From: RCIRIT%DENVER@VAXF.Colorado.EDU (REMZI CIRIT)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: US RATIONALE TO STRIKE IRAQ
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:19:05 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


** End of text from cdp:media.issues **
/** media.issues: 287.0 **/
** Topic: US Rationale for Iraqi Strikes Are **
** Written  6:22 pm  Jan 15, 1993 by dkellner in cdp:media.issues **
c:\war\iraq93.art

     U.S. Rationale for Strikes on Iraq is Fraudulent
     By Douglas Kellner

     In a press conference on January 13 that announced the
official U.S. rationale for bombing Iraq, George Bush's press
secretary Marlin Fitzwater claimed that Saddam Hussein was "willing
to tempt the coalition in every way possible and on a number of
fronts." Taking his glasses off and reading an official briefing
position, Fitzwater claimed: "in November and December, he placed
bombs on relief trucks in the northern zone where Operation Provide
Comfort was under way. In late December there were Iraqi aircraft
penetrations of the southern no-fly zone. On December 27, there is
evidence that indicates an Iraqi missile was fired from an Iraqi
aircraft at a U.S. plane. In the first week of January, surface-to-
air missiles were moved into threatening positions. In the northern
no-fly zone, Iraq has moved surface-to-air missiles into
threatening positions only this week.  And Saddam Hussein announced
a ban on all UN flights in  Iraq. And then over the last four days
we've seen a number of these incursions across the Iraqi-Kuwait
border."

     The question arises as to whether this rationale justifies
U.S. bombing of Iraq and what such action could possibly
accomplish. Closer inspection of U.S. official reasons for the
bombing show that they are highly questionable. First of all, the
missiles in southern Iraq north of the "no fly zone" were
"obsolete," according to Christopher Bellamy of the British
newspaper The Independent (January 9, 1993). They were Sam-2
missiles of the type that the Soviets first introduced in 1957 and
Sam-3s, another Soviet missile dating from 1961. In other words,
they were old, obsolete missiles that were not much of a threat to
U.S. planes which could easily fly above their range--as the
bombing itself proved. Moreover, the Iraqis had already moved the
missiles allegedly below the "no fly zone," thus defusing the
alleged threat.

     As for the missiles in the north of Iraq, the Toronto Globe
and Mail reported on January 13, the morning of the bombing, that:
"{U.S. Army General Shalikashvili} acknowledged, however, that the
missiles have been in the northern area for several months and that
making them operational 'is not in violation' of agreements made
with Iraq last year." The fact that these missiles were not struck
by the U.S. would seem to indicate that they were not really a
threat.

     Most interesting, for several days before the U.S. bombing,
there were constant media reports of Iraqi "military incursions" or
"raids" into Kuwait. The CBS News on January 11, for instance, led
off with dramatic reports of Iraqi "raids" into Kuwait for the
fourth straight day. These reports were highly misleading,
producing the impression that Iraq was once again invading Kuwait.
The first reports during the weekend before the strike claimed that
Iraqi military forces had invaded Kuwait once again and took
Kuwaiti arms. Then it was reported that Iraqi military in civilian
uniforms entered Kuwait and seized arms. On January 11, however,
CNN reported out of Baghdad that the Iraqis claimed that it was
Iraqi civilians who were retrieving material from Iraqi territory
from the so-called "demilitarized zone" which extends 10 kilometers
along either side of the Iraqi/Kuwaiti frontier. This report was
similar to an Associated Press report on January 11 that "Gen.
Timothy Dibuama of Ghana, commander of the UN force that monitors
the demilitarized zone along the border, gave Iraqi workers from a
private contracting company permission to go in and retrieve
equipment." A Lexis-Nexis data base search, however, showed that of
the major U.S. newspapers, only the Houston Post cited this report.

     On January 13, just before the bombing of Iraq was announced,
CNN John Holliman reported that:

     CNN has obtained a copy of a letter from the chief United
     Nations military controller of the border zone between Iraq
     and Kuwait.  The letter, written to the Iraqi major-general
     who is chairman of Coordination Committee on the border,
     orders Iraq to remove all its materials from the former Iraqi
     naval base at Umm Qasr within a few days.  The letter says the
     process of removing Iraqi property must be terminated, and
     advises the general, the deadline for all this is January
     15th.

          Iraqi officials have said for days that they were ordered
     by the United Nations to get their weapons and- or, their
     equipment, at least, out of this Kuwaiti border zone by the
     end of this week, Friday, the 15th of January, and they say
     that's why they have been going across the border day after
     day, and, as you reported a few minutes ago, Donna, they've
     done it again today.  For the fourth day in a row a large
     group of Iraqi civilians crossed the border into this
     demilitarized zone, and, again, came back into Iraq with
     equipment from that zone. (CNN Transcripts, January 13, 1993).

     Thus, it seems that the Iraqis went into Umm al Qasr, a former
Iraqi naval base to retrieve Iraqi property -- which included
prefabricated buildings, military material, and other equipment.
The UN resolutions after the Gulf War had taken this territory from
Iraq, giving some previously Iraqi territory to Kuwait and making
some previously Iraqi territory into a demilitarized zone.
Therefore, the Iraqis claim that they were merely retrieving their
own property from territory that used to belong to them, which is
now a demilitarized zone. Now, admittedly, some of the material was
military and might have been weapons proscribed by the UN, like
offensive missiles, but the media reports that Iraqi troops invaded
Kuwait, or made an incursion or raids into Kuwait are simply false.

