HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
William Rivers Pitt
April
14, 2003
Television
news stations, along with newspapers from coast to coast, have been showing
scenes of celebration in Baghdad. The
dictator, Saddam Hussein, has been removed from power. News anchors have likened this event to the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the liberation of Paris by Allied forces during
World War II. Never mind that the
joyful crowds who tore down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad last week
numbered perhaps one hundred people, or that the entire event was a staged
media scam. A wide angle
shot of the square where this 'celebration' took place showed a deserted,
ruined city with that one small clot of people. The true feelings of the Iraqi people in the aftermath of the
invasion were best summed up by a woman who screamed at a reporter for the UK
Independent: "Go back to your country. Get out of here. You are not wanted
here. We hated Saddam and now we are hating Bush because he is destroying our
city."
The
war against Iraq was proffered and pursued by the Bush administration with two
clear goals on the table. 1) We were,
first and foremost, there to capture and destroy any and all weapons of mass
destruction; 2) We were there to 'liberate' the Iraqi people and plant a
seedcorn of democracy. Enveloping this
entire scenario was the Bush administration's premise that what we were doing
was just and moral.
We
need, first of all, to get our terms straight so as to achieve a sense of
clarity regarding the issue of America's moral standing on the matter. Saddam Hussein was not defeated. He was not overthrown, bested, beaten or
destroyed. Saddam Hussein was fired,
relieved of his position by a nation that hired him for a dirty job way back in
1979.
When
the Shah of Iran, another employee of the United States, was overthrown by
fundamentalist revolutionaries controlled by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979,
America lost a staunch ally against the rise of Soviet influence in the Middle
East. That same year saw Saddam Hussein
take control of Iraq, and America immediately leaped into his corner so as to
maintain the bulwark against the USSR.
In short, he was hired. On
September 22, 1980, Hussein attacked Iran ostensibly to gain strategically
important territory along with the rich oil fields around Khuzestan. At bottom, however, Hussein was acting as an
instrument of American policy and attempting to overthrow Khomeini, so as to
dissolve a dangerous Iranian/Soviet alliance.
The
relationship between Iraq and America bloomed throughout the Reagan
administration in the 1980s. We
provided intelligence data to Iraqi forces that described, in detail, the order
of battle of Iranian forces. American
government and private industry interests provided Iraq with the means to
create all of the terrible weapons Hussein was so covetous of. We knew Iraq was using chemical weapons
during their fight with Iran, and continued to give them this intelligence
data. In fact, Iran in 1984 brought a
draft resolution before the United Nations Security Council condemning Iraq's
use of chemical weapons on the battlefield.
Iraq petitioned the United States several times to make sure the
international response to their chemical attacks was muted, and that no
specific country was named regarding Iran's petition. The Iraqi/American version of the resolution carried the day.
That
same year saw a public American condemnation of the use of these weapons. However, that same condemnation carried
within it the following language:
"The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent
refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the <i>legitimate
government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms
of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it
claims." (Emphasis added)
The
National Security Archive released a number of recently declassified documents
in February of 2003 which further describe the intimate relationship the Reagan
administration maintained with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. National Security Decision Directive 114 of
November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," described
American intentions: The ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf
and to protect oil supplies. There was no reference made to chemical weapons or
human rights concerns. National
Security Decision Directive 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve
U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War,"
focused again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf
and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive ordered
preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi
collapse."
Saddam
Hussein was such a valued employee that the Reagan administration sent a high
level envoy to Iraq to ensure the relationship was on steady ground. That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld, who was
filmed by CNN on September 20, 1983, warmly shaking hands with Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September
21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of
chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other
things," documents pertaining to that September 1983 meeting from the
National Security Archive clearly demonstrate that there was no mention of
chemical weapons between the two men.
Bush's
bloviating sermons on morality in this matter fail in the face of the
facts. Saddam Hussein would not have
existed were it not for the energetic support of the United States. We didn't defeat Hussein. We fired him. The fact that he was a valued employee for
so long, the fact that we averted our eyes as late as 1988 to his use of
chemical weapons, the fact that we gave him vital intelligence data so he could
more accurately and effectively use those weapons, and the fact that we gave
material assistance via government and private institutions for the creation
and promulgation of said weapons, all burst the bubble of righteousness the
entire debate has been contained in.
Bush can talk all he wants about the evil Saddam Hussein. There is little argument with the
appellation of that adjective to that name. Yet it was America who allowed him
to become so, and the moral arguments surrounding his firing are indelibly
tainted by these sad facts. The Kurds in
Halabja who were gassed to death in March of 1988 can level a damning finger of
blame as much at America as at Hussein.
As
for the location and destruction of these chemical weapons, it can be said at
this point that the Bush administration has suffered an incredible array of
embarrassments in this matter. American
forces have investigated 14,000 suspected weapons sites during the Iraq
invasion, and have not located so much as a teaspoon of prohibited weaponry. The Bush administration pointedly ignored
the facts in this matter and whipped the American people into a fearful
frenzy. According to Bush, Hussein had
25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin,
mustard and nerve gas - all nightmares that were just waiting to be used in New
York or Los Angeles. The hood ornament
on this push to war has been utterly discredited thus far, as not a speck of
evidence backing these claims has been located.
We
are supposed to forget about that now, because according to the new spin, the
war was never about these weapons. It was about freeing the Iraqi people. It is clear by now that Iraq is no longer
ruled by Saddam Hussein, but let us take a step further and analyze the
newfound 'freedom' of the Iraqi people.
At
this moment, the city of Baghdad is in utter chaos. The Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad, repository of over 5,000
years worth of cultural and regional history, has been utterly destroyed. Mesopotamia and its people have lost an
immeasurable portion of their history with this terrible act, one that could
have been stopped by a few Marines outside the museum. That simple precaution
never happened. Beyond that, the
looting has had a darker social edge.
The strata of society in Iraq has seen for years the minority Sunnis –
who claim Saddam Hussein as their own – ruling over the majority Shia. The orgy of looting that has broken out in
Iraq is, basically, the Shia robbing the Sunni. An ever-rising boil of gunplay between these two groups is
putting a match to the fuse of religiously-based civil war, and the American
troops have done nothing to stop it except recruit members of Hussein's feared police force to try and
restore order. So much for regime
change.
This
is exactly the scenario that led to the attacks of September 11. America dared the Soviets to invade
Afghanistan by sending mujeheddin guerillas against the communist Afghan
government. The USSR did invade,
falling into Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Afghan Trap," and smashed the
country to flinders. In the devastated
aftermath, America did absolutely nothing to heal that shattered nation, and
the vacuum was eventually filled by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. The rest is a history that seems destined to
be repeated as we pointedly ignore the rising tide of lawlessness and anarchy,
caused directly by our actions, in yet another country.
Further
exacerbating the tensions is the hard talk coming out of Washington regarding a
coming attack on Syria. Baghdad has not
yet stopped bleeding, and the hawks want to take on Damascus. Syria has its own downtrodden Shia segment
within the society, and the Shia in Iraq will not take kindly to their kin
across the border coming under siege.
In the end, though, the Shia do not matter. Despite all the happy talk about democracy in Iraq, no such birth
will take place there if the Bush administration has anything to say about
it. Democracy, or majority rules in the
western sense, would create a Shia fundamentalist regime rule. The Shia share cultural allegiance not only
with a segment of Syria, but with the mullahs who rule Iran. A Shia Iraq would ally with Iran, creating a
strategically untenable situation. The
Bush administration knows this all too well, and has been lying with its bare
face hanging out every time it speaks of democracy in that bruised country.
Instead
of democracy, the Bush administration has a two-pronged leadership thrust in
mind for Iraq. The first stage will see
Iraq ruled by an American named Jay Garner, former weapons manufacturer and
avowed proponent of the failed 'Star Wars' missile defense shield. Garner, a unilateralist hawk who shares a
brain with Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, is also on record as
supporting a number of the harsher measures Israel has taken against the
Palestinians. Opinions on this matter
vary, of course. It is all too clear,
however one may feel on that matter, that in a part of the world where the
Palestinians are seen as martyred victims, having a man like Garner running the
show in Iraq gives the appearance that America believes the best way to deal
with the Palestinians is with bulldozers and helicopter gunships. This will not sell in the Mideast
marketplace.
After
Garner will come Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi national Congress and
Rumsfeld's first choice for final ruler of Iraq. Chalabi is an interesting pick.
His Shia background makes a great many people in the State Department,
the CIA and the Middle East nervous.
The degree to which Chalabi will kowtow to American interests at the
expense of the Iraqi people is also of concern; Chalabi, Rumsfeld, Perle and
Wolfowitz have been brothers in arms for years, and Chalabi seems all too
likely to do their bidding instead of tending to the needs of Iraqis. Finally, there is Chalabi's dubious
Enronesqe background. He was convicted
of 31 counts of bank fraud in a Jordanian court and sentenced in absentia to 22
years in prison. Chalabi has not set
foot in Iraq since 1956.
Raise
your hand if you see democracy and liberation in all of this. There is little to see. To be sure, the murderous tyrant has been
removed. In his absence, however, there
is the complete breakdown of social order; there is the beginnings of a civil
war; there is no thought whatsoever to instituting any form of representative
government; there is not even the pretense of an attempt by American forces to
do anything about the social catastrophes that are unfolding, except hire back
the 'thugs' who were supposedly the cause of the war in the first place; there
are thousands and thousands of Iraqis who are now dead or maimed, all of whom
have families and friends, all of whom see this war for what it truly was. This is not freedom by any standard.
We
lost the war.
We
defeated the Iraqi military, to be sure, and we fired Saddam Hussein. We have lost the real war, the important
war, the war against those who attacked us on September 11. We lost the war because we betrayed the
international community, whose help we desperately need in this wider war, by
lying to them about Iraq's weapons and by disregarding their legitimate
concerns. We have lost the war because
our actions have given aid and succor to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, whose
agents were and are nowhere to be found in Iraq despite the avowed words of the
Bush administration. We have lost the
war because the Iraqi people themselves already understand that the
'liberation' they were promised is as false as the evidence we used to invade
their country. We lost the war because
our moral standing to make it in the first place was utterly bereft of
substance. We lost the war because the
rest of the world sees the American government for what it is – a mob of
hyperactive right-wing extremists with an army to play with and a dream of
global dominance glowing like coals in their eyes.
There
is no victory here. We lost the war
before the first shot was fired.
William Rivers
Pitt
is
a teacher from Boston, MA. He is the author of War On Iraq: What Team Bush
Doesn’t Want You To Know (Context Books, 2002) with Scott Ritter, and The
Greatest Sedition is Silence which will be published in May by Pluto Press.