|
On
February 5th, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell,
delivered his lengthy accusation of Iraqi attempts
to build and retain weapons of mass destruction. The
setting was eerily reminiscent of the presentation
of the key propaganda event that justified the first
Gulf War. At that time, also at the United Nations,
the Hill & Knowlton propaganda specialists concocted
the "throwing babies out of incubators"
charade, starring the daughter of the Kuwait ambassador.
If they needed to concoct such a lie in 1991 to change
US public opinion when there was a clear case of Iraqi
aggression, then one should be on guard now when the
grounds for war are much more tenuous. A bit of historical
context should perhaps guard us from lending too much
credence to "evidence" concocted by the
US and presented by Powell himself. We should also
expect more fabrications and staged provocations;
in fact, the US has never let a bit of truth stand
in its way of a war.
One of the most important
messages coming out of the Powell presentation was
the reiterated threat against the UN. He stated that
it should either play along with the US or it will
be rendered meaningless; this threat almost drives
a nail through the UN's coffin. The post-War basis
for international law would be overturned in favor
of a world where the US would rule by the "might
is right" principle--a principle one assumed
had been totally discredited. Secretary General Kofi
Annan looked on impassively throughout without uttering
a statement afterwards. Perhaps his diminutive voice
will from now be even further muted. He could hide
in some of the bombproof cars that have been given
to him by the US and Germany--but why the UN Secretary
General would need such vehicles is a mystery.
In fact, the US has
attained expertise in crafting UN resolutions or accords
that will guarantee an outcome leading to war. During
the Ramboulliet Conference about Kosovo, the conditions
of the Accords were so onerous that they were certain
to be rejected, and therefore an unnecessary war ensued.
UN Resolution 1441 requiring inspections and that
Iraq come clean seems also to have been crafted in
such a way that it could provide the excuse for war.
That was the open and shameless implication evident
from Powell's presentation.
First of all, the UN
resolution put the Iraqis in the impossible situation
that they must prove that they do NOT have any weapons
of mass destruction. Any proof proffered or any inspection
will not enable them to satisfy the resolution--Americans
will always state that Iraqis are hiding something.
The Iraqis obviously had no choice other than to go
along with the resolution, but either way the outcome
seems to be war.
Powell emphasized the
importance of the satellite photographs proving that
there were chemical or biological weapons. If the
photos actually showed this, then why can't the inspectors
be flown to the locale? Furthermore, there are very
good grounds for Iraqis to be moving around their
assets given the impending war. They would be total
idiots to let them sit in plain sight to be easily
bombed by US planes. So, the motive attributed by
Powell for hiding them is entirely legitimate given
the perceived risk of the onset of war. The same explanation
can be proffered if Iraqis are found trying to hide
bunkers--this is called camouflage. Had the American
buildup been delayed until after the inspectors had
a chance to determine the status of the various weapons
programs, then moving weapons around would have been
suspicious. With tens of thousands of troops surrounding
Iraq there are very good reasons to spread those weapons
around, hide them, or to safeguard expensive equipment.
Powell stated that
the Iraqis were spying on the UN inspection team and
intimated that this somehow would be illegitimate.
Since history is a useful guide, then we know that
the previous inspection teams were used by the US
to spy on Iraq. Scott Ritter, a former inspector,
has said this much himself. If the US is building
a massive military force around Iraq, and if it is
likely using the UN inspection team for spying, then
it is legitimate to take defensive measures. Again,
the US buildup makes Iraqi countermeasures understandable,
and not attributable to some perverse motive. Using
this same argument it is also understandable why Iraqis
don't want US U2 spy plane over-flights. NB: the image
of a U2 airplane shown during the presentation disingenuously
showed a UN symbol on the airplane--this would be
a rare sight indeed if it were true. How could data
gathered from such an airplane be controlled by the
UN?
Scott Ritter has stated
that nuclear weapons and their radioactive components
are very easy to spot. Airplanes flying over Iraq
could detect these. So, Powell's assertions about
the silly aluminum tubes are dubious. The shelf life
of both chemical and biological weapons is very short--extensive
facilities are necessary to keep such weapons effective.
Once again, Scott Ritter suggested that the existence
of the large facilities needed for such an effort
could easily be monitored. The only way Powell gets
around this is to suggest the facilities are on trucks
that assemble into mobile factories! This seems like
a silly suggestion, but it also will guarantee that
the Iraqis will trip over UN 1441. If they claim they
don't have such mobile factories, then the US will
claim that they are deviously trying to hide them.
If they were factories allegedly in a fixed location,
then the inspectors could settle this issue (potentially
averting war), but in their mobile form, the US can
always claim that they are not accounted for.
Even if the Iraqis
had the chemicals or biological agents, this still
leaves the trickier issue of dispersing these weapons
effectively over an area where their enemy is located.
It is hard to imagine that such chemicals or biological
agents could be elevated to weapons of "mass"
destruction. It jars one's imagination to think that
a country living under crippling sanctions could have
developed missiles or even radio controlled airplanes
that would have posed a threat to US troops 500 km
away.
Perhaps the poorest
section of Powell's speech was one that dealt with
the association with "terrorists". Even
the major intelligence agencies dispute a link with
Al Qaeda. Stating that somehow the Iraqis are responsible
for terrorists in the Northern part of Iraq, which
isn't even under their control, should have seemed
foolhardy enough to suggest. Furthermore, to taint
groups like Hamas or other Palestinian resistance
groups with the same brush as Al Qaeda should have
alerted all of us that something fishy was afoot.
Hamas is an Islamic-based political grouping that
initially was fostered by the Israeli secret services--it
has since then become a legitimate opposition force.
Furthermore, the Israelis have a propensity of labeling
anyone who doesn't accept the narrow confines of their
accepted political discourse as a "Hamas militant"--it
is a vaguely defined catch-all label. It is odd to
lump a legitimate resistance movement against Israeli
occupation with the terrorists the US is currently
railing against.
The intercepted conversations
over the radio are an insult to the audience's intelligence.
"Don't talk about nerve agents, I repeat"
Give us a break! Most likely, the clowns surrounding
Powell didn't have the Hill & Knowlton expertise
to concoct a more effective story.
Powell suggested that
a teaspoon-full of anthrax would cause havoc in the
US. He stated that a few grams of the stuff had paralyzed
the US Senate and Congress in 2001. Of course, he
didn't mention that the most likely source for the
anthrax that caused this scare was one or another
US scientist. Suggesting that Iraq was the origin
of anthrax was a clear attempt to rekindle the fears
most Americans were subjected to in 2001, and a less
than honest presentation of the issue.
Powell also personalized
the alleged Iraqi prevarication. Instead of highlighting
Iraqi mendacity, he always sought to personalize it
as "Saddam's lies". This construct suggests
that the US is only after Saddam, and that
"one bullet" would do the trick as Ari Fleischer
suggested some months ago. However, at the same time
that the US is demonizing Saddam Hussein as an individual,
it has been made abundantly clear that the war against
Iraq is going to be massive and devastating. If Powell
really was only going after Saddam Hussein, then the
current war would seem to be unnecessary--a mere assassination
is needed. Instead, the war that is being prepared
will certainly harm millions of people in the area.
This is an admission that Powell would not like to
make--millions of people around the world would object.
A rather transparent propaganda ploy was used to present
the conflict as focusing on one demon--thus diminishing
the implications of the horrors that actually await
the region. [1]
Make no mistake--General
Powell was trying to sell a war, and unless one takes
into account recent history, then it could have been
a decent performance. However, in 1968 Major Powell
was involved in whitewashing the My Lai massacre in
Vietnam--a clear attempt to keep that war running
and lie to Americans that nothing out of the ordinary
had happened there. During the Vietnam War Americans
were lied to on a massive scale, and the man perpetrating
one of the biggest lies about My Lai was today standing
on the moral high ground justifying war against Iraq.
For this type of performance, one is promoted to the
rank of General--and certainly, Exxon will name their
next oil tanker after him!
Actually, General Powell is reputed to be one of the
most moderate and sensible members of the Bush regime.
If so, then imagine the rest of the gang. Just the
thought makes one shudder.
One has difficulty
finding a humorous angle to this sordid situation,
but the UN and the US have provided one. Today, at
the UN, a curtain was drawn over a replica of Picasso's
Guernica--a painting that is an indictment of war
and the barbarity inflicted by man on man. [2]
Throughout the spectacle, one became acutely aware
that the whole event was stage-managed. The mere suggestion
about the horrors of war would have been out of place,
clashing with the case for war offered by Powell and
the other dogs of war.
[1] If history is
any guide, then we know that after the war--if there
is one--then all of us will be treated to the public
ridicule of Saddam Hussein by the purported find
of tons of pornographic materials and oversize edible
sexy underwear. Saddam Hussein's intimate wardrobe
may also come under the propaganda spotlight. Similar
materials were planted in the house of Salvador
Allende in 1973 to impugn the character of the man.
[2] One only wonders
why Kofi Anan allowed the UN to be used in this
way.
This
article was first printed in Counterpunch
and is carried here with permission from the author.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
