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 Andrew, > But the reports don't seem to help us work out > 1) just how extensive the specific damage to water-treatment > installations was, or 2) how "intentional" it was. > (Of course "intentionality" is not necessarily a simple concept). Evidently you are concerned: It was you who raised the issue. If was you who did the summing up. And it is you who has now responded to Dirk's contribution. I sympathize, but I am not sure what your concerns are. But then I am a witness for the prosecution. Are you perhaps a witness for the defence? That is, would you like to think that this was the "clean" war it's made out to be? And that the USAF stuck to a neat list of pre-determined targets - precisely executed with "surgical strikes", and on humanitarian principles? Or do you just find it hard to believe that nice, western governments could do such things? If so, you are not alone. I don't think I understand what you mean by 'how "intentional"'. And 'how extensive'? Well, Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar's contribution is quite specific (Jan 27). He describes what was bombed, how often (eg, 5 times), or total destruction. How specific would the description have to be? In March 1991 UN Under-Secretary General Ahtisaari described the overall situation in the Greater Baghdad are as 'near-apocalyptic' (apocalypse = total destruction). Here is are some of his first impressions: "It should, however, be said at once that nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation which has now befallen the country. The recent conflict has wrought near-apocalyptic results upon the economic infrastructure of what had been, until January 1991, a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society." (You find this report on CASI.) Specifically, how 'intentional' was the destruction of the "baby milk factory" in Baghdad? They meant to bomb it and they did. A sign was left at the ruin that said in tall, red letters "BABY MILK PLANT" (in Arabic and English). A factory that made infant formula and baby food. The French company that built it and New Zealand technicians who installed new equipment in 1990 later confirmed that. But you can't fool a Bush. George Bush the Elder ordered the bombing - convinced of sinister goings on. And 'how intentional' was the bombing of the Al-Amariyeh Shelter? They meant to bomb it, and they did. On the morning of February 13, 1991, two missiles (intentionally) hit the shelter and hundreds of civilians, including many children, were incinerated - burnt to death. You can still see human skin attached to the walls, small hands and feet appliqued to the ceiling. There are also many flowers, photographs, and family mementoes put there by people who lost their loved ones. U.S. Brig. Gen. Richard Neal admitted the intent. "We don't know why civilians were at this location", said a Whitehouse spokesman. (It had been used by civilians since 1980's.) And 'how intentional' was the carpet-bombing (area bombing) of Basra, then a city of 800,000? They meant to carpet-bomb it, and they did. The whole city of Basra was declared a "free fire zone". The bombing was done with B-52s. Flying at 40,000 feet, they dropped up to 60 bombs of 500 or 750 pounds at a time. The intent was to carpet-bomb entire areas. I think you can visualize 'how extensive' the damage must have been. (Notable examples of carpet-bombing are Rotterdam and Dresden.) Have you read any of the many reports? There is also the letter by the Public Interest Lawyers to The Right Honourable Geoffrey Hoon MP, Secretary of State for Defence, on behalf of their client, Mark Thomas, The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It is dated January 2, 2003 and warns the minister against the "proposed use of force against Iraq" - "issues of international humanitarian law and 'war crimes'". The letter (long) describes in detail the destruction in the Gulf War 1991: "The deliberate disproportionate targeting and destruction of Iraq's infrastructure towards the end of the war leaving it in a pre-industrial condition. Among the facilities targeted and destroyed were": "Water treatment, pumping and distribution systems and reservoirs. Telephone and radio exchanges, relay stations, towers and transmission facilities. Food processing, storage and distribution facilities and markets, infant milk formula and beverage plants, animal vaccination facilities and irrigation sites...." And much more. http://www.ukwilpf.gn.apc.org/right_honourable_geoffrey_hoon_m.htm There is a long bibliography, listing among others Ramsey Clark's Report, Dr. Nagy's paper, the AI 1991 annual report. But all this may not be what you are looking for. > His eye-witness testimony is just as serious as anyone > else's; but it cannot help us decide how "intentional" it > was without further evidence. The evidence may be there to > find, but it may need a lot of study of all the available > reports, and further investigations. Andrew, if you do something intentionally, you do it deliberately (on purpose). Or else you do it unintentionally (accidentally). And to me it seems impossible that the "near-apocalyptic" destruction of Iraq was achieved accidentally - by straying missiles, etc. So for me, the question 'how "intentional"' doesn't arise. But I may be missing the point. Intent and the Christian Just War Ethic (JWE): The US military find justification for this destruction in the principles of the Christian Just War Ethic (JWE), and the US Air Force Doctrine. So do other people. Your original query for "further evidence" was prompted by a message on CASI: "Re: Dual crisis looms for millions in Iraq" (Jan 23). And you followed up on the author's paper "Bomb Now, Die Later". This paper too applies the principles of JWE. The author wants to establish if the 1991 attack on Iraq was carried out according to "Just War Conventions". And, yes, she concludes it was, commendably so: "Operation Desert Storm should now set a precedent for... future conflicts." (This of course is also the official position Washington's. For the record: another "clean" war.) Given this perspective, it is perhaps understandable that the author dismisses the claims of Ramsey Clark and Finkelstein. She quotes from Clark's eyewitness account that "municipal water processing plants, pumping stations and even reservoirs have been bombed". "However", she says neither Clark nor Finkelstein provide any substantial evidence to support their claim that water treatment facilities were targeted." And therefore she "cannot accept Clark's and Finkelstein's claims." Note here that she uses the word "targeted" whereas Clark and Finkelstein use "bombed". You too wanted to know if Iraqi water system were targeted by the 1991 allied air campaign". The author assumes that Clark and Finkelstein "may have been misinformed, as damage effects may have been a result of other, non-coalition activities.... it is possible that missiles fired by the Iraqis themselves may have fallen on civilian structures during the Gulf War..." Hence your question: "Could such damage have come from Iraqi ordnance?" The _right_ evidence, if it could be found, would of course spoil the image of the "clean" war. Still, the operative word seems to be "targeted". In "Re Dual Crisis looms..." (CASI, Jan 23), reference is made to the US Gulf War Air Power Surveys (GWAPS). Apparently "target categories" were decided upon prior to the attack. Civilian population: "No targeting". This is not surprising: it is strictly forbidden to attack 'non-combatants' directly. Infrastructure targets list only: "Bridges, Rail Road Facilities". From this, the conclusion seems to have been drawn, if it was'nt targeted in writing, it wasn't bombed. No evidence. But in USAF we trust. Besides, water facilites, hospitals, etc. are not 'dual-use' targets. So naturally they wouldn't appear on an official list. (Targeted doesn't have to mean _written down_) And if you are interested in following this up, there is an article by Lt. Col. Kenneth Rizer of the U.S. Air Force: "Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical, and Doctrinal Perspectives". He admits that reality is not as neat and tidy USAF planners make it appear. "He concludes: "Finally, the US Air Force has a vested interest in attacking dual-use targets so long as dual-use target destruction serves the double role of destroying legitimate military capabilities and indirectly targeting civilian morale. So long as this remains within the letter if not the spirit of the law and the JWE, the Air Force will cling to the status quo." In other words, they'll do whatever they can get away with. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Rizer.html I myself go by the Just Peace Ethic. So I am not interested in the Christian Just War Ethic or the US Air Force Doctrine. Nor do I accept their principles. You may of course. But to promote the justifications of the US military on this list may be doing CASI a disservice. After all, CASI was founded for the sole purpose to campaign against the suffering of the Iraqi people - the sanction regime. And then there are the Iraqi people themselves, especially list members. Put yourself in their shoes: wouldn't it pain you to see the brutal destruction of your country dismissed as an 'unintentional' side effect? Discussed at great length by people you took to be your friends. Elga Sutter ----------------Original Message---------------- From: Andrew Goreing <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [casi] targeting of water treatment facilities (BIS) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:30:00 +0000 Thanks to Dirk for his remarks. He brings our attention to the Harvard Study Team report, the Aga Khan's report, and the report of SOS IRAK. All of these (like other witnesses) refer to "damage" and "destruction" of water-treatment installations. Nobody disagrees with this; just like nobody disagrees with the idea that the electrical system was deliberately targeted, with an inevitable effect on water purification etc. But the reports don't seem to help us work out 1) just how extensive the specific damage to water-treatment installations was, or 2) how "intentional" it was. (Of course "intentionality" is not necessarily a simple concept). He also says > I witnessed these intentional destructions myself when I was in > Iraq in july 1992, but that of course cannot be considered as serious > evidence. His eye-witness testimony is just as serious as anyone else's; but it cannot help us decide how "intentional" it was without further evidence. The evidence may be there to find, but it may need a lot of study of all the available reports, and further investigations. List members have surely noted the report from CBS (posted by SPREWELLAIEC5MI@aol.com on 25 Jan) titled "Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage" in which the battle concept of "Shock and Awe" is explicated by one of its authors, security expert Harlan Ullman (who could be seen on Newsnight last night or the night before). "You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down... By that I mean you get rid of their power, water." Andrew Goreing _______________________________________________ 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 email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk