-Caveat Lector- >From wsws.org WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq The bombing of Iraq A shameful chapter in American history By Martin McLaughlin and David North 19 December 1998 Those who are responsible for the bombing of Iraq are writing a shameful chapter in American history. Hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children have already been killed or maimed by American bombs and cruise missiles. The death toll from the air war will mount far higher. Even the Pentagon had predicted more than 10,000 would be killed in an onslaught of only medium intensity, let alone in the full-scale attack which was unleashed on December 16. Putting aside for a moment the reactionary aims being pursued by the Clinton Administration, the massive disparity between the resources of the United States and those of Iraq endows a nightmarish and criminal character to the actions taken by the Pentagon. What is unfolding today in the Middle East resembles not so much a war as a state-sanctioned execution. But in this case, the victim is not an individual, strapped helplessly to a gurney, but rather the unarmed population of a defenseless country. The White House, the Pentagon, the Congress, and, of course, the media sing hymns of praise to "our heroic men and women in the Persian Gulf." In reality, every American should feel deeply ashamed of what these "heroes" are being ordered to do in the name of the United States. "Heroism," at a minimum, involves a serious element of risk and danger. "Heroes" are not those who are willing to kill, but who are prepared to die. On the basis of this definition, the people of Baghdad are far more deserving of respect and admiration than those who are tormenting them from the relative safety of their high-tech murder machines. There is nothing particularly courageous about placing one’s finger on a button to launch a cruise missile, while floating on a naval vessel in the Persian Gulf or flying a B-52 bomber 1,000 miles from Baghdad. In 1991 American soldiers in the Persian Gulf War had a lower death rate than their counterparts who stayed home. More died of traffic accidents than from Iraqi weapons. During the last seven years, the risks facing American military personnel have been even further reduced. US weaponry has been upgraded and Iraq’s defenses have been virtually destroyed. Moreover, American pilots are guided to their targets by intelligence provided by UN weapons inspectors and spy satellites which have scoured the Iraqi landscape continuously for the past eight years. As for the commanders who are in charge of this sordid operation, history will judge them in much the same way as it does the scoundrels who supervised the genocidal slaughter of the Indians in the 1870s and 1880s. This much is certain: 50 years from now no one will be making films like Patton, The Longest Day or Saving Pvt. Ryan about their exploits. One need not agree with the politics of such World War II-era commanders as Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, and Nimitz to acknowledge that they, at least, led their armies against an enemy fully capable of firing back. Today's generals are nothing more than bureaucrats of mass slaughter, working their way up the Pentagon hierarchy, spending a term at the top issuing orders to destroy helpless populations, then retiring to well-paid positions on corporate boards or as "consultants" to the TV networks covering the next American blitzkrieg. The horrors of World War II evoked searing images that profoundly influenced the political consciences of several generations. Next to those produced by the opening of the Nazi death camps, the most unforgettable images were those of the German Luftwaffe raining bombs on defenseless populations – above Warsaw, Rotterdam, and, most infamous of all, the Basque village of Guernica. It was this last atrocity that was transformed on the canvas of Picasso into a universally-recognized expression of outrage against the inhumanity of fascism. Even though the United States was, for the most part, spared much of the on-the-ground horrors of World War II, the event which brought America into the war – the bombing of Pearl Harbor – deeply aroused public opinion. There is, from the standpoint of historical analysis, little doubt that the Roosevelt Administration skillfully maneuvered the Japanese government into a situation in which it had little choice but to go to war against the United States. But the manner in which Japan initiated hostilities – bombing Pearl Harbor without warning – outraged millions. For decades to come, the phrase "sneak attack" was synonymous with the basest form of treachery. Nearly 20 years after the end of World War II, in 1962, during the missile crisis, among the reasons given by Robert Kennedy for opposing an invasion of Cuba was that such an action would require a "sneak attack" that would blacken America’s historic reputation. And yet, in 1998, the US government – without any fear of public objection – declares openly that the bombing of Iraq began without warning, let alone a formal declaration of war! In no other supposedly democratic country is there such a restricted range of political expression. A resolution endorsing the military onslaught was passed by the House of Representatives with only five dissenting votes. The mass media – television, newspapers, radio – are thoroughly integrated into the US war machine. There is no serious attempt to evaluate the impact of the air raids or to communicate to the American people the terrifying reality of modern war. The media parrots the crudest Pentagon propaganda, presenting the prospect of an antiseptic, risk-free war, in which thousands of bombs and missiles can strike Iraq but kill only a few dozen people. The real death toll in that battered and starved country can be better estimated by considering the blast which leveled the US embassy in Kenya. If one primitive bomb, weighing about as much as a single US cruise missile, could kill nearly 300 people, what is to be expected from the impact of thousands of such weapons striking Baghdad, a metropolis the size of Chicago? The Clinton administration’s onslaught against Iraq takes advantage of the political confusion which prevails in the working class, exploiting naive patriotic sentiments and concern for sons and daughters who joined the military, in large measure, because of a lack of economic opportunity. But the White House and the Pentagon are well aware of the great reservoir of potential hostility to a new Gulf war. They learned this in February, during the dress rehearsal for the current attack, when administration spokesmen were denounced at a public forum on the Iraq crisis at Ohio State University. The subsequent decision to launch air strikes without prior warnings or a lengthy media buildup was made, not so much to gain tactical surprise in Iraq, but to present the American people with a fait accompli. No lie is too brazen, no explanation too absurd for the American media. The contradictions in the official cover story mount from day to day. When Clinton announced the attacks, he said their target was Iraq’s mythical "weapons of mass destruction" – nuclear, chemical and biological. But US spokesmen now concede that not a single such facility has been hit by US warplanes and cruise missiles. The reason given by the Pentagon – a barefaced lie – is concern that Iraqi civilians could be killed by the release of chemical or biological agents. The real reason is that there are no weapons production facilities or stockpiles, and the US military will not waste bombs or missiles on facilities that do not exist. The real targets of the bombing are Iraq’s conventional military assets – troops, tanks, antiaircraft weapons – and its industrial infrastructure. What the Pentagon calls the "capability" to produce chemical or biological weapons are breweries, dairies, pesticide factories and other facilities engaged in food-processing and chemical manufacturing, commonplace in any industrialized society Once the truth emerges about the real nature of the US war against Iraq, a wave of revulsion will be felt in the United States. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright 1998 World Socialist Web Site All rights reserved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq US-British attack on Iraq Blair is Clinton's sole international ally once again By Chris Marsden 19 December 1998 In the early 1980s a poster was produced by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It pastiched the film "Gone with the Wind", casting US President Ronald Reagan in the role of Rhett Butler and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as Scarlet O'Hara. Thatcher was cradled in Reagan's arms against a background of burning buildings. The caption read, "She promised to love him until the end of the world. He promised to organise it." The poster proved extremely popular due to its clever depiction of what was dubbed the "special relationship" between the two right-wing governments in the USA and Britain. But that alliance pales before the veritable love affair between President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Since coming to power, Blair supported Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair and the US bombing of the Sudan and Afghanistan in August and worked closely with Clinton to secure the Northern Ireland agreement. Once again, Britain is alone amongst the major imperialist powers in lending unequivocal support to the US war against Iraq. Britain has supplied Tornado aircraft to take part in the bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi locations. As an expression of his gratitude, Clinton gave Blair the dubious honour of being the first to announce the bombing raids on Wednesday night. Blair's speech outside Number 10 was an uncritical regurgitation of the US government's justification for launching its military offensive. "Following the Butler Report [on Iraq's supposed non-compliance with UNSCOM weapons inspectors], after more than a year of obstruction and a catalogue of obstruction, we have no option but to act," he declared. "There is no realistic alternative to military force." This support is vital for the Clinton administration. Without it, their action in the Gulf would have been nakedly exposed as an action solely in the interests of US imperialism. With a few exceptions, such as Canada and Australia, international reaction to the bombing of Baghdad has been hostile. In Europe it has only been supported by two other governments, Germany and Spain, while France, Italy and Sweden have openly condemned the assault. Aside from Britain, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council--France, Russia and China--have opposed the action and questioned the role played by UNSCOM and the legitimacy of the Butler report. Russia has withdrawn its ambassadors to the US and Britain in protest, the first time this has happened since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There was no discussion in parliament prior to Britain dispatching its warplanes. It was not until Thursday night that Blair went through the motions of holding a parliamentary debate. Speaking to a largely supportive House, Blair began by defending the US-British