" President Jimmy Carter then created
the Rapid Deployment Force, a military force to be deployed quickly into
the region in the event of a crisis. This force eventually, under
President Ronald Reagan, became the Central Command, and it was increased
in strength by the addition of a massive Naval build-up (including over
40 battleships, aircraft carriers, and cruisers). This is the force
that was practicing for war against Iraq in 1990 just as Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Its sole purpose is to insure U.S. influence and dominance in the Middle
East.
So, the
profits alone would probably be enough to motivate any nation capable of
taking control of the oil. However, there is also another reason
behind the U.S. move to consolidate energy sources into U.S. hands, a reason
less obvious but of much greater long-term significance to the U.S. economy
than the profits in and of themselves.
29
CHAPTER TWELVE
U.S. REGIONAL
POSITIONING AND GLOBAL MARKETS
What lies
behind the U.S. drive for control of the world's energy? Obviously,
a profit of nearly $300 billion for U.S. oil industries does not need explanation
of its importance. However, beyond this clear motive lies a more
subtle concern. Put simply, the U.S. has no choice but to attempt
a monopoly of energy supplies ("no choice" in terms of this analysis, not
to be confused as a moral justification on the part of the author).
The U.S.
economy is not a truly "free market"; it is a federally subsidized market,
and it is simply incapable of competing internationally without this subsidy.
It is also incapable of competing with any significant competition, and
that is exactly the situation on the horizon (indeed, it is beginning now,
to some degree). The U.S. stands to lose its dominance of world financial
markets, in the face of the eventual power of a single EU market, and the
developing power of China's market. While perhaps the U.S. could
still compete against one or the other of these threats, it cannot hope
to survive against both.
There
is the added side-issue of Russia's choice of either (a) integration into
the EU market in the future, or (b) the possible emergence of a Russian-Chinese
joint trade agreement, in which Russia becomes the middle-man between EU
and a large Pan Asian market. Russia seems to be moving towards the
former option, which is the better (for Russia) of the two in the long
term. The position of the Black Sea as the route for oil out of the
Middle East adds to Russia's importance in the U.S. strategy for control
of the oil market, as does Russia's proximity to the Central Eurasian states
the U.S. wishes to place under its own influence.
In addition,
France and Germany, along with Russia, have been increasing their investments
in the Middle East, as have other nations. These investments have
matched or exceeded U.S. investments in recent decades (for one example:
by the late 1980s, the U.S. was only the fourth-largest supplier of arms
to Saudi Arabia, behind Britain, France, and China), and pose a significant
threat to U.S. dominance in the region. Consider: currently,
Western nations purchase two-thirds of Gulf oil, but by 2015 three-quarters
of Gulf oil will go to China, according to a study by the CIA's National
Intelligence Council. Were the U.S. to lose its chance to control
energy supplies in the region, it would have no chance of retaining a position
of power in the world economy in the future.
Outlining
this policy more clearly than ever before, President Bush issued the National
Security Strategy on September 21, 2002. It states: "We will not
hesitate to act alone…to exercise our right self-defense by acting preemptively,"
and, "the president has no intention of allowing any nation to catch up
with the huge lead the United States has opened…[we] will be strong enough
to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes
of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States." This policy
declaration echoes the words of Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon, who in
1992 wrote a memo stating the U.S. should build a massive military presence
on six continents, to prevent "potential competitors from even aspiring
to a larger regional or global role."
Profits
and oil control are largely related to another development in the Middle
East. On November 6, 2000, Charles Recknagel of Radio Free Europe
reported on an otherwise hidden secret of the U.S.-Iraqi conflict.
In November of that year, Iraq switched from the "petro dollar" standard
to the euro for oil transactions. At the time, Iraq had roughly $10
billion in its "oil for food" fund at the U.N. The euro was at only
80 cents to the dollar in 2000, but by 2002 it had risen between 15 and
20-percent, an increase which led to substantial gains in Iraq's oil fund.
There
is evidence Iran might be contemplating a move to the euro, as well.
In 2002, Iran converted over half its reserve funds to the euro.
Comments by members of Iran's Parliament and other facts indicate Iran
is moving closer to conversion to the euro for oil transactions.
The reaction of the U.S. to such a move can be imagined.
30
The importance
of such a move cannot be overstated. If all of OPEC followed Iraq's
move, the damage to the U.S. economy would be staggering. It is estimated
that the dollar would lose between 25-50% of its value, as central banks
worldwide replaced dollars in their reserve funds with euros, and Wall
Street watched foreign investments pour out. The U.S. budget deficit
would almost certainly default. In short, the U.S. economy would
be faced with a catastrophic situation probably worse than the Great Depression.
The U.S.
cannot afford to allow OPEC to jump to the euro, for the strength of the
U.S. dollar is largely propped-up by its position as "reserve currency."
There can be no doubt, then, that Iraq's move from the "petro dollar" to
the euro was the "final straw," so to speak, and Washington's next move
– war – was inevitable. Not only was the U.S. determined to place
Iraqi oil into American hands and back on the dollar standard, a signal
had to be sent to OPEC that any similar moves by other nations would likewise
meet with strong U.S. military intervention. More importantly, the
U.S. will be in a position to break-up OPEC, placing regulatory control
in the hands of the U.S.
Hence,
the U.S. policy (as the U.S. government and corporations see it, anyway)
must be to take control of energy supplies as a means of maintaining U.S.
domination of financial markets. This control will be backed up by
the unsurpassed U.S. military power, and the continuation of the dollar
as the oil transaction currency standard. But another long-term objective,
as important as the oil itself, is the extension of U.S. influence and
hegemony into Central Eurasia.
The importance
of Central Eurasia should not be underestimated, in regard to its role
in U.S. strategic planning. Currently, this region is open and not
under domination by any single global power. Home to so much of the
population of the planet, exerting influence and control there will be
central to continuing global hegemony for the U.S. The potentials
for labor, consumers, and trade are of immense importance to U.S. plans,
and control of the oil is probably equaled by the goal of establishing
U.S. military bases and political control of the Middle East as a stepping-stone
into Central Eurasian domination. Conversely, influence of this region
aids continued U.S. domination of the Middle East, and prevents influence
there by other global powers.
It might
also be relevant to point out the connections both President Bush and Vice
President Cheney have with the oil industry and defense contractors.
While certainly not the prime motivation for the policies outlined above,
Bush and Cheney do have a certain personal gain at stake in U.S. domination
of oil supplies, and that personal element should be kept in mind.
The examples are so numerous that discussing the incestuous relationship
between Washington and oil/defense contractors would be redundant, and
quite a lengthy project all on its own. Suffice it to say, the connections
are multiple and deep, and widely publicized.
As is
apparent, the twin goals of taking control of the vast majority of world
energy supplies, and extending U.S. dominance into the Middle East and
Central Eurasia, are both imperialist policies, regardless of the objections
of many (mostly in the U.S. government) to the word "imperialism".
The strategy is clear enough when the facts are observed honestly.
To deny it is to deny repeated statements from the Pentagon, current and
former government officials; stated U.S. policy goals since the 1970's
regarding U.S. security interests in the Middle East; and the sheer weight
of evidence based on actual events, which all suggest U.S. policies are
directed towards domination of the Middle East oil and Central Eurasia.
There
is, however, an alternate version of this same basic scenario, one that
is even more ominous than the policy spelled out above.
31
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
A STRATEGY OF DESTRUCTION
It is possible
that the U.S. does not see a potential for long-term U.S. domination of
the Middle East. The historic instability (due largely to foreign
interference and the Israeli issue) and growing influence of Islamic and
nationalistic forces in the region could be viewed as detrimental to permanent
U.S. control. If this were true, then the U.S. would face eventual
expulsion from the region and ultimately reemergence of a challenge to
U.S. global economic power (either from the Middle East itself, regarding
energy markets, or European and/or Russian influence in the Middle East
and on global markets).
The U.S.
is also likely aware that while occupation of the Middle East will be possible
temporarily, eventually international opposition to U.S. unilateralism
and hegemony will reach a level hard for the U.S. to merely ignore.
It will also become harder as time goes by for the U.S. to justify domination
of the region, since to this point the U.S. has relied mainly on "humane"
reasoning, such as "liberation", and national security concerns, such as
Iraqi WOMD, to deflect criticism. Those arguments will lose weight
the longer U.S. soldiers are in place, and the longer the U.S. exploits
the region for its oil.
With this
in mind, the U.S. may be planning only a short-term occupation and domination
of the region. The fact that the U.S. is engaging in large-scale
warfare against Iraq, could be planning a similar campaign against Iran,
and has already committed massive bombings in Afghanistan and in the Gulf
War against Iraq, all might point to the "short-term" option as the more
likely policy.
Here is
the reason: the wars previously waged and about to be waged in the
Middle East involve destruction of infrastructures, wide-spread death and
disease among the civilian populations, and the use of DU weapons which
have poisoned the region substantially. A continuation of these methods
will eventually leave the major oil-producing nations and their neighbors
wrecked, irradiated, and largely unsuitable for long-term investment.
Why would the U.S. engage in such a destructive policy?
To destroy
the Middle East as an energy-producing rival. The theory is, if the
U.S. does not feel it can maintain domination of the oil supply in the
Middle East, then it will deny that supply to anyone else. With enough
warfare, epidemics, and irradiation, it will be impossible for the nations
in question, or any other nations, to continue accessing the oil reserves
in the region.
The results
of such a policy would be two-fold. First, the U.S. would establish
the aforementioned military bases needed for exploiting the regional oil,
while allowing for U.S. exertion of influence into Central Eurasia.
Second, the region would eventually collapse from the damage and exploitation,
leaving it nonviable as an energy source, which allows the Western Hemisphere
(the U.S. and South America) to emerge as the largest suppliers of world
energy, through U.S. oil companies. This strategy gives the U.S.
continuing control of the oil supplies, and once the Middle Eastern oil
is no longer available, the sudden spike in oil prices for Western oil
will balance the loss of supply to the U.S. corporations.
The time
before collapse in the Middle East would be sufficient to allow the U.S.
to exploit its position to establish hegemony over the Central Eurasian
population, so that withdrawal from the Middle East will coincide with
U.S. establishment of bases within the desired Central Eurasian states
(indeed, such bases are beginning to pop up already). This also allows
Israeli domination over the Middle Eastern nations which might largely
escape direct application of the destructive U.S. policy (perhaps Syria,
Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, the later already becoming a low-level "partner"
to Israel much as Britain acts for the U.S., although the new Turkish government's
religious sympathies will need to be kept in check by the Turkish armed
forces, a role those forces have readily played in the past).
32
Israel
will be left to step up its already brutal policies, and likely reinvade
Lebanon, after either an Israeli attack on Syrian forces or, as is becoming
more likely, a U.S. attack directly on Syria to prevent its "interference"
with Israeli plans (and its assistance to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon).
A U.S. assault against Syria would likely revolve around the same "justifications"
given for a war against Iraq (supporting terrorism, weapons of mass destruction,
etc.). Jordan will be forced to bow to Israel's will along the lines
of whatever "peace settlement" is reached with the Palestinians in the
occupied territories. Likewise, Israel will also be free to pursue
its policies concerning water supplies in the region, and the distribution
of those resources. Look for an eventual escalation of tensions over
water resources, eventually leading to open aggression and even warfare.
Making
such a scenario more likely is the reserve currency issue. To perhaps
oversimplify a bit, U.S. economic domination is dependent on the position
of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, a position largely attributable
to the dollar's role as the oil transaction currency. Were other
nations to revert to the euro as reserve currency, after an OPEC conversion
to the euro, the damage to the U.S. economy (discussed in the previous
chapter) would end U.S. dollar hegemony. However, the U.S. can remove
this danger by destroying OPEC and the Middle East.
If the
Middle East lost its role as the major world supplier of oil, the Western
Hemisphere's position as the new world energy source would insure dollar
hegemony's survival, and remove a significant danger to the U.S. domination
of global economics. Oil transactions would remain fixed to the dollar
indefinitely, and the dollar's position as reserve currency would be insured.
Again, the issue is a bit more complex than this, but essentially this
is how the strategy would work out, and destruction of the Middle East
fits perfectly into the plan.
To a less
extreme, it is possible that a milder version of this theory will be carried
out. Perhaps the U.S. plans to poison and weaken the region, reduce
its monopoly as an energy supplier and dismantle OPEC, but maintain oil
production within the larger nations of Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia under
the control of U.S. oil companies. By reducing the populations and
weakening them through disease and low standards of living, then exploiting
them as a cheap labor source for the oil companies, the U.S. can destroy
the region except for those few areas where oil fields exist.
The U.S. military
will take a page from the Israeli forces, ruling with an iron fist and
possibly enforcing a policy where the Arab workers are forced to live in
camps outside the work zones. In essence, the Arabs will be "slave
labor" in an irradiated region for a small number of U.S. oil companies,
living in military police states, essentially shut off from the rest of
the world and left too weak to resist. The dollar would remain the
transaction currency for oil, dictated by U.S. domination of the oil producing
nations, so long as U.S. control was not threatened or challenged.
Certainly,
this is a cynical theory, and the scenario itself is a nightmare, for the
Middle East and the world. However, the possibility exists, and while
the policy would be extreme, it is not contrary to any facts or current
policy being carried out by the U.S. Moreover, the goals spelled
out here and the likely outcome of such a policy of destruction is, it
would seem, favorable to the U.S. government's strategic goals and to U.S.
corporate interests. And far too often, that is the bottom line.
33
THE
RISE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: TOMORROW'S REAL EMPIRE
Much attention
is focused right now on the U.S. policy in the Middle East. To be
sure, the global situation seems to hang on U.S. actions in pursuit of
hegemony. However, let us take a break for a moment from analysis
of U.S. imperialism, and contemplate a few other equally important factors
in the worldwide power play we are witnessing. For make no mistake,
a power play is exactly what is transpiring in front of us, although the
unilateralist actions of the Bush regime tend to overshadow the activities
and motivations of other states in this struggle.
With this in mind, we should consider Europe, the other key force at work
in the shifting of global power that is occurring today. To understand
the European strategy, we need to be sure we are aware of the U.S. plan,
so a quick review may be in order. It should be stated upfront that,
quite obviously, this essay represents the views of the author, based on
analysis of many facts and political realities in today's world.
While it is impossible to know for certain whether these conclusions are
all 100-percent accurate, it is the author's belief that most of what follows
will be proven correct as events unfold.
Basically,
the U.S. is attempting to take control of the global oil supply and destroy
OPEC for two reasons: primarily, to establish the U.S. as the global
supplier of energy, forestalling the otherwise coming loss of U.S. domination
of the world economic markets; secondly, to maintain the dollar as the
reserve currency of the world and as the oil transaction currency.
The U.S. is motivated not merely by the monetary profits involved in the
oil trade; rather, it is the rising power of the E.U. and their currency,
the euro, threatening to replace the U.S. as the dominant economic force
in the world market, which compels the U.S. to take over global oil supplies
as a means of continuing U.S. hegemony around the globe.
The U.S.
status as "superpower" is, to a very real extent, based on a flimsy foundation.
Should OPEC switch to the euro for oil transactions, central banks around
the world would dump their dollars and revert to euros as reserve currency,
a process that is in fact already beginning. Iraq made a full switch
to euros, even replacing their "Oil For Food" $10 billion fund at the U.N.
with euros. Iran recently converted over half their currency reserves
to euros, and Venezuela is increasing their holding of euros over dollars,
as is Russia. If the euro replaces the dollar as the world's reserve
currency (held by all nations' central banks so they may purchase oil,
which all countries need but that can only be purchased with one currency,
currently the "petro dollar"), the replacement of dollars in central banks
will also lead to a withdrawal of funds from Wall Street, as foreign investments
pour out of the U.S. The budget deficit would probably default, and
the dollar would lose anywhere between 20 to 50-percent of its value.
Additionally,
the U.S. economy is a federally subsidized welfare-state for corporations.
The Pentagon system provides funding for our high-tech industries, propping
up our economy, which cannot compete in a real "free market". There
is no real industrial base anymore, no really strong production sector.
The strength of the U.S. economy lies in the subsidized nature of most
industry, and more so in the dollar's status as reserve currency.
If the "petro dollar" disappears, the U.S. economy could not hope to be
competitive globally. The European Union is simply too strong, and
too large. When China's emerging economic power is also taken into
account, it becomes clear that the so-called "super power" is not so "super"
after all.
Hence,
the European strategy. French and German opposition to the invasion
of Iraq, while most certainly a welcome development to those of us who
opposed the war, is not based on any sort of moral ground at all.
Rather, it is the first sign of the E.U.'s plan coming to the forefront.
We will discuss the seeming anomaly of Britain momentarily. For now,
let us look at the most likely scenario in the minds of the European leadership.
Two goals
must be foremost in E.U. planners' minds: first, the removal or limiting
of U.S. forces in the Middle East (which we will get to a bit later); second,
the ascension of the euro to reserve currency status. Put simply,
the E.U. wants to broker deals with OPEC nations for lucrative drilling
rights and pipelines, and for the conversion to the euro for oil transactions.
This is not only desirable because of the profits; like the U.S., the E.U.
also wants to seize control of the oil markets, albeit in a subtler and
less violent manner, for the long-term viability of their economy.
They intend to secure drilling rights and shipping rights from oil producing
nations in a partnership fashion, and the deal the E.U. is offering is
one most of OPEC cannot refuse. What does the E.U. offer, besides
money, that is so motivating?
34
The end
of U.S. hegemony and military aggression in the Middle East, and as a result,
the end of Israeli aggression as well. Persian Gulf states are well
aware of the U.S. reliance on "petro dollars" to maintain the American
economy; likewise, they are aware that the U.S. is becoming more unilateralist
and violent not because the U.S. is "so powerful", but precisely because
American domination is so precarious. For these reasons, the Middle
Eastern oil states know that the safety of any OPEC member is questionable,
and they also know exactly what the U.S. plans to do in order to secure
U.S. hegemony—namely, crush OPEC and exert American imperialism throughout
the Middle East.
Obviously,
the Arabs and Persians are not too enthusiastic about such prospects.
So, enter the E.U. By converting to the euro, granting European countries
drilling rights, and agreeing to a (probably) duel system of pipelines
(to the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea), OPEC states get a free hand
in their own nations (such a generous offer) and the removal of the U.S.
military from the region. Since a U.S. economic collapse is quite
likely in this scenario, Israel's huge monetary gifts from the U.S. will
decline while the E.U.'s ability to enforce their will at the U.N. will
grow and dominate the proceedings. Israel will be warned to adhere
to International law, to withdraw from the occupied territories, and to
make a final peace with a Palestinian state (although Israel will not really
be totally isolated, since eventually the E.U. will want a militarily strong
Israel on its side to assist in plans for the Mediterranean Sea and the
Suez Canal).
Sound
too rosy? It probably is. However, this is most likely the
scenario the E.U. is pitching to OPEC nations, and considering their options,
OPEC is likely to gamble on the "utopian" scheme. Of course, even
if only half of this all works out as planned, it is still presumably preferable,
in the view of Middle Eastern states, to the "U.S. invades us all and takes
our oil" option. At worst, the U.S. is removed as the leading global
power, replaced with a much more militarily benign E.U., and Israel is
left alone in the region (so far as the Arab states will be told, anyway)
against states that are backed by the E.U. and…Russia.
Russia
is the wild card in all of this. Their role is actually fairly obvious.
The E.U. needed Russia on its side in the U.N. showdown against the U.S.
For Russia, there is really no advantage in U.S. global hegemony, especially
since the U.S. strategy includes pushing U.S. domination into the Central
Eurasian region where Russia would like to see its own influence reemerge.
Additionally, Russia wants some of the oil pipelines from the Middle East
to direct oil towards the Black Sea region, and the U.S. plan attempts
to divert oil away from the Black Sea, towards the Mediterranean Sea.
Finally, there is the issue of China's growing power, and the desire of
both Russia and the E.U. to stem Chinese influence and potential hegemony
in Central Eurasia as well as the Middle East, the latter being a long-term
concern, since by 2020 over three-quarters of oil sales from the Middle
East will go to China.
The E.U.
has much to offer Russia, certainly more than the U.S. can offer.
To begin with, close economic ties between Russia and the E.U. are mutually
beneficial. They share a border, and this proximity means lots of
trade. The E.U. is about to expand to a population of about 450 million
people, and Russia is the gateway to Central Eurasia. Trade, then,
is vital between the two powers.
As already mentioned, both also share concerns over the potential for
Chinese hegemony in Central Eurasia, and the eventual influence of China's
domination of Middle East oil purchases, both of course dependent on a
collapse of U.S. power in the region. Assuming such loss of domination
by the U.S., which is part of the plan, then it becomes necessary for both
Russia and the E.U. to prevent China's emergence as the regional power.
This can
be achieved only if the E.U. and Russia work together, through mutual investment
and agreement over the pipeline issues (where a compromise is likely, with
a significant percentage of oil diverted to the Black Sea, and the rest
to the Mediterranean Sea), and a recognition by the E.U. of the necessity
of Russian military influence in the region, perhaps bolstered by a smaller
NATO force (much of which might be Turkish).
The E.U.
knows Russia cannot compete economically with them, and they need not fear
Russian military aggression against Europe, so by exerting economic control
over the Middle East and using the E.U.'s stronger market position to exert
influence into Central Eurasia, Russia then becomes a sort of intermediary,
a role with both power and prestige. As a bonus, Russia's military
is strong enough to dissuade China (especially considering the Russian
nuclear arsenal), and once in the region will also dissuade any potential
attempt by the U.S. to reintroduce itself as a military force. For
Russia, this reestablishes an important element of global prestige it feels
was lost after the Soviet Union's collapse. A joint E.U.-Russian
partnership allows both to act as global "almost-super powers", where the
status of each is enhanced and balanced by the other, but in fact the E.U.
is the senior partner.
35
As an
additional bonus for Russia, this set-up would almost guarantee that the
states on its southern border were drawn into a much closer economic and
security relationship with Russia. This is something Russia has been
trying to achieve for several years, but those nations have been reluctant
to get too close, considering the past relationship between them.
However, a suddenly "relevant" and influential Russia would hold much more
sway over its smaller neighbors, especially after the U.S. presence in
the region (and in some of those nations) has disappeared.
For the
E.U., such an arrangement allows them to reap the economic benefits without
the "policing" of the region that, realistically, the E.U. is incapable
of performing on the scale that would likely be necessary. What we
would see, then, is a virtual 180-degree flip of the current U.S. regional
position of encirclement from the south, with instead a joint E.U.-Russian
presence from the north, but with a stronger position from the west due
to Europe's greater ability to dominate the Mediterranean Sea routes, with
France's lingering presence in Africa enhanced to serve a greater role
in the push towards the Suez Canal and into the Persian Gulf. By
partnering with Russia, the E.U. avoids competing with Russia in the region,
which would almost certainly occur once the U.S. was removed from the picture.
This is
little different from the U.S. imperialistic drive in the region, so far
as end results and, to a large degree, general methods are concerned.
The difference is that Europe has had a long history of imperialism and
colonialism, so they have perhaps "perfected" the means and diplomacy better
than the U.S., which has pretty much relied on its strong military to allow
the imposition of American will. Of course, European colonialism
was likewise backed by force, but the point here is that over time a less
blunt form of the use of such force has developed, albeit only by comparison
to U.S. methods (like the difference between asking someone to do something
while kicking them in the butt, instead of ordering them to do it while
kicking them in the crotch).
A major
difference between the U.S. and E.U. strategies lies in the significant
fact that, unlike the U.S., the E.U. can back its economic domination and
currency strength with a strong industrial output. While certainly
not ideal, the conditions for labor unions and the lack of a large "disposable"
economy (read: military production) means Europe's global economic hegemony
will have a longer shelf life than any similar U.S. dominance. Without
the strong dollar and economic control, the U.S. military strength will
likely diminish as well, although of course the significant nuclear arsenal
in America's hands means it will still have to be reckoned with on global
matters. The point is, should the E.U.'s strategy play out as they
are planning (and all indications are that, one way or another, it eventually
will), then the U.S. "empire" is already nearing its decline just as it
is being formally established.
