The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Even if the rebuttal below holds with respect to U.S. conduct in the Gulf
War, war crimes still apply (do they not?), for under the sanctions siege
warfare such a document reveals knowledge of the consequences of sanctions.
Andrew Loucks
The Global Movement to End the War against Iraq - Hamilton Chapter
Box 1013, McMaster University
1280 Main Street West
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 1C0
Phone: 905-525-9140 ext. 27289
Fax: 905-523-0107 ("ATTN: OPIRG - Iraq Working Group")
Email: loucksah@leb.net
Web: http://www.leb.net/globalmewi
Check out our Iraq Activist Guide at http://www.leb.net/globalmewi/hamilton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Herring" <Eric.Herring@bristol.ac.uk>
To: "Hamre, Drew" <drew.hamre@rainier.com>; "Tom Nagy" <nagy@gwu.edu>
Cc: <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2000 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: "Allies deliberately poisoned Iraq public water supply in Gulf
Wa r"
> Dear all:
>
> I passed on the Glasgow Herald article and the document on
> to a senior USAF contact of mine who was able to contact
> someone involved in the drafting of the document. Here are
> his comments, stripped of identifying detail. Whether or
> not you agree with his comments, any rebuttal needs to be
> careful.
>
> I am willing to pass on responses (measured ones, as is
> usually the case with CASI's high standards).
>
> Best wishes
>
> Eric
>
> 1.
> 'Oh. . .quick glance mentions NOTHING about targeting the
> water purification
> plants nor of a specific intent to harm civilians. We did
> NOT bomb water
> treatment plants.
> What is notable and noble, is the DIA was conducting an
> assessment of the
> impact the sanctions were having on Iraq--beyond the
> military affect.
> Many of the chemicals mentioned are used in the manufacture
> and maintenance
> of weapons and weapon support. The UN, and I emphasize
> "UN," sanctions were
> comprehensive--meaning any "dual use" products would be
> banned.
> However, I will read in more detail and get back to you.
> Again, as I mentioned, I see nothing in the message stating
> the US/Coalition
> deliberately attacked a specific public health facility
> (water treatment),
> only that the DIA was making an assessment of the affect of
> the
> sanctions--in the usual matter-of-fact unbiased impersonal
> style in formal
> message format.'
>
> 2. 'Please note the following:
> Title of message: "IRAQ WATER TREATMENT VULNERABILITIES (U)
> "
> and
> "SUBJECT: IRAQ WATER TREATMENT VULNERABILITIES (U)"
>
> The "(U)" means the message's initial classification was
> UNCLASSIFIED. Thisis significant!!
>
> UNCLASSIFIED means this report was not EVER classified and
> as such was never"hidden" and never had a requirement to be
> "declassified." In deed, the message is on a DoD web-site!
>
> It is obvious to me that the message was NOT prepared to
> support of any military operation, targeting policy or plan
> to conduct an attack. (Any such communication would have
> been at least "SECRET." It was merely what
> the title said: an assessment of how vulnerable the Iraqi
> water system was.
>
> My opinion is that some people may be reading into this
> much, much more than what it really is---if you read the
> message with an unbiased and unemotional eye and you will
> see it is a cold-hearted assessment of the effect of
> sanctions and NOT a "BDA" of the effect of a specific
> targeting action or policy.
>
> In addition, as I said in earlier email--many of the
> chemicals (Chlorine for example) are used in the
> manufacture of weapons and are considered "dual
> use" and subject to sanctions. If you read the message
> again, you might detect a tone that suggests the
> UN/Coalition re-evaluate that portion of the
> sanction because of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
>
> You write: "The coalition, led by the US, deliberately
> destroyed Iraq's drinking water (and sanitation) system,"
>
> Indeed we did lead, but we never deliberately destroyed
> such targets. It would be folly to risk aircrew and
> aircraft to destroy such targets that offer no tactical or
> strategic advantage.
>
> "in the full expectation that this would cause many
> civilian casualties."
>
> No sir, nothing of the kind, and I see nothing in this
> assessment that demonstrates an intent to do such a thing.
> Where, oh where in the report does it imply or state we
> deliberately attacked and targeted their water
> purification system--what it does say is the effect of
> sanctions related to
> specific dual-use chemicals are having an affect on the
> water system. I am
> not splitting hairs here, I am reading the message for what
> it is, and only
> for what it say's. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION IN THE "BLACK
> HOLE" TARGETING
> CELL TO TARGET CIVILIANS---PERIOD!!!!!
> Simply put, we did NOT go after the water plants to, in
> your words, to
> "cause many civilian casualties." No, never went to war
> with Iraq to cause
> civilian casualties and this report is speaking to the
> effects of sanctions
> on dual use items.
>
> Keep in mind that of the few water facilities hit were hit
> because of two
> reasons; 1) they were misidentified and bombed by an
> aircrew under combat
> conditions and while being shot at (which brings to fore an
> argument AGAINST
> the ICC--imagine bringing a case against an aircrew who
> misidentified a
> target under combat conditions--how silly! A mistake is
> NOT a crime. The
> 2nd reason is simply because the target was part of a small
> grid system
> supporting a significant military target and the rule of
> proportionality was
> assessed and accounted for.'
>
> 3. 'I spoke with a principle associated with the
> drafting of the
> original message. . .just as I suspected. . .it was an
> estimate/assessment
> of the impact of sanctions beyond what was originally
> intended
> (double-effect/unintended consequences).'
>
> ----------------------
> Dr. Eric Herring
> Department of Politics
> University of Bristol
> 10 Priory Road
> Bristol BS8 1TU
> England, UK
> Tel. +44-(0)117-928-8582
> Fax +44-(0)117-973-2133
> http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Politics
> eric.herring@bristol.ac.uk
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
> For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk
> Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:
> http://www.casi.org.uk
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:
http://www.casi.org.uk