PETE DOLACK

BUSH & CO.'s HYPOCRISY ON IRAQ

They want war now, but Bush officials helped build up Iraq

The Bush administration's attitude toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq is, to put it generously, rather less than consistent. Although the Bush family and their consiglioeres have shown maximum hostility toward the Iraqi dictator since the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, they were quite friendly toward Saddam in the preceding years—years when Saddam was every bit as brutal as he is now.

Take, as a first example, the charge that Saddam has used chemical weapons. The Iraqi dictator did so, but used them on Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians during the Reagan/Bush I administration, when he was supported, aided and armed by the United States. Perhaps the Iraqi military was emboldened to use chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1988 because it had repeatedly used chemical weapons during its war with Iran, with the tacit approval of the U.S. government. The Reagan White House continued to sell arms and provide intelligence to the Iraqi military even after it knew mustard gas and Tabun, a nerve agent, were used on the battlefield.

In December 1983, a presidential envoy was sent to Baghdad to discuss the resumption of relations. This envoy was Donald Rumsfeld, the current hard-line defense secretary, who told The New York Times "it struck us as useful to have a relationship." In March 1984, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad, where he held talks with Tariq Aziz, then foreign minister and today deputy prime minister. These meetings began as United Press International reported that United Nations inspectors concluded that chemical weapons delivered from the air had been used on Iranian soldiers. Earlier, on March 5, 1984, the U.S. State Department said "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons." Full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iraq were established in November 1984, with Rumsfeld never commenting on the chemical-weapons usage.

Iraq continued to use chemical weapons for the duration of the war against Iran. The New York Times, in an Aug. 18, 2002, report, quoted an unnamed Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) official who flatly stated that Iraq used chemical weapons to "clinch" its victory and that in early 1988 a DIA officer toured the battlefield with Iraqi officers after Iraq retook the Fao Peninsula and saw first-hand evidence that chemical weapons had been used. The Reagan/Bush I administration continued to provide support for Iraq, as it had been doing since 1984. In July 1988, shortly after the conclusion of its war with Iran, Iraq then attacked the Kurdish village of Birjinni in northern Iraq with mustard gas and nerve gas. In August 1988, a secret memo written by a deputy secretary of state and obtained by The Los Angeles Times recommended "there should be no radical policy changes now regarding Iraq." The paper has also quoted U.S. intelligence sources saying they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

That's a reasonable belief because the U.S. had continued to arm the Iraqis. Iraq was sold 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers and 10 Huey helicopters, similar to those used to ferry combat troops, before the 1984 resumption of official relations, according to a Feb. 13, 1991, Los Angeles Times report. The latter sale was made over congressional objections. In 1984, the State Department pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters, craft designed for military purposes and which, according to a later New York Times report, were believed to have been transferred to the Iraqi military.

Meanwhile, George Bush Sr., as vice president and president, personally intervened on behalf of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. A Feb. 23, 1993, Los Angeles Times report revealed that Vice President Bush, in June 1984, telephoned the president of the Import-Export Bank (a U.S. agency that subsidizes foreign trade and insures against defaulters with U.S. taxpayer money) to obtain the approval of $500 million in loan guarantees so Iraq could build an oil pipeline; in February 1987, interceded with the new Import-Export president for an additional $200 million loan guarantee; and in March 1987, told the Iraqi ambassador that two Iraqi requests for sensitive American technology was approved over Defense Department objections. As president, Mr. Bush in October 1989 signed a secret national security directive ordering U.S. agencies to expand political and economic ties with Iraq. In the following months, the Bush I administration ordered the approval of $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees and overruled attempts by the Commerce Department to slow the flow of technology to Iraq.

Meanwhile, considerable military assistance was provided to Iraq. The U.S. provided intelligence on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments during the war with Iran, according to an Aug. 18, 2002, United Press International dispatch. More than 60 DIA officers provided these services to Iraq, at a time when George Bush Sr. was vice president and Colin Powell was national security advisor. Vice President Bush, it will be recalled, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and thus likely oversaw this DIA program. The UPI dispatch quoted an unnamed "veteran" of the DIA program as saying the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas [on Iranian troops]. It was just another way of killing people." A separate CIA program provided Iraq with satellite photographs. All this continued during a time when Reagan officials were piously condemning Iraq's chemical-weapons usage in public.

Finally, when Iraq was massing troops on its border with Kuwait, Saddam Hussein went to the Bush I administration's ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, to clear his invasion. Ms. Glaspie, as the world well remembers, granted Saddam permission to invade by telling the Iraqi dictator the U.S. had "no opinion" on the dispute ‹ an established diplomatic phrase meaning "go ahead, we'll look the other way."

Since sanctions were imposed on Iraq, the pain has been felt by the Iraqi people, not Saddam, the Bush family's erstwhile ally. A September 2001 report in The Progressive detailed the plans of the DIA to intentionally destroy Iraq's water supply (which succeeded). The report quotes declassified DIA documents from early 1991 predicting that with the collapse of Iraq's water system, the supply of fresh water would be far short of the country's needs, resulting in widespread disease, including epidemics, and that many of the diseases expected to become uncontrolled would particularly affect children. The U.S. intentionally destroyed the water system of Iraq and maintains a total embargo on any product that could be used to repair the water system. This is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention.

For several years, food was also strictly embargoed and under the current relatively relaxed standards it is difficult for Iraq to import sufficient food. Medicine is also embargoed. As a result, there is widespread malnutrition among Iraqi children and 13% of Iraqi children die before age 5. The indifference to this suffering of innocent civilians was chillingly illustrated on May 12, 1996, when Clinton administration Secretary of State Madeline Albright, asked in a CBS television interview about the more than 500,000 Iraqi children who had by then died as a result of the sanctions, said "the price is worth it."

And does the Bush II administration really care about Iraqi atrocities against Kurds? That is difficult to believe when Turkey, the third-largest recipient of U.S. aid, oppresses its Kurds so violently. During Turkey's 16-year war against its Kurdish minority, it has killed 30,000 people, destroyed 3,000 villages and displaced as many as 2 million people.

Many of the high officials in the current Bush II administration held responsible positions in the Reagan/Bush I administration. Saddam Hussein's military capacity was far greater during the period when he was being armed by the U.S. than it is now. Saddam Hussein used "weapons of mass destruction" with the tacit approval of some of the very same people who are now loudly calling for "regime change." And the Bush I administration decided to leave him in power, albeit contained, because it calculated that would be the best way to insure Iraq would stay intact rather than break up, making it easier to control the nation's oil in the future.

So why is there suddenly such a need to remove Saddam from power? Could it be that the Bush administration needs to distract attention from its mounting domestic difficulties? Could it be that the administration has decided the best way to insure control of Middle East oil is to now install a government to its liking in Iraq? Could it be the administration wants to send another message that the U.S. will dictate to the world and will not brook any dissent?

Are these reasons to start a war?

Pete Dolack is a NYC activist, poet, curator and editor. His chapbook, "And Now A Word From Our Sponsors," was recently released and is doing well. Check out Pete's 2001 debut on Poetz.com.