Now, let
us turn to the British question, for at first glance it seems puzzling
and does suggest the E.U. is not firmly acting as a unified entity.
If the fissure between the U.S.-British European block (which includes
Poland, Czechoslovakia, and a few other new E.U. states) and the French-German
block is as accentuated as it appears publicly, then one might argue that
the E.U. has no chance of staging a challenge to U.S. hegemony in the near
future. While this could indeed be true, it would still not negate
the probability of an eventual reconciliation between the European nations
in a few years time, and the long-term is where all the planners have their
eyes anyway.
However,
it is possible that the European split is not nearly as deep as it appears.
Moreover, there are clues that Britain might be playing the E.U.'s game
after all, but with some very sly maneuvering that makes their intentions
hard to spot unless we look closely. If we assume for a moment that
the E.U. strategy spelled out above is basically correct, then how would
we explain Britain's current position, if we try to fit it into the greater
European plan?
Actually,
both Britain's Middle East policy and its stance regarding the E.U. currency
make perfect sense, in the long term. Since the E.U. is not prepared
to make its move immediately, as such a forceful challenge to U.S. supremacy
would be viewed very harshly by the U.S., a subtle waiting game must be
played. Central banks must be given time to establish faith in the
euro, OPEC must be finessed and convinced of the inevitability of an American
decline, and perhaps most importantly in view of British behavior, at least
some European military presence should be established in the Persian Gulf
region, with a view towards the future.
36
It is
likely that, even after the U.S. is presumably driven back from its domination
of the region, many "U.S.-friendly" governments will still exist, with
leaders formerly backed and supported (mostly through military arms shipments)
by the U.S. How much easier will it be for the E.U. to step into
the U.S.'s shoes, if an E.U. member-state already has established relations
with those governments, and already has security forces in the region?
From the E.U. standpoint, then, it makes sense not to allow America to
"go it alone" as it seeks to establish U.S. domination of the region.
Britain will serve to slow and moderate the U.S. move through the region,
and will serve as the precursor to a much more intense E.U. presence in
the Middle East once the U.S. is gone.
Additionally,
there is a selfish motivation for Britain. Actually, several.
One very obvious motive is monetary profits. Presumably, only those
nations that supported the U.S. push into the Gulf will be rewarded with
oil and infrastructure contracts, with Britain gaining the most of any
non-U.S. interests. This will also serve the E.U. in the future,
by the way. Another British motivation may relate to an eventual
U.K. attempt to establish itself as the "leader" of the E.U., a reemergence
of British Empire, so to speak. Indeed, with most of the E.U.'s own
oil production being British-dominated, and since Britain has perhaps the
strongest military force of the E.U. members, they might also see a U.K.
force in the Gulf as giving them leverage for a leadership role.
There
is also the currency factor, and here perhaps is Britain's strongest hand
to play. British acceptance of the euro is inevitable, but Britain
can certainly delay it. In fact, the U.K. is highly aware of the
fact that once Britain moves to the euro, the European currency will leap
in value, and a British move will likely signal a Swedish acceptance of
the euro as well. The addition of those two strong currencies moving
to the euro will quite probably make it impossible for the dollar to ever
overtake the euro again, and a switch to the euro as the world's reserve
currency will become unpreventable. Likewise, without U.S. domination
over the Middle East and the dismantling of OPEC, oil transactions will
surely convert to the euro.
Therefore,
Britain knows that it has a very important role to play in the E.U.'s future
plans, and its current fling with the U.S. is only intended to strengthen
the U.K.'s position when it finally turns and fully enters the E.U. camp.
Besides, considering the "special relationship" between Britain and the
U.S., playing the good friend serves the purpose of softening the eventual
blow that is to fall on the U.S. Probably, Britain will play the
role of formal mediator between the E.U. and the U.S. once relations start
to sour over the E.U.'s power play (of course, the U.S. expects the E.U.
to accept an American power play without any complaints, in keeping with
traditional arrogance).
Britain
is allowing France (and Germany, to a lesser extent) to bear the brunt
of the rift between Europe and the U.S., thus laying the groundwork for
what is to come. This also allows Germany and France to do the dealing
with Russia, something Britain has never done very well. With France
and Germany serving a duel leadership role right now, the potential for
one or the other to rival Britain as E.U. leader is diminished (although
Germany does play a junior role to France, but nevertheless the two are
seen as a "partnership"). Additionally, the current governments of
both France and Germany, while enjoying a boost due to their strong stand
against the U.S., do not have a truly large, loyal popular support, and
nor do their governments have a singular powerful political force that
could "take charge", as Britain has (by comparison, that is).
Hence,
it is likely that Britain views itself as the logical and legitimate heir
to the E.U. "throne." With these facts in mind, the current British
policies make much more sense, and are not at odds with the overall E.U.
strategy. It should be noted that none of this is to say Britain
is actually the best suited nation to lead the E.U., or that current British
policy will lead to the developments discussed. This is merely an
explanation of what Britain might be thinking, and how the British may
expect things to turn out.
Another
point, and not at all a minor one, concerns the U.N. Once E.U. dominance
is established, consider how this will influence the General Assembly,
where each E.U. member-state has an ambassador, and the Security Council,
with two veto-bearing members and several permanent members. Russia,
it might be remembered, will likely vote along with the E.U. as a reflection
of their partnership (looking farther into the future, eventual Russian
membership in the E.U. might even be likely). It will not be a surprise
if, after E.U. hegemony is established, the U.N. begins to take on the
look of an international platform for the global enforcement of E.U. policy
(as some say it is today for U.S. policy, although this is not quite as
true as it would be in the case of the E.U.).
37
The fighting
in the U.N. as the U.S. prepared to invade Iraq was simply intended to
set the stage for the future, besides the immediate benefits (such as rising
popular support for the governments in France and Germany). This
stand against the U.S. was meant as a sign to the world, but in particular
to the Middle East, that Europe is willing to stand up to the U.S. and
potentially stay its hand. Had they actually been serious about preventing
the war, they could have increased the number of U.N. inspectors and even
sent a "protective force" with the inspectors, both of which would have
made a U.S. invasion nearly impossible.
The fact
is, the invasion was not completely opposed because the E.U. probably expects
the U.S. venture to ultimately fail. The U.S. invasion will increase
anti-Americanism, will accentuate the European opposition stance, and actually
adds urgency to the need for OPEC to seek shelter in the euro. If
left unchecked, the U.S. will get rid of OPEC. The only chance for
OPEC's survival may be to switch currency, in the hopes it will hit the
U.S. too hard before the U.S. can respond. The invasion of Iraq might
have been the final push OPEC needed to make it desperate enough to adopt
the euro sooner than expected.
This,
then, is the basic formula for the E.U.'s strategy for global hegemony.
To be sure, there will certainly be unexpected events and crises that arise
along the way, and the U.S. reaction as events unfold may be hard to predict.
Much depends on the government in the U.S. when the E.U. makes its move.
The current Bush regime, for example, might very well react unexpectedly
to such a European threat to U.S. interests (read: U.S. global domination).
Indeed, while definitely a low probability, the U.S. could lash out violently
if it becomes obvious that American economic power is about to collapse.
A look at the past might tell us all we need to know, as far as worst-case
violent U.S. responses go.
During
the 1980's, the U.S. had as part of its nuclear strategy a then-unknown
(but since somewhat declassified) protocol concerning its European allies.
In the event of global nuclear war (i.e. between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.),
the U.S. knew that Britain and France had secretly made agreements with
the Soviet Union not to launch their own nuclear arsenals against the U.S.S.R.,
in exchange for an agreement that Moscow would not unleash a nuclear holocaust
on Europe. U.S. policy took this into account, and it was decided
that, in order for the U.S. to ensure it would be the first nation to "recover"
from a nuclear war, the U.S. would target both Britain and France if they
chose not to side with the U.S. in the conflict.
Shocking?
Yes, but perhaps it should not be, considering we are talking about the
actions of the U.S. as it engages in global nuclear annihilation.
When people are willing to destroy most life on the planet anyway, we might
excuse them if their lack of humanity and sanity extends to their treatment
of allies.
This is
to say, with the right administration in office (or perhaps more accurately,
the wrong one), the U.S. response to an E.U. usurpation of power could
be to provoke a global crisis or world war. Not a high probability,
to be sure, but neither should the possibility be completely discounted.
Consider Israel's firm commitment to the "wild man" strategy, in which
the nation intends to make clear its willingness to act irrationally if
its vital interests are threatened, including but not limited to the use
of nuclear weapons to "bring down the house" around themselves, or to destroy
the Saudi oil fields.
Would
the U.S. retaliate with open warfare, if an American economic collapse
and E.U. ascension were inevitable (as is likely the case, one way or another)?
It is certainly possible. The U.S. probably would not directly target
Europe, but rather might instigate a conflict of such scale that NATO intervention
was necessitated, and thus impede E.U. plans by exposing fellow NATO members
to damage from warfare.
One region
that comes to mind when considering potential "hot spots" where the U.S.
could initiate a crisis is Asia. Imagine a U.S.-North Korean conflict
in which China is drawn in, or a U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan.
Either is possible, and could flare up with U.S. prodding, and the U.S.
could then invoke the mutual assistance article of the NATO treaty.
Presto, Europe is faced with a serious threat of missile strikes on their
own soil.
This is
just hypothetical, since obviously there are endless numbers of other scenarios
that might occur instead. The U.S. would not likely respond to the
E.U. in such an extreme manner, especially since the tumbling of the U.S.
economy would be so severe, the government would have its hands full trying
to manage the domestic situation.
38
Perhaps
a more likely worst-case scenario for a U.S. response would be a "scorched-earth"
policy in the Middle East. Briefly, this would involve doing so much
damage to the region that, if the U.S. were to be denied the resources
of the region, then nobody will be able to use them. Irradiation
through the extensive use of depleted uranium weapons, possibly nuclear
weapons as well, destruction of infrastructures, and the creation of a
weak and disease-ridden Arab-Persian population could be achieved if the
U.S. views the loss of its hegemony as inevitable.
By rendering
the region virtually uninhabitable and certainly unworkable (so far as
energy resources are concerned), the U.S. might have a last desperate ploy
up its sleeve in the form of oil in the Americas. The loss of Middle
Eastern oil would make the North-South American oil reserves a leading
source of global energy supplies (Venezuela has perhaps the fourth-largest
oil reserves in the world). This is a much-abbreviated version of
the theory, a more detailed analysis of which by this author can be found
in "War Without Consent", chapters 11-13.
What must
be remembered about the E.U. strategy is, the U.S. is well aware of it.
It is precisely because of the threat to U.S. supremacy that we are seeing
such a unilateralist, imperialist nature overtaking U.S. policy.
This is not to say such imperialist tendencies were not already inherent
in the U.S.; but the current sense of urgency, the bluntness with which
these policies are now being expressed, is due to the nature of the E.U.
threat. So long as U.S. domination of world markets could be ensured
by the "petro dollar", no actual physical or forceful domination of the
Middle East was necessary, and client-states could be relied on to protect
U.S. interests.
The oil
crisis of the 1970's and the Iranian revolution, however, changed everything.
It was from this time, with the implementation of the "Carter doctrine"
(that the U.S. would protect its "interests" with all means necessary),
that the stage was set for the policies we are seeing today. The
Rapid Reaction Force, later to become Central Command (CENTCOM), was created
to respond in the event a real challenge to U.S. domination arose.
It has.
How does
the E.U. expect to remove the U.S. from the Middle East? Maybe the
key is Britain. Already, the U.K. is out of step with the U.S., as
Tony Blair calls for a strong U.N. role in post-war Iraq. The British
forces are also trying to play key roles in the southern regions of Iraq,
and although this seems to fit into U.S. plans for sharing the policing
duties, Britain might have bigger plans than the U.S. realizes.
If anti-American
sentiments in Iraq continue to grow, we could see strong calls at the U.N.
from France and Germany for the U.S. to withdraw, while the British forces
try to play the "good cop" role, denouncing American heavy-handedness and
perhaps echoing the calls for the U.S. to leave. If the process can
be dragged out, and the U.S. expansion slowed, OPEC might survive long
enough to heed E.U. calls for a conversion to the euro. With the
economic chaos that would ensue in the U.S., coupled with a determined
resistance to the U.S. occupation forces, and worldwide demands for a U.S.
withdrawal, it is possible the U.S. could buckle under the pressure.
Another
scenario might involve a substantial resistance to the U.S. occupation,
resulting in the overthrow of U.S-backed governments elsewhere in the Gulf
region. While this might initially give the U.S. an excuse to invade
Saudi Arabia to "stabilize" the nation, it could also backfire and lead
to U.S. forces getting stretched thin and battling popular uprisings in
multiple nations. If other Middle East states join in the fight against
the U.S., the international scene could get quite complicated. The
U.N. would, in all likelihood, call for a U.S. withdrawal. The E.U.
could join in with calls for a "mediating" or "peacekeeping" force approved
by both sides, which would probably mean a U.N. force composed of European,
Russian, and Arab troops. Indeed, Russian forces should be expected
to enter Iraq as part of a U.N. force even before German or French forces.
Any of
these developments, as is obvious, favor the E.U. Obviously, there
are other possibilities. Maybe the E.U. will just play a waiting
game, betting that eventually their patience will pay off with a U.S. withdrawal
from the region, and a global switch to the euro as reserve currency.
In the event, the U.S. military presence will have to establish itself
quickly and firmly, if it hopes to avoid the numerous factors working against
the U.S. strategy. Perhaps Europe will attempt to fuel the antagonism
between the U.S. and North Korea or China, to divert U.S. attention to
that region. While perhaps unlikely, we might even see Europe pressing
the International Atomic Energy Agency to call for sanctioning North Korea,
or for a U.N. resolution against North Korea, even before the U.S. calls
for such moves. Again, maybe this is an unlikely scenario, but if
it happens expect the calls to come from a European state currently "allied"
with the U.S., such as Britain, so the anti-North Korea pressure will be
harder for the U.S. to deflect.
39
If the
U.S. strategy fails, there is no telling how the U.S. will respond.
The E.U. response, on the other hand, is fairly predictable. The
strategy discussed here seems the most plausible course to expect from
Europe, although of course moderate changes and adjustments to the plan
are likely as events unfold. The big unknown remains, how will the
U.S. respond, and will this response cause global instability and warfare?
The threat
of U.S. domination and imperialism, which we are resisting today, is not
really any more threatening than the emergence of an E.U. global domination.
Both ultimately rely on the same tactics of suppression and economic exploitation,
both rely (although to different extents) on conflict and instability to
produce the desirable circumstances for each party's domination, and both
must be strenuously resisted. Right now, the most visible and appalling
enemy to global liberty and justice is the U.S. However, we are being
short sighted if we don't consider the next enemy we will face, for it
may be an imperialism much stronger and better suited to the job than the
U.S., and therefore much harder to defeat.
40
EPILOGUE
Nothing
in the theories outlined above relies on great leaps of logic or imagination;
it merely considers U.S. policy as it is known generally with regard to
strategic interests (oil, Central Eurasia, and U.S. hegemony being constants
in this regard), and takes such policies to an extreme but natural conclusion
(which happens to be a rather logical and desirable conclusion, from the
standpoint of the government and corporate interests).
Again,
these are just theories, interpretations of policy, facts, and events.
However, the growing tensions in the Middle East, and the U.S. willingness
to rush into war despite serious risks of the use of WOMD (including nuclear
WOMD by the U.S. and Israel) signals that the U.S. is relatively unconcerned
about the dangers posed to the region. The fact that the outlined
"worst-case" scenario for U.S. policy is at least possible should be reason
enough to motivate everyone to resist U.S. attempts at domination of the
region, even if the more "benign" policy of domination without total destruction
is not enough to stir opposition to U.S. corporate and military imperialism.
The outline
of events during the Gulf War should serve as a warning of what is to come,
on an even larger scale, if the U.S. continues its march to war.
The Gulf War acted as a testing ground for new technologies, and for the
military strategy of destroying a fairly advanced country with conventional
arms (if we are to consider DU weapons conventional) and not having to
set foot on its soil, except to occupy it. This lesson will be improved
upon again and again, in all likelihood, until the entire region is under
U.S. control.
At the
beginning of this analysis, the arguments against war were spelled out.
These were largely argued from a "self-interest" standpoint, focusing less
on the humanitarian issues until the end. The reason, as said earlier,
is that these arguments seem to have a broader mass appeal, and mass appeal
is what will be necessary to stop U.S. warfare and imperialism. Mass
appeal in this country, not just abroad, for it is only the citizens within
the U.S. who can take control of the government and reign in the massive
U.S. military and dominant transnational corporations, which are threatening
the entire world. The average citizens within the U.S. must be made
aware of how U.S. warfare and imperialism directly endangers them, how
it puts their families at risk, and how it makes the world a much more
dangerous place for everyone.
The price
paid for inaction is U.S. occupation of an entire region; U.S. exploitation
of that region's resource; U.S. domination of world energy; the killing,
poisoning, and subjugation of the people of that region; and perhaps ultimately,
the complete destruction of that region. In addition, there is a
price paid for American citizens as well: the price of instability;
of living in a world less safe, for Americans in particular; of the death
or poisoning of their families by their very own government; the price
of further economic stratification in the U.S.; and the price of surrendering
every ideal of liberty and good-will so many Americans actually believe
in.
Imperialism
and holocaust are too high a price for a humane people to tolerate, and
must be opposed at every opportunity. It is particularly the duty
of U.S. citizens, for the policies of the U.S. government are carried out
in the name of the American people, funded by their dollars, fought by
their fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters. When Americans known
the facts and do nothing, the blood is on their hands as well.
However,
time is running out. The next stage of U.S. policy is about to begin
in Iraq, and soon it will be too late, and all opportunity to resist will
vanish. Not tomorrow, maybe not next year, but soon. Resistance
must begin now, before the U.S. policies of destruction bring destruction
upon us all.
41
SECTION FOUR:
WELCOME TO THE LIBERATION
"They try to 'sanitize' the news during war,
but some stains can never be washed away."
GROWING CRISIS IN BASRA
There is a storm
brewing in southern Iraq, much worse than the sand storms currently harassing
U.S. and British troops trying to advance on Baghdad. The civilian
population in Basra, over one million Iraqis, is without water, adequate
food, or adequate medical care. The UN and NGO relief agencies are
warning a large-scale humanitarian crisis is brewing. The results
and reasons need to be addressed, for some aspects of both are going unreported,
although these facts were initially reported before succumbing to the propaganda
machine.
Iraqis
in Basra began an "uprising" on March 25. The first reports, from
British Royal Marines operating in and around Basra, claimed the residents
were not only directing their rebellion at the Iraqi military units in
the city, but at the allied forces as well. This was first mentioned
on CNN news March 25, then soon reported on CBS that same day. But
only once.
Since
those initial reports, neither CNN nor CBS repeated the reports.
The updates have all mentioned only that the Basra citizens are rebelling
against the Iraqi military forces. Presto, the alarming notion that
Iraqis might not want us occupying their country vanishes, leaving only
the convenient pro-American "uprising" in its place. These guys are
spinning like Olympic ice-skaters.
During Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld's daily briefing to the media on March 25, he was questioned
about reports from military personnel in Basra and journalists in that
city, claiming the "uprising" targeted not only Iraqi units but allied
units as well. Rumsfeld dismissed the idea it was even possible for
Iraqis to harbor ill feelings for U.S. and British forces. The Iraqis
were "oppressed," he said repeatedly, and we are "liberating" them, so
they would not fire on allied forces, it could never happen.
There are a
number of obvious reasons the Iraqis in Basra might be opposed to the presence
of U.S. and British soldiers, but let's focus on the immediate reasons
here. As mentioned earlier, a humanitarian crisis is looming in Basra.
Interviews with U.S. troops in the city and statements by Ari Fletcher
and Donald Rumsfeld blame the major problem, lack of water, on the Hussein
regime. The now-accepted version of events is that the Iraqi government
ordered water to Basra be shut off. Rumsfeld in particular pointed
to this as further evidence of Saddam Hussein's lack of care for Iraqi
citizens.
Unfortunately,
there is a bit of evidence that undercuts this theory. According
to reports on March 22 on both CNN and CBS, U.S. bombings in and around
Basra destroyed the water treatment and electrical facilities in the city.
These reports noted at the time that lack of water and electricity might
soon create a serious problem for the Iraqis living in Basra. The
U.S. commanders on the scene approved these reports, as CBS constantly
reminds viewers.
Incidentally,
CBS's embedded reporter in Basra is John Roberts, the same reporter who
broke the (now silenced) story on March 21 confirming the previous use
of napalm by U.S. forces on the road to Basra, right as the southern oil
fields in Iraq caught fire (this story also showed up in the Herald).
It was also Roberts who filed the report about U.S. destruction of Basra's
water treatment facilities and electricity. He also reported on March
25 that no relief agencies were massing supplies at the Iraqi border because
none could get through, pointing to the large contingent of U.S. soldiers
guarding access across the border, and continuing that it would not be
"days, but weeks" before any relief assistance would be allowed in.
Not that such
reporting is setting the standard at CBS, since these flashes of truth
are quickly silenced (sometimes by the end of the day, as with the "uprising"
reports). However, such moments of honesty are important, especially
since independent reporting from Iraq started out slim, and is likely to
decline now that U.S. and British troops have fired on and killed some
of the best non-embedded reporters. Access to facts in this war are
already in short supply, so we must keep our eyes and ears peeled for tid-bits
like those popping up on CBS and CNN.
The real facts
on Basra are that the U.S. military destroyed the water and electrical
services, creating a humanitarian crisis with little relief in sight, then
lied and let the media help cover it up. Then, with fighting continuing
between allied troops and Iraqis loyal to Hussein's regime, the citizens
began an "uprising" against both sets of forces, facts again twisted by
the U.S. military and media. While it might seem that the U.S. will
have a hard time covering up facts about fighting with Basra citizens,
it will actually be easy.
42
The reporters
can be expected to keep unpleasant truths secret, and the dead citizens
can be called "elements of the Iraqi military force in Basra," since these
elements are reportedly dressed in civilian clothes. Perhaps it is
unnecessary to point out that, for all we know, the "loyalist troops" fighting
the allies in Basra might all be civilians, hence the U.S. claim that Iraqi
military units are not in uniform. Judging from the amount of disinformation
around events in Basra, it is at least possible, although probably unlikely.
With one million
Iraqis in danger of (besides U.S. bombs, bullets, DU radiation, etc.) either
severe thirst or cholera and dysentery from impure water, and malnutrition
(and food poisoning, since with no electricity food is spoiling but might
be eaten in desperation), the U.S. seems more concerned with PR than the
lives of Basra's citizens.
43
CBS REPORTS TRUTH
BY MISTAKE; PUBLIC MIGHT PUT
TWO AND TWO TOGETHER
An important
piece of information showed up on CBS during its ongoing coverage of the
war in Iraq. John Roberts, the "embedded" reporter traveling with
the 3rd Calvary Division, reported by videophone on Friday, March 21, that
during the fighting near Basra, artillery fire was heavy, and the U.S.
military used napalm to stifle some Iraqi resistance.
This is
important because of the Basra oil fields. Keep in mind that retreating
Iraqis reportedly set some of the oil wells alight. However, if history
offers any instruction, it is that we should be skeptical of U.S. claims
of Iraqi sabotage.
During
the first Gulf War, the U.S. accused Iraq of igniting hundreds of oil fires.
However, a review of media reports, Pentagon statements, and eyewitness
accounts inform us that another cause for the fires was likely.
The U.S. air
assault on Iraq began on January 17,1991. By January 22, according
to a Nuclear Defense Agency report, Iran was experiencing oily black rain
on a regular basis, or exactly one month before President Bush accused
Iraq of setting oil wells afire. This black rain in Iran started
five days after the first U.S. bombings in Basra.
By the end of
the first day of U.S. bombing, smoke from burning oil wells could be seen
all over Iraq, as the U.S. targeted refineries and oil storage facilities
for attack. The assistant director of the Basra refinery told the
Harvard International Study Team, during interviews in August-September
of 1991, that U.S. bombs had ignited the oil fields.
Rear Admiral
Mike Cornell is quoted in the February 13, 1991, San Jose Mercury News
as saying, "…there's the possibility that some of our strikes may have
had some collateral damage to start a fire." The Department of Energy
issued a memorandum, leaked by the Livermore National Laboratory, ordering
DOE facilities and contractors to "…discontinue any further discussion
of war-related research and issues…the impacts of fires/oil spills in the
Middle East…", an official mentioning of oil fires (and official orders
not to talk about them) which occurred on January 25, eight days after
the air war began.
Scientific American
reported in its May 1991 issue that images from the Landsat-5 and NOAA-11
satellites confirmed allied bombing of Iraqi oil refineries and storage
facilities. These photos revealed plumes of smoke hundreds of kilometers
long all over Iraq. On March 25, 1992, oil consultant and author
O.J. Vialls (who had continuing contacts with firefighting teams working
in Kuwait) wrote that "in a minimum of 66 known cases" U.S. bombs had blown
the wellheads from oil wells in Kuwait and ignited them. This is
further confirmed by U.S. firefighters quoted in Life magazine's June 1991
issue, when these firefighters reported finding unexploded U.S. bombs "everywhere",
"We've seen hundreds," etc.
Finally, most
relevant to the events in Basra reported on CBS, on February 16, 1991,
U.S. Marine Harrier aircraft were filmed as crewmembers loaded napalm pods
onto the wings of AV88s. The pilots, asked by media journalists,
confirmed they were using napalm during bombing missions. Napalm,
producing a 5,500-degree fire, is capable of white-heating small bore oil
pipes coming from wellheads, rupturing the metal due to pressure from the
ignited oil. Simply blowing up the wellheads, as the Iraqis were
accused of doing, wouldn't likely set the wells on fire, since it does
not create the intense heat needed. In fact, blowing wellheads is
actually a method used to put out oil well fires.
The evidence,
therefore, all seems to point to U.S. guilt in igniting the oil fires in
the first Gulf War. Since then, however, the U.S. government and
media have reported Iraqi blowing of oil wells as a historical fact.
Now, we have once again the claim of Iraqi sabotage of oil wells, also
reported as fact by the U.S. government and media. The media were,
interestingly, careful when first reporting the new fires to state that
no U.S. bombing had occurred in the Basra region prior to the fires.
44
Then came the
damning report by John Roberts. Roberts said the U.S. had used the
napalm and artillery the day before his report. In other words, about
the time the wells ignited, when the Pentagon and media were saying no
U.S. bombs had fallen in that area.
It should be
noted that, as soon as reports came of the oil fires, the price of oil
"skyrocketed" (CNN's word) by several dollars. A rise of one dollar
per barrel translates to $10 million extra per day, $70 million per week,
for every 10 million barrels pumped (about the daily output of Saudi Arabia).
Therefore, a price-hike of only five dollars per barrel turns into about
$100 million per day, per 20 million barrels produced by oil industries
(this is about the maximum daily production by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and
Iraq alone).
This is all
very important if one remembers the U.S. began accusing Iraq of placing
explosives in oil wells prior to the start of this new war, thus directing
blame for any destruction which might occur. Because oil wells lie
in several key areas where the U.S. war-plans call for strikes, it is not
unreasonable to suspect the U.S. expected airstrikes to ignite oil wells,
especially since this happened during the first Gulf War.
Does this prove
for a fact the Iraqis did not set the fires in Basra, and that the U.S.
did? No, it does not prove it. It only proves the U.S. does
not want anyone to know they dropped napalm in Basra, something that will
ignite fires while the Iraqi exploding of wellheads probably wouldn't,
and they are willing to lie about it. It is up to individuals to
draw what conclusions they may, based on the preponderance of evidence.
The concern
about this was appreciatively low, since any damage to the wells is balanced
out by the enormous profits that a price-hike would produce. Keep
in mind, only nine oil wells had caught fire in Basra when oil prices "skyrocketed",
according to news reports. We are left to wonder which is true:
are oil producers engaging in blatant price-gouging, or is the report of
only 9 oil well fires a deceptively low figure? Both are quite possible,
and it is difficult to know which cynical interpretation is correct, since
they can't both be true (presuming large price increases are legitimate
if large numbers of wells are burning), and yet both would be typical.
It is obviously unnecessary to discuss the Bush-Cheney oil connections,
as these facts are so widely reported and understood, it would be verbose
to repeat them. Suffice it to say, the point does not go unnoticed.
So, we have
the use of U.S. bombs and napalm, subsequent oil well fires, then denial
of U.S. bombings of that area, accusations that Iraqis set the fires, then
confirmation that the U.S. had bombed and dropped napalm on the area containing
the oil fields. Exactly what happened during the Gulf War in 1991,
in other words. Expect to see similar "Iraqi sabotage" of northern
oil fields, coincidentally as soon as the U.S. moves towards them.
As long as these absurd tales continue to go unchallenged in the media,
the Pentagon and Bush administration will keep rehashing them. Why
come up with new lies, when the same old, tired ones work so well?
The CBS report
brings up another issue important to war opponents. While it is tempting
for those who recognize the illegitimacy and immorality of this war to
turn to alternative and independent news sources for information (which
is certainly necessary and to be encouraged), rejecting the jingoistic
reporting offered by the "mainstream" media's running commercial for the
U.S. war, there is an important reason to at least occasionally tune in
to CNN, CBS, et al.
These news sources are the standard disseminators of "facts" to the
general population, and as such they provide an eye into the propaganda
bombardment most people are subjected to in the U.S. There is great
value in understanding the methods of propaganda used by the media, especially
if one is attempting to combat the effects it has on the population.
Because of the
nature of "self-censorship" practiced in the U.S. media, it is unavoidable
that every so often a fact or two will be reported that undermines the
"accepted" official versions of events. When this occurs, it is possible
to reconstruct events and perhaps actually see through the fog of disinformation
covering media reports, so one might reach conclusions that are somewhere
close to the realm of reality. How many Americans watching CBS noticed
the napalm story, for example, and perhaps concluded that maybe the media
is distorting its war coverage to some extent?
45
One thing is
certain: more people will reach such conclusions, if those opposing
war are quick to notice such reporting, and immediately bring it to the
public's attention. Awareness of the lies told in the name of the
"empire" is necessary, if those lies are to be exposed. By comparing
the preponderance of lies to the actual facts, it is possible to gain a
wider view of the overall "cover story" in contrast to the real events,
which can tell us not only what happened, but why. Understanding
the "why" is as important as understanding the "what", since this suggests
the motives that will determine the course of future events.
For example,
watching CNN tells us that the U.S. says Iraq is preparing to ignite oil
wells. If we are aware of the background concerning the Gulf War
fires, we are more likely to be skeptical of the current U.S. claims.
Moreover, we might become alarmed to hear the accusation that Iraq is placing
explosives at wellheads, for we could reasonably assume the U.S. expects
airstrikes to ignite oil wells again, or at least assume it is a possibility.
Hence, we know "why" the U.S. is accusing Iraq of planting bombs.
Once we see
CBS reporting the Pentagon assertion that no bombs fell in Basra, followed
within hours by the CBS eyewitness report of napalm bombings in Basra,
we know not to trust the Pentagon, but we also expect further assertions
to back up the Pentagon's original claims. If we remember the Gulf
War, we also know that the eventual "factual history" of this war will
only acknowledge Iraqi guilt in the oil fires, the earlier admission of
U.S. napalm bombing fading into oblivion in favor of the official version
of events. So, we know "why" the U.S. denied bombing the Basra region,
and further we know "why" CBS suddenly ignored its own report of napalm
use by the U.S.
By knowing
the "whys" regarding Basra, we can apply it to the Kirkuk oil fields.
When the U.S. claims (as it actually has) that Iraqis are also placing
explosives on these oil wells, we know exactly what to expect: U.S.
bombings, oil well fires, U.S. denials of bombings, U.S. accusations that
Iraq blew the wellheads, complicity by the media, etc. Luckily for
the average skeptic, the unoriginality of the U.S. government and media
let us apply our "whys" on a fairly broad scale, with some degree of accuracy.
The price of this application, unfortunately, is the cold comfort of being
right, and the awareness of what is to come.
46
U.S. STRIKES IRAN
On March 21,
Tehran reported that three U.S. missiles hit sites in Iran. One of
the sites, a government building, was roughly 39 miles inside Iran.
There are a few explanations for this, none of which is positive.
So far,
the U.S. says it doesn't know if it has any reason to apologize.
The Bush administration made no statements even suggesting regret if the
story turns out to be true. This might suggest that the missile strikes,
if true, were not accidents.
Since one of
the missiles struck an Iranian government building, Iran might be feeling
a bit uneasy about the cold response from the U.S. government. Nothing
has been reported yet regarding what the other two missiles might have
hit, so it is still hard to assess. Keep in mind, however, that only
a week earlier, it was learned that Iran's nuclear program is much more
advanced than anyone thought.
The missiles
used by the U.S. are "smart" weapons, supposedly "pin-point" accurate.
Are the odds very high that three of these weapons could miss there targets
so badly, one by at least 39 miles (if the intended Iraqi target was right
beside the Iran-Iraq border), and all accidentally hitting the same country?
Moreover, all three struck on the same day.
Let's
try to imagine how it looks to Iran. Suppose Cuba referred to the
U.S. and Mexico as part of an "Axis of Evil", and then invaded Mexico.
Imagine if Cuba had high-tech missiles guided by global positioning systems
and lasers, allowing "surgical strikes" against only military targets.
Assuming for
a moment that the U.S. would allow any such absurd scenario, or that Cuba
could accomplish something like this, how might the U.S. respond if three
Cuban "smart" bombs hit the U.S., one destroying a federal building in
Texas? Even worse, what if Castro went on television and proclaimed
he wasn't sure if Cuba had any reason to apologize?
Of course,
it is easy to imagine the U.S. reaction to such an event. The real
point is, does it sound the least bit feasible that three missiles guided
by satellites could all veer so badly off course that they could sail into
the wrong nation and blow up government buildings by accident, all without
the U.S. military being aware?
It has been
several days, and the U.S. says it is still unable to verify the story.
This is, quite obviously, a lie. If the U.S. possessed any evidence
the story were untrue, this evidence would have immediately come out.
There should, by the way, be no doubt as to whether any evidence exists.
GPS technology allows the military to determine where these missiles fall,
the trajectory of the weapons is tracked all the way to the target, and
many nosecones contain cameras.
There is no
doubt evidence, but it likely shows that Iran is telling the truth.
The question could be asked, why would Iran make the claim if it were false,
since the truth is easily ascertainable?
If the missile strike was intentional, why would the U.S. do it?
There are several answers to this question.
First, it may
have been a slap at Iran, to provoke a response. Or perhaps it was
a "surgical strike" against government targets for any one of many possible
reasons (linked to the nuclear issue, spying, supplying Iraq with intelligence,
etc.). Maybe it was a warning, in case Iran was considering action
to help Iraq (there are some Iranian volunteers fighting alongside Iraqi
soldiers). Iran might have even been considering following Turkey's
lead, planning to cross the border and seize territory from Kurds.
There are a
number of potential reasons the U.S. might choose to strike Iran.
Indeed, there is a strong possibility that, once Iraq is out of the way,
Iran will be the next nation invaded by U.S. forces (as a guess, let's
say sometime in 2004, before the fall elections). Whatever reasons
we could come up with, no doubt the Bush administration is way ahead of
us in compiling a list.
47
Now, let's consider
another possibility. It may be true that the missile strikes were
an accident. This suggests the "smart" weapons might not be as intelligent
as we are being led to believe. In fact, during the first Gulf War,
only about a quarter of the "smart" bombs performed accurately. Of
course, that was over a decade ago, before the weapons were GPS guided.
While sometimes they may only be accurate to within hundreds of yards,
it's hard to imagine they are only accurate to within 40 miles.
Hence, to believe
it was an accident, we must assume these were errant missiles, radically
off-target, perhaps fed the wrong coordinates. Maybe a blown fuse,
a damaged guidance system, which threw them off course. Three times.
Always into Iran.
Yes, this is
a possibility. It is true that specific information has not come
out about how far apart these strikes occurred. If all three happened
within minutes of one another, it becomes easier to imagine a mistake happened,
although it seems reasonable to assume the mistake would involve human
error, not mechanical failure.
Yet another
possibility is that Iran is lying. It is hard to believe that Tehran
would stand to gain anything from accusing the U.S. They certainly
didn't get an apology, if sympathy was there goal.
Besides, as
noted above, the facts are easy enough to prove. If Iran measures
the damage, photographs it and demonstrates the blast zone and diameter/depth
of the crater, etc., it would be hard for the U.S. to deny, especially
if no exculpatory evidence is presented.
In addition,
with a war raging in the region, there are probably several nations with
radar and other surveillance directed towards the hostilities. Information
is out there somewhere, but surely nobody wants to come forward on behalf
of Iran and anger the U.S. However, if the U.S. were really innocent,
of course they would not only immediately present their own evidence, they
would request outside verification from Russia or another nation nearby.
Considering
the hostile nature of the U.S.-Iran relationship, there is not much reason
to think Iran would seek to instigate further tensions between the two
countries. This is especially true when other explanations exist
that are far more reasonable. One radio commentator suggested the
missiles might have been Iraqi, but this notion is so ludicrous it barely
merits comment.
Suffice it to
say, provoking Iran during a war with the U.S. would not likely be high
on Iraq's "to do" list, besides the obvious fact that the U.S. detects
Iraqi missile launches and would have presented this evidence already.
With all of
these theories in mind, we must wait to see if more information is forthcoming.
If not, the available evidence tells us a few things: U.S. missiles
probably did hit Iran; the U.S. will be slow to admit this; any U.S. apology
will be tepid; and either due to error or intent, a human hand is responsible
for the missile strikes, since the range, type, and number of missiles
does not support a conclusion of "mechanical failure."
Between the
two most likely scenarios (accident or intentional bombings), the physical
evidence will only be that three U.S. missiles did blow up things in Iran.
Anything else will be circumstantial, unless the Pentagon or President
announces the strikes were on purpose (a highly unlikely event).
What does the
circumstantial evidence tell us? That President Bush considers Iran
"evil"; that the U.S. accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism; that the U.S.
is at war with Iraq because it might support terrorism, as part of an overall
"war on terrorism"; that Iran has an advanced nuclear program; that the
U.S. is at war with Iraq because it might have a nuclear or other WOMD
program; both Iraq and Iran have oil; the U.S. likes oil, a lot; and regarding
the missiles themselves, three highly advanced U.S. GPS guided weapons
all hit the same nation on the same day, at least 39 or more miles from
Iraq, and the U.S. says it can't tell if any U.S. missiles entered Iran.
48
Circumstantial
evidence less than this has convicted people of murder in U.S. courts.
While it may sound alarmist to say the U.S. intentionally launched weapons
into Iran, remember the U.S. is fighting an illegal war against a nation
that has not threatened or attacked the U.S. The facts and circumstances
(read "Bush policy") make the theory of a purposeful attack sound quite
reasonable. The idea certainly shouldn't be dismissed. Be sure,
Iran is not dismissing it.
49
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
During
a March 22 CNN interview with an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel flying bombing
missions in Iraq, the reporter asked the pilot if he saw the enemy troops
he bombed. He replied that he did not see the people he killed.
This example provides us an opportunity to address the manner in which
military personnel are trained, and the ways in which they kill.
The airstrikes
on Baghdad are carried out with missiles launched from Naval vessels hundreds
of miles away, and bombs dropped by pilots flying high above their targets.
The "enemy" is a building, a target, not a human being. Except for
the first night in which only about three-dozen missiles were launched,
the U.S. military has dropped roughly one thousand bombs and missiles on
Baghdad every day. Read "on Baghdad" as "on people in Baghdad."
Granted, some
of the strikes have been against "military and leadership targets," the
"organizations charged with internal security," or "command and control
targets," terms which almost imply people are being blown up with the buildings,
but still refer to dehumanized, faceless entities. In most cases,
the only name ever mentioned is "Saddam Hussein," which may as well read
"Adolf Hitler" or "Charles Manson," now that he has been properly relegated
to the role of evil-incarnate.
Pilots
are different from ground troops, in terms of their perception of their
enemy. When pilots bomb actual troop placements, even when these
soldiers are relatively visible from above, the pilot sees them usually
from a considerable distance and at a few hundred miles per hour. They
are a blur, and bombs are dropped so fast, the pilots and their aircraft
are far off once the human beings below are blown to bits.
Moreover,
there is a detachment from the act beyond simply physical proximity.
When speaking of pilots blowing up people, it is typically described vaguely
as "bombing," not "people dropping bombs on other people." "Missiles
rained down," or "bombs fell on Iraq," as if some bizarre weather anomaly
occurred. It is a "bombing campaign" in which "bombs hit their targets,"
the targets being "military sites" or "Iraqi leadership."
For sure, sometimes
it may be expedient to use terms like "bombing" to avoid the literary acrobatics
or wordiness required to always note the human element whenever discussing
air attacks. It isn't these infrequent uses, but the constant and
systematic evocation of these phrases, that is dangerous and offensive.
Conversely,
ground warfare is not usually described as a "shooting campaign" in which
"bullets hit their targets." That is because soldiers hold guns in
their hands, point them at a person they have to see, and watch that person
fall over dead. There is no point in trying too hard to detach them
from their acts. Besides, unlike "bombing campaigns", mass civilian
casualties are not an inherent fact of ground fighting (although it still
occurs, just not as an implicit factor of the fighting).
Instead, these
troops are subjected to a more intense indoctrination than pilots, "brain-washing"
as we call it when other nations do the same thing. The enemy must
be severely dehumanized, while the ideals of "fighting for freedom" and
"to defend your country" are held up as the noblest pursuits. Where
pilots are afforded the luxury of detachment, soldiers must be trained
to look at people, kill them, and not mind too much.
These
differences cannot be mentioned, of course, for several problems arise
if they are looked at too closely. For example, when speaking about
civilian casualties caused by U.S. bombing, it is correct (within mainstream
media and other "polite company") to note that civilian deaths are regrettable,
but must be expected and accepted during war. It is interesting that
such common sentiments are usually directed towards civilian deaths attributable
to "bombings."
Imagine this
same standard being applied to ground warfare: U.S. soldiers, in
order to shoot enemy soldiers hiding in a building full of civilians, simply
shoot everyone in the building. Indeed, this happens. Read
pretty much any news report about Israeli military action, and it is bound
to include a note about soldiers firing at children for throwing rocks
(or some such dastardly Palestinian provocation necessitating a civilian
massacre). Of course, the Israeli example is not the norm, since
Israel is allowed much more latitude than other nations when it comes to
state terrorism and war crimes.
50
However, it
is deemed immoral in most instances for soldiers to fire indiscriminately
into civilians, or to regard anyone in their line of fire as a legitimate
target, quite unlike pilots. Certainly, in practice U.S. soldiers
have in the past done exactly this, as in My Lai (which involved other
atrocities, like rape) or any number of other instances, but the practice
is at least publicly condemned. The idea that this would be a publicly
accepted and excused policy of warfare is ludicrous, and rightly so.
Why, then, is this exact policy treated so lightly when instead of bullets
it is bombs striking civilians?
The reason is,
when soldiers kill civilians, it is a person killing another person.
When bombs kill, however, it is part of a "process," a process providing
distance not only for the pilots but for the U.S. citizens who view it
as well. While it is quite easy to sit at home and see a building
suddenly erupt into flames (even the bomb is not visible on the television),
it would be quite another thing to watch soldiers shooting civilians in
cold blood. Such an image would be much too honest a portrayal of
what war really is.
In addition,
there is a tendency to be more forgiving of a pilot or naval officer bombing
civilians whom he or she cannot see, whom they are not "targeting", whereas
the immediacy of soldiers killing people makes attribution of the deaths
much easier. This is probably at least a factor in the decision to
move towards modes of warfare featuring massive air attacks by U.S. forces,
since this shifts the always-inevitable casualties into a form more palatable
for the U.S. public.
The obvious
danger, of course, is that as war becomes less distasteful, it will likely
become more acceptable, and thus more common. A cynic might even
suspect this is a policy goal.
So, what if
hypothetically, pilots were told, "Bomb this building next to these citizens'
houses"? Or, "Fire your missiles into this building, next to this
hospital that will also be destroyed"? Would such pronouncements
make a difference? There is actually some evidence that it might.
During the Vietnam War, the instances of pilots refusing to drop their
bombs became somewhat of a problem, although one drastically unreported
in the U.S. media (and, considering the horrible level of destruction still
achieved on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, one which perhaps had less effect
than might be hoped).
Then again,
it could be argued that if pilots were made more personally culpable for
their killings, the military would simply begin to indoctrinate them more,
as the soldiers are trained. However, at least the lie of the "clean"
and "surgical" bombing would be stripped away. If U.S. personnel
are going to engage in mass murder of civilians, then they should at least
be told so, and it should be called exactly what it is.
There
is an interesting comparison here, between the treatment of dropping bombs
and the death penalty. Both are administered as part of a "system,"
or a "process." As Sister Helen Prejean noted, there are many people
involved in putting someone to death, but they all act as if they have
no personal culpability in the killing. They are part of the process
of execution, not the executioners. In fact, it is policy to provide
this deniability for those executing someone. Great pains are taken
to ensure nobody's role is too direct; there is always a buffer between
the killers and the victims.
This buffer
system, this turning of murder into a process, is mirrored in the processes
involved in bombing people. Nobody kills the civilians who die during
U.S. air attacks. The bombs killed them. They are not even
called civilians, actually. They are "collateral damage," a phrase
that elicited much outrage when Timothy McVeigh used it to describe his
victims, but no such anger when the Pentagon uses it. An odd sort
of hypocrisy, since McVeigh learned the phrase from the Pentagon when he
was a U.S. soldier in the Gulf War.
To sit
on a U.S. warship, push a button, and watch a dot on a screen move across
a map of Iraq, towards a "military target," it must be easy to feel detached.
One person gives coordinates, one gives the order, and one pushes the button.
An inanimate object these folks can't even see shoots up into the air and
out of site, headed hundreds of miles away. Minutes later, it crashes
into a target in Baghdad, live on CNN, fire and smoke fill the screen,
and it's called a "surgical strike against the Iraqi leadership."
Meanwhile, innocent people burn to death in the apartment complex located
right beside the target, when fire and debris from the blast hit the building.
This happens out of sight of the cameras, however, so nobody has to see
the messy results.
51
Those
who would doubt civilians are harmed by these "surgical" strikes are surely
being disingenuous. Just in case there is anyone who honestly makes
this assertion, however, let's look at a few simple facts, as told by the
engineers and weapons designers who produce these weapons for the Defense
Department.
Here are some
facts they gave David Wood of Newhouse News Service, on March 22, regarding
the 2,000-pound Mark-84 JDAM bombs, "…the chief weapon used in the air
strikes on Baghdad," along with the Tomahawk cruise missiles. When
they explode, the "…thousand pounds of white-hot steel fragments" travel
at "6,000 feet per second," and these "…will travel about 3,800 feet, nearly
three-quarters of a mile." The pieces of the nose cone and other
heavy fragments "…will sail out a mile and a half." The explosion
also produces a fireball "…8,500 degrees Fahrenheit, …and hurls off 10,000
pounds of rock and dirt debris at supersonic speed."
In other
words, if Iraqi civilians are not harmed by these weapons, it is because
they are Iraqis who moved out of Iraq before the war started. Anyone
within about a mile is in grave danger every time the U.S. drops one of
these weapons, and the U.S. is using thousands of them every day.
Despite this, no U.S. military personnel are directly responsible for these
civilian injuries or deaths, since as Mr. Wood's article notes in its first
paragraph, it is the missile itself "…with a single, deadly purpose:
to kill."
How clear
it becomes, then, that the people dropping or firing these weapons cannot
possibly be responsible, if the weapon itself possesses "purpose," the
human agents merely parts of a process. One can almost imagine the
missiles and bombs filled with anger at Saddam Hussein, with pride in the
U.S.A., as it flies "purposefully" towards its target.
Perhaps,
like the pilot flying high above, the missile cannot see the innocent civilians
waiting below, either.
52
WAR
CRIMES AREN'T WAR CRIMES WHEN THE U.S. COMMITS THEM
The news coverage
of the war in Iraq has broadcast images of Iraqi soldiers surrendering.
One scene, shown repeatedly by CBS news on March 22, treated viewers to
a picture of hundreds of Iraqi soldiers sitting on the desert sand while
U.S. soldiers stand guard close by. A single Iraqi stands and, with
visible humility, appears to request permission to clean his face and hands
in a small pool of water on the ground. He finishes quickly, stealing
nervous glances at the American troops watching him with rifles in-hand,
then returns to his place among the other Iraqi prisoners.
This is
only one of several scenes of Iraqis either surrendering or as prisoners
of U.S. troops. These images are broadcast on U.S. television for
all to see, with the typical journalistic voice-overs milking the prisoners
for all the propaganda they're worth.
Interestingly,
we are told, quite correctly, by President Bush and others in his administration
what we should think of this process of "parading" troops in front of television
cameras. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention, a war crime.
Of course, this description was actually used in reference to Iraqi televison
broadcasting images of U.S. POWs on March 23, but it is nonetheless an
adequate guide for viewers of U.S. news programs as well.
Were it
not for the long history of such ridiculous hypocrisy, one might be dumbfounded
that CNN can refer to the Geneva Convention's restrictions on filming POWs,
while keeping a straight face. This was a running commentary for
much of the day that the story of U.S. prisoners first broke, with CNN
even turning to "expert analysts" for their interpretation of the events.
As expected, the talking heads informed the journalists that, yes, Iraq
was indeed violating the rules of warfare. On CBS, the March 23 edition
of 60 minutes chimed in, showing the footage of U.S. POWs, announcing it
as "a war crime," mere minutes before replaying all the CBS footage of
Iraqi POWS.
It is
somewhat surprising to hear the envocation of war crimes and the Geneva
Convention, since the introduction of these topics could work against the
Pentagon and the media, in the event someone actually points out these
same war crimes are being committed by CNN, CBS, and the U.S. military,
not to mention the illegal nature of the war in the first place.
Then there are all those prisoners from Afghanistan "paraded" across American
television screens, culminating in an entire 60 Minutes episode.
Apparently, the media and government are confident the acceptable norms
of society will be upheld, and nobody will be impolite enough to notice
such inconvenient facts.
Without
doubt, the use of prisoners for propaganda is tasteless, definitely a violation
of the Geneva Convention. However, it must be remembered that the
Convention did not just refer to behavior of states hostile to the U.S.
Despite its military and economic power, the U.S. is, in fact, also bound
by these same rules, at least in theory.
Then again,
to be "bound" by them suggests some measure of both responsible behavior
by the nation in question, and a determination by other states to hold
all nations accountable, even the powerful ones. So perhaps it is
incorrect to say the U.S. is "bound" by the Geneva Convention, after all.
53
PUBLIC
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF E.M.P. WEAPONS
During
all the talk about the bombing campaign in Iraq, a little-noticed admission
came out of the Pentagon. The first official confirmation of the
existence of E-bombs occurred shortly after the air war against Iraq began.
The term "E-bombs" refers to weapons that emit an electromagnetic pulse
to disable the electrical systems of a city (or town, etc.).
Electromagnetic
pulses are emitted by nuclear weapons, making everything electrical inoperable.
It must be hoped these new E-bombs produce the pulse in a way that has
nothing to do with the way a nuclear bomb obtains the results. The
U.S. has denied possessing EMP technology, and the rather casual
way this was revealed is at odds with the implications of such weapons.
The first confirmation
of the use of the E-bomb was March 25 in Iraq, reported by several network
news outlets (including CNN). The importance of this development
should not be underestimated. EMP technology has been rumored to
exist for several years but there has never been solid evidence or a formal
admission by the Pentagon that even research was occurring. Now,
suddenly, we have the E-bomb.
The balance
of military power, if there was any question about U.S. dominance in that
area, is so significantly tilted in favor of the U.S. as to render the
nuclear arsenals of other nations obsolete, if EMP weapons exist on a scale
larger than the E-bomb. If this technology is now limited to the
E-bomb, it will very quickly lead to the forms making the U.S. unchallengeable.
The use of the
weapon against Iraq, and the casual handling of the information, is no
doubt intended to send the signal world-wide: Yes, we now have usable
EMP weapons, and nothing can get through to us. If nuclear missiles
were fired at the U.S., an EMP weapon detonating at high altitude would
disable them, if the EMP devices were employed in time. To insure
missiles could be intercepted, however, it would be necessary to build
a defense system to protect the U.S.---a "strategic defense" sort of initiative,
one might say, and one almost impregnable if it were partly space-based.
The U.S., with
EMP technology, can wage warfare against any nation in the world without
fear of any significant reprisal. Before confronting enemy troops,
EMP weapons can be employed, rendering tanks and troop carriers (which
use electrical starters), communications, planes, radar and anti-aircraft,
artillery and missiles, essentially all modern equipment unusable.
An enemy's forces would be defenseless. Of course, this is more effective
when confronting a modern military, and EMP technology would not have been
much help in Afghanistan.
This, however,
is the point. This technology increases as a threat depending on
the industrial level of the society it is directed at. So, to Russia
or China, for example, it is quite unnerving. The nations with the
most ability to resist U.S. hegemony are those that are the most technologically
and economically advanced, the ones most threatened by U.S. EMP technology.
Other nations, like Iraq or Iran for example, are weak enough by comparison
that the U.S. can rely on "conventional" means to enforce its will.
The most alarming
development of all concerns nuclear deterrence. If there is no realistic
nuclear threat against the U.S., it certainly makes it easier for the U.S.
to make use of its nuclear weapons. This is apparent with the publicly
stated "new" strategic planning for developing and using tactical nuclear
arms. It is not a coincidence that this rethinking of U.S. nuclear
policy comes as the U.S. has field-ready EMP weapons.
54
FOOD AND POLITICS AT SAFWAN
Humanitarian
relief finally made it into at least one of the suffering cities of Southern
Iraq on March 26, as trucks from Kuwait delivered food to the Iraqis in
the small city of Safwan, located just north of the Iraq-Kuwait border.
As citizens stood waiting for relief aid, large numbers of young men professed
their hatred of the U.S. invasion, vowing support for the Hussein government.
Anti-American slogans could be seen painted on the sides of buildings in
the city.
When the
trucks full of food pulled in, the crowd turned into a mob, as people pushed
and fought for boxes, some footage showing young men pulling items out
of the hands of smaller boys. U.S. soldiers were plentiful, but did
not interfere (which is not to imply they should have, but perhaps some
semblance of a plan should have been in place to distribute the aid).
While women with children carried small, torn boxes on their heads, men
with pushcarts left, five or six boxes of food stacked on their carts.
A CBS
reporter asked a nearby U.S. soldier, "Isn't there a better way to do this?"
The soldier watched the crowd for a moment, then smiled and said, "Probably."
The scene truly was a near-riot, members of the crowd climbing into the
trucks, some being pushed back out, but some actually helping pass boxes
out to other citizens.
CBS chose
to focus on the fact that, as they put it, the Iraqis were "swearing their
lives to Saddam" while ungratefully waiting for U.S. aid (momentarily ignoring
the fact the relief aid was from Kuwaiti organizations). No doubt,
a few of the Iraqis hadn't gotten over the fact that their nation was under
attack by the U.S., or that the reason they were starving was partly due
to U.N. sanctions and this war. CBS further commented, "when the
food arrived, the politics stopped." What a news scoop: starving
people want food, despite anger at illegal invasion of their country.
The distribution
of aid in Safwan might be the last aid seen for several days, however.
On the same day the food was delivered, new fighting broke out in Umm Qasr,
and Britain claimed 70-100 Iraqi military vehicles began heading towards
the port city from Basra, while fighting also continued in that city.
While CNN reporters admitted this information was "sketchy," and the numbers
may turn out to be significantly smaller, the fact is Iraqi forces continue
to defend the south. The U.S. and British control of southern Iraq
is still not firmly established, and until it is, humanitarian relief will
be limited. A cynical person might even suggest that the U.S. is
using aid relief as leverage against the Iraqi population, to force the
citizens to capitulate to the U.S. occupation or be starved.
If events
in Safwan turn out to be an omen of sentiments throughout Iraq, we can
expect to see further exasperation at the "ungrateful" attitude of Iraqi
citizens, as expressed by CBS. It should lead Americans to consider
the arrogance it takes to demand gratitude for crippling and occupying
other people's countries. It should, but it probably won't.
55
"EVEN IN CIVILIAN
AREAS, THEY WILL BE HIT"
The words
were ominous. Retired General John Shepard, speaking on CNN March
27, repeated the official word from the Pentagon. "As military targets
emerge, even in civilian areas, they will be hit." It is the most
straightforward indication that the U.S. will "avoid civilian casualties"
only as long as the civilians do not get in the way of bombs.
Almost as if
to put a fine point on it, moments later CNN broadcast live images from
Baghdad of the massive U.S. strike on the Al Salaam Presidential Palace,
and the International Communication Center. Both are within civilian
population centers.
Nick Robertson,
CNN's reporter in Baghdad, came on the air to announce that the Al Salaam
Palace had been hit repeatedly before, but the ordnance dropped on it was
not large enough to actually destroy it. He said, however, that even
those "small" bombs shattered windows in the civilian residential area
less than a quarter of a mile away.
His point was
clear: if minor ordnance blew out windows, the bombings taking place
on March 27—which appeared on screen as huge fireballs—clearly must be
causing severe damage to the civilian centers nearby.
Reuters News
Service confirmed that, yes, both the Al Salaam Palace and International
Communication Center were the targets under attack. The Pentagon
confirmed late in the day that 4,500 pound "bunker-buster" bombs were used
in the attacks (particularly important since, as noted above, previous
attacks with ordnance half this size shattered windows of nearby residential
homes).
Of course,
even as these reports were coming in, and as Robertson made his comments
about the obvious destruction visited upon civilians, both John Shepard
and the CNN anchor at the studio took great pains to place the blame for
civilian casualties squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraqis…are putting
civilians in areas where there's likely to be a coalition hit…to increase
civilian casualties…to make it difficult for coalition forces to hit these
military targets," said the anchor.
Not difficult
enough, obviously. Notice, these statements were literally made seconds
after assertions of the Pentagon position of bombing sites even in civilian
areas.
It is an amazing
feat of propaganda to, in almost the same breath, say the U.S. military
will blow up civilian areas, and that when civilians die it is the enemy's
fault. Of course Iraq is to blame, if they are so unaccommodating
as to place things we want to destroy too close to innocent people.
There can be no question about our desire to drop high explosives wherever
we wish, even if children are sleeping directly below.
The Shallal
market,
in the Al Sha'ab District of Baghdad, was hit March 26, killing 15 people.
Almost every window on the street was broken, a diner and the apartments
above it were destroyed, and an auto repair shop was also destroyed.
Burning cars surrounded the bomb's crater.
The Pentagon
said it could not have been a U.S. bomb or missile strike, since the nearest
"military target" was 300 yards away. They claimed the destruction
could have been from an Iraqi missile or anti-aircraft fire that landed
in the middle of the crowded market.
Again, Hussein
did it, not one of the nearly 1,500 U.S. bombs and missiles dropped on
Baghdad every day, some within 300 yards of the market. By March
27, the media had pretty much ceased mentioning that market attack.
On March 28, however, fresh reports of another stray U.S. bomb, this time
hitting the Shu'ale market, started coming in, with initial figures claiming
at least 50 dead and as many injured.
As CNN put it,
this has not been "confirmed by coalition forces," merely by the civilians
blown up, so we can already see the propaganda game in progress:
report, deny, blame Iraqis, ignore. Repeat as necessary.
This is just
a continuation of the same truth-twisting that is all-too-common in the
U.S. military and media. When Iraqi civilians die from U.S. attacks,
it is Hussein's fault. When Iraqi civilians don't rise up jubilantly
to welcome their "liberators," it is because they are still afraid of Hussein.
56
When Iraqis
in Basra don't have food or water, it is Hussein's fault for delaying the
U.S. offensive, thus hindering relief efforts. It is never the fact
that the U.S. is invading, bombing, waging war in these Iraqi civilians'
country. Our cause is just, so we cannot be responsible for any wrongs
that occur.
As CNN reports
came in from Basra on March 27, so did reports of children suffering disease
from impure water. When an RAF doctor in Basra was interviewed, his
statements could easily be predicted: the Iraqi government is responsible,
for the poor conditions in southern Iraq, for the lack of water, for the
lack of medical care. Saddam Hussein, in case we have forgotten,
does not care about his people.
Forget that
the first Gulf War decimated all of Iraq, with DU bombings causing so much
irradiation in Basra that one or two children are born deformed or dead
every single day at the main hospital. Forget that the UN sanctions
after that war have caused mass starvation and the collapse of medical
care all over Iraq, but especially in southern Iraq. Forget that
the U.S. bombings in and around Basra destroyed the water treatment facilities
and electrical power in the city. Forget that the U.S. will not allow
relief into Basra until it is "secured" from military action.
In other words,
forget the truth, lest you remember anything that happens does so because
the U.S. started a war, a war it will wage anywhere it wishes, "even in
civilian areas".
57
FLINT-LOCKS AND SEDANS
Further
evidence of Iraqi feelings about their "liberation" emerged March 27.
Embedded CBS reporter Jim Axlerod, reporting from Kifl (75 miles south
of Baghdad) told of stiff resistance from Iraqis, and not all military
troops. According to Axlerod's report, the entire small town was
a battle zone, and people he refered to as "irregular militias" fought
the U.S. troops with whatever they could find.
These "irregular
militias" were dressed in plain clothes, using flint-lock rifles or pistols.
They attacked U.S. tanks with sedans, no strategy or hope of success, merely
anger and fierce determination to resist rather than succumb.
By the
Pentagon's definition, anyone who resists U.S. or British troops is a "irregular
militia member," a determination extended to Iraqi civilians in Basra when
their "uprising" extends to resistance against coalition forces.
Iraqis wearing plain clothes, firing flint-lock rifles from sedans while
attacking a tank, are not soldiers. They are not a militia.
They are civilians
resisting occupation.
As Axlerod noted,
once the fighting was done, and the Iraqi resistance was either dead or
captured…well, that accounted for everyone in the town. Certainly,
some of the city's residents likely fled as U.S. forces approached, but
the nearest place to go would be Baghdad, not exactly the best place to
"flee" to. Besides, the town was not a major objective, so it would
be surprising for all the residents to leave—the main reason U.S. troops
moved into the town is because they came under attack.
The point
is, from the guns and methods of attack, it would appear that some residence
did stay behind in Kifl. They wore dirty, ragged clothing, fired
flint-lock rifles or pistols, drove suicidally at tanks, and died resisting
"liberation."
Another
CBS reporter, John Roberts, also gave a telling report on March 27 (Roberts
has shown a nagging tendency to slip "facts" into his reports). He
was with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, north of Nasiriyah, where
he says the Marines are having a tough time telling who is the enemy and
who isn't. He suggested Iraqi sentiments are not all "rosey."
The report showed
a child as young as five-years-old grabbing hold of a Marine's jacket and
begging him to "stop throwing things" at the Iraqis. The child, while
obviously scared and injured, was also apparently very angry as well.
Winning
Iraqi "hearts and minds" will be difficult, as long as the U.S. is bombing
and shooting them.
58
SIGNS OF AN EXPANDING WAR
First came
Iranian volunteers. Then U.S. missiles struck sites in Iran, one
a government building. Next was an attack by U.S. Apache helicopters
on Syrian civilians in three busses at 160 K Station, next to a bridge.
The Apaches first blew the bridge, then bombed the busses as civilians
tried to flee, returning yet again to bomb them as they awaited help, killing
16 in all and wounding 19 more.
Finally, on
March 28, the newest signs of the threat of an expanding war reached the
airwaves. Syria has been officially accused by the Pentagon of shipping
military supplies to Iraqi forces, including night-vision goggles.
During the daily press briefing from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
he made it clear that the U.S. viewed this as "hostile acts"
(of course, "errant" U.S. bombs hitting Iran or a bus load of Syrians are
not "hostile" acts).
He warned the
U.S. would respond if the activity did not cease. He also directed
threatening comments at Iran, concerning its support for those volunteers
fighting in Iraq, saying those troops pose "a threat to coalition forces."
These
events should not be underestimated, regarding their impact on the war
in Iraq. Fighters crossing into Iraq from Iran, followed by U.S.
missile strikes in Iran, are serious business, despite the fact that it
has faded from the media's radar. Likewise, Syrian military support
for Iraq, followed by threats from the U.S., signals that events could
quickly get out of hand.
This is not
to mention another long-forgotten issue, that is Turkey's threat to send
forces into northern Iraq to "stabilize" that region. Picture Turkish
troops invading from the north, U.S. military strikes directed at Syria,
and further U.S. strikes inside Iran, while the U.S. expands its troop
deployment by another 50,000 soldiers this month, and 100,000 more in April
(as the Pentagon announced on March 27), to a total of 400,000 U.S. soldiers
in the region.
While
it is far from certain the war will expand into Syria and Iran as simultaneous
war rages in Iraq, the possibility nonetheless does exist. Should
such a broadening occur, this war will very quickly have become a U.S.-Middle
East war. 400,000 U.S. troops does seem to send a less-than-subtle
signal about what the U.S. intends to do, or at least is threatening to
do if "provoked." In fact, since Iran constitutes the same "threat"
as Iraq, using the Bush regime's definitions of the word, there is no reason
to believe a U.S. invasion of Iran is not in the near future. While the
U.S. probably would prefer to mop-up in Iraq before leaping next door to
Iran, to time the next war to coincide with elections, they may be reconsidering
their options.
The war
against Iraq has, regardless of Rumsfeld's chest-thumping denials, gone
a bit off-course, with the Iraqis actually being so rude as to resist occupation.
Public support for the war seems to be holding above 50%, but it is quickly
slipping with every U.S. soldier killed or captured. The Bush government
might realize that, once this war ends, it may be difficult to convince
U.S. citizens to belly-up to the bar for another round of "kill the Arabs."
Therefore, they could think that their best option is to instigate a war
with Iran under the pretense of fighting the war against Iraq. It
is easier to expand an existing war, than start a brand new one after peace
is achieved.
So, we
may be seeing the first signs of an intension to broaden this war substantially,
with the rhetoric and charges, the strikes outside of Iraq, and the addition
of a force that nearly doubles the U.S. deployment. Some would argue
that the Pentagon prefers to finish this war before starting another one,
and would not want to complicate its mission. This is no necessarily
true, for a few reasons. First, the U.S. has a history of stepping
into new wars before old ones are finished (the U.S. had forces in Korea
at the end of WWII, and had forces in Vietnam as the Korean War ended,
etc). Second, Rumsfeld specifically warned Syria and Iran that the
U.S. would respond if "hostile acts" continued.
59
Remember,
there just happens to be oil involved in this equation, too. While
the oil issue is constantly pushed aside by supporters of this war, the
overwhelming evidence of its significance (historically as well as currently)
makes such pronouncements hollow. Securing energy reserves and U.S.
military dominance in the region is of such vast importance, the Pentagon
would not let an opportunity to move into Iran pass by. Besides,
with 400,000 troops in place, and the huge supply of military resources
at hand in the region, the U.S. would have the forces it needs to wage
a two-front or even three-front war. The Syrian question is less
certain, since the U.S. has been pretty silent about them for a while.
The desire to engage Syria in war may be much less than with regard to
Iran, but that does not mean that benefits don't exist.
War allows
for disposable production, always desirable, since this is essentially
the basis of the U.S. subsidized economy. There is also some benefit
for the U.S. in weakening Syria, first because it weakens yet another potential
challenger in the region, and second because it may be desirable for Israel.
If the U.S. does have a motive to expand the war into Syria, blowing up
a bus full of Syrians is certainly a good start in provoking that nation.
Accusing them of supplying Iraq with military supplies is another step,
and threatening them with force raises the ante yet again. In other
words, if the U.S. doen't want a war against Syria, it's doing a terrible
job promoting that wish.
What would
this war eventually look like, if it expands to Syria and Iran? With
citizens across the Middle East already outraged at the U.S. invasion of
Iraq, protesting and marching on U.S. embassies, what will happen if two
more nations are invaded? How would Arabs respond in Egypt, in Saudi
Arabia, in Turkey? What could happen in Pakistan, where tensions
with India flared again March 27, fighting breaking out in Kashmir as both
sides accused the other of supporting fighters in that region?
A broader U.S.
war might be just what it takes to put the match to fuming emotions, igniting
violence all over the region, and threatening an even wider outbreak of
war. Such events could lead to Israeli involvement, if any Arab states
strike at Israeli targets, or if Israel decides to join in just because
the opportunity presents itself (perhaps the more likely of the two reasons,
since it has so much historical basis). Israel, Pakistan, and India
all possess nuclear weapons, so things could get quite ugly.
Recent protests
(particularly in Egypt) have been quite intense, and on March 28 Jordan
saw a spontaneous protest as people left mosques, with chants of not only
anti-American slogans, but of opposition to Arab governments supporting
the U.S., such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. Protestors have
even accused President Mubarak of Egypt of being "CIA". These events
are making governments in the Middle East nervous, for this is what they
warned might occur if the U.S. invaded Iraq. Their fear is a popular
uprising, something looking more possible with every protest.
It could easily be
argued that such an uprising, were it successful, would be beneficial for
the average citizens of those nations, most pro-U.S. Arab governments being
as oppressive as Saddam Hussein (or worse, some would say). Nonetheless,
the widespread instability and fighting would lead to much bloodshed and
might easily provoke a U.S. military response to support the governments.
Of course,
the odds of these worst-case scenarios are relatively low right now.
The point is, every day that passes in this war brings a new round of events
that move us closer to such worst-case scenarios. Day by day, those
low odds get a little higher, and those worst-cases start to look increasingly
possible. How long will it be before we move from the word "possible"
to the word "probable"?
Well,
look where we are now, and it's only been one week.
60
KILLING AND BURYING
THE INNOCENT
March 28
was a bad day for "winning hearts and minds." The first bad news
came when a U.S. bomb exploded in the Shu'ale market in Baghdad, killing
at least 50 people and injuring 50 more. John Burns of The New York
Times reported that he counted at least ten to fifteen dead children.
As when the same thing happened just days before, the Pentagon "could not
confirm" U.S. bombs were responsible. Then, the Associated Press
reported U.S. airstrikes hit the al-A'azamiya telephone exchange, destroying
that building and also "a dozen shops, homes and apartment buildings nearby."
Later in the
day came the CBS reports, by John Roberts, that Marines on the road north
of Nasiriyah had opened fire on civilian farmers, "mistaking them for Iraqi
militia fighters." At least three innocent civilians were killed,
and scenes of weeping family members surrounded by Marines did little to
enhance the image of Americans as "liberators." The Marines took
the bodies to a local mosque for burial, and even helped family members
dig the graves. It was a horrible scene when the family members thanked
the Marines for their help. Some will argue that this showed the
humanity of the Marines, their sympathy for the Iraqi people.
Certainly, it
was very nice of them to help bury the people just murdered by U.S. Marines.
Certainly, it showed great sympathy for the plight of the people being
blown up and gunned down.
Perhaps this is a bit harsh. It is true that the trigger-happy
U.S. soldiers operating in the sections of Iraq from Basra to Baghdad are
probably scared out of their wits. They come under surprise guerilla-type
attacks, unsure of who is friend and who is foe. The Bush regime
and the military commanders have reinforced the impression that roaming
bandits are sneaking around in crowds of civilians, waiting to leap out
and open fire on U.S. soldiers, most of whom have not seen combat before.
So, the paranoia
of troops along the road from Nasiriyah to Baghdad is understandable.
Does it justify gunning down civilians just to make sure they aren't Iraqi
soldiers? No, absolutely not. And we must not forget these civilian
casualties, like those from errant missiles or bombs, are caused by people.
It is quite reasonable to say "the U.S. bombed," or "the U.S. attacked."
But besides happening within the context of U.S. policy, it should always
be remembered that those Iraqis being killed are killed by individual U.S.
soldiers.
The Marines
who opened fire on that car filled with civilians were not under attack.
They simply shot the Iraqis because the civilians fit a very vague profile
of potential militants who might ambush the Marines. What profile?
They were Iraqi. Those Marines made a choice to murder those people,
plain and simple. Saying, "Things happen in war," is hardly an excuse.
Nobody bought it when Nazis said it; nobody would accept it if the Iraqis
who gassed Kurds said it; nobody would accept it from Slobodan Milosevic.
Yet, whenever American soldiers are responsible for killing civilians,
it is simply called a "tragedy," a "terrible mistake." Obviously,
the standards to which we hold Iraqi soldiers, Serbian soldiers, and Nazi
soldiers cannot apply to U.S. soldiers or those who command them.
The fact
is, U.S. Marines had no reason to open fire on those Iraqi farmers.
They just did it. That is murder. It will not, however, be
treated as such. All across the U.S., people are saying, "we must
support our troops." Should that include making excuses for them
when they commit murder? Are we obligated to ignore targeting civilians
when the U.S. does it, while condemning the Iraqis for it? Of course
we are. It is the height of treason, it is unpatriotic, un-American,
to criticize "our boys." Yes, things do happen during war. Some of
those things are called "war crimes."
61
IRAQI ARTILLERY TARGETS…WHOM?
The claims
were meant to be shocking. On March 28, British troops outside the
southern Iraqi city of Basra reported that Iraqi artillery was targeting
Iraqi civilians attempting to leave Basra. The British say they returned
fire to protect the fleeing civilians, but the Iraqis had to return to
the city because of the shelling. All major media outlets are reporting
this story as if it is uncontested truth. However, careful attention
to the reported facts and a careful viewing of footage from the scene tells
a different story.
First
of all, the scenes of civilians fleeing Basra shows a line of people moving
down the road, towards British soldiers, tanks, and artillery outside the
city. Those forces straddle the road traveled by the civilians.
The sound of artillery is heard, but none is seen falling between the U.K.
troops and the city. No artillery is ever seen falling on the Iraqis
moving down the road. The artillery seems closer to them as they
get closer to the British troops…because the Iraqi artillery is clearly
targeting the British lines, not the civilians.
Throughout the
whole episode, not a single piece of artillery is visible landing amongst
or close to the civilians on the road from Basra to the position of the
British troops. In fact, the British are shown firing artillery "to
protect the fleeing Iraqis," but when footage is shown of this, the "fleeing
Iraqis" are quite clearly far down the road closer to Basra, and they are
moving towards the British positions.
In other words,
it appears that the British were already firing into Basra, exchanging
artillery fire with the Iraqi troops inside the city, when the civilians
started down the road out of Basra. Then, as they got too close to
the British, the artillery fire from the city was close to the civilians
as well, and some of the Iraqi artillery was hitting just beyond the U.K.
lines, so the road was unsafe. This seems to be why the Iraqis returned
to the city.
All of
this can be ascertained by watching the footage from both CNN and CBS,
both of whom had full coverage of the incident from the beginning of the
civilians' attempts to leave, until their return. By watching where
the civilians are on screen, and watching the artillery fire, the sequence
of events is evident despite the fact that both broadcasts showed the footage
out of order, to better fit the "voice-over."
A neat little
trick, so long as nobody watches too closely. Besides this footage,
however, there are a few points that also help clarify what really happened.
Consider
this claim for a moment: Iraqi civilians try to leave, soldiers inside
the city fire at them as they are right beside British troops, so the civilians
shrug, leave the British troops, and return to the city full of people
who just fired at them. Is there an ounce of sense in this?
If the Iraqis fled the city and got all the way to the "liberating soldiers,"
why would they choose to return to the city full of people who just tried
to kill them? This does not sound reasonable.
It makes
much more sense that the civilians left while artillery was being fired
back and forth, and upon reaching the British position, they determined
it would be unsafe to continue their trek, so they returned to the city.
Certainly, it is possible that the Iraqi troops would fire at civilians,
if we accept the U.S.-British claim that the presence of civilians in Basra
is limiting coalition strikes on that city. Iraqi troops might feel
it safer to keep as many civilians as possible in Basra, to deter a stronger
allied attack.
This would be
easier to accept, if we could trust U.S.-British claims that they are avoiding
targeting civilian areas, and if we believe them when they make assertions
about Iraqi "atrocities." The problem is, we can't trust them.
62
A pattern
has emerged in this war (actually, a pattern clear in most every war),
with the U.S. and U.K. going to great lengths to portray Iraqi soldiers
as "war criminals," using distortions of facts to advance propaganda claims.
When U.S. missiles explode in civilian areas, the U.S. tries to blame Iraqi
anti-aircraft fire. When Iraq shows U.S. POWs on television, it is
a war crime, but Iraqi POWs paraded in front of U.S. media cameras is ignored.
When U.S. bombing
strikes destroy water and electrical facilities in Basra, the Iraqi government
is accused of shutting off water and power to the city. When food
relief cannot reach the civilians, it is blamed on Iraqi attempts to slow
relief efforts, rather than on the fact the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first
place and caused the humanitarian crisis with massive bombing campaigns.
With a
track record like this, it is difficult to take U.S. or U.K. claims at
face value. In fact, because of the constant lies and denials of
fact, the credibility of U.S-British claims is sorely diminished.
So, when we hear reports of Iraqi artillery targeting Iraqi civilians,
we might be forgiven if we are automatically skeptical, not out of disbelief
that the Iraqis are capable of such an act, but because it just sounds
like so much more of the same propaganda.
When we actually
witness the footage of the event, suspicion intensifies. Finally,
a mere moment of consideration might lead us to conclude that the entire
story sounds a bit ridiculous in the first place.
If the
story is in fact true, the U.S. and U.K. have nobody but themselves to
blame, if some of us tend to doubt the claim. By showing little concern
for the facts on so many other occasions, and by themselves visiting so
much destruction on civilian populations within Iraq, they have become
"the boy who cried War Crimes."
63
CNN SUBTLY ALTERS POW
COVERAGE
The second
week of the U.S. war against Iraq began with a telling shift of policy
in U.S. media coverage of the war. On March 29, CNN reported that
two Fedayeen militia members turned themselves in to coalition troops at
Umm Qasr. During the report, the CNN correspondent noted that the
Iraqis' faces were not being shown because, "they are POWs."
An interesting
reversal of policy. Until this point, CNN and other U.S. media outlets
consistently showed scenes of Iraqi prisoners, even as they and the Bush
administration angrily denounced Iraq for showing U.S. POWs on television.
However, the more the issue was covered by the media, the more the obvious
contradictions and hypocrisy stood out.
It became rather
absurd, as the rhetoric against Iraq heated up, and the phrase "war crimes"
popped up more frequently, to keep criticizing Iraq while the U.S. paraded
Iraqi POWs all over television and the front page of newspapers.
The evocation of the term "war crimes" might have particularly troubled
the news outlets, since the phrase started being employed against the Iraqi
media rather than just the government.
Is CNN
tacitly acknowledging that previous broadcasting of Iraqi POWs violated
the Geneva Convention? It is doubtful such an admission will be forthcoming.
Rather, the standard formula will be applied: stop showing the Iraqis;
proclaim clearly that this is because they are POWs; and increase the denunciation
of Iraq, while noting the U.S. media's laudable behavior. No mention
must be made of previous media coverage. If it is mentioned, it will
simply be called a "mistake," or different because the Iraqis were not
being "humiliated"; but the practice will nonetheless cease, and eventually
will not be referenced again, except regarding Iraq's "deplorable behavior."
Of course,
it is quite right to avoid showing POWs on television. The practice
is in violation of the Geneva Convention. It is incorrect, though,
to assume the restrictions apply only to U.S. enemies, so CNN's decision
to stop its own violations of the Convention is certainly the correct policy
to follow.
The problem
is, it will not be viewed with such honesty. Instead, expect to see
proclamations of how the U.S. media is treating Iraqi POWs legally, while
Iraq continues committing war crimes with U.S. POWs. The question
of U.S. media footage of POWs prior to March 29 will not be brought up.
Moreover, it is highly likely that after the war, Iraqis will be prosecuted
as "war criminals" for showing coalition POWs in the media. Will
warrants also be issued for CNN? Don’t bet on it. Remember,
they aren't showing Iraqi POWs. Just don't remember too far back…
64
SEVEN STRAY MISSILES, TWO UNHAPPY ALLIES
The Pentagon
announced on March 29 that seven missiles had gone off course, due to mechanical
failures, but claimed none detonated. Further, the Pentagon says
some of those missiles landed in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. As a result,
the U.S. has suspended cruise missile flights over their territories.
The three
missiles that struck Iran on March 21 were not mentioned as part of this
"dumb squadron" of U.S. bombs. Whether that is due to a true lack
of "confirmation" by the Pentagon, or the fact that those strikes were
no accident, cannot as yet be determined.
In the
event, the Pentagon pointed out the seven missiles represent less than
one-percent of all missile flights, apparently considering this an acceptable
error-rate. Surely, 99-percent "success" must be deemed adequate.
Of course, this depends on how one defines "acceptable," and "success."
Perhaps we would
get a differing view on the "acceptability" of seven errant missiles, were
we to ask the opinions of the people standing under them when they fell.
To refer back for just a moment, does Iran look at the missiles that blew
up a government building (among other sites) and say, "Yes, but 99-percent
of the U.S. missiles hit their targets. This is acceptable"?
It is doubtful.
We might
further conclude that Saudi Arabia and Turkey haven't quite expressed a
view of "acceptance," either, or the Pentagon probably would not be suspending
missile over-flights. Likewise, within Iraq itself, the civilians
at the Shallal and Shu'ale markets in Baghdad could be expected to deny
the "acceptability" of U.S. missiles missing their intended targets and
exploding in civilian centers, even if only one-percent do so. After
all, one-percent of 700 is 7, and that is per day. Even half of a
percent is still 3.5-per-day.
What about
"success?" As the Pentagon made clear, they feel a 99-percent accuracy
rate is a "success." This definition might be objectionable to those
who are inclined to consider "collateral damage" (as the Pentagon calls
dead civilians) in the equation. If the U.S. wishes to destroy a
military site, with a purported goal of "liberating" Iraqis, can the necessary
killing of innocent people be ignored?
"Necessary"
is used here because, as the size and nature of the ordnance used makes
obvious, there is absolutely no way to avoid killing civilians when thousands
of these weapons are dropped each day in a city filled with millions of
innocent people.
Was the
missile strike on the al-A'azamiya telephone exchange a "success," despite
the fact twelve shops, apartment buildings, and homes were also destroyed
(facts reported by the Associated Press)? This bomb hit its target,
so it is one of the 99-percent, presumably. How should we interpret
this definition of "success" and "accuracy"?
Beyond
such questions, we might be inclined to ask whether we should believe the
Pentagon's claim of only one-percent failure. After all, to date
they still insist the missile strikes that hit the Baghdad markets may
have been caused by Iraq, not the U.S.
U.S. Brigadier
General Vince Brooks (Deputy Director of Operations for Central Command)
did admit on March 27 that coalition bombs may have been responsible; but
in the following days, and after the second missile strike in a market
area, the Pentagon has increasingly moved towards the "Iraq did it" defense.
Regarding Iran,
the Pentagon never admitted guilt, and eventually just forgot the whole
issue. With a record of denial and redirection, it cannot be assumed
that the Pentagon's word on "accuracy" and "success" can be taken at face
value.
Suppose
we do accept the 99-percent figure, however. What must still be considered
is that, while that figure sounds impressive, it is relative to the actual
number of missiles used.
65
As noted earlier,
thousands of airstrikes are hitting Baghdad every day, and over 700 of
those have been cruise missiles, and more than 6,000 satellite-guided bombs.
The bombings are likely to increase as the battle to take Baghdad approaches,
so that one-percent will actually encompass a growing number of errant
missiles, most of which are likely to fall within Iraq, on civilians.
But what about
Iraq's neighbors? The Pentagon admits Turkey and Saudi Arabia were
victims of U.S. missiles, and all evidence suggests (in spite of Pentagon
denials) that three missiles struck Iran.
Therefore, we
see that in a total of eight days, three non-combatant nations were hit
with U.S. missiles, at least one of them hit by three missiles, with a
total of seven failed strikes, or about one each day. If the number
of U.S. airstrikes increases, so will the real number of errant hits on
Iraq's neighbors, even if only one-percent do so.
This is
a bit misleading, since the above example uses the Iranian strikes as if
they are included in the seven missiles the Pentagon acknowledges went
off-course. The Pentagon does not admit to striking Iran, so those
three missiles obviously are not included in the counting of missile failures.
More to the point, since there may be reason to suspect that Iran was not
hit by mistake, it is also not really fair to count those strikes as "errant."
The question
of U.S. missile accuracy will no doubt be a constant source of debate as
the war goes on, and as they continue to crash down on the wrong heads.
What is sad is that, for all the talk about "accuracy" and "success", it
doesn't seem to occur to anyone making these decisions that the only "success"
is when these damn things aren't fired at all.
66
MURDER AT 160 K
The U.S.
military does not seem contented with murdering only Iraqi civilians, and
have apparently started looking elsewhere for additional targets.
They found some, on March 26, at the 160 K roadside rest stop. On
this day, three buses filled with Syrian civilians approached an intersection
at the rest stop, where gasoline, food, and other travel supplies are sold.
Ahead of them was a bridge, and behind them…was a U.S. Apache helicopter.
It was 5:30 pm, still daylight, so there can be no doubt the pilots could
see their targets and the rest stop area.
Still, a missile
was fired and struck the road directly in front of the buses. The
buses screeched to a halt, and passengers began jumping out frantically.
Again, the helicopter could easily see these were civilians, in civilian
vehicles, at a civilian rest stop full of shops. Yet, the Apache
pilot fired again, this time blasting the first bus directly, killing 17
civilians and injuring many more.
The other buses
crashed into the rear of the first bus, injuring more people. As
the casualties were pulled from the buses, the helicopter pilot did not
try to help, nor did the pilot call for help for the civilians. The
Syrians called for assistance, and several hours later rescue buses arrived
to carry them into Baghdad. The injured were transferred to the Al
Kindi Hospital. As the civilians left the scene of the attack, they
watched the Apache fire more missiles into the wrecked buses, incinerating
them.
Such is the
nature of this "just war"; such is the nature of the "honorable" U.S. soldier.
Much is said here in the U.S. about "supporting the troops," even if one
opposes the war. It is obvious, however, that the civilians being
murdered by U.S. troops are the ones who need our "support." War
protestors make too much effort, it would seem, to stress that opponents
of this war are not "protesting against the soldiers." Well, somebody
needs to protest against them, because they are killers.
The cases of
civilian
casualties are mounting, and despite claims that Iraqi troops use innocent
people as "human shields," not a single case of civilian casualties has
resulted from such activity. The civilians are dying because they
are being directly targeted, murdered, by U.S. soldiers. These are
war crimes, and anybody with a shred of integrity will admit this.
While there may be room for "debate" about several issues or aspects of
this war, certain things (such as documented facts, for example) are beyond
debate.
We know for
a fact Iraqi civilians are being killed by U.S. troops; we know for a fact
that these soldiers have on several occasions killed civilians in situations
where the identification of the Iraqis as noncombatants could clearly be
determined; and we know for a fact that murdering civilians is a war crime.
Facts. Disgusting, damnable, murderous facts.
Case after case
of civilians being directly fired upon by U.S. forces is mounting.
Time after time, the U.S. government denies these incidents, or blames
the Iraqi government for the casualties. The media, in every instance,
either fails to report the murders, or repeats the government lies and
attribution of guilt to Saddam Hussein. There seems to be too much
fear of being critical of "our troops" while the war is going on, even
among those who oppose this war.
However, "our
troops" are turning more and more into nothing but killers of the innocent,
while the Pentagon and U.S. media continue to remind us of the "murderous
nature" of Hussein's government. Well, a "murderous nature" has certainly
become evident, but it rests most visibly within a regime far from Baghdad.
67
"SIMON-SAYS" REPORTING
"A woman
was hanged after she waved at coalition soldiers," Bush said. Iraqis
are fighting because they are threatened, say U.S. military commanders.
Iraqis who refuse are executed, their families are killed, we are told.
An Iraqi civilian's tongue was cut out, and he was left to bleed to death
in the center of Baghdad, says another story.
These are the
tales of terror being broadcast by the U.S. media, backed up with the irrefutable
evidence that…well, the President said so. Or military commanders,
unnamed in most cases, said so. Somebody said so, and the media is
reporting it.
Just how
much faith should we have in the accuracy of these stories? Some
of them, such as the repeated claims that Iraqi troops are hiding in hospitals
and using human shields (a phrase conveniently co-opted from the peace
movement and given a sinister spin), seem at least based on the accounts
of multiple witnesses, most of them admittedly U.S. or U.K. soldiers.
Nevertheless, there is some frame of reference—a corporal at Basra said
it March 27, on CBS, or a Marine at Nasiriyah said it on March 28, to The
Washington Post, for example. This doesn’t make it true, just more
credible than "Bush says so."
The media
reports these accusations without mentioning they are unsubstantiated or
unconfirmed, terms that always follow any proclamation of Iraqi civilian
deaths and injuries. In those instances, the phrase "it is claimed"
or "Iraq claims" preceded the reported deaths, and it "has not been confirmed"
by the U.S. military, nor is it ever likely to be confirmed. Bush,
on the other hand, is quoted without a "Bush claims," or a follow-up "Iraq
has not confirmed this."
So many accusations
are being passed on by the media without any proof, yet reported as undeniable
fact, that the public likely believes there is no question about the reliability
of the information.
While it is
true that demonization of the enemy, and false accusations of atrocities,
are standard fare during war, this is not 1941. The media now has
the ability to verify information, to seek evidence of the purported atrocities,
so it is not necessary to "take the government's word for it."
Some argue that
wartime calls for subservience of the media to "the cause". This
is such an absurd claim, it warrants no response, except to point out we
are a democracy, not a nationalist military-state.
With embedded
reporters, a huge international media establishment, satellite images,
internet, and endless other means of mass-communication, the media can
inform us better than ever before, with little to limit their capacity
to get to the truth. To the extent they fail, it is largely by design.
In most cases,
the facts are out there, but the U.S. media is uninterested in inconvenient
facts, self-censorship considered a virtue. As long as this remains
true, "Bush says" will continue to be the final word in accuracy.
68
"THEIR
LIBERATION IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF GOD"
John Roberts,
the CBS reporter embedded with U.S. Marines in Iraq, reported on the March
28 death of civilians after their car was shot with anti-tank shells by
Marines north of Nasiriya. Prior to the incident, Roberts noted a
minivan nearby, riddled with bullet holes, and said it was "unclear" whether
the van—right by the U.S. Marine lines—was stuck by Iraqi or coalition
troops. The sheepishness of the Marines standing by the van was a
clue as to who was responsible, as was the subsequent incident.
The area
north of Nasiriya is a constant pain for the U.S. military, with Iraqi
attacks on coalition forces occurring every day. The Marines interviewed
by Roberts said they were jumpy from the constant attacks, and as one young
soldier put it, "If we see a vehicle…behaving in a threatening way…we protect
ourselves."
This comment
came after the Marines blasted the car full of civilians, killing at least
three of them. Then, while this same Marine stood beside the grieving
family members left alive, he said, "Saddam sends civilians down this road."
Once again,
we are reminded that whenever civilians are killed or injured, it is Hussein's
fault. Even when Marines open fire on a civilian car that is "behaving
in a threatening way" (by virtue of it being on the road near the Marines),
still the guilt lies with Saddam, not the U.S. troops.
As CNN
reported March 30, U.S. troops at checkpoints now have authority to "shoot
on sight" any vehicle that does not stop on command. Three taxicab
drivers where killed March 29 for approaching checkpoints, none of them
having weapons or explosives. This is all in response to an attack
March 29 in which four U.S. soldiers were killed by a bomb in a taxicab.
There
is a clear pattern, one that existed before the March 29 attack.
U.S. soldiers, nervous because Iraq is putting up a fight and actually
inflicting casualties on coalition forces, are increasingly likely to forget
the whole "liberation" part of their mission and just shoot when they feel
"threatened." As the young Marine interviewed by John Roberts put
it, they are protecting themselves, even if that means shooting civilians
just in case they are hostile.
By attempting
to limit U.S. casualties, the military is willing to allow civilian deaths.
While nobody is suggesting soldiers not protect themselves when actually
in danger, the fact is the U.S. invaded Iraq, and as an invading occupation
force they should not be allowed to kill anyone they want just to avoid
risks.
If the U.S.
wants to wage illegal warfare and forcibly "liberate" Iraqi civilians,
those same civilians should not be expected to bear the burden of protecting
military forces. The idea is obscene. The U.S. should accept
the risks and casualties that come with war, not ask innocent people to
die just so President Bush's poll ratings don't drop.
For all
the talk of Iraqi war crimes, it is incredible that CBS has footage of
U.S. troops killing civilians who did nothing but try to flee Baghdad.
The Marines were not fired on, they were in no danger, and if they suspected
the car was possibly a threat, they should have taken cover. The
suggestion that the U.S. military has a right to blow up or shoot anyone
and anything it gets scared of, on camera and by their own admission, is
a claim worthy of Nazi Germany.
A war crime
occurred and was broadcast on CBS news, then broadcast again on a March
29 episode of the news program 48 hours. This is not speculation;
it is not an "unconfirmed report." We saw it, CBS reporters saw it,
and the Marines admitted it. Where are the cries of "war crimes"
now?
Some people
will express sympathy for those Marines, saying it was an unintentional
strike, a "terrible tragedy," and surely this is true. It was a tragedy,
for the Iraqis.
Are we to excuse
soldiers who open fire on civilians, just because they were scared?
When was this new standard for forgiving war crimes put in place?
Does it apply to Iraq's military behavior as well? The answers can
be imagined.
69
One can
feel sorry for the fear those Marines feel, but this should not reduce
our sorrow for those civilians killed by the Marines. It should not
reduce our disgust with military procedures that make such war crimes more
likely. It should not make us ignore the incident, or forgive it.
As the
President and Pentagon continue to insist Iraqis are being "liberated,"
John Roberts' grim words about the civilian deaths come to mind.
As he stood looking at the graves of those farmers, he said, "For these
farmers, their liberation is now in the hands of God."
We must hope
they fare better than when it was in the hands of the U.S. Marine Corps.
70
POW COVERAGE
SHOWS BIAS IN FAVOR OF BEAUTY
It is troubling
to watch the recent U.S. media coverage of American POWs. There is
a long-standing bias in news reporting that has recently seemed more pronounced,
due to several events. On a March 29 episode of CBS's news program
48 Hours, an entire segment was devoted to the plight of U.S. Army Private
Jessica Lynch, taken prisoner in Iraq along with many others in her supply
column.
We learned that
Jessica is 19 years old, a "pretty, slim" blonde from Palestine, West Virginia.
She joined the Army to save money for college. She wrote a letter
back home, asking an elementary school class to be her pen pals while she
served in Iraq. Her family and friends were interviewed, and CBS
made it clear how "tragic" it is for such a popular, pretty girl to now
be a POW.
Consider
also the plight of Amy Smart, the 15-year-old white, blonde, pretty girl
who was kidnapped from her home in Utah. 48 Hours devoted two separate
episodes to the story, one of them after the girl was found. Consider
the story of JonBenet Ramsey, the little girl (white, blond, pretty) who
was found murdered in the basement of her home. That story dominated
headlines and news reports for months, and still gets an occasional headline.
Now think
back to the story of a young black girl who was abducted, or murdered.
Remember the non-blonde, unattractive kids who got kidnapped last year?
Probably not, since they didn't get any news coverage. To warrant
sympathy and media reports, one must apparently be pretty, white, and (preferably)
blonde. Worse still, the media always points out how "tragic" it
is for "pretty" people to suffer, as if the loss of another attractive
person is so much more troubling for society.
Referring
back to the CBS coverage of the POWs, this tendency to highlight the suffering
of lovely blondes was only accentuated by the inclusion of a few words
about Shoshana Johnson, another female POW taken along with Jessica Lynch.
"A few words" is to be taken literally. A clip of the footage of
Johnson being interrogated was quickly shown, her name was mentioned, and
a sentence was said about her "fear" being clearly visible. The end,
now back to Jessica.
Where is Johnson
from? We don't know. How old is she? No idea. Did
CBS, did anyone, say "what a tragedy", did they say she was "pretty" or
"popular"? Not a word, not a syllable. What about Lori Ann
Piestewa, the Hopi Indian woman who is MIA? She didn't even merit
a single sentence.
When Amy
Smart was abducted, did the media use the public interest in the story
to help focus attention on the other thousands of children missing?
Did news commentators say, "By the way, if you haven't seen the pretty
white girl, maybe you've seen one of these less-attractive or less-white
children"? Sure, some words about child abduction in general were
said, but no faces graced the television screens or newspapers except the
white-and-blonde ones.
None of
this is to suggest the girls in question do not merit mention. It
is indeed tragic for anyone to be abducted, murdered, or held prisoner.
The point is not to downplay these girls' suffering, it is to show how
the media obsesses over the stories when attractive white people are involved,
and shows little or no interest in the "tragedies" that don't involve blonde
white girls. It is not more tragic when beautiful females are victims,
but it is certainly tragic that the media treats it that way.
71
U.S.
DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY TARGETS CIVILIANS
The evidence
is mounting that U.S. military strikes in Iraq target civilians, either
by directly attacking them, or by attacking sites where the U.S. knows
civilians will almost certainly be indirectly injured or killed.
Anyone who is remotely familiar with past U.S. military operations will
hardly find this news surprising.
However, in
a war in which "liberation" and "pin-point" targeting are catch-phrases,
and where the enemy is daily accused of placing civilians in harms way,
the U.S. behavior takes on added significance.
To speak
of specific instances of direct targeting of civilians, there are several
examples. On March 26, U.S. B-52 pilots used cluster bombs (a banned
weapon) in a bombing raid on an Iraqi farm. Four of the 25 family
members were killed, all of their six houses were destroyed, and their
animals were also killed. The survivors were being treated at Al
Kindi Hospital, with some in critical condition.
The U.S. consistently
denies the use of cluster bombs, as well as napalm (also banned); but the
denials are ridiculous in light of journalists' photographs of these weapons
being loaded onto U.S. aircraft, admissions by pilots that they are using
napalm and cluster bombs, and reports by news crews at the scene of the
attacks which quote U.S. officers in charge as confirming the use of these
weapons.
This is not
to mention the evidence offered by eyewitness testimony from the victims
of such bombings, and the blatant signs left by these weapons (such as
the multiple pock-mark holes left on roads and vehicles by cluster-bombs,
the scorching and smells left by napalm, the remains of unexploded cluster
bombs, etc.).
Yet another
example is the killing of Syrian civilians by U.S. forces. Three
buses filled with Syrians traveling through Iraq were attacked at the 160
K Station. U.S. Apache helicopters blew up a bridge in front of the
buses, and when the vehicles stopped, the helicopters proceeded to bomb
them. The Syrians were climbing out of the buses, so the Apache crews
could see they were unarmed civilians.
While the Syrians
sat awaiting help, the helicopters decided to attack again, bombing the
buses a second time. According to survivors, 16 civilians died and
another 19 were injured in the attack.
The U.S. confirms
the attack, and issued an icy apology for the loss of life, the same day
the Pentagon accused Syria of aiding Iraq, and Rumsfeld threatened that
Syria "will be held responsible" by the U.S.
Perhaps the
murder of innocent civilians was one way the U.S. intends to hold Syria
"responsible." To date, Syria has not threatened that the U.S. will
be held responsible for targeting and murdering Syrian civilians.
On March 28,
U.S. Marines north of Nasiriyah opened fire on a car full of Iraqi farmers,
hitting it with anti-tank shells despite the fact the Marines were not
under fire. Three civilians died. The Marines admitted they
were not under direct threat, but attempted to justify the killings by
saying they had been under constant attack from Iraqi "irregular militias
in civilian clothing", so they would "protect" themselves first, and ask
questions later.
This was all
filmed by CBS reporters (John Roberts and his crew). One young Marine
even suggested the civilian deaths were actually the fault of…that's right,
Saddam Hussein, who "sends civilians down this road," according to the
soldier, as if that were the real crime, not the murder of innocent farmers.
72
U.S. airstrikes
on Basra at the outset of the war directly targeted infrastructure.
The city's water treatment and electrical facilities were destroyed by
U.S. bomb and missile strikes, according to the initial reports from John
Roberts of CBS. Roberts was with military units that struck Basra,
and the U.S. commanders on-site cleared his reports.
During this
report, incidentally, Roberts also reported that U.S. airstrikes in Safwan
used napalm, and his report was confirmed by a U.S. colonel at the scene
of the attack, and reported by the Herald.
The destruction
of the water treatment facilities is especially bad, and civilians (especially
children) are reportedly suffering from diseases due to drinking unsanitary
water, confirmed by RAF medical staff in Basra in comments to print and
television journalists. While no deaths attributed to lack of water
of electricity have been reported so far, civilians are suffering from
the effects of the bombings.
Beyond these
examples, there is the larger civilian toll caused by the massive U.S.
air assault directed at Baghdad. Well over 1,000 missiles and bombs
ranging in size from 2,000 to 4,700 pounds are being dropped on the city
every single day. If only 2,000-pound weapons are used, this would
total 20,000 pounds of explosives per day; an average would actually be
closer to 30-35,000 pounds, however. No rational person could expect
to drop such massive bombs on a highly populated city without causing serious
civilian casualties. Indeed, there are almost daily reports of bombs
and missiles exploding in civilian areas, although the Pentagon "cannot
confirm" such reports are true.
Some of these
reports, however, cannot be disputed. For example, the U.S. bombing
of the al-A'azamiya telephone exchange destroyed that building, but it
also demolished twelve shops, as well as apartments and homes. This
is confirmed by Associated Press reports.
Such damage is actually typical of the ordnance being dropped by U.S.
pilots. The 2,000-pound Mark-84 JDAM bomb was the primary weapon
used on Baghdad in the first week of warfare (along with the cruise missiles).
This bomb sends 1,000 pounds of white-hot steel fragments about three-quarters
of a mile from the impact zone, at 6,000 feet per second. Pieces
of the nose cone and other heavy fragments will fly about a mile and a
half, and 10,000 pounds of dirt and debris is hurled at supersonic speeds
from the blast zone. A fireball is produced, with temperatures of
8,500 degrees Fahrenheit.
How can such
weapons be used without inflicting large-scale civilian casualties?
Of course, they can't. The Shallal market was struck on March 26,
and the Shu'ale on March 28, with a total of 65 or more killed and many
more injured. John Burns of The New York Times visited the scene,
saying he personally counted 10 to 15 dead children alone on March 28,
and in a March 29 interview with Dan Rather on CBS's 48 Hours he says he
saw at least 30 to 34 coffins. U.S. Brigadier General Vince Brooks
(Deputy Director of Operations for Central Command in Qatar) admitted that
coalition bombs may have been responsible for the deaths from the March
26 strike, but the Pentagon still asserts Iraqi anti-aircraft fire or surface-to-surface
missiles might have done the damage.
By March 30,
huge fires were raging all over Baghdad, as the U.S. increased the frequency
and scale of air assaults on the city. The U.S. knows civilians will
be injured and killed; these attacks are carried out with full knowledge
that innocent people are within the explosive range of the missiles and
bombs. While this may not constitute "directly" targeting civilians,
civilians are known to be "indirectly" in the line of fire. In fact,
however, the Pentagon announced on March 27 "As military targets emerge,
even in civilian areas, they will be hit." Attacks on March 29 and
30, in particular, were said to be targeting anti-aircraft sites on civilian
rooftops or within civilian population centers. Here, we have the
Pentagon stating publicly that civilian areas will be bombed. Prefacing
the comments with "military targets" doesn't negate the recognition that
U.S. pilots are aware these targets are sitting on top of or within civilian
areas.
73
On March 30
came the official Pentagon announcement that, in response to a terrorist
bombing that killed four Marines, U.S. troops at checkpoints have orders
to shoot to kill anyone in a vehicle who does not immediately stop or turn
around when ordered to. Of course, this policy was a bit "johnny-come-lately",
since the previous day, March 29, Jim Axelrod of CBS reported three taxicab
drivers were shot and killed by U.S. soldiers (none of the Iraqis were
armed). In light of the Marine attack near Nasiriyah that killed
the farmers, and the three taxicab drivers shot, it might appear to a cynic
that the "new" Pentagon policy is actually just an attempt to legitimize
a practice already in place—namely, the killing of civilians in the name
of reducing risks to U.S. troops.
The U.S. record
of killing civilians by either directly or indirectly targeting them is
quite clear, and quite extensive for a war that is barely over a week old.
Yet we hear nobody suggesting these actions or official policies are "war
crimes," a charge leveled against Iraq because, among other things, some
of their troops aren't wearing uniforms. Comparing such "heinous"
acts to the "unfortunate" U.S. bombings and shootings of civilians, one
might become confused about what exactly constitutes a "crime" during war.
Then again,
this is a dangerous question, especially if it leads us to wonder whether
any military act is legal if it occurs during an illegal invasion.
74
THE SHU'ALE
MARKET BOMBING: CASE CLOSED
The "mystery"
is over. Facts have emerged regarding one of the most infamous cases
of civilian casualties in the U.S. war against Iraq, and these facts leave
no doubt about what occurred in a small, poor neighborhood in Baghdad where
so many Iraqis lost their lives to "liberation."
On March 28,
a U.S. missile manufactured at a Raytheon plant in McKinney, Texas, exploded
in the Shu'ale market in Baghdad, killing over 60 civilians. Fragments
of the missile, inspected by reporter Robert Fisk of the Independent, contained
the identification numbers necessary to track the missile's origins, and
this was done by Cahal Milmo (another reporter for the Independent).
The ID numbers
on the missile were 30003-704ASB7492, followed by MFR 96214 09. The
first numbers, 3003, refers to the Naval Air Systems Command, which procures
weapons for the U.S. Navy. MFR 96214 is the identification number
for the Raytheon plant that manufactured the weapon.
Raytheon manufactures
HARM missiles and Paveway laser-guided bombs, as well as Patriot and Tomahawk
missiles. Because so many civilians were injured in the attack by
fragments of aluminum, it is most likely that a HARM missile was used in
the market attack. Further, the Pentagon now confirms that an EA-6B
Prowler jet fired one or more HARM missiles over Baghdad on March 28, although
the official Pentagon line is still that the cause of the market attack
is "undetermined" and most likely from a stray Iraqi anti-aircraft missile,
denials the U.S. media are quite happy to repeat while they ignore the
new evidence.
We now know
the truth about the origins of the bomb that struck the Shu'ale market.
If we know, then the Pentagon knows, as do the U.S. media. In a supposedly
free society, we should not have spend endless hours in pursuit of elusive
truths denied us by our own government and media, who act in collusion
to mislead the public.
With the facts
at hand, the case is easily closed on the Shu'ale bombing, as with so many
countless other bombings and killings in this war. What remains to
be seen, however, is how much more evidence will be needed before the public
realizes that, regarding the quality and nature of our government and media,
the case was also closed, a long time ago.
75
CHECKPOINT SHOOTING GALLERIES
"You just
fucking killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"
These were the angry words of U.S. Army Captain Ronny Johnson, at a checkpoint
outside Najaf on March 31, according to Washington Post reporter William
Branigin. An embedded reporter with the 3rd Infantry Division, Branigin
witnessed the killing of 10 Iraqi civilians (women and children) by U.S.
Army forces, when the Iraqis' four-wheel-drive vehicle approached a checkpoint
on Highway 9 near Karbala.
Captain Johnson
ordered troops to fire a warning shot as the vehicle approached, and when
no troops responded he ordered a 7.62 machine-gun round fired into the
vehicle's radiator. Again, his platoon simply did not respond.
He finally yelled into the radio, "Stop him, Red 1, stop him!"
At this, 25mm
cannons roared from one or more Bradleys, right into the passenger sections
of the vehicle. After surveying the scene through his binoculars,
Captain Johnson screamed his fateful sentence at the platoon leader.
Reading any
other mainstream newspaper, or watching any of the television news broadcasts,
we would learn none of this. Instead, we would hear that a vehicle
approached the checkpoint, failed to head warning shots (some of which
were fired into its radiator), and then soldiers opened fire, killing seven
people.
Further, we
would learn that, as with every dastardly deed in this war, the real fault
lies with Saddam Hussein. No, he wasn't driving, but as a U.S. soldier
at the scene told CNN, "Incidents like this are the fault of the regime."
His sentiment was echoed by Navy Captain Frank Thorp, spokesperson for
U.S. CENTCOM, who likewise blamed "the regime," also saying that the 3rd
Infantry Division troops had acted correctly in firing on the vehicle.
CNN appeared
to agree, saying that the military's Rules of Engagement allow such shootings,
adding that it's "a judgment call…we don't know what may have happened…there
are many unknowns."
In case anyone
wonders what the Rules of Engagement are in situations like this, the fact
is the rules have become quite liberalized since a suicide bombing at a
checkpoint killed four Marines. The new rules, according to Lieutenant
Colonel Scott E. Rutter, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment,
are, "Five seconds. They have five seconds to turn around and get
out of here. If they're there in five seconds, they're dead."
Apparently,
it has not occurred to anyone that perhaps placing "Stop" signs before
the checkpoints, or signs reading "Turn Back—Army Checkpoint Ahead", or
maybe blocking the road with sandbags, would be a little safer than counting
to five and murdering people. Why not block roads with empty cars, which
could be moved easily to open the road when necessary?
On April 1,
the day after the Najaf shootings, U.S. Marines in the southern town of
Shatra killed a civilian and seriously injured another as the Iraqis' truck
drove towards a military checkpoint, according to a Reuters reporter at
the scene.
In another incident
like the one at Najaf, U.S. Marines south of Baghdad also opened fire on
vehicles at a checkpoint on April 5, killing seven or more civilians (including
three children). An embedded ABC News journalist with the Marine
unit reported that a car sped through the checkpoint and was fired on by
the U.S. troops, followed by a truck driving through the roadblock that
was fired upon. Behind the truck were the two civilian cars, and
the Marines opened fire on them as well.
John Roberts
of CBS was with U.S. Marines on April 8, when the soldiers opened fire
on a minivan. Footage showed the van riddled with bullet holes, leaving
two dead, one gut-shot, and yet another injured.
76
More civilians
were killed on April 10, in Baghdad, when Marines at a checkpoint opened
fire on their vehicle, leaving three Iraqis dead. The car approached
the Marines during the night, then gunfire erupted from a tree-line near
the Marines. The U.S. soldiers not only returned fire, they also
shot at the vehicle. When the incident was over, there was speculation
that it may have been a case of friendly fire from nearby U.S. forces.
After showing
footage of the incident, CNN anchors said, "Wow, what a great story," followed
by the comment that, "everything turned out okay." It's good they
said this, otherwise viewers might interpret civilian deaths as a sign
things turned out badly.
On April 10,
CBS's Dan Rather was with the Army 3rd Infantry Division on a road west
of Baghdad. Footage showed them open fire on an approaching vehicle
because, as he put it, "who was in it…we do not know," but they "weren't
taking any chances."
April 11 brought
word of more civilians killed at a checkpoint in Najaf, two of whom were
Iraqi children. This was justified by General Myers and Secretary
Rumsfeld during their press briefing that day, because the vehicle "failed
to obey warnings to stop." Past experience might lead us to question
if we are hearing the truth about "warnings;" but even if it were true,
would it justify the death of innocent people, of children?
With fears of
suicide bombings high, and the threshold for shooting at cars so low, we
can expect to see more such killings of innocent Iraqis. Even when
the war ends, the fear of more suicide attacks will remain, so the "five
second" rule will likely stay in place. Civilian casualties due to
direct fire have become increasingly frequent in this war, and may well
increase as tensions grow between the "liberators" and their victims.
77
A BESIEGED BASRA
Basra has
been a city under siege. Likewise, facts about what is really happening
in the southern Iraqi town have also been surrounded and attacked as mercilessly
as the citizens of Basra. There were reports on March 22 that water
and electrical facilities in Basra had been cut off. On March 25
came reports of an uprising against the Ba'ath party. March 28 brought
reports of Iraqi forces firing artillery at civilians attempting to flee
the city.
When no uprising
succeeded in stopping Iraqi forces from maintaining their hold on the city,
we heard reports that the Fedayeen and Ba'ath party fighters were forcing
people to remain in Basra and resist, that these "death squads" (as Bush
administration and Pentagon officials demand the forces be called) killed
anyone who didn't fight, or threatened to murder their families.
We were told the Iraqi fighters used civilians as "human shields," that
they were using schools and hospitals for shelter.
Military officials
claim U.K. forces are showing great restraint, to avoid civilian casualties.
The British troops, they claim, are only striking at the "death squads"
terrorizing the Basra residents. These residents, we are told, will
welcome British and U.S. forces as liberators once the city is placed under
coalition control.
On April 6,
U.K. forces appeared to make their move on Basra, and by April 8 they claimed
the last pockets of resistance were being "mopped up." The Pentagon
and U.S. media assured us that the Iraqis in Basra happily greeted coalition
forces, and that all would soon be well in the city.
Now, let's look
beyond the propaganda. On March 22, water and electrical facilities
in Basra were indeed shut off. However, claims that Hussein's government
"turned off" the spigots are totally false. Both CNN and CBS reported
on March 22 that U.S. bombing around Basra had struck the Wafa al-Qaed
water treatment plant, and knocked out high-tension electric cables, cutting
power to the city.
CBS went so
far as to point out that its reports were approved by U.S. military commanders
at the scene. The CBS report came from embedded journalist John Roberts,
a reporter whose name will come up again.
By the end of
the day, however, reports about the U.S. bombings disappeared from the
mainstream media, replaced by assertions that "the Iraqi regime" was responsible,
casually mentioning that no U.S. bombs had fallen near Basra. In
fact, on March 21, John Roberts of CBS reported that the U.S. 3rd Calvary
Division approaching Basra used napalm and artillery to strike Iraqi sites
near Safwan (the same place and the same day that oil wells erupted in
flames), just miles from Basra.
A U.S. Colonel
confirmed the use of napalm to a reporter for the Herald, but this was
later denied by a Navy Lieutenant Colonel in Washington (who surely is
more informed about the battle than the soldiers who actually fought).
On March 25,
Roberts also filed a report noting that U.S. soldiers guarding the Kuwaiti-Iraq
border would allow no food or water supplies to move towards Basra, so
relief agencies were not even moving supplies towards the border.
He went on to say that it would not be "days, but weeks" before any food
or water was allowed to proceed to the city.
What do we know
of the results of U.S. destruction of the water and electrical facilities?
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) spokesperson Antonella
Notari says people are drinking water with sewage in it, and engineers
from ICRC say only 50-percent of the Basra citizens have water from the
back-up generators, which they describe as merely a "stopgap measure."
Iraqis can be seen filling up containers with water from the polluted Shatt-al-Arab
River, in an al-Jazeera tape filmed in Baghdad.
The WHO is concerned
that diarrhea and cholera, measles, and respiratory infections may break
out among the population. UNICEF says up to 100,000 children under
five years old are at "immediate risk" of disease from lack of clean water.
78
Lack of electrical
power means hospitals, already overrun by large numbers of casualties and
the main one (Basra General Hospital) struck by British fire, are at even
more dire straights to deal with their patients. Blood, for example,
cannot be stored without freezers. Incubators cannot function.
Also, foodstuff cannot be kept cold and meat cannot be frozen.
The "uprising"
of March 25 proved to be a bit disappointing, to the extent that it never
occurred. Footage from Basra on March 27 and 28, filmed by al-Jazeera,
showed hundreds of Iraqi soldiers in the city, in the middle of the streets,
and contained interviews with Iraqi citizens. No uprising was evident
at all, and the Ba'ath party seemed quite in control of the city.
Further, Abu
Islam, spokesperson for the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq, told reporters, "No, there is no uprising. Some disturbances
took place last night…but it was not widespread…[t]he people chanted slogans
against Saddam." An al-Jazeera reporter in Basra reported, "There
are no indications in the city that the people rose up against the regime,
and a state of calm prevails in the city." As we learned in the following
days, no uprising emerged.
The media reported
on March 28 that civilians fleeing Basra were fired on by Iraqi artillery,
but the footage of the events and some of the reported facts seemed to
prove otherwise. CBS images showed a line of civilians approaching
U.K. troops along a long road leading out of Basra. Artillery fire
is heard, but none is ever seen striking the road or anywhere near the
civilians.
Moreover, the
British are shown firing artillery "to protect the civilians," but this
is while the citizens are still far off from them, and it occurs as the
Iraqis are leaving Basra. Iraqi artillery fire only appears loud
and threatening as the civilians approach the U.K. troops. After
conferring with the British, the civilians turn and head back into the
city, and still not a single scene of artillery striking them is shown.
This sequence
of events appears to show that the British were firing artillery as soon
as Iraqis left the city; that no artillery was near these civilians until
they were closer to the U.K. forces; and thus that the Iraqi troops were
directing their fire at the British position, not the civilians.
Since the artillery fire out of the city was heaviest near and beyond the
British position (straddling the road), the citizens seemed to decide it
was too unsafe to proceed and went back into Basra. Again, at no
time were any Iraqis seen in danger from artillery directed out of the
city.
Now consider
the claim itself: Iraqi civilians tried to leave, were attacked by
soldiers in the town, so they left the "liberating" British troops (whom
they had reached) and returned to a city full of "death squads" who had
just tried to kill them. How believable, how sensible, does this
sound?
Instead, think
about this version of events: the British and Iraqi troops are exchanging
artillery fire, civilians decided to flee the besieged city, but upon reaching
the British position they realize the artillery fire blocks their progress.
Thus, they return to the city rather than remain with the British, where
the artillery fire is coming down as well. Perhaps, since the civilians
are shown speaking with the British troops briefly, the U.K. soldiers convinced
them it was unsafe to continue down the road and that they would be safer
back in their homes.
At any rate,
no Iraqis were found who could confirm the "Iraqi artillery fire" threatened
or injured them, and none of the CBS or CNN footage showed artillery fire
near the civilians. It is actually a bit sinister that both news
networks showed their clips out of order, attempting to confirm the official
version of events. By watching carefully and noting where the Iraqis
are when each side is firing artillery, however, the true story becomes
clear.
As for the continuous
tales of "human shields," "death squads," and stories that Iraqi troops
used schools and hospitals as shelter, only a few points need to be made.
First, not a single Iraqi civilian casualty has been reported due to use
of "human shields," and no footage has been seen of such behavior by Iraqi
troops.
If the term
"human shields" is meant to apply to the fact that Iraqi forces were based
in the city where civilians are located, it must be pointed out that any
defense of any city would be the same; does anyone accuse the Polish of
using "human shields" because they tried to defend Warsaw? Of course
not, because when we look at such behavior in this context, we realize
how ridiculous the claim is. To defend a city, troops must be in
it, just as one must enter a city to invade it.
79
The phrase "death
squads" is equally absurd, since the only confirmations of any civilian
casualties in this war are from U.S. and British bombings and shootings.
If we are to apply the phrase at all, we should at least be honest enough
to use it in situations where we know it actually applies, yet nobody is
calling the U.S. Army or Marine Corps "death squads"—well, perhaps the
Iraqis they are murdering call them this, but certainly not the U.S. media.
Where are the
scenes of Iraqi "death squads" in this war? Where are the images
of the civilians they are murdering? Nowhere, not one single image
of one single Iraqi civilian killed by the Fedayeen or Iraqi Army.
Is this to imply
the Ba'athists and Fedayeen forces are not killing innocent civilians at
all? Well, maybe they are. Considering the nature of the forces
and what we know of the Iraqi government's past, it would not be hard to
believe.
However, the
point is that no evidence exists that they have done so in this war.
If they are to be accused, at least some evidence should be shown.
Reports from the Pentagon or President Bush do not count as "proof," although
they and the media seem to think it is the best proof there is.
Regarding the
issue of Iraqi troops using schools and hospitals as bases, let's remember
something. While CBS reported that Iraqi forces in Basra were using
"schoolchildren" to shield their troops, the actual incident they referred
to involved a school building used to stage attacks on British forces—and
both CBS and CNN informed us days before that school had been cancelled
when the war started. So, there were no children in that deserted
school, only soldiers.
It appears some
hospitals did become "bases," although footage from these hospitals seems
to show that most of the Iraqi troops there were injured, which is why
they were in the hospital in the first place. Obviously, as the war
raged and soldiers were injured, they had to be treated in hospitals in
the city. Not a shred of evidence was put forth (not even claims
from the British troops) to back up the assertions that Iraqis launched
attacks from the hospital.
Besides, if
Iraqis did simply use hospitals to hide in, to avoid British attacks, it
is hardly as "evil" or any more a war crime than the British bombing of
hospitals. Basra General Hospital's orthopedic ward struck by British
artillery, killing six people, according to a Boston Globe reporter in
the city on April 8.
As far as the
claims that British troops are showing "restraint" and "avoiding civilian
casualties" in Basra, a few facts say all that needs to be said.
Scenes from
a hospital, in the al-Jazeera report, showed horrific images of civilians
injured and killed by the bombings and shelling of Basra. A little
girl, her intestines hanging from the side of her stomach, is wheeled into
an operating room, where a doctor pours water over her innards before applying
a bandage and preparing for surgery. Worst of all, the child is awake
and stares at her own intestines.
More dead children
are also shown. Another little girl nearly decapitated. Another
missing her ear and brain. A child with both feet gone. Screams
are heard through the hospital. Robert Fisk of the Independent, who
viewed the al-Jazeera tape in Baghdad, called the footage "raw, painful,
devastating."
Besides the
al-Jazeera tape, other evidence of U.K. and U.S. "restraint" is available.
The director of Basra General Hospital, Dr. Mussalim Mahdi al-Hassan, says
1,200 or more civilians have died since March 25. Dr. Hassan, who
has not left Basra General for two weeks, told Thanassis Cambanis of the
Boston Globe, "There has been no water here for two days."
Further, Hassan
told the reporter looters stole the engine for the morgue refrigerator,
and the bodies were rotting. When he asked U.K. troops to protect
the hospital, they refused, prompting him to ask Cambanis, "What are they
doing?"
The ICRC has
repeatedly said that hospitals are packed with civilians injured or dead
from British and U.S. bombing and shelling, and Basra General had at least
500 injured civilians on April 8. On the al-Jazeera tape, the Sheraton
Hotel in Basra is shown to have been hit by shelling.
Craters from
incoming British and U.S. ordnance can be seen all over, and huge explosions
were reported over portions of Basra by CNN on several days during the
siege, but especially during the British attack to take over the city.
Everywhere there are injured Iraqis, rubble from damaged and destroyed
buildings. This is the face of "restraint."
80
British troops
moved in to seize Basra on April 6, and the level of bombardment increased
dramatically. By April 8, Britain was claiming to be in control of
most of the city, with only "sporadic pockets of resistance" remaining.
While most major
media outlets claimed the Iraqis were greeting U.K. soldiers as "liberators,"
in fact this was putting a rather positive spin on things. Many reports
of anger and resentment among Basra residents started filtering out.
Doctors in particular seemed angry over the destruction proceeding "liberation."
When widespread
looting broke out all over the city, the British were blamed for the lack
of law and order. High school chemistry teacher Faheed Ahmed said,
"…[w]e don't appreciate the foreign army coming into our country and letting
people destroy our public resources," as looters stripped Basra University
of computers, furniture, and books.
On April 9,
PBS's Jim Lehrer News Hour showed scenes of Basra residence that Terence
Smith referred to as "desperate for water," and Doctor Abbas Ijam was shown
saying hospitals are overcrowded and overrun with casualties, noting with
frustration, "without electricity and water, nothing can function."
Mohammed Baqir
al-Halim, leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,
stated: "Iraqis will resist if they [U.S. and British forces] seek
to occupy or colonize our country." Shia Muslims are still bitter
over what they feel was a desertion of their cause in 1991, when residents
in Basra rose up against Saddam Hussein's rule at the urging of then-President
Bush.
Rather than
supporting the Shias, however, the U.S. allowed Hussein's forces to crush
the rebellion. This, coupled with the massive civilian toll of this
war on Basra's residents, as well as fears that the U.S. and Britain might
try to occupy Iraq, all serve to make the Iraqi population distrustful
of coalition forces in Basra (as well as elsewhere in the country).
Hassan Akool,
a Basra resident, told the Boston Globe, "The coalition says it wants to
protect the Iraqi people, but nobody cares." He added, "The Iraqi
people are unhappy now…[i]f the things the coalition promised do not happen,
we will be very disappointed."
Khalil Yusuf
Abdurrahman, referring to Fedayeen fighters in Basra, told the Boston Globe,"[They]
did a good job, but if God is willing, all Iraqis will fight to defend
their country." Citizens of Basra, the Globe reported, said it was
"unconscionable" for U.K. troops to allow looting in the city. Indeed,
many news outlets (including CNN, CBS, PBS, and the BBC) have begun to
refer to conditions in Basra as "anarchy."
Such are the
real facts about the siege of Basra—truths and images conspicuously absent
from most mainstream media, just like almost all other truths in this war.
81
KURDISH VICTIMS OF LIBERATION
Of all
the oppressed groups in Iraq, perhaps the Kurds received the most coverage
before the war, as the Bush administration and U.S. press spoke of high-minded
ideals of liberation and freedom for Iraqi citizens. How, then, have
the Kurds fared in this war against Iraq? Not as well as might be
expected.
First
came the threats from Turkey that troops were preparing to invade northern
Iraq, ostensibly to "stabilize" the area and prevent Kurds from declaring
an autonomous state or seizing the oil fields in Kirkuk. The U.S.
seemingly alleviated the situation and kept the Turkish forces out, but
only by promising Kurds would be kept under control and a Kurdish state
prevented.
Then,
on March 23, came the first U.S. strikes on Kurdish citizens. At
12:30 am, a U.S. laser-guided missile exploded in a dormitory in the northern
town of Khormal, killing between 30 and 45 people and injuring many others.
Khormal is home to the Islamic group Komala, and the town is next to the
mountain town of Halabja, where another Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam,
has their headquarters.
On the weekend
of March 21-23, the U.S. launched a massive air strike on Ansar al-Islam,
with over 70 missiles exploding in the northern region. However,
four of those missiles landed in Khormal, and Kurdish officials claim 150
or more people were killed over that weekend in northern Iraq.
Komala
is not linked to Ansar al-Islam, and it has remained questionable whether
the strike on Khormal was accidental or intentional. U.S. forces
have been working with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and PUK
regional Prime Minister Barham Salih said, "Obviously civilian casualties
are a major concern to us…[b]ut we have told these guys to stay away from
Ansar. They have nobody to blame but themselves."
He says Komala
failed to distinguish itself enough from Ansar, so the attack was "the
price" they paid. Another PUK official was more blunt in comments
that appeared in the Globe and Mail. Speaking supposedly off-the-record,
this official said, "There is no distinction between the Islamic parties.
The best thing is to eliminate them."
Whereas
the members of Khormal have previously been opponents of the Iraqi government,
the anger over the U.S. attack has created much bitterness. The nephew
of one Kurdish victim told The Guardian's Luke Harding, "We don't understand.
Why did America do this?"
He went on to
add, "This makes us love Saddam Hussein rather than America." Yet
another resident of Khormal told Harding, "The U.S. has committed an injustice."
Sheikh Mohsim, the Komala leader, said, "We deplore this decision to attack
us since we have been against the [Saddam Hussein] regime, not America."
As the nephew mentioned earlier said, when asked whom he preferred now,
"We prefer Saddam."
Then came
more Kurdish deaths. On April 7, American F-15s accidentally bombed a convoy
of Kurdish and U.S. forces, killing as many as 17 people. BBC reporter
John Simpson, who was not only a witness to the attack but a victim (he
suffered ruptured ear drums and shrapnel wounds, and his translator was
killed), described the attack as a "disaster", saying, "This is like a
scene from hell." The incident was presumably an accident, but it
is just one more example of Kurdish suffering at the hands of the U.S.
Those
familiar with Iraqi history will recall that the gassing of Kurds, which
the current Bush administration condemns so loudly, was overlooked by the
Reagan/Bush administration, and the Army War College actually placed blame
for the gassing on Iran (a claim that, while enjoying renewed attention
from war opponents prior to the ongoing invasion, was unfounded and merely
an attempt by the Reagan administration to justify its support for Saddam
Hussein). When former President Bush began the move towards war with
Iraq in the late 1980's, the gassings were suddenly attributed to Hussein.
82
After the Gulf
War, the plight of Kurds was used as justification to impose the "No Fly
Zones" over Iraq. Despite this "concern" for their safety, the fact
is when the Kurds attempted to rebel (at the prodding of President Bush)
they were ruthlessly crushed by Hussein's forces, because the U.S. decided
to let the Iraqi military use its helicopters to attack and repress the
Kurds.
With the
apparent fall of the Ba'athists in Iraq on April 9, did the door open for
full Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq? Don't bet on it. The
morning of April 10 brought news that the U.S. had agreed to let Turkey
send in "observers," to insure the Kurds are kept on a short leash.
Further, the U.S. that same morning gave a guarantee to Turkey that the
oil-rich city of Kirkuk would not be turned over to Kurdish control, something
the PUK has voiced as one of their goals.
Kurds
have long suffered due to U.S. policy in the Middle East. These latest
examples are, unfortunately, just more of the same. Based on the
understanding between the U.S. and Turkey regarding Kurdish autonomy, it
is a history we can expect to see repeated in both Iraq and Turkey for
a long time to come.
83
DISSENT IN THE RANKS
Strong voices
are being raised in protest against U.S. actions in Iraq that do not emanate
from the anti-war movement. These new complaints come from perhaps
an unlikely source: Britain. True, the public in that nation
has been largely against this war from the start, but the sentiment is
spreading.
Between March
29 and April 5, four reports came out containing significant information
about changing attitudes in Britain. First, on March 29, the BBC
issued a directive to its journalists that, due to the quantity of false
reports issuing from the Pentagon, all military sources must be attributed
clearly.
The Guardian reported that news chiefs at the BBC
are increasingly concerned about repeated cases of their reports turning
out to be untrue, including reports on March 23 that U.K. forces had secured
the port of Umm Qasr (fighting continues long after the British military
said it was taken), a March 25 report of uprisings in Basra (no rebellion
took place), and March 26 reports of over 100 tanks leaving Basra (only
3 actually left).
Other stories,
such as claims that a chemical weapons factory was found in An Najaf, and
reports of Iraqi responsibility for missile attacks in Baghdad, also proved
to be false. The Guardian quoted a senior BBC source as saying, "We're
getting more truth out of Baghdad than the Pentagon at the moment."
Besides the
BBC, the U.K. military has also been a source of negative sentiments directed
at the U.S. handling of the war. On March 31, two separate
reports indicating this dissent appeared in the Guardian. Three British
soldiers were ordered home because of their objection to civilian deaths
at the hands of American soldiers. The U.K. troops, from the 16 Air
Assault Brigade in southern Iraq, are subject to court martial and have
sought legal advice.
Also on March
31, the Guardian reported statements from British troops who were mistakenly
bombed by U.S. pilots. Two were injured and one killed when their
convoy was attacked by an American A-10 Thunderbolt. The report quoted
Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, commander of the lead U.K. vehicle,
recovering in bed aboard the RFA Argus in the Persian Gulf, as saying,
"I can command my vehicle…[w]hat I have not been trained to do is look
over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me."
He went on to
state that a Union Jack (British Flag) is clearly visible on the back of
the reconnaissance Scimitars (the military vehicle the British engineers
were riding in), a symbol one-and-a-half foot wide. "For him to fire
his weapons I believe he had to look through his magnified optics.
How he could not see that Union Jack I don't know."
Other statements
by the U.K. troops called the actions of the U.S. pilot "incompetence and
negligence," and some even wanted to see the pilot prosecuted for manslaughter.
When the A-10 circled around and attacked, firing not once but twice, the
first two Scimitars erupted in flames (these vehicles were filled with
hundreds of rounds of ammunition, grenades, and diesel fuel), according
to the Guardian. LCoH Gerrard is also quoted as claiming, "[A] boy
of about 12 years old…was no more than 20 meters away when the Yank opened
up." He added, "He had absolutely no regard for human life.
I believe he was a cowboy."
Other British
troops agreed. Noting that all the vehicles were marked as "Coalition",
Trooper Chris Finney said, "I don't know why he shot a second time, he
was that close." The Guardian also quoted Trooper Joe Woodgate, who
stated, "It was the most irresponsible thing in the world. They didn't
know what was going on."
Damning as all
of this is, the criticisms don't stop there. In yet another report
from the Guardian, on April 1, senior British officers are quoted as being
highly critical of the methods used by U.S. forces to deal with civilians.
In particular, the paper says these officers were "appalled" by reports
of U.S. Marines' killing of Iraqis near Nassiriya at the end of March.
One source was quoted as saying, "You can see why the Iraqis are not welcoming
us with open arms."
84
General Sir
Mike Jackson, at a press conference in London March 28, said, "We are not
interested in gratuitous violence." A British officer told the Guardian
U.S. soldiers are "reluctant" to get out of armored military vehicles.
When Americans are walking around, he said, they are wearing full armor
and gear. The British, by comparison, are more likely to remove helmets
and body armor, and tend to walk around amongst the Iraqis.
Other British
military sources called U.S. tactics "more brutal," and the Guardian says
U.K. senior sources are making a point of highlighting "trigger happy"
U.S. soldiers. Towards the end of the story, Lord Guthrie (former
chief of defense staff) is quoted as saying, "The Americans talk about
the warrior ethic and…that peacekeeping is for wimps."
The final example
of a new attitude emerging in Britain came on April 5, in an al-Jazeera
report by Ruben Bannerjee. The story quotes David Blunkett, British
Home Secretary, in a radio interview as saying weapons of mass destruction
may not be found in Iraq, noting, "We will obviously have a very interesting
debate if there are no biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear weapons
or facilities to produce them found anywhere in Iraq once Iraq is free."
General Richard
Myers echoed the admission that such weapons might not exist in Iraq that
same day at a press briefing carried by CNN. Myers told the reporters,
"It appears out initial intelligence was wrong," about WMD sites in Iraq.
He was responding to questions about whether the detailed intelligence
data the U.S. claims to have (supposedly proving Iraq has WMD) has led
to the discovery of weapons at those sites.
While British
Home Secretary Blunkett's comments aren't exactly as strong as others emanating
from the Brits lately, the fact that he said an "interesting debate" would
occur, whereas General Myers refused to acknowledge that WMD might not
be found or that this would undermine the legitimacy of the war, is still
significant.
At the current
pace, one might speculate that in a few more weeks, Tony Blair will be
the only person in Britain who still supports the U.S. actions in Iraq.
It must be remembered, however, that despite these recriminations from
the U.K., the fact remains that British forces are stationed in and around
Basra and Umm Qasr, and both areas have suffered either large-scale civilian
casualties, lack of adequate relief aid, or both. The U.K. troops
are hardly innocent when it comes to atrocities in this war. In fact,
it may enhance the point that the degree of U.S. brutality must be significant
to draw such strong opposition from British forces.
Still, there
do appear to be many more cases of dissent in the British ranks, and the
fact that so many examples have become public recently certainly works
against the Bush administration and Pentagon's claims that they are "liberators."
It is unfortunate
that none of this is getting much attention in the U.S. media. Unfortunate,
but not surprising. Nor is it surprising that, in the end, none of
this criticism from the U.K. is having any effect on how the U.S. perpetrates
the war. We are left to hope that it will at least make Britain think
twice before following the U.S. into other illegal invasions, which are
almost certainly just on the horizon.
85
CLUSTER BOMBS IN IRAQ
The use
of cluster munitions by U.S. forces in Iraq has been confirmed by eyewitness
accounts from journalists and civilians, as well as footage of cluster
bombs being used. The Pentagon has finally admitted the use of these
weapons, but still denies cluster bombs are responsible for massive civilian
casualties in Iraq, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Cluster
bombs are filled with smaller explosive sub-munitions, which are released
from the primary container over a target area, where they spread out and
explode. Cluster munitions can be used in bombs, missiles, or artillery
shells. Some cluster weapons, like certain Sensor-Fused Weapons,
may contain as few as 10 sub-munitions (each of which, in turn, contains
four smaller warheads that are released), while other Sensor-Fused Weapons
may have over 200 sub-munitions.
The M26 warhead
contains 644 sub-munitions, called M77 (also known as "dual-purpose grenades").
M483A1 and M864 artillery shells contain 88 and 72 sub-munitions (dual-purpose
grenades), respectively. The areas cluster bombs cover can be quite
large, with the M26 scattering bomblets over an area of between 120,000
to 240,000 square meters.
Besides the
obvious damage such weapons can do when they are used, there is another
danger that is perhaps more deadly. Cluster munitions have a high
failure rate, so many of the sub-munitions do not detonate. Instead,
they land on the ground, where they stay scattered until someone (usually
a civilian) steps on them or attempts to pick them up. The sub-munitions
in the M26 warhead have a failure rate of 16-percent, according to the
Department of Defense report to Congress in February 2000.
The M483A1 and
M864 sub-munitions have a failure rate of 14-percent. According to
Colin King, a British bomb disposal officer who served in the Gulf War,
and author of Jane's Explosive Ordnance Disposal guide, cluster munitions
have an overall failure rate of between 10 and 15-percent.
Video footage
of fighting in Iraq shows the Army 3rd Infantry Division using Multiple
Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), artillery systems that use only cluster munitions.
They fire the M26 warhead. In other footage, The 1st Battalion of
the 39th Field Artillery Regiment has 18 or more MLRS. In other footage,
the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion is supported by Marine artillery
units, who fired 155mm projectiles identified as either M483A1 or M864
artillery shells.
A reporter embedded
with the Marines said that hundreds of grenades were being fired at Iraqi
forces. These tapes have been viewed by Human Rights Watch, and the
use of cluster munitions confirmed.
On March 28,
a helicopter attack by Army 101st Airborne Division was supported by 18
Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) fired against Iraqi air defense
units. ATACMS carry 300 or 950 M74 sub-munitions. The Washington
Post reported this the following day.
The most graphic
example of cluster bombs wreaking havoc on Iraqi civilians, however, occurred
March 29 through April 1 in what Pepe Escobar of The Asian Times described
as "uninterrupted, furious American bombing." The target: Hilla,
a city south of Baghdad. The victims: almost every single one
a civilian.
Hilla, once called Babylon, is surrounded by small villages. The
whole area was attacked, in air assaults that lasted several days.
Hilla's hospital received hundreds of casualties. Roland Huguenin-Benjamin,
spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross, confirms
at least 460 wounded and several dozen dead, all of them "farmers, women
and children." Journalists counted at least 60 or more dead.
Robert Fisk
of the Independent says there are 61 dead, and he notes that these are
"only those who were brought to the hospital" either already dead or injured.
Nobody knows yet how many more are buried in rubble, or who had no one
to bring their bodies in, or who were injured but did not go to the hospital
and died later.
86
Fisk also reports
that on April 1, the U.S. attacks struck the village of Hindiyeh, where
the man who went to gather the dead told the hospital "the only living
thing he found in the area was a hen." 11 Iraqis, three of who were
children, died.
The wounds of
Iraqis in Hilla are severe, as the cluster bombs sent fragments of metal
tearing into their flesh. Camera crews from the AP and Reuters recorded
scenes of children torn apart, babies split completely in half, arms and
legs cut off, bodies shredded, blood everywhere. The camera crews
reported that there were two trucks piled with bodies parked at the hospital.
Robert Fisk
speaks of seeing children with deep lacerations on their heads and bodies,
and women covered in wounds. Mr. Huguenin-Benjamin said, "We saw
that a truck was delivering dozens of totally dismembered dead bodies of
women and children. It was an awful sight." He also noted,
"[E]verybody had very serious wounds…small toddlers of two or three years
of age who had lost their legs, their arms." The Guardian says footage
from the hospital shows huge pools of blood on the floor.
The Pentagon
claims no cluster munitions were used on Hilla. There is much indisputable
evidence that proves the denials are nothing but lies. A correspondent
for Agence France Presse, Nayla Razzouk, reports seeing cluster ordnance
debris with the tiny parachutes still attached (cluster bombs tend to have
these, to slow the decent of the bombs for the release of sub-munitions
over a wide area). Dr. Nazem el-Adali confirmed the Iraqis were victims
of cluster bombs.
Robert Fisk
also reports "the remains of tiny bomblet littered the ground beside the
scorch marks." He goes on to say that Sky Television's crew in Baghdad,
which visited the village of Nadr in the Hilla area, actually brought back
"a set of bomblet shrapnel…the wicked metal balls that are intended to
puncture the human body still locked into their frame…"
The victims
themselves describe seeing the sub-munitions falling from the sky, the
bomblets blasting through doors and windows. Several Iraqis said
the munitions did not go off until someone stepped on them or tried to
pick them up. Mohamed Moussa informed Fisk that "we still have some
in our home, unexploded."
The scene in
Hilla was repeated on April 4, when civilians in the western sections of
Baghdad were reportedly arriving at hospitals with injuries from cluster
munitions. In Furad, in the Doura district of Baghdad, reports in
the Independent claim over 80 Iraqis died in the attacks. Wounded
civilians reported seeing the cluster bombs falling "like small stones."
All of this
evidence, coupled with Pentagon admissions that cluster weapons are being
used in Iraq, seems to prove what happened in Hilla, and what probably
happened in Baghdad.
The use of such weapons, or any weapons for that matter, against civilians
is not only unconscionable, it is a war crime. Of course, with so
many already under its belt, why should the U.S. stop now?
87
PENTAGON'S VERSION
OF "STOP THE PRESS"
The U.S.
invasion of Iraq took an ominous turn on April 8 (or, more precisely, yet
another ominous turn). In three separate incidents, the American
military attacked journalists in Baghdad, killing three of them and injuring
many others. Worse still, at least two of the attacks appear to have
been deliberate, and the third highly suspect.
At just
after 7:35 in the morning, al-Jazeera's chief correspondent in Baghdad
stood on the roof of the news station's headquarters in that city, reporting
on a battle nearby. The reporter, Tariq Ayoub, was with cameraman
Zouhair al-Iraqi and another colleague, Maher Abdullah. They saw
a U.S. jet diving towards the building, so low they "actually heard the
rocket being launched," said Mr. Abdullah. Actually, two missiles
hit the building. At least one of the missiles struck the building's
electrical generator and exploded, killing reporter Ayoub and wounding
the cameraman.
A few
background bits of information make it clear this attack was intentional,
despite the empty assertions by Pentagon and Bush administration officials
that they would never target journalists. First is the fact that
in the invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001, the al-Jazeera office in the capital
city of Kabul was blasted by a U.S. cruise missile, and the U.S. never
even tried to explain the incident.
The second inconvenient
fact is that, in February of this year al-Jazeera made sure the Pentagon
had the coordinates for the Baghdad office. They were given guarantees
it would not be attacked. Even more importantly, the very day before
the attack, Nabil Khouri of the U.S. State Department actually went to
the al-Jazeera building and reiterated the guarantee that al-Jazeera would
not be attacked.
Reinforcing
the appearance that the attack was deliberate, minutes later a second attack
occurred, less than a mile away, at the headquarters of the news station
Abu Dhabi TV, leaving up to 30 journalists trapped under debris after an
artillery strike. Like al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi TV provided the coordinates
of its building to the Pentagon. Both networks have been criticized
for their coverage of the war, for showing footage of civilian casualties
and broadcasting images of U.S. POWs.
