Title: Message
 

 
ZNet | A Community of People Committed to Social Change
 

                        Bush's Vietnam
 
                      by John Pilger
                        New Statesman
                         June 22, 2003


              
     America's two "great victories" since
     11 September 2001 are unravelling.
     In Afghanistan, the regime of
     Hamid Karzai has virtually no
     authority and no money, and would
     collapse without American guns.
     Al-Qaeda has not been defeated, and the Taliban are
     re-emerging. Regardless of showcase improvements, the
     situation of women and children remains desperate. The
     token woman in Karzai's cabinet, the courageous physician
     Sima Samar, has been forced out of government and is
     now in constant fear of her life, with an armed guard
     outside her office door and another at her gate. Murder,
     rape and child abuse are committed with impunity by the
     private armies of America's "friends", the warlords whom
     Washington has bribed with millions of dollars, cash in
     hand, to give the pretence of stability.

     "We are in a combat zone the moment we leave this
     base," an American colonel told me at Bagram airbase,
     near Kabul. "We are shot at every day, several times a
     day." When I said that surely he had come to liberate and
     protect the people, he belly-laughed.

     American troops are rarely seen in Afghanistan's towns.
     They escort US officials at high speed in armoured vans
     with blackened windows and military vehicles, mounted
     with machine-guns, in front and behind. Even the vast
     Bagram base was considered too insecure for the defence
     secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, during his recent, fleeting
     visit. So nervous are the Americans that a few weeks ago
     they "accidentally" shot dead four government soldiers in
     the centre of Kabul, igniting the second major street
     protest against their presence in a week.

     On the day I left Kabul, a car bomb exploded on the road
     to the airport, killing four German soldiers, members of
     the international security force Isaf. The Germans' bus
     was lifted into the air; human flesh lay on the roadside.
     When British soldiers arrived to "seal off" the area, they
     were watched by a silent crowd, squinting into the heat
     and dust, across a divide as wide as that which separated
     British troops from Afghans in the 19th century, and the
     French from Algerians and Americans from Vietnamese.

     In Iraq, scene of the second "great victory", there are two
     open secrets. The first is that the "terrorists" now
     besieging the American occupation force represent an
     armed resistance that is almost certainly supported by the
     majority of Iraqis who, contrary to pre-war propaganda,
     opposed their enforced "liberation" (see Jonathan Steele's
     investigation, 19 March 2003, www.guardian.co.uk). The
     second secret is that there is emerging evidence of the
     true scale of the Anglo-American killing, pointing to the
     bloodbath Bush and Blair have always denied.

     Comparisons with Vietnam have been made so often over
     the years that I hesitate to draw another. However, the
     similarities are striking: for example, the return of
     expressions such as "sucked into a quagmire". This
     suggests, once again, that the Americans are victims, not
     invaders: the approved Hollywood version when a
     rapacious adventure goes wrong. Since Saddam Hussein's
     statue was toppled almost three months ago, more
     Americans have been killed than during the war. Ten have
     been killed and 25 wounded in classic guerrilla attacks on
     roadblocks and checkpoints which may number as many as
     a dozen a day.

     The Americans call the guerrillas "Saddam loyalists" and
     "Ba'athist fighters", in the same way they used to dismiss
     the Vietnamese as "communists". Recently, in Falluja, in
     the Sunni heartland of Iraq, it was clearly not the
     presence of Ba'athists or Saddamists, but the brutal
     behaviour of the occupiers, who fired point-blank at a
     crowd, that inspired the resistance. The American tanks
     gunning down a family of shepherds is reminiscent of the
     gunning down of a shepherd, his family and sheep by
     "coalition" aircraft in a "no-fly zone" four years ago, whose
     aftermath I filmed and which evoked, for me, the
     murderous games American aircraft used to play in
     Vietnam, gunning down farmers in their fields, children on
     their buffaloes.

     On 12 June, a large American force attacked a "terrorist
     base" north of Baghdad and left more than 100 dead,
     according to a US spokesman. The term "terrorist" is
     important, because it implies that the likes of al-Qaeda
     are attacking the liberators, and so the connection
     between Iraq and 11 September is made, which in pre-war
     propaganda was never made.

     More than 400 prisoners were taken in this operation. The
     majority have reportedly joined thousands of Iraqis in a
     "holding facility" at Baghdad airport: a concentration camp
     along the lines of Bagram, from where people are shipped
     to Guantanamo Bay. In Afghanistan, the Americans pick
     up taxi drivers and send them into oblivion, via Bagram.
     Like Pinochet's boys in Chile, they are making their
     perceived enemies "disappear".

