> January 31, 2003 > > A War Crime or an Act of War? > > By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE > > MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking > smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the > Union > address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The > dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has > already used them on whole > villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or > disfigured." > > The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens > is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most > frequently brought up > concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March > 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush > himself has cited Iraq's > "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple > Saddam Hussein. > > But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded > with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty > that Iraqi chemical > weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja > story. > > I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's > senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a > professor at the Army War > College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified > material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian > Gulf. In addition, I headed a > 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against > the United States; the classified version of the report went into great > detail on the Halabja affair. > > This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came > about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used > chemical weapons to try > to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not > far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the > misfortune to be caught up in > that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. > > And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United > States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a > classified report, which it > circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. > That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not > Iraqi gas. > > The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the > battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, > indicated they had been > killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran > was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas > in the battle, are not > known to have possessed blood agents at the time. > > These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as > often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A > much-discussed article in The > New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence > Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. > On the rare > occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with > no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward > Iraq in its war against > Iran. > > I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has > much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him > of gassing his own > people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far > as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used > involved battles. These > were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, > but Halabja is not one of them. > > > In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing > on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so > keen on taking the town? > A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq. > > We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest > reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, > it may be more important > that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In > addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and > Lesser Zab rivers in the north > of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth > century A.D., and was a granary for the region. > > Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams > and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in > the Kurdish area. And > it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they > seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the > construction of a so-called > Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates > south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress > has been made on this, > largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of > course, all that could change. > > Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that > probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling > Iraq's oil, but by > controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once > Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative > opportunities would open up for > American companies. > > All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, > one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis > directly to Osama bin Laden > have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors > have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated > condition — thanks to United > Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one. > > Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that > Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. > And the most > dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja. > > Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American > people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein > gassing Kurds, it must > show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting > alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof > of Saddam > Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human > rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive > regimes Washington > supports? > > Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil > System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf." > > > Copyright 2003 The New York Times > Company |
_______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