The attacks
did not stop there, however. About four hours later, before noon,
journalists at the Palestine hotel were at work broadcasting images from
Baghdad. Some stood outside on balconies, in clear view of U.S. forces.
Many of them were filming American tanks in the area, including cameraman
Taras Protsyuk from the Ukraine working for Reuters, and a France 3 news
crew.
A U.S. M1A1
tank was on the Jamhuriya Bridge nearby, and the French crew was filming
it. Sky Television correspondent David Chater, on his way out to
a balcony, saw the tank as well. The Independent's Robert Fisk was
outside the hotel, driving down a road that ran between the Palestine Hotel
and the Jamhuriya bridge, where the M1A1 sat.
Suddenly,
Mr. Chater saw the tank barrel moving, pointing at the hotel. The
France 3 crew filmed as the tank fired, catching the image of the burst
of fire from the barrel. Mr. Fisk heard the blast from the tank.
The shell crashed into the 15th floor, where the Ukrainian Mr. Protsyuk,
David Chater, Reuters staff member Paul Pasquale and reporter Samia Nakhoul,
and at least one more journalist were at that moment.
On the 16th
floor, Jose Couso of Telecinco (Tele 5) was also severely injured, as was
a Fuji TV cameraman. Charter says that after the shell hit, there
was much chaos and panic, "French journalists screaming, 'Get a doctor,
get a doctor.'" He said everyone started putting on flak jackets.
Taras
Protsyuk died soon after the attack, and Jose Couso died 30 minutes after
one of his legs was amputated. Several other reporters were wounded.
The videotapes
and photographs of the event show clearly that the M1A1 tank fired the
shot that struck the hotel. Of great importance is the fact that
on none of these films is there any sound of gunfire prior to the tank's
shot, and Robert Fisk insists that as he passed between the hotel and the
bridge, there was no incoming fire at the U.S. tanks. CBS's Lara
Logan reported that there was no Iraq fire from the hotel or even close
to the hotel.
88
All of the journalists
in the Palestine Hotel say the same thing: no shots came from the
hotel, and many reporters and cameramen were clearly visible at and around
the hotel at the time. This is completely proven by the film taken
during the attack, as already noted above.
The tanks
were with the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division, under command of General
Buford Blout. General Blout stated that rocket and sniper fire emanated
from the Palestine Hotel's lobby, so his tanks had fired and the enemy
fire stopped.
Again, this
is totally false, as both eyewitness accounts and multiple images of the
attack prove. Besides, if the "hostile fire" came from the lobby,
why did the M1A1 blast the 15th floor of the hotel? Further, many
journalists have asserted that the news crews at the hotel went to great
lengths to insure no Iraqi fighters used the building as a staging area
for attacks.
The Palestine
Hotel has been the headquarters for journalists throughout the war, and
the U.S. military was well aware of this fact, just as it was aware of
the coordinates for the al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV buildings. These
three attacks, so precise and obviously unprovoked, at locations known
beyond any doubt to be news buildings, within a span of four hours, coming
just days after Iraqi television was purposefully taken out by U.S. bombings,
seems to be a clear pattern designed to send a clear signal.
The message
was enhanced in statements by U.S. officials after the attacks. Pentagon
spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Dave Lapan said, "We have warned news organizations
that being in Baghdad would be very unsafe once military action began."
Reuters reporter Merissa Marr, in an April 9 story about the attacks, noted
that a spokesperson for the Spanish Defense Ministry said the U.S. had
"warned journalists that the Baghdad hotel attacked 'could become a military
target.'"
Why on earth
would the Palestine Hotel become a "military target?" What could
such a warning possibly be based on, since the hotel, even at the time
the warning was issued and afterwards, was never in any way the site of
Iraqi military forces? But wait, there is more.
Brigadier General
Vincent Brooks, another Pentagon spokesperson, stated that "non-embedded"
journalists work at their own risk, and added the U.S. military has no
responsibility to protect journalists operating "independently" in Iraq.
"Non-embedded" and "operating independently" are phrases popping up with
much frequency in Pentagon statements regarding danger to reporters.
It's not a coincidence.
At this
point, it would be almost redundant to point out that, in fact, the U.S.
military does have a responsibility to protect the safety of journalists,
since reporters are civilians and thus protected by international law.
As we all know by now, "international law" has become a somewhat laughable
phrase at this point, much like the term "war crimes" (read: U.S. military
policy).
A relevant
fact to remember is that another non-embedded journalist, Terry Lloyd from
ITN, was killed near Basra when U.S. troops opened fire on his news crew.
Moments before the shooting started, several Iraqi soldiers attempted to
surrender to the ITN crew, and once the U.S. forces opened fire, Lloyd
and the rest of the crew tried to run away from the Iraqis. However,
the Americans kept directing shots at them, murdering Lloyd.
And on April
7, the Independent reported that a Reuters photographer was shot at by
U.S. Marines in front of the Rashid Hotel as he passed a scene where the
troops were shooting civilians and motorists as well as Iraqi militiamen
in the area. The journalist escaped with bullet holes in his vehicle,
but luckily not in him.
When the
U.S. bombed the Iraqi Information Ministry headquarters on March 29-30,
this received less attention from the mainstream U.S. media, despite the
fact that the Ministry building was the headquarters for foreign news media.
However, these new attacks, particularly the attack on the Palestine Hotel,
have provoked a surprising outcry from media outlets worldwide, including
mainstream U.S. media sources. So many have issued harsh, angry statements
condemning the attacks that it would be easier to list the news organizations
and stations that did not respond strongly.
89
The most
troubling aspect of this response is that the media, who usually act largely
as propaganda mouth-pieces for governments, but who nevertheless tend to
know more than they ever tell their audiences, seem to be either publicly
or privately expressing the same main concern: that the U.S. military is
intentionally targeting journalists now.
Of course,
one does not have to be in possession of "unknown facts" to reach this
conclusion. With regard to the al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV bombings,
it is ludicrous to deny the buildings were specifically targeted.
The evidence is simply too overwhelming.
At the Palestine
Hotel, the only reason to even consider the attack may not have deliberately
targeted journalists is that so many mainstream U.S. media outlets were
present, and so many of them were actually filming the events. Take
note, however, that by April 10, CNN was no longer even mentioning the
attacks, and CBS news that day also made no mention of the story.
One minor
critique of the attitude of the mainstream press is noteworthy here.
They are to be commended for their united front against the U.S. strikes
against journalists, and for their strongly worded condemnation of the
targeting of reporters who are (as the Committee to Protect Journalists
and others quickly pointed out) civilians, thus not legal targets of military
fire.
Unfortunately,
such admirable stands would be more meaningful, if the mainstream media
took the same view of the hundreds or thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties
in this war. Unfortunately, mainstream press reports have tended
to either ignore these incidents, or simply report the Pentagon's version
of events.
This is largely
a U.S. media and, in the U.K., BBC problem. Indeed, there are certainly
many journalists in Iraq devoted to reporting the horrific truths about
the murders and other war crimes committed by U.S. and U.K. troops, and
exposing the mountains of lies and propaganda spread in this war.
The Guardian and the Independent, al-Jazeera, and several others have distinguished
themselves with vivid reporting of the destruction wrought by the U.S.
invasion.
Sadly, too few
people are hearing or seeing these reports. If CNN could be replaced
by any one of the above sources of news for just one day, perhaps the warmongers
in Washington and London would quickly be out of jobs.
Of course, that
is probably the precise reason for the military attacks on journalists
in Iraq. The U.S. and U.K. governments cannot afford to have a public
that is well informed, and they have shown they are willing to do whatever
is necessary to preserve their domination of the truth, even if that means
extending the war to those reporting on it.
90
WELCOME TO THE LIBERATION
Here is
the face of liberation, American-style. This is the truth behind
CNN's running commercial for the U.S. military and President Bush's reelection
campaign. The U.S. invasion of Iraq has accomplished only one thing,
and that is the widespread destruction of Iraqi society and the murder
of huge numbers of civilians. No weapons of mass destruction.
No liberation, only occupation (in spite of the constant lies told every
day by the U.S. government about "turning over power to the Iraqi people").
Following are some facts about what happened to the oft-mentioned "Iraqi
people."
Stories
of the cluster bombing of Hilla are recounted above, as are tales of the
checkpoint murders and the conditions in Basra, the Shu'ale missile strike
and the attack on Syrian buses, the multiple attacks on Kurds and bombings
of the press buildings. This would all be more than enough horror
for a three-week war; however, there are still many other examples of the
destruction and death spread across Iraq. Far too many.
Mark Phillips
of CBS reporting from Basra treated us to scenes of a civilian building
that was bombed on March 31 in Basra. There was extensive damage,
and images of bloodied civilians. "There was nothing military here…why
was it hit?" cried out an angry Iraqi man in a crowd that gathered around
the bomb site. Footage at the hospital showed rooms packed with injured
civilians, with no bed space left as new casualties came in. This
was all the result of massive U.K. strikes with artillery and tanks, as
the British used their expertise at benign crowd control to win more hearts
and minds.
The Mansur
residential neighborhood of Baghdad was targeted by U.S. airstrikes on
March 28, to coincide with the traditional Muslim prayer hour on Fridays.
Three buildings were demolished in the assault. The next day, airstrikes
in Najif killed dozens of people and wounded over 100. Among the
dead were two surgeons and an ambulance driver, all three killed when a
missile struck their emergency vehicle.
Cathy
Breen is a member of the Iraqi Peace Team. Her report on April 1
described her visit to al-Amiin, a heavily populated residential area south
of Iraq, where three civilians (the oldest 18 years old, the youngest only
seven) died after a bomb struck the neighborhood on March 31. Many
other Iraqis were wounded, including a five-year-old with severe abdominal
injuries. The type of explosion and damage she describes seems to
suggest cluster munitions, although this may not be the case. Breen
says seven homes were hit after the bomb "exploded in the air and scattered,"
leaving "pockmarks" on walls of surrounding homes and metal fragments all
over the area. She also photographed pieces of the bomb, one of which
had the inscription JX2N8902, MADE IN USA, 8642.
UNICEF
issued a statement on April 2, warning that small, unexploded U.S. BLU
97 bomblets are the exact same yellow color as the food packets being handed
out by U.S. and U.K. forces in Iraq. These bomblets spread out over
large areas, and large numbers of them do not detonate. Instead,
they lie on the ground until an Iraqi (usually a child) mistakes them for
the food packets and tries to pick them up. The bombs then explode,
killing or severely maiming the civilians.
On April
3, Samia Nakhoul of Reuters (incidentally, one of the reporters on the
15th floor of the Palestine Hotel when U.S. forces attacked journalists
there) filed a report from a Baghdad hospital after an air attack hit Radwaniyeh,
close to the airport, on April 2. Six adults and 12 children were
hit in the attack. The report begins with a description of an eight-year-old
girl whose face and body are covered in lacerations from shrapnel, one
of her eyes missing. She cried out for her mother, who was in critical
condition with one of the girl's brothers. Her other brother, four-years-old,
was killed. Two sisters and the father were at another hospital,
severely injured.
Nakhoul's
report notes that, according to Doctor Ahmed Abdel Amir, children make
up such a large percentage (over half) of Iraq's population, they likewise
constitute a large number of casualties. A seven-year-old boy hit
in the abdomen by shrapnel from a missile that struck near his home, a
six-year-old with his guts visible because a missile exploded close to
his house (two others were killed). These children scream in pain,
tremble and grasp their mothers when the sounds of explosions echo outside.
They don't eat, they don't sleep, they simply cry and fear.
91
There
was the report in the New York Times, by Tyler Hicks and John Burns, on
April 3. They detailed scenes at a hospital filled with civilians
(mostly from Nadir, a village near Hilla) injured and murdered by the U.S.
cluster bomb attacks on that region. A little boy, alone, scared,
his arm amputated below the elbow. A young gas salesman, his leg
a bloody stump, his car hit by a U.S. tank shell. Cluster munitions
hit a bus, and one man's arm was amputated at the hospital, deep lacerations
on his legs. His mother died instantly in the attack. 18 people
on the bus died, another 16 were wounded.
The reporters
toured the area, saying small unexploded ordnance "lay scattered in profusion."
Doctor Saad al-Fallouji told the New York Times that on the single day
of April 1, 33 dead and 180 wounded came to the hospital, all of them civilians.
"All of them were from Nadir village, women and children and men of all
ages," he said, continuing, "Many of the bodies were completely torn apart."
The reporters described "a procession of coffins, and…torn bodies that
crowded the shelves of the large refrigerator…the wounded filling every
ward," a hospital description all-too-familiar in this war.
On their way
into Hilla, the New York Times said, reporters witnessed smoke rising from
the "completely flattened" remains of a park used for the yearly international
trade fair in Baghdad. The reporters were told the attack killed
nine women in a maternity clinic in the park.
Also on April 3, the Iraq Red Crescent (IRCS) released a statement
saying their maternity hospital in the al-Mansour district of Baghdad had
been damaged by a U.S./U.K. attack on nearby buildings. The report said
that three civilians were killed, another 27 injured, in the April 2 bombing.
The bombs or missiles struck a building next to the maternity hospital,
but the strength of the explosion caused the hospital's roof to collapse
and the windows to shatter.
Lara Logan,
also of CBS, traveled from Jordan towards Baghdad on April 4. Her
report focused on the destruction from U.S. bombs. She noted a bus,
clearly "civilian," burned and shattered, surrounded by bomb craters.
Bridges were demolished, collapsed, charred automobiles visible as the
news crew passed. The same day, Dan Rather grimly stated that "most
estimates" put the number of Iraqi casualties "in at least the low thousands."
Reports came
in the entire week of hospitals being overrun with massive numbers of civilian
casualties, prompting CBS's Dan Rather to note on April 7, "Baghdad hospitals
quit counting the dead and wounded…[due to] so many casualties."
The report went on to say that one hospital had received over 175 Iraqis
dead or injured by noon.
Lara Logan on
the same day reported from a Baghdad neighborhood she described as "completely
obliterated" by U.S. bombing, in what was later described by the Pentagon
as an attempt to hit Saddam Hussein or other high-level Iraqi officials.
Standing in front of an incredibly large pile of rubble, Logan spoke of
the casualties from the attack, and the scene cut away to images of wounded
children in a hospital.
When the camera
returned to Lara Logan, she turned and pointed at the rubble behind her.
"Four families lived here," she said. On PBS, the Jim Lehrer News
Hour that night also noted, "Hospitals are so overwhelmed…they can't keep
track" of the numbers of casualties.
At Baghdad's
Kindi Hospital on April 8, reporter Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post
described civilian casualties inundating the medical staff. Iraqis
were carried on stretchers "soaked in blood" in "an emergency room suffused
with the stench of blood, dirt and disinfectant." "I'm a civilian,"
groaned one man, "My car was attacked. They attacked my car."
From the village of Fahana, at the edge of Baghdad, came a young man who
recalled, "There was a missile that landed in front of my house."
His foot had just been amputated.
A woman and
her nephew were brought in after their family car was fired on by tanks
and armored personnel carriers on a bridge, both of them suffering burns.
"They were firing at any car, any person…It was like a public execution
in the street," said the woman's son. After trying to get medical
help at a neighborhood clinic, they tried a hospital near the Rashid Barracks.
It was "overwhelmed with military casualties," so they ended up at Kindi.
92
Body bags were
in the street outside the hospital's morgue. The Washington Post
described a chaotic situation, where doctors seemed out of everything they
needed, where medical staff worked without rest, and where the injured
and dead just kept coming in waves.
Terence
Smith, reporting from Basra for CBS on April 9, described people as "desperate
for water" while images of frantic people lined up to fill whatever containers
they had. At the city's largest hospital, Dr. Abbas Ijam told Smith,
"Without electricity and water, nothing can function." The hospital
was "overrun" with casualties.
In another
CBS report, an emotional Iraqi man held up a tiny jacket lying in blood
on a Baghdad street, where U.S. airstrikes left an unknown number of dead
and wounded April 9. Family after family appeared on camera, wailing
in grief. One Iraqi household lost four members in the attack.
The gray-haired man holding the little girl's jacket spoke with a mixture
of sorrow and fury: "Look. Iraqi child."
That evening,
on PBS's Jim Lehrer News Hour, Amanda Williamson of the International Committee
of the Red Cross said the ICRC suspended operations in Baghdad, as conditions
had become too dangerous and overwhelming, and an ICRC staff member was
feared dead.
Doctors Without
Borders withdrew from the city completely the same day, after two of their
members disappeared. Baghdad hospitals were in a "critical situation,"
Williamson said, "overflowing" with patients who came in such large numbers,
hospitals quit counting. One hospital received 100 patients per hour
on April 9. She also noted cases of dysentery and diarrhea were arriving
at hospitals, due to the lack of clean water in the city.
Ronald
Huguenin-Benjamin, spokesperson for International Committee of the Red
Cross, told CNN on April 9 that, "Casualties have been seen on the roads,
on some bridges, and there was no possibility of evacuating them," because
two ICRC vehicles, both clearly marked as such, came under fire.
Huguenin-Benjamin said further that ambulances are coming under fire in
many parts of Baghdad "due to heavy crossfire" from U.S. troops fighting
Iraqis. "The problem is not the lack of medicine in the hospitals.
The problem is the lack of respect for ambulances," he said.
April
11 brought some of the most vivid images CBS has shown during the war,
regarding the toll on civilians. Dan Rather said the "burned-out
hulks" of vehicles were "all over the city," referring to Baghdad.
Scenes of shattered buses, cars, burned trucks, sometimes with bodies in
them, and huge craters and rubble were shown as Rather spoke.
In footage from
the city's hospitals, horrible pictures played on the screen of adults
and children with terrible wounds, many without beds due to the overcrowded
conditions. Reporter Lee Cowan's voice-over described the "stench
of death" that spread through the hospital, noting that there was no anesthetic,
no electricity, no water. Cowen said that there were at least 100
casualties brought in April 11, but the hospital staff consists of only
one doctor, one surgeon, and two residents.
Suzanne Goldenberg,
of the Guardian, reported from Yarmouk Hospital in Baghdad, describing
scenes from hell. "U.S. soldiers…continued yesterday [April 11] to
open fire on civilian cars…unexploded ordinance [is] strewn about the city,"
she said. The home of one family from the Beyaa neighborhood was
bombed by U.S. planes April 7, and a man searched the morgue for his brother's
body. A U.S. tank shell exploded outside the hospital, "A young man,
naked to the waist, ran in screaming, waving his bloodied hands in the
air."
Doctor Mohammed
al-Hashimi told Goldenberg, "Many cars came…when they came, the American
forces shot them. Two cars near the hospital were hit, as well as
an ambulance just up the road. Doctor al-Hashimi continued, "There
were injured people in those cars…We were in our coats…We took a gurney
to transfer the injured patients. They saw them, and they still shot
them."
A wounded family
pulled up to the hospital in a sedan. A nine-month old girl was killed,
her mother and two cousins injured, when the infant "crawled over to a
small dark oval – a cluster bomblet – which detonated," said the Guardian
reporter.
93
As the
days go by, worse cases of looting and arson are occurring in the "liberated"
nation of Iraq. U.S. troops "police" the city streets not by preventing
looting or offering protection to hospitals and shop-owners; instead, soldiers
simply defend their positions.
On April 11,
for example, Robert Fisk reported in the Independent describing one U.S.
Marine sniper who fired on an Iraqi vehicle, injuring three civilians (one
of them a little girl), and then killed another civilian just because the
man walked outside to see what was happening. This same Marine, minutes
later, opened fire on another civilian car, killing the driver and injuring
two passengers, right in front of a news crew from Channel 4 Television.
Fisk's report also notes that the bodies of dead civilians "lay rotting
in their still-smoldering cars" in Daura, after being killed by U.S. soldiers
during fighting.
Relief agencies,
especially the ICRCS, have issued repeated statements about the deteriorating
conditions in Baghdad and Basra in particular, saying it will be impossible
to get food, water, and medical supplies to these areas unless order can
be restored. Weapons depots have been raided by Iraqi citizens, AK-47s,
rocket launchers, and other military weapons are being carted off by huge
crowds. Hospitals have been looted so often that some have had to
completely shut down.
The U.S. does
plan to provide policing for Iraq, but Iraqis should not rejoice at the
news. DynCorp has been awarded a multi-million dollar contract for
the job, according to reports from Reuters on April 11, and the Observer
on April 13. The Reuters report quotes Richard Boucher of the U.S.
State Department as saying DynCorp will provide 150 persons for the policing
in Iraq.
DynCorp provided
a similar police force in Bosnia, where these personnel were responsible
for involvement in the sex slave trade of children and videotaping women
being raped, according to testimony to the Congressional International
Relations and Human Rights Subcommittee.
DynCorp is also
responsible for using herbicides in Columbia (for the eradication of cocaine
crops) that destroyed legitimate crops and sickened or killed many civilians.
DynCorp's other work in Columbia involved supplying armed forces for destroying
cocaine crops and for search-and-rescue missions, the latter of which operated
without restrictions on human-rights abuses otherwise governing governmental
forces.
Lawsuits against
the company accused it of violating international laws such as the Torture
Victims Protection Act, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. With such forces now on their way to police Iraq, one might
speculate that Iraqis will eventually look back on their "lawless" days
of looting and anarchy with nostalgia.
And what of
those scenes of "jubilation" (the most over-used word in the media lately)
in Baghdad, of Iraqi civilians pulling down that statue of Saddam Hussein?
It was certainly good theatre, but hardly an honest picture of what really
happened that day. It might be pointed out, if anyone is interested
in the facts behind that instant-replay of the "fall of communism" images
from the late 1980's (indeed, the comparisons are so frequent in the media,
it is surpassed only by the maddening use of the "J-word" mentioned above).
Does it matter
that many of those "Iraqi citizens" shown crowded around as the statue
came down were, in fact, part of a group consisting of Ahmed Chalabi and
his aides. Chalabi is an Iraqi exile who returned to Iraq as part
of the new leadership chosen by the U.S. The area around the statue
had already been cordoned-off by U.S. tanks, and U.S. troops hooked the
ropes to a U.S. vehicle to pull the statue down.
Incidentally,
directly across the street from the statue was…the Palestine Hotel!
Hundreds of journalists use the hotel as their base of operations, so the
event was guaranteed to get wide coverage. However, footage and reporting
were careful to keep much information and images out of the pictures, lest
it appear more a U.S.-Iraqi exile staged event than a spontaneous expression
by "liberated" Iraqi civilians.
94
Here, then,
is President Bush's "liberation." These are the true descriptions
of how this war is being fought "for the Iraqi people." Our flag
has been soaked in the blood of innocent civilians, and it is almost impossible
to speak the word "war" without adding the word "crimes."
Consider a few
words from our "brave soldiers" in Iraq, as quoted by New York Newsday
on April 7: "If a little kid actively opposes my way of life, I'd
call him a raghead, too," says Lance Corporal Chris Akins, of Louisville,
Kentucky. How about this one: "I say we just—nuke this place and
make it a parking lot," Lance Corporal Ryan Eman, of Michigan, raged.
Another wonderful term of endearment favored by U.S. soldiers are "camel
jockeys", and Lance Corporal Jay Dreyer, of Minnesota, says he occasionally
uses the word "nigger" to refer to Iraqis. The report in Newsday
says these kinds of things are frequently being said by U.S. troops in
Iraq.
The empty denials
and propaganda of the Pentagon are worthy of Adolf Hitler. "[T]his
is the type of resistance that leads to civilian casualties…[it is] designed
to draw coalition fire to cause civilian deaths," they say on CNN (April
8). It is "the regime's" fault. Saddam Hussein's forces "killed
more innocent men, women, and children…than any collateral damage caused
by coalition forces," spoke Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on April
1, going on to add that "execution death-squads roaming the country" are
killing civilians every day.
He is right,
"death-squads" are roaming Iraq, murdering civilians every day. "Terror
squads" are committing heinous war crimes throughout the country.
And they wear the uniform of United States soldiers. And they march
on the orders of Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and perhaps most of all, Oil.
Welcome to the
liberation.
95