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.
Protesting is justified if a wrong is being committed -
especially so if our country is involved, using our tax dollars. Protesting is a way to
show support for resolving conflict in ways that do not cause hundreds of thousands of
unnecessary deaths, of both troops and civilians.