attack. He specifically rejected suggestions that it was motivated by a desire to prevent Clinton facing impeachment. Had Clinton acted differently, this would have been a "dereliction of his duty", he claimed. In response to the prompting of Conservative leader, William Hague, he declared, "It is a broad objective of our policy to remove Saddam and to do all we can to achieve that." The government's position was supported by the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, but was opposed by a minority of Labour MPs and the Scottish National Party. Addressing Blair from the Conservative benches as a protest, Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin, George Galloway, said, "You twice mentioned the words diminish and degrade. I wonder if you thought, as I did at lunchtime, as the bleeding women and children were carried into hospitals that those who were diminished and degraded were not the Iraqis, but us--diminished and degraded by being reduced to being a tail on this verminous and mangy desert fox." He described the action as an Anglo-American "crusade". Several Labour members jeered Galloway as he spoke. The long-time leader of the Labour Party's left faction, Tony Benn, condemned the military action as "a flagrant breach of Article 46 of the Charter of the United Nations". Tam Dalyell said the attack was "nauseating". Dennis Canavan said, "Why should the lives of British services personnel be put at risk and innocent men, women and children in Iraq be sacrificed in a desperate attempt to save Clinton's skin?" Earlier, Galloway claimed that more backbenchers opposed the present operation than the 28 who voted against military action and just less than 50 who abstained when it was last debated in February this year. However, Blair was not even prepared to allow opposition to be registered. When Benn, and around a dozen Labour MPs, attempted to force a vote, the government declined to put up tellers so no vote could be taken. Ministers jeered and catcalled after Canavan denounced Blair for cowardice. There are real material foundations for the "special relationship" between Britain and the US. Though Britain is very much the junior partner, it still benefits from substantial investments in the American economy and is the favoured location for US corporations seeking access to the European market. In Europe and elsewhere around the world, the alliance enables Britain to "punch above its weight". Like Thatcher before him, Blair continues to rely on America as an economic and political counterweight to Britain's main European rivals. He said as much in a speech earlier this week on European Monetary Union. To orient towards one or the other was, he insisted, a "false choice". By acting as America's mouthpiece in Europe, successive British governments have sought to strengthen their hand against Germany in particular, while using this as a lever to build alliances with other countries who fear German domination of the Continent. In the Middle East itself, powerful geo-political interests are fuelling the American war drive. So too with Britain. The control of the world's oil reserves focuses on the Middle East and Central Asia's Caspian Sea region. In this competition for hegemony over vast natural resources, Britain has formed a strategic alliance with the US. The Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), for example, is an oil consortium made up of British Petroleum and four US firms--Amoco, Unocal, Exxon and Pennzoil--that is in direct competition with French, Japanese, Russian and Chinese firms. Finally, Britain accrues substantial military advantage from its alliance with the US, vis-à-vis access to military hardware, including nuclear weaponry as well as intelligence and satellite data. Nevertheless, Blair's unthinking support for the US and Clinton raises political dangers for the British ruling class. Thatcher's strategy was already beginning to unravel at the end of the 1980s. Lack of a clear orientation towards Europe, under conditions where the world was rapidly fracturing into competing trade blocs, was one of the main factors that led to her downfall and later contributed to the shipwreck of the Tory party itself. Blair promised big business to end the Tories' equivocation over entry into the European Monetary Union and place Britain "at the heart of Europe". Yet once again his actions are alienating his potential European allies, France in particular. The media, including the liberal Guardian and Independent newspapers, are more or less supportive of Blair's stance (or critical from a right-wing standpoint), but popular reaction to the US/British bombing has been largely hostile. On the day of the parliamentary debate, 500 people demonstrated outside Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence in a candlelit vigil. Protesters daubed government buildings with slogans painted in fake blood and several were arrested. The letters pages of the major dailies, the BBC's web site and radio talk shows have been inundated with protests. In the next days, anti-war protests have been called to demonstrate a public opposition to the Blair government that has hitherto been lacking. See Also: UNSCOM aided Pentagon targeting Controversy mounts over role of UN inspectors in Iraq [18 December 1998] Clinton's attack on Iraq Military aggression and political diversion [17 December 1998] New Caspian oil interests fuel US war drive against Iraq [16 November 1998] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright 1998 World Socialist Web Site All rights reserved ~~~~~~~~~~~~ A<>E<>R The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
