< < <
Date Index > > > |
The Biggest Turds, and Iraq by Elson Boles 17 September 2002 21:13 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
The Biggest Turds, and Iraq: The Relevance of Yesterday's News Today If you felt disgusted by the hypocrisy of US plans to make war on Iraq, yet alone sickened at the inevitable slaughter of thousands of people, but could only vaguely recall the details of how deep the hypocrisy goes, then read on. Keep in mind as you do that Bush Jr. has given the following reasons for invading Iraq, all of which but the last are accurate (the last is a mischaracterization): 1. Iraq used chemical weapons 2. Iraq has tried to build nuclear weapons 3. The US tried to bring Iraq into the "family of nations" -- said first by Bush Sr.) I posted a NYT article recently (8-21-02) in which US military officers explained that the US helped Iraq use (kill) with chemical and biological weapons during the Iraq-Iran war. The US had not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion (as also did Germany, Britain, France, Russia and others), including high-tech equipment for manufacturing chemical weapons, but the US also helped Iraq integrate chemical and biological weapons into battle plans and targets that the US gave to the Iraqi military. As military officers involved revealed in the NYT article that I posted, their efforts were part of a "highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq." At the same time the US was selling chemical and biological weapons to Iraq which the Iraqi military -- with full US knowledge -- integrated into the battle plans, etc. that the US was providing. As retired Col. Walter P. Lang, a senior defense intelligence officer at the time added, both D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran. "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said. A Frontline video, _The Arming of Iraq_ (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. We knew from other sources in the early 1990s that since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological for weapons to Iraq and approving private sales. Baker, for example, noted that "on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor" (see the article by Russ Baker <http://www.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp>). But the extent of tacitly helping Iraq integrate those chemicals into war plans provided by the US was only recently disclosed (as far as I know). Looking back into the affair reveals just how much else we already knew. For example, a Nightline episode (1990) revealed that top Reagan administration officials, those of the State Dept., of the Pentagon, and Dir. of Central Intelligence, etc. collectively engaged in a massive cover up of the USS Vincennes' whereabouts and actions when it shot down an Iranian airliner in 1987 killing over 200 civilians. The "massive cover up" Koppel explained, was to hide the US Secret War against Iran in which, among other actions, US special operations sunk half of Iran's navy while giving battle plans and logistical information to Iraqi forces. We now know that when the US was providing war plans to Iraq, US officials were fully aware that Iraq was integrating chemical weapons into those battle plans. In the last major battle some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas. In continuing the probe, as Koppel would explain in an episode of June 9, 1990, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush [Sr.], operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy" (Baker, ibid.). Actually, Bush Sr. was a minor player among US officials involved. The scandal of arms sales led to the financing scandal which involved many of the very same circle of arms suppliers, covert operators, and policy makers in and out of the US government who had been active in those roles for years. Recall, for example, the infamous Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) scandal in which the National Security Council and CIA and other US agencies tacitly approved about $4 billion in unreported loans to Iraq through the giant Italian bank's Atlanta branch. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Under the direction of the Reagan and Bush administrations, US government agencies continued the sales, despite the opposition of some US Congresspersons, right up to the invasion of Kuwait. But the early reports on BNL's activities and the startling revelations that the US government, including the CIA and Department of Agriculture, astonishingly knew that BNL was financing these purchases, were rather comical in view of later revelations. US government officials didn't just know and approve, but some were employees at BNL directly or indirectly. It was Representative Henry Gonzalas (D-Texas) who relentlessly brought key information into the Congressional Record (despite stern warnings by the State Department to stop his personal investigation for the sake of "national security"). Gonzalas revealed, for example, that Henry Kissinger was an employee of BNL and that, during the height of the scandal, BNL was a paying client of Kissinger Associates. He also learned that Brent Scowcroft served as vice chairman of Kissinger Associates until being appointed as National Security Advisor to President Bush in January 1989. Even Dan Quayle was involved, suggesting to Iraqi officials to approach his friends at BNL. (See <http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920428g.htm>) Perhaps the most bizarre revelations about former US officials concerned a Washington-based enterprise called "Global Research" which played a middleman role in selling uniforms to Iraq. It was run by none other than Spiro Agnew (Nixon's former VP who resigned to avoid bribery and tax evasion charges), John Mitchell (Nixon's chief of staff and Watergate organizer), and Dick Nixon himself. Their involvement was also in the mid-1980s mind you, more than a decade after Watergate. And to make sure the deal went through, Dick himself wrote a cozy letter to former dictator Ceausescu. US Provided Large Quantities and Varieties of Deadly Chemicals By 1992 we also learned about the massive quantities of chemical weapons that the US -- not just Germany -- was selling to Iraq. In looking for additional material for my students, I ran across Congressional Records from a Senator Riegle who, in his investigation of the Gulf War Syndrome, found that the US government had approved the sale of large quantities and varieties of chemical and biological materials to Iraq, including anthrax, components of mustard gas, botulinum toxin (which causes vomiting, double vision, dilation of the pupils, paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing, and is often fatal), histoplasma capsulatum (which causes a disease that superficially resembles tuberculosis and may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins), and many other chemicals. Those sales were made between 1985 and 1989. Riegle stressed that he looked back only as far as 1985, implying that the sales probably began earlier. (See the original <http://home.earthlink.net/~founders/armiraq.cfm> or an abbreviated version: http://www.svsu.edu/~boles/index/ussuppliesiraqgas.htm). The scandal of Iraq-gate was that despite the international embargo on weapons sales to Iraq (and Iran) since the early 1980s, and despite the ending of the Iraq-Iran war in 1988, and despite Saddam's killing of hundreds of innocent Kurdish people with chemical-biological weapons, US agencies and officials continued to build up Iraq's forces even just weeks prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, all the while publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas. And as for the invasion, was it a set up? Note first that the US knew it was coming but continued the sales. Newspaper reports about the infamous meeting between then Ambassador Glaspie and Iraq officials, and a special ABC report included in the series "A Line in the Sand," indicated that, although the US officials told Iraq that it disapproved, they said the US would not interfere. The arming of Iraq and Iran up to the Gulf War is probably what Richard Armatige (then Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and now Deputy Secretary of State), had in mind when he said in an interview, with a hint of pride in his voice, that the US "was playing one wolf off another wolf." (What does that make the US?) Logically, in light of US foreign policy -- including the same kind of pride that Bush Sr., Oliver North, and others verbalized in hearings about using the Ayatollah's money to fund the Contras as "a right idea" -- the setting up of Iraq would very consistent with maintaining parity among Middle Eastern allies and foes. If Iraq's military could be leveled, then potential instability caused by the rapid growth of Iraqi military power could be averted, and oil prices would probably decline since Iraq would need to step up sales to rebuild. The only problem with this scenario is that there were many operators making huge profits from arms sales to Saddam who were either members of the US government or former members with influence. One US official interviewed in the PBS video expressed his disappointment with Iraq's invasion and subsequent Gulf War because the relationship with Iraq could have continued to be "very profit..uh mutually profitable." In the end, the middle run interests of the US government took precedence over the short-run profit interests of the shadow government, though granted, it is frequently difficult to distinguish the composition and interests of the two at the highest levels. Indeed, there is no great surprise about the sordid assortment of officials and individuals directly or indirectly involved -- from the infamous US-based international arms dealer Sarkis Songhanalian and former Gen. Secord, to Oliver North and Richard Nixon -- and many others. They had been part of covert US arms and drug deals and Mafioso dating back decades. But their operations did become of major concern in the 1980s to many citizens and politicians when investigators began to reveal how this "shadow government" was circumventing explicit domestic and international laws against arming certain regimes and terrorist organizations. Democrats found ammo that helped get Clinton elected. I refer to the various "gates" -- Iran-Contra gate, Iraq-gate, BNL-gate etc. -- in which the public learned that the shadow government folks played all sides of many wars since the profits were very high, but also for ideological reasons. Perhaps the most well-documented case is the flipside of "Iraq-gate": "Iran-Contra gate." While arming Iraq to the teeth with all these weapons of mass destruction and taking some of the cash for themselves, Oliver North, Bush Sr., Dennis McFarlane, and Gen. Secord, and others purchased from the CIA spare parts for US-made weapons and more than two thousand TOW missiles, which the CIA had purchased at discount rates from the Pentagon, and which Secord and North sold Iran (not Iraq) in exchange for cash and the release of US hostages in Lebanon. In public, Ronnie Reagan had repeatedly condemned negotiations with terrorists, and even stated on national TV that there had been no negotiations with terrorists. He went back on air a few months later and said that while he still didn't believe "in his heart" that the US had negotiated with terrorists, the facts told him "otherwise." The facts were that the shadow operators in and out of the government "wheeled and dealed" around their respective governments' laws as directed by the highest levels of government. Many considered these trades as "business as usual." Secord, for instance, unashamedly told Congressional investigators that his arms-dealing firm, the "Enterprise," which sold the TOWs to other brokers and then to Iran, was a legitimate profit-making business. And as we all know, at the other end of the deal, North delivered a portion of the proceeds from those sales through Swiss banks to fund the terrorist Contras -- also with money from wealthy right-wingers and politicians around the world. This was detailed in Bill Moyers' PBS video, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1993?). Of course, it was not only illegal to sell weapons to the Contras per the Boland Act, but in other spheres of the operation, the US government flagrantly broke international law. Recall that the CIA had, in addition to providing military hardware and lists of targets for Contra raids, also mined the harbors of Nicaragua. When the US was taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and convicted of violating international laws, President Reagan disregarded this conviction saying the ICJ had no jurisdiction over the United States. In a Cesspool, the Biggest Turds Rise to the Top Juxtapose Reagan's anti-UN position and stress on US sovereignty with Bush Jr.'s push for the UN to take action. Bush Jr. argued a few days ago at the United Nations that Iraq is making a fool of the Security Council by failing to following UN mandates. Many of us are in a debate about this juxtaposition. Some argue that this is not just a short-term political maneuver in which the US government could hardly sound more hypocritical and one-sided in its proud role as the world's leading enforcer of double standards. Others argue that the US is in decline and can no longer pursue unilateral policies. Yet, even Wallerstein, who tends to take the later position, as discussed on this listserve, more recently notes that the US will probably get the support it wants, which contrasts his also recent comments on how the US is isolating itself. Time will tell just how much the US is really declining. Yes, US hegemony is gone, as Wallerstein defined it, but the residual power and its use requires more analysis than that. In my view, US relations with Middle East countries are part of the continuing Mafioso-like racket of oil: get the oil money back via arms sales; and later, via the IMF or World Bank, get even more, plus additional political leverage and cheap oil as the indebtedness caused by continued weapons purchases and regional instability grows and grows. In world-systems terminology, these are among the mechanisms of the core-periphery relationship and the trend of intensifying global inequality. But it also seems this racket is also taking us into the construction of a world-empire. In any case, Bush Jr. is correct that Iraq was willing to use chemical weapons and has been trying to build nuclear weapons. Of course, he just fails to mention that the US was willing to sell and help Iraq use those weapons of mass destruction against Iranians. Saddam would not be the tyrant he is without the US government. Finally, what about Bush Jr.'s third contention, that the US had tried to bring Saddam into the "family of nations?" In view of the thousands upon thousands of women, children, and men butchered with US arms and battle plans by US- trained and financed "freedom fighters" and brutal sub-imperialist regimes, one could only characterize that family as being composed of unscrupulous, profiteering, vile accomplices to mass murder. Is there any basic difference of character between Ceausescu and Nixon, Reagan and Khomeini, Bush Sr. and Jr. and Saddam? No. They are a family -- the family of our world's criminal government and business leaders. This is the reason (and not the operations in Bosnia) why the Bush administration and friends oppose the formation of the World Court. Elson Boles Assistant Professor Dept. of Sociology Saginaw Valley State University University Center Saginaw MI, 48710
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |