Myths spread by the US to justify military action in Iraq

What follows are some of the basic points that many people in support of military action make, and some of the responses that peace activists have come up with. If you have any further points to make, then please email Kyle.

1. "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." -- President Clinton at his press conference (Feb. 17)

Bombing cannot do that, because US officials admit they do not know where any chemical and biological arsenals are located, or if they exist. Former weapons inspector Raymond Zalinskas, a professor at the University of Maryland, said on Nat'l Public Radio (Feb. 13) that inspections have resulted in the destruction of all major targets related to chemical or biological warfare, and that "95% of [their] work continues unhindered." Recent allegations about possession of anthrax bacteria by white supremacists highlighted how easy it is to conceal, and move these toxins. Even if Iraqi arsenals were found, bombing them could release toxins into the atmosphere - poisoning Iraqis and people of neighboring countries.

2. "We have no intention of trying to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people." - US National Security advisor Sandy Berger

The US has already accomplished exactly that. According to reports verified by the UN, more than a million Iraqi civilians - over half of them children - died as a direct result of the US bombing of water and sewerage plants during the Gulf War and sanctions ever since. 4500 children per month continue to die, according to UNICEF. Furthermore, there is no way a massive bombing campaign can be accomplished without civilian casualties.

3. "If we don't strike now, Hussein will someday in the future obtain and use these weapons. The man is just like Hitler."

Saddam Hussein is a repressive dictator, but the extent of the threat he poses to other countries has been overblown in the media. His power was diminished when the US stopped supporting him in August 1990. The US is no longer allowing the sale of cell cultures and equipment for biological warfare to Iraq, as it did in the late 1980s, according to 60 Minutes (Feb. 22). The US is no longer selling billions of dollars worth of weapons to Iraq as it did during the Iran/Iraq war. The US is no longer voting against UN condemnation of Iraq, as it did after an attack on the Kurds as recently as 1990. Saddam Hussein had weapons of "mass destruction" (chemical and biological war-equipped missiles) during the Gulf War, and he demonstrated restraint in not using them. Nonproliferation requires diplomacy, not the use of military force.

4. Iraq is a danger to the Middle East.

All countries bordering Iraq oppose a US military strike, except Kuwait. Even Kuwait's support is reported as "lukewarm." Iran, which fought an 8-year war with Iraq, objects to US intervention. President Mubarak of Egypt, a staunch US ally, was quoted as saying that "...The point is what the public in our countries thinks. You will not find one [Arab leader] who will say publicly: we support the strikes." These rulers fear public opinion more than they do Hussein's military. What is the Arab public so upset about? They see a double standard in the US position on Iraq compared to Israel, which also possesses weapons of mass destruction: nuclear weapons.

5. Iraq is unique. It has used weapons of mass destruction against its own people.

To date, Turkey is engaged in a killing campaign against its Kurdish populations - and the US government stays silent. The military in Indonesia, controlled by General Suharto, killed over half a million people from 1965-66. However, the US has not taken any action. In fact, the US has rewarded those countries with increased military aid. In the case of Indonesia, US embassy officials even helped provide logistical support for the massacre. [Kathy Kadane, States News Service, May 1989]

6. "Because of 'smart bombs' we will be able to make a concerted effort at minimizing civilian casualties."

According to the Boston Globe (Feb. 20), the US arsenal is not much "smarter" now than it was in 1991, nor was it very "smart" to begin with. According to a recent study by the General Accounting Office, "smart" bombs miss their targets 75% of the time. Furthermore, wrong targets can be chosen. In 1991, a US bomb destroyed the Ameriya bomb shelter, killing 400 women and children.

7. Bombing Iraq, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, will make the world safer by encouraging all nations to "play by the rules" of international conduct.

To what rules is Albright referring? If she is referring to the rules of the UN, bombing Iraq to enforce a UN resolution without the support of the UN is a violation of international law. Perhaps Albright is referring to an unwritten rule: obey the United States. According to State Department documents, one of the main US objectives is to "try and service our economic interests by supporting the American business community." If in bombing Iraq, the US is enforcing such self-serving "rules", rather than principles of morality or self-determination, then it is that US that is not playing by the rules of international conduct.

8. Iraq has not complied fully with UN weapons inspections, demonstrating that Saddam Hussein has something to hide.

As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said (Feb. 18), weapons inspectors found and destroyed "38,000 chemical weapons; more than 100,000 gallons of deadly chemical agents; 48 operational missiles; and six missile launchers; along with a biological warfare factory." This is progress. Even if weapons remain to be found there are legitimate reasons why Iraq protests:

a. the former head of the inspection team, David Kay, was rebuked in the fall of 1991 for handing over 25,000 Iraqi documents directly to the US, without even consulting the UN. [The Scourging of Iraq, Geoff Simons, 1996]

b. the current head of the inspection team, Richard Butler, has made racist statements about Arabs having a different standard for truth than Westerners do.

c. Iraq sees a double-standard: seldom have resolutions by the UN been enforced in the past (in particular, resolutions critical of Israel have been blocked by the US).

d. inspection activities included, according to Voices in the Wilderness, such dubious activities as ransacking a Baghad convent and burning high school chemistry books.

Regardless of whether Hussein's palaces are hiding weapons, resistance to some of the demands of weapons inspectors serves as a effective form of "civil disobedience" to call attention to the widespread human suffering in Iraq as a result of the sanctions.

9. Killing Saddam Hussein might be worth the price of any backlash in world opinion.

Killing Saddam Hussein legitimizes assassination. It opens the door for other nations or movements to use assassination to enforce their will. It teaches the rest of the world that the US will sabotage genuine attempts at cooperative conflict resolution. By demonstrating that the "one with the most arms rules" it promotes the use of political violence - whether by other countries, terrorists, or religious fundamentalist movements.

10. Once hostilities begin, we need to support our troops.