U.S. Missiles Rain Death on Iraq
Lance Selfa
| Revision History | ||
|---|---|---|
| • September 1993 | Newspaper: Funded by Syracuse University students. | |
| The Alternative Orange: Vol. 3, No. 1 (pp. 23) | ||
| • September 20, 2000 | Webpage:  . | |
| DocBook XML (DocBk XML V3.1.3) from original. | ||
U.S. Cruise missiles smashed into the sleeping city of Baghdad once more last month, killing at least eight people in a surprise attack.
President Clinton claimed the attack was revenge for a plot to kill George Bush.
“I feel good about what happened,” he said, despite at least three of the dead being children and one an old man.
But he betrayed the truth when he said the aim was to send the message, “Don’t tread on us,” around the world.
The New York Times openly displayed the U.S. government’s rationale in the headline of the news analysis by State Department mouthpiece Thomas L. Friedman: “The Missiles’ Message: Yes, Washington Wants to Punish Hussein, But It Wants to Warn Iran and Sudan, Too.”
Thus, people in Baghdad died to “send a message” to Iran and Sudan, the once-and-future bogeymen.
Secretary of State Warren Christopher, interviewed only hours after the U.S. bombing of Baghdad, confirmed that the U.S. considers a resurgent Iran a greater threat than a devastated Iraq.
“A near defiant sense of pride was tangible at the White House” after the media broadcast news of the attack, reported the New York Times.
White House officials even let slip that their only regret was that there was no CNN satellite TV news crew in Baghdad to transmit the raid live.
Clinton and his national security team prided themselves with having been able to keep the attack secret until it took place.
In fact, the plan was so secret that even White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers wasn’t told.
Disinformation
Myers thus fed a White House-organized disinformation campaign that had leading newspapers reporting — days before the attack — that the U.S. was awaiting the result of the trial of the 14 would-be assassins in Kuwait before determining its response.
U.S. officials claimed the 23 missiles found their target — Iraq’s intelligence headquarters.
But at least one Cruise missile came down 37 miles away. Three more hit residential areas, leaving bodies lying in the street and craters 30 feet deep.
Later, the Pentagon said 16 of 23 missiles hit the Iraqi intelligence headquarters. Seven missiles landed in civilian areas.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell said he regretted this “collateral damage,” the military’s euphemism for civilian casualties.
But, Powell said, the number of civilians killed by the U.S. was “nothing” compared to “the number of civilians that would have been killed if the supposed Iraqi plot to kill George Bush had not been foiled.”
Thus, according to Powell, real Iraqi deaths were to be measured against hypothetical Kuwaiti deaths.
None of this seemed to bother U.S. allies in Europe. British Prime Minister John Major said, “The United States were right and have my full support.”
Clinton did not even bother getting a United Nations go-ahead for his aggression. He tossed aside the fig leaf which the U.S. had previously operated behind to assert its power in the Gulf and in Somalia.
He stands now as a war-monger indistinguishable from Bush — the man who slaughtered tens of thousands for oil.
Stands Up To Scrutiny
The alleged attempt on Bush’s life while on a visit to Kuwait barely stands up to any scrutiny. Of 11 Iraqis and three Kuwaitis accused of the plot, only one has confessed to anything — in a country whose treatment of prisoners under interrogation would make the heads of U.S. blush.
Amnesty International has documented cases of people dying under Kuwaiti police “questioning.” Indeed, the CIA itself has discounted the “confession” as evidence.
Meanwhile, the bomb that is supposed to provide proof turns out to carry markings in English rather than the Arabic spoken in Iraq. The plot was a mere excuse for Clinton’s murderous attack.
But if plotting to kill a head of state was enough to justify such an assault, countries across the world would be entitled to launch strikes against Washington.
The White House bombed Libya in 1986 to try to kill Col. Qadaffi.
They backed the overthrow and murder of Salvador Allende, elected leader of Chile in the early 1970s. And for years they plotted to murder Cuban president Fidel Castro.
New evidence of Saddam Hussein’s genocidal assault on the Kurds in the late 1980s provides no justification either.
The U.S. ignored the massacres at the time and carried on supplying arms to Saddam.
A leading daily newspaper in Sarajevo — where Clinton is weighing his options for intervention — wrote: “America can strike anyone if it seems to be in their interests or if the American nation will be excited.”
“At the same time, America is totally uninterested in the tragedy of a whole nation.”
Last month Clinton backed off plans for military intervention because of disagreements with his European allies about how best to contain the crisis.
But if the U.S. intervenes in Bosnia, Clinton will be sending the same message which he sent with the deadly assault on Baghdad — and which has been written in Somali blood — America’s rulers will stop at nothing to impose their will around the world.
(Reprinted from: Socialist Worker)
| ♦ ♦ ♦ |