     "Search and destroy", the scorched-earth tactic from
     Vietnam, is back. In the arid south-eastern plains of
     Afghanistan, the village of Niazi Qala no longer stands.
     American airborne troops swept down before dawn on 30
     December 2001 and slaughtered, among others, a wedding
     party. Villagers said that women and children ran towards
     a dried pond, seeking protection from the gunfire, and
     were shot as they ran. After two hours, the aircraft and
     the attackers left. According to a United Nations
     investigation, 52 people were killed, including 25 children.
     "We identified it as a military target," says the Pentagon,
     echoing its initial response to the My Lai massacre 35
     years ago.

     The targeting of civilians has long been a journalistic
     taboo in the west. Accredited monsters did that, never
     "us". The civilian death toll of the 1991 Gulf war was
     wildly underestimated. Almost a year later, a
     comprehensive study by the Medical Education Trust in
     London estimated that more than 200,000 Iraqis had died
     during and immediately after the war, as a direct or
     indirect consequence of attacks on civilian infrastructure.
     The report was all but ignored. This month, Iraq Body
     Count, a group of American and British academics and
     researchers, estimated that up to 10,000 civilians may
     have been killed in Iraq, including 2,356 civilians in the
     attack on Baghdad alone. And this is likely to be an
     extremely conservative figure.

     In Afghanistan, there has been similar carnage. In May
     last year, Jonathan Steele extrapolated all the available
     field evidence of the human cost of the US bombing and
     concluded that as many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost
     their lives as an indirect consequence of the bombing,
     many of them drought victims denied relief.

     This "hidden" effect is hardly new. A recent study at
     Columbia University in New York has found that the
     spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides on Vietnam
     was up to four times as great as previously estimated.
     Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the deadliest
     poisons known. In what they first called Operation Hades,
     then changed to the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand, the
     Americans in Vietnam destroyed, in some 10,000
     "missions" to spray Agent Orange, almost half the forests
     of southern Vietnam, and countless human lives. It was
     the most insidious and perhaps the most devastating use
     of a chemical weapon of mass destruction ever. Today,
     Vietnamese children continue to be born with a range of
     deformities, or they are stillborn, or the foetuses are
     aborted.

     The use of uranium-tipped munitions evokes the
     catastrophe of Agent Orange. In the first Gulf war in 1991,
     the Americans and British used 350 tonnes of depleted
     uranium. According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
     Authority, quoting an international study, 50 tonnes of
     DU, if inhaled or ingested, would cause 500,000 deaths.
     Most of the victims are civilians in southern Iraq. It is
     estimated that 2,000 tonnes were used during the latest
     attack.

     In a remarkable series of reports for the Christian Science
     Monitor, the investigative reporter Scott Peterson has
     described radiated bullets in the streets of Baghdad and
     radiation-contaminated tanks, where children play without
     warning. Belatedly, a few signs in Arabic have appeared:
     "Danger - Get away from this area". At the same time, in
     Afghanistan, the Uranium Medical Research Centre, based
     in Canada, has made two field studies, with the results
     described as "shocking". "Without exception," it reported,
     "at every bomb site investigated, people are ill. A
     significant portion of the civilian population presents
     symptoms consistent with internal contamination by
     uranium."

     An official map distributed to non-government agencies in
     Iraq shows that the American and British military have
     plastered urban areas with cluster bombs, many of which
     will have failed to detonate on impact. These usually lie
     unnoticed until children pick them up, then they explode.

     In the centre of Kabul, I found two ragged notices warning
     people that the rubble of their homes, and streets,
     contained unexploded cluster bombs "made in USA". Who
     reads them? Small children? The day I watched children
     skipping through what might have been an urban
     minefield, I saw Tony Blair on CNN in the lobby of my
     hotel. He was in Iraq, in Basra, lifting a child into his
     arms, in a school that had been painted for his visit, and
     where lunch had been prepared in his honour, in a city
     where basic services such as education, food and water
     remain a shambles under the British occupation.

     It was in Basra three years ago that I filmed hundreds of
     children ill and dying because they had been denied cancer
     treatment equipment and drugs under an embargo
     enforced with enthusiasm by Tony Blair. Now here he was
     - shirt open, with that fixed grin, a man of the troops if
     not of the people - lifting a toddler into his arms for the
     cameras.

     When I returned to London, I read "After Lunch", by Harold
     Pinter, from a new collection of his called War (Faber &
     Faber).

     And after noon the well-dressed creatures come To sniff
     among the dead And have their lunch

     And all the many well-dressed creatures pluck The swollen
     avocados from the dust And stir the minestrone with stray
     bones

     And after lunch They loll and lounge about Decanting
     claret in convenient skulls

     John Pilger is a renowned journalist and documentary
     film-maker. A war correspondent and ZNet Commentator,
     his writings have appeared in numerous magazines, and
     newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the
     Independent, New Statesman, the New York Times, the
     Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and other newspapers and
     periodicals around the world. His books include Heroes
     (2001) Hidden Agendas (1998) and Distant Voices (1994).

Reply via email to