| February
24, 2003
As
anyone who even casually glances the newspapers and cable news shows
will tell you, the American media is gung-ho for war. The troubling
thing is not this pro-war view; but the almost monolithic ideology
of it all. Despite all the editorials and articles and pundits swimming
about, there's no real debate, no deep and meaningful discussion
about launching a war whose consequences may stretch out for decades.
We're
off to war, and you better get with the damn program, hail the O'Reilly's,
the Safire's, and the Limbaugh's of the world. You're either with
us, or…well, take your pick. You're a traitor, a sellout,
a fool, unpatriotic, Saddam's apologist. No time for questions,
stop thinking and just behave like a nice dittohead.
It
is this mentality that I find the most obnoxious. If you oppose
the war, you love Saddam; pardon my French, but that's bullshit.
There isn't an intelligent American anywhere who doesn't believe
Saddam Hussein is anything but a murderous tyrant. The catch is
that we felt the same way about Hussein back in the 1980s. When
he was killing Iranians with chemical weapons and crushing over
100,000 Iraqi Kurds, Washington and the media looked the other way.
They had no problem being buddies with the Butcher of Baghdad back
then. It was more important that this "ally" was socking
it to the Iranians. Heck, Detroit even gave the dictator a key to
their city.
Of
course, while the Reagan Administration was giving weapons and money
to Iraq to kill the Iranians, they were also giving Iran weapons
and money to kill the Iraqis. See if any of your favorite television
"experts" bother to point that out.
The
very people who are pushing for military action the loudest - Cheney,
Wolfowitz, Powell, Abrams - are the same ones responsible for arming
Iraq in the '80s. Bet you won't hear any television pundits point
this out. It's much easier to repeat the talking points mantra "he
gassed his own people," without reminding the public whose
support made those deaths possible. It's much easier to dismiss
any criticism as "aiding and abetting." I'll tell you
what aiding and abetting is.
Back
in the early '80s, Saddam Hussein was a strategic ally of the Reagan
Administration. We propped up the brutal dictator, because he was
locked in a war against fundamentalist Iran. The United States was
providing weapons technology and satellite intelligence to the Iraqis
for their war. In December, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, then Middle East
Envoy, traveled to Baghdad to speak personally with Hussein, shake
his hand, and publicly offer American support. But during this rosy
little meeting, the UN issued its reports regarding Iraq's use of
chemical weapons on the battlefield. Reports of chemical weapons
use against the Iranians had been swirling for some time, and there
was growing evidence of this fact.
The
Reagan Administration responded by hemming and mumbling, and then
took action. By 1984, they reestablished full diplomatic ties to
Baghdad. This opened the door for billions of dollars in aid, as
well as sales by American corporations. The White House also pushed
other countries to do business in Iraq.
Through
the decade, the US continued to arm the Iraqi dictator and look
the other way. We sold them weapons, military equipment, tanks,
missiles. American corporations sold "duel use" technologies
and anthrax, with the full blessing of the White House. These very
weapons are the supposed reason we are about to go to war in 2003.
Nearing
the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, Saddam once again turned on
his own people, crushing uprisings in the Kurdish north. It was
here that he unleashed chemical weapons on his own people, using
American-supplied helicopters to kill over 100,000 Kurds. Surely
now, with Iran out of the picture, President Reagan would do something
about Iraq.
As
it turns out, he did. The US Senate passed a unanimous resolution
calling for the severing of ties with Iraq. The measure was stopped
dead by the White House.
The
Reagan and Bush Administrations both continued to support Saddam
right up until the invasion of Kuwait. Oops, I forgot. Before the
invasion, a US diplomat informed Iraq that it would not interfere
in any military action against Kuwait. That was an "internal
matter."
Even
after the Gulf War, members of our current Administration were more
than willing to do business with Iraq. Ask Dick Cheney, who was
CEO of Haliburton Industries. Two Haliburton subsidiaries had contracts
in Iraq totaling $73 million, according to a June 23, 2001 article
in the Washington Post.
Tell
me, what qualifies as "aiding an abetting" Saddam, that
record, or marching in a global anti-war protest? And once you solve
that puzzle, tell me why exactly we are supposed to blindly support
this Administration? |
