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 Mark Stephen Pelletiere's article on the ambiguities of the Halabja gassing was in News, 29/01-05/02/03 (4). I was about to append Glen Rangwala's reply to this argument when I realised it was actually addressed to you! So you obviously disagree with it. In the current article Pelletiere is making the - I think - more fundamental point that, whoever actually did it, the Halabja gassing was an incident in a very bloody and confused war, not a gratuitous act of wickedness out of the blue. In which case the government's line isn't so much a matter of lying as being economical with the truth. Though it has also been said that gas was used against the Kurds AFTER the end of the Iraq/Iran war and I would like to know more about that. Best wishes Peter > From: "Mark Parkinson" <mark44@myrealbox.com> > Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:40:40 +0100 > To: casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk > Subject: [casi] The Big Lie about Saddam Gassing the Kurds > > I don't remember this article being posted to CASI at the time. > > 31 January 2003 > MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking > smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of > the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: > "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons > has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own > citizens dead, blind or disfigured." > > The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its > citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence > most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the > town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran- > Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own > people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam > Hussein. > > But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were > bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any > certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not > the only distortion in the Halabja story. > > I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence > Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, > and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was > privy to much of the classified material that flowed through > Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed > a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war > against the United States; the classified version of the report went > into great detail on the Halabja affair. > > This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came > about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq > used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the > town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The > Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that > exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. > > And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United > States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a > classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence > community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was > Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. > > The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the > battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, > however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, > a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who > are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to > have possessed blood agents at the time. > > These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, > as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A > much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make > reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that > Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the > report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, > that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq > in its war against Iran. > > I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He > has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But > accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of > genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have > goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These > were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, > but Halabja is not one of them. > > > In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has > bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was > Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on > America's impetus to invade Iraq. > > We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest > reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical > sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive > river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and > Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the > north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the > sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region. > > Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of > dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan > dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming > to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was > much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline > that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the > parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been > made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in > American hands, of course, all that could change. > > Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that > probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by > controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America > didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven > from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American > companies. > > All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, > one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the > Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. > Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to > create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to > United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no > one. > > Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is > that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his > people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja. > > > Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the > American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of > Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro- > Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian > Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam > Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human > rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive > regimes Washington supports? > > Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil > System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf." > > http://www.lynx.co.nz/nuclearfree/gaskurds.htm > > Stephen C. Pelletiere New York Times > > > Mark Parkinson > Bodmin > Cornwall > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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