April 2001

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Still Bombing Iraq

David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for President in 2000 and is a staff member emeritus of the War Resisters League.

It is not enough to issue a pro forma denunciation of the US/British air strikes near Baghdad. Those strikes, carried out by United States and British aircraft on February 16th, certainly deserve the strongest condemnation as violations of international law. But they also require a hard second look at US policy regarding Iraq. While the New York Times gave its qualified blessing to the strikes, others have been more concerned. Tony Blair came under fierce attack from Labour MP's, (would that we could hear such voices in our Congress), France and Turkey have demanded an explanation, and both China and Russia have sharply condemned the attacks.

The air strikes were supposedly part of a "Gulf Alliance" that had joined together in 1991 in waging "Desert Storm"--but that Alliance was not consulted. As has happened several times in the past, the US acted alone--except for support from Great Britain, which has become a virtual client state. The Pentagon described the air strikes as "protective retaliation"(shades of Orwell).

I opposed the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. I supported sanctions at that time as a means of persuading Iraq to withdraw. When Iraq withdrew, I felt the sanctions should have ended and the situation with Iraq normalized. However the United States has used Saddam Hussein as a kind of permanent demon, and in the process invented a new and entirely inaccurate history of the conflicts involving Iraq.

First, while the invasion of Kuwait was wrong, it was hardly unique. Look at the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, or George Bush's invasion of Panama. All these actions were in violation of international law, the only difference between them is that Iraq had some basis for its attack on Kuwait. Not enough to justify it--but enough to put that invasion in a very different light from the much more serious Iraqi attack about which both the US and Britain remain silent--Saddam's attack on Iran in the 1980s which resulted in ten years of horrendous war, with a million youth killed. That aggression had the support of the United States because it was hoped Iraq might topple or profoundly weaken Ayatollah Khomeni who has just kicked out the US client, the Shah of Iran.

All the Gulf states, including Kuwait, sent economic aid to Iraq. Military aid was made available from both the Soviet Union and the US. Iraq used poison gas against the Iranian troops--poison gas manufactured with materials provided by the West. That war, so costly to both Iran and Iraq, was not opposed by the US--scan the records of White House statements during the nine years of that conflict and you'll find no effort to mobilize world opinion, let alone launch a military action against Iraq. In contrast, the short invasion of Kuwait--occasioned in part by several serious issues involving oil which Kuwait had refused to negotiate with Iraq--was treated as if it threatened the foundations of the civilization. Saddam became known as "the beast of Baghdad," sanctions were never lifted, "no fly zones" were imposed by the US and enforced only by the US and Britain. Over a half million civilians have died from the sanctions, making the brief invasion of Kuwait a minor issue in comparison.

Almost without exception all US political dialogue about Iraq begins with the assumption that "something must be done about Saddam." No one seems to ask why. Does he treat the Kurds badly? Yes, and so does Turkey, but Turkey is a member of NATO so that issue goes unremarked. Does he brutally suppress opposition? Yes, but so does Syria. (And so did the US in Central America in the recent past, where something very close to genocide was imposed with the help of US military aid and advice. And so to a lesser extent does Israel today in using live ammunition against rock throwing Palestinian youths--a violation of civilized norms that not even the British were guilty of in Northern Ireland). Does he seek to possess weapons of mass destruction? Indeed yes. And why? Because the moment Israel became a nuclear power it set virtually every Middle Eastern country on the path to getting weapons that would provide a military balance. Iraq is not alone. Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran, all are in possession of chemical and bacteriological weapons and seeking to get nuclear weapons.

Part of the US policy is simply irritation that Saddam Hussein has survived despite losing a war against the greatest military power on earth. Another part of the logic of the US is similar to the old British and French policies in the Middle East--divide the region so that no single Arab state could gain enough power to expel foreign influence. And another part, regretably, is a reflection of Israeli political power expressed through the American Jewish community which is concerned about any threat to Israel.

But very little of US policy has anything to do with the actual danger Iraq poses. And Saddam Hussein must be credited with some positive actions.He does not seem to have a passion for piling up great personal wealth. During his time in power the educational level of Iraq, the medical care available, the industrial base all rose so sharply that on the eve of the US attack Iraq was not a third world country, but an advanced and developed country.

That has, of course, changed after ten years of sanctions and after the massive air strikes during Desert Storm. What US policy has done to the people of Iraq and their prospects is unforgivable. For US commentators to blame Saddam for all of this is missing the mark. US policy has been clear that there are no actions Saddam can take which will cause the US to end the sanctions. If he committed suicide, yes. (Which is what he would be doing if he stepped down from power). If he unilaterally disarmed--in a region where he has real enemies--then the US might let nature take its course. But why shouldn't the US disarm unilaterally? Which country has been responsible for more killing in the past thirty years--Iraq, or the US?

One of the things which holds the US back, and held it back in 1991, was a fear that to invade Baghdad and oust Saddam would cause a splintering of Iraq, and would destabilize the region. Better to leave well enough alone, reasoned US foreign policy experts--but keep the sanctions in place, regardless of how many people they killed.

What can one say about this policy? That poets need to be heard, anyone who

can make us feel in our hearts the agony of children with no medicine. The frustration of doctors who can't heal because supplies have been blocked. The fear of parents that a sick child cannot get well. Voices in the Wilderness, headed by Kathy Kelly, deserves a Nobel Prize for their courage in defying US laws and getting medical aid to the people of Iraq. And while I disagree with much of the politics of Workers World and the International Action Center, they deserve credit for getting teams in. Years from now we will wonder what kind of political leadership we have had, first under Clinton and then under Bush, that would blindly continue a policy that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And we will ask why we were silent.

Finally, to address the February attack, it was justified on the grounds that Iraq was preparing new radar that could target and possibly help shoot down US and Britsh jets flying over Iraq. But why are US and British jets flying military missions over Iraq? What would happen if Iraq (or the US) tried to fly such missions over Israel? How did the US acquire the right to estabish "no fly zones," or the right for regular military flights over Iraq? Is Iraq, alone among member states in the UN, not permitted to defend its air space?

More to the point, how many Americans are aware that "allied forces" (for which read US and British) attacked Iraq steadily in every month of 1999 and every month of 2000. Always the attacks were justified on the grounds that the Iraqi radar was trying to lock onto the US and British military planes. But why is that surprising? Can our talking heads name one country which would not try to target military flights over its territory?

We need to call on our friends and co-workers in other countries to establish vigils at US and British Embassies to protest the military attacks and the sanctions. And within our own country we need to be in serious dialogue with members of Congress, reminding them that a President who was elected only by the Supreme Court and not by the people, has no mandate for placing either Iraqi or American lives at stake by these military gestures. End the sanctions. Normalize relations.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY CALL-IN DAY TO END SANCTIONS: April 3. Call Colin Powell, 201/224-3121 and your Representative via Congressional Switchboard, 202/224-3121. To send aid: AFSC, Campaign of Conscience, 1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA 19102; Voices in the Wilderness, 1460 W. Carmen Ave., Chicago, IL 60640

Previous Article    Next Article