Bombed

March 19, 2001

Militarism is a drug and we're all users.

And now we can celebrate the addiction with a special anniversary - 10 years of bombing Iraq (which will soon have lasted longer than the invasion of Vietnam). In the past two years alone, the USA and UK have dropped 400 tons of bombs and missiles on Iraq - 400 tons - leading a bored-looking US press official to describe last month's intensified bombing campaign as "routine." Responding to criticism, the Pentagon recently released an Orwellian statement calling the bombing "protective retaliation," while Tony Blair has incomprehensibly argued that the new bombing was necessary to protect the lives of the bombing British pilots.

So why after 10 years are we (meaning the US and the UK) really still in Iraq? The standard lines vary between: democratic countries cannot tolerate other countries being invaded; Saddam Hussein is evil; and Iraq has the potential to destabilize the whole region.

Let's look at that first argument. When Turkey invaded Cyprus, killed 2,000 people and created 200,000 refugees no one in the administration seemed to mind. When Morocco invaded and annexed Western Sahara, that didn't seem to matter either. When Indonesia invaded East Timor and systematically slaughtered 200,000 people, it wasn't noted in our press as terribly important. Interesting that in the above scenarios (plus countless others) not only did our media turn a blind eye and armies not intervene, but also our administrations clearly supported the aggressive regimes with direct financial aid, if not also weapons. So how can we reward the crimes of some and punish the crimes of others? Blair's Personal Assistant for Foreign Affairs, Robert Cooper, recently said it best: in today's political climate "we need to get used to the idea of double standard."

How about when Iraq invaded Iran, instigating the bloody conflict (1980-1988) in which almost 1,000,000 people were killed? Were our democratic principles outraged? Hardly. William Casey, the CIA Director at the time, began regularly giving classified information to his trusted ally Saddam Hussein, and Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries alleged to sponsor terrorism. Corporations such as Hewlett-Packard and General Motors made fortunes supplying controversial supplies to the Iraqi government. And even after Iraq used poison gas against a Kurdish uprising in late 1988, the Reagan administration fought hard to ensure that Iraq would not receive economic sanctions.

Two years later when Iraq invaded Kuwait, however, different story. Trusted ally was now evil foe: 400,000 troops deployed, bombs still pouring 10 years later. In his "double standard" statement, Robert Cooper laid it out clearly: " The reasons for fighting the Gulf War were not that Iraq had violated the norms of international behavior," but rather "the need for the West to keep a tight grip on "vital oil supplies." The US State Department has described Mideast oil as "a stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest prizes in world history" (and apparently, even though the oil is located in the Middle East, the West should keep a tight grip on the prize). Reducing our addiction to fossil fuels - decreasing consumption or exploring more sustainable options such as solar power - doesn't seem to have the same priority as battling for the prize. It is interesting to note that when Dick Cheney left the oil company he was working for to run for vice-president, he received a golden handshake of $38 million, a significant portion of which is in oil stock options (conflict of interest anyone?).

The assault on Iraq has of course also included a blockade and severe economic sanctions; in the past 10 years per capita GNP has plummeted 80%, and in a country which formerly boasted high levels of literacy and an advanced health care system, currently 65% of the population doesn't even have access to clean water. UNICEF has estimated that the number of Iraqi children directly killed by the blockade/sanctions to be over 500,000. In 1998, the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest over the sanctions and his replacement Hans von Sponeck, was forced (by the US and UK governments) to resign because he began including civilian casualties from Anglo-American bombing raids (140 civilian casualties in 1999 alone) in his brief. Half a million children killed last decade, and that's the tip of the iceberg.

So what about Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspectors in, and the accusation that it could threaten nearby countries? One must remember that in the 1980's, even with direct and sustained US support, Iraq still couldn't conquer Iran. One must also bear in mind that nowadays, India, Pakistan, and soon Iran, boast of nuclear weapons. It's additionally significant that the UNSCOM weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, who masterminded the raids that triggered Operation Desert Fox, has repeatedly said that there is no chance for the Iraqi weapons program to be reconstituted and that the blockade should end. (Operation Desert Fox was the 1998 round-the-clock aerial assault on Iraq, the justification for which was to punish Iraq for not permitting weapons inspectors, but the fact that it occurred on the eve of Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice vote in the House raises questions.)

No one is defending Saddam Hussein or his policies; the question is how best to deal with tyrants of this nature. Given "the Iraqi leader's surging popularity across the Arab world" (Newsweek, March 5 2001) and the clear political ineffectiveness (not to mention gross inhumanity) of both the sanctions and the bombing raids, the very essence of US reliance on militarism must be reexamined. Our policies legitimize war to the expense of diplomacy, and set the US up as some kind of "World Mercenary Police." The financial editor of the Chicago Tribune put it quite clearly: because the USA has a "well-trained, well-financed, and well-respected military ... we should be able to pound our fists on a few desks" internationally and demand that other countries "buy our bonds at cheap rates, or keep the dollar propped up, or better yet, pay cash directly into our Treasury." Sounds more like the desire to keep a tight grip on the world economic system than humanitarian concern for democracy.

And what of the soldiers who were sent to Iraq to fight? Of the 700,000 US troops stationed there, a large percentage has reported chronic illness since returning, complaints echoed by soldiers from other countries. While the DOD (US Department of Defense) categorically denied in 1995 that US troops had been exposed to any kind of chemical agent, it has since retracted, stating that the range of exposure was actually varied. The detonations of weapons sites in areas such as Khamisiyah, for example, are now thought to have released toxic plumes affecting hundreds of thousands of people, stretching as far as to Saudi Arabia.

Of great concern also is the fact that 500,000 soldiers were given the anti-nerve agent pyrodostigmine bromine (PB) as a protectant against chemical warfare, even though the DOD had previously established that it could be harmful in healthy individuals and was unhelpful if not counter-productive in battling the effects of chemical warfare. It has been suggested that the use of PB in the Gulf War was an experiment, and that would directly go against the Nuremburg Code. 50-60% of the US soldiers who were given PB have since reported acute side effects.

Radiation caused by exposure to depleted uranium shells (340 tons dropped by the US in the Gulf War alone) also plagues veterans. One can't begin to calculate the long-term implications for the people of Iraq, whose soil has become toxic with these uranium-tipped warheads. So what can be done? It is clear that the current policy in Iraq is not working; the legitimacy of the no-fly zones has been directly challenged in the UN Security Council; France and other countries have called the recent airstrikes "illegal." George W. Bush recently acknowledged that international support for sanctions is so filled with holes it is like "Swiss cheese," and even in the US Congress, the sanctions have been referred to as "infanticide masquerading as policy." Colin Powell's recent tour of Middle East countries, and the mounting US-UK criticism there, will probably lead to an ease on the export of civilian goods to Iraq. A start, but not terribly helpful if bombs continue to rain.

And then again, of course it isn't only Iraq. We are engaged in (largely unreported) taxpayer-sponsored conflicts all over the globe. The proposed $1.3 billion for the "war on narcotics" in Colombia is just the tip of the quagmire.

Maybe it's time to give up the war on everything and start dialogues. Maybe part of the addiction is the simplicity of painting things as good/bad/, black/white, yours/mine, win/lose. Maybe we'd better take more responsibility in identifying the money trail and power gainers of battle before we blindly support them. That will require a redefinition of victory - and perhaps a redefinition of ourselves.

Heather Wokusch is a freelance writer. She can be contacted at womanrant@hotmail.com