     As the Toronto Globe and Mail put it: "The removal of the
Silkworm missiles and the apparent use of arms against UN observers
would seem to be clear violations of the Persian Gulf war cease-
fire agreement.  But if Iraq had an agreement to remove its
equipment from this area, then the Iraqi incursions may have been
little more than errors in procedure" -- a position affirmed by the
UN spokesmen on the scene. Moreover, at 5:38 on CBS News on January
13, Tom Fenton reported that the "incursions" have been going on
for 12 days straight -- a point also present in the Globe and Mail
story. This raises the question of why the Iraqi border crossings
weren't reported earlier. In fact, the mainstream media continued
to describe them as Iraqi incursions or raids into Kuwait; the CBS
logo read "Uum Qasr, Kuwait" on January 13 and the day after the
strike, CNN kept speaking of Iraqis "raiding a disputed Kuwaiti
naval base." Another CNN report, however, showed Tom Mintier in Uum
Qasr, providing a more accurate explanation of the events.

     Since the official reasons for the bombing were so weak, the
Bush Administration and Pentagon concocted some more examples of
Iraqi aggression later in the afternoon of January 13.
Correspondent David Martin on CBS reported that Saddam Hussein had
been spoiling for a fight for days and had shot missiles at U.S.
planes, that Iraqi Migs had fired on U.S. planes, and that Iraq had
thus provoked the attack. This "report,"  however, smells of
disinformation and appears intended to compensate for the
tenuousness of the official reasons. Why, indeed, had the Pentagon
not reported earlier that the Iraqi plane shot down in the no fly
zone had fired a missile at the U.S. plane and that another Iraqi
plane had fired on U.S. planes?

     In any case, it appears that the "official reasons" for the
U.S. strike are highly tenuous and should be sharply questioned.
Once again, the mainstream media have been for the most part (with
some exceptions) serving as propaganda arms for the U.S. Government
and military. I saw no questioning of the official rationale at the
press conferences, on discussion programs, or on news reports.
Instead, the strike was accepted as a fait accompli, as legitimate,
and discussion focused on the military details. Once again, CNN and
the other networks trotted out one military expert after another,
rather than engage in a political discussion of the validity of the
rationale for the bombing and what positive effects could possibly
result. The January 14 New York Times, for instance, titled its
editorial "Just Punishment for Iraqis Offenses," continuing its
policy of support for U.S. military action (similar editorials
applauded the Grenada invasion, the Libyan bombing, the Panama
invasion and of course the Gulf war). Most other papers supported
the action and in the absence of information questioning the
official rationale and serious debate over the bombing, the public
once again massively supported the U.S. military action.

     But what could possibly be accomplished by such raids? They
are hardly going to "moderate" the behavior of Saddam Hussein, or
weaken his rule or regime. Obviously, such acts against Iraq only
strengthen Hussein, pulling together his people, creating a
nationalistic atmosphere that helps Hussein's regime and distracts
attention from its failings and oppressiveness. In an interview
with the New York Times shortly after the raid, Bill Clinton said
that he sought a new start with Hussein, that he was not "obsessed"
with the Iraqi leader and that he could imagine a normal
relationship with Iraq. This is the only reasonable approach and it
is to be hoped that Clinton is able to decenter the Iraqi obsession
and create more normal diplomatic relations with the country (the
next day, however, Clinton backed down somewhat, claiming that he
had not called for "normalization" of relations with Iraq, while
the Times claimed on January 15 that he had called for
normalization).

     I believe that constant tension with Iraq and U.S. airstrikes
against the Iraqis does nothing to promote U.S. interests. It is
therefore to be hoped that the Clinton administration will try to
normalize relations with Iraq, predicated on changes in Iraqi
behavior. The media demonization of Saddam Hussein, however, and
the hysteria produced over a long period by Bush Administration
policy will make this extremely difficult politically.

     It is not certain exactly what the U.S. thought it was
accomplishing by the strikes. The day after the bombing, the
military actually admitted that many of the strikes missed their
targets and that the strike was much smaller than originally
suggested, raising questions about the success of the operation in
military terms. One can only surmise that this was a last desperate
lashing out at his rival Saddam Hussein by Bush, or a desperate
attempt to establish "the U.S. as the policeman of the world" role
that Bush and his close advisors seem to want. Or, perhaps it was
a desperate attempt to trap Clinton into keeping up political
pressure and the threat of military force to keep Iraq in line. In
any case, it is not clear what such military action would produce
or what political benefits the bombing achieved. The bombing does,
however, make it clear why George Bush was such a disaster as
president, able to marshall his energies for military action which
inaugurated and closed out his administration. It is to be hoped
that his departure will signal a reconsideration of military action
as a means of solving political problems and that the military can
be drastically scaled down and increasingly scarce resources used
to serve human needs rather than those of the elites of the
National Security State.


FWD BY Remzi Cirit