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]
Dear John Hemming,
At first I didn't want to respond, and now I can't stop.
Anyway, a few more points...
> b) It is a bad idea to have an invasion which results in
> Iraq ending up being controlled by the US government. This
> would be bad both for Iraq and the rest of the world...
I agree. It's a very bad idea for Iraq - never mind the
rest of the world. Still, bad nor not, this _is_ whole idea.
Otherwise, there would no need for an attack. No need to
make up one flimsy pretext after another. What's more, the
US has wanted to do this for a long time - ever since it
"lost" Iran when the Shah was deposed. (His Imperial
Highness was a dictator puppet of the US.) But first the
US got Iraq to put Iran in its place. This was called
dual containment.
Now the US, by its own admission, wants to occupy Iraq:
either by military occupation or by setting up a puppet.
Or first one, then the other. They want to control Iraq as
a base, control the oil, and syphon off the profits
(just as British and other oil companies did earlier).
Once they have control of Iraq as a base and oil source,
they plan to go on: The idea is to control the whole Middle
East - as a start. The final goal is total control of
Eurasia. Not a bad idea for the US, but a bad idea, as you
say, for the rest of the world.
> ...However, I believe it is worth looking at what might
> happen from a humanitarian aspect.
What "might happen"? It's probably worth looking at what
_has_ happened: in 1991 the US and allies bombed Iraq to
near ground zero - destroyed the whole infrastructure. The
idea was to demoralize the civilian population. The sanction
were to continue the demoralization - incite an "uprising"
through starvation and deprivation. Then came another big
bombing attack in 1998. Then followed almost daily bombings
on a "small" scale. Psycho warfare, such as this, is
traumatic for the victims and saps the strength out of
people. To keep it going for 12 years is a crime against
humanity - from a legal, as well as from a "humanitarian aspect".
> It may not make you any happier living in Baghdad as you
> do to find that I have been arguing with the UK government
> that if they do attack then they should avoid street battles
> in Baghdad.
"Any happier"? You seem to be telling this Iraqi that he
wouldn't be "any happier living in Baghdad" if he had to
face "street battles". Ergo: go for the "uprising".
Again, it might be worth looking at what "living in Baghdad"
means today:
How happy would you be "living in Baghdad" under the sanction
blockade, the deprivation, the constant fear of bombing?
How happy would you be seeing your children die of leukaemia
or diarrhoea? How happy would be living on 4 dollars a month
in an economy destroyed by US sanctions?
And how do you visualize the "uprising" you so strongly
recommend?
Arguably, an "uprising" could avoid street battles involving
the US. This would be better for the US world prestige and
lessen the risk of US casualties. It would also be cheaper
for the US.
But your suggested "uprising" would also lead to "street
battles". In such uprising, Iraqis would be killing one
another, and the US could watch from the sidelines until
the bloodbath is over. Not very good "from a humanitarian
aspect".
> We are arguing the case with the Military in the UK that
> in the event of a decision for some action to be taken to
> remove Saddam Hussain from power the opposition should be
> given support for an uprising before any invasion decision.
Every death and misery the sanctions and the bombing have
inflicted on the Iraqi people for the last 12 years had the
sole purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein. ("The sanctions will
stay in perpetuity or until Saddam is toppled", was the motto.)
The planned US invasion also serves the sole purpose of
toppling Saddam Hussein - and taking control of the country.
And you, apparently, are assisting the people who are
collaborating with the invaders of their home country. These
collaborators have been on the CIA payroll for years. As a
final reward, they are eager to serve in a puppet government.
But there is no guarantee that the collaborators will be
so rewarded.
And there is a name for people like that. The name is
Quisling: Vidkum Abraham Lauritz Quisling.
The name Quisling has become a synonym for 'traitor' worldwide.
The Quislings of this world are detested, not only by their
own people, but by everyone else.
And I don't think the US can buy "support for an uprising"
from the Iraqi people.
> We are looking at the issue of using UN resolution 949 to
> create safe havens in the South of the country particularly
> in the sacred cities. One difficulty is how to resolve the
> issues around Kirkuk in the North.
"We"? You and the collaborators?
Kirkuk, I believe, is outside the northern "save haven", ie,
the no-fly-zone, where the US is currently training a Kurdish
militia.
One problem facing your collaborators in the North might
be the fate of the Kurds - if Turkey gets its way. Provided
the collaborators care about the Kurds.
For years, the Turkish army has had a license from the US
to kill Kurds in the no-fly-zone at will. The US/UK would
tactfully withdraw to let them get on with it.
For example, on August 15, 2000 the Turkish airforce
carried out a raid in which 38 Kurdish civilians were
killed, 17 wounded, and were missing, according to the KDP.
On August 17, 44 were killed and 70 wounded. On August 18,
2000, 12 bombs were dropped killing 41 and wounding 57.
A speaker for the Kurdish National Congress (KNC) said that
chemical weapons and napalm bombs were also used during
these raids.
The American ambassador in Ankara called this an "incident".
(Compared to other Turkish raids, it was.) Questioned by a
Kurdish journalist, the ambassador said:
"This was an incident realized by Turkish soldiers.
Reports on this subject have reached us. There is
information in the reports concerning the use of chemical
weapons. But I will not appraise the incident or give
detailed information."
Now, as the US and your collaborators are making plans,
Turkey is making preparations too. According to European
eyewitness reports, Turkey has positioned 10,000 to 15,000
soldiers along the 400 km border. If the US attacks Iraq,
Turkey plans to create buffer zones at the border to prevent
Kurdish refugees from reaching Turkey.
Furthermore, Turkey is determined to prevent the creation
of a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq - by "military action"
if necessary. That's why, according to the Istanbul newspaper
Cumhuriyet, Turkey has so far refused to make its military
bases available to the US and to open its airspace. (As of
Dec 17, that is.) Apparently, Washington has offered Turkey
3,5 billion US for these favours.
Is that what you mean by "one difficulty"?
(Germany is ahead of Turkey here: everything that could be
offered, has been offered, apparently for free. Plus the
10,000 German soldiers Washington requested to protect
US military installation in Germany. But Schroeder, of course,
will not "participate" in a war against Iraq.)
Wishing for an uprising for peace,
Elga
_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk