|
Why Now? And Why a Military Invasion?
"He''s used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. He''s invaded his neighbors. He''s killed thousands of his own people." Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor to President George W Bush, lists the "compelling" arguments that, she says, are pushing the United States to intervene in Iraq and overthrow President Saddam Hussein (1). The allegations are irrefutable: in September 1980 the Iraqi regime attacked Iran, starting one of the most bloody conflicts since the second world war; in difficulty, it effectively used chemical weapons and then gassed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.
Did the US make war on the tyrant then? The US press has confirmed that, at the time, about 60 US officers had secretly given the Iraqi army "detailed information on Iranian deployments" and were discussing battle plans. US advisors, told of the use of gas, did not object to it "because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival" (2).
In 1984 the Reagan administration re-established diplomatic relations with Baghdad (interrupted by the 1967 war), deleted it from its list of countries supporting terrorism and promoted it to the rank of bastion against the "Islamic revolution". When George Bush Senior became president in January 1989, he made a statement both stupid and cynical: "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence."
At this time US companies, with the backing of the State Department, were exporting to Iraq products that could be used to make biological weapons (3). The "international community", so keen during the 1990s to uncover the history of Iraq''s program of weapons of mass destruction, never investigated foreign companies that helped Iraq. Many western governments - including the US, Germany and France - had been involved.
In the US there is now vigorous debate about the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But it is more about means than ends. The question is not should we do it? But how should we do it? The reluctance of the US'' European and Arab allies - the Arabs troubled by the total impunity of the government of Ariel Sharon - will doubtless do no more than delay this "first preventative war" of the 21st century (see The hawk doctrine).
Officially the operation would target Iraq''s weapons of mass destruction. After all, United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991 insisted on the county''s disarmament. Article 14 said these measures "represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery."
Those regional steps never happened. All the attention was focused on Iraq, subjected to an embargo system that starved people and weakened society, and reinforced Saddam''s regime. Between 1991 and 1998 UN inspectors did impressive work making sure that Iraq''s nuclear program, almost all its missiles and many of its chemical weapons were destroyed. They put in place a long-term control system, with surveillance cameras at dozens of sites. We were finally on the way to disarmament and the end of the embargo. But the US had other plans.
Rolf Ekeus, who was in charge of the UN inspectors in Iraq between 1991 and 1997, has recently revealed that the US used the inspectors for espionage; it had also "pressed the inspection leadership to carry out inspections which were controversial from the Iraqis'' view, and thereby created a blockage that could be used as the justification for a direct military action" (4). That is what happened in December 1998 when Washington decided to bomb Iraq, without the backing of the UN, forcing the inspectors to quit and leaving the Iraqi weapons program without any form of control.
The US is not seeking the return of the inspectors but rather a pretext for a military adventure which risks increasing the gap between the Muslim world and the West. Who can foresee the consequences of such an enterprise on a region shaken by the Israeli government''s offensive against the Palestinians?
President Bush Senior''s former advisor, Brent Scowcroft, has warned "Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East" (5).
(1) BBC, London, 15 August 2002.
(2) The New York Times, 18 August 2002.
(3) US Senate report quoted by William Blum, "What The New York Times Left Out", Counterpunch, 20 August 2002.
(4) Financial Times, London, 30 July 2002.
(5) The Wall Street Journal Europe, 15 August 2002.
|
