From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:40 PST
Subject: US Rationale for Iraqi Strikes Frau
Nf-ID: #N:9301272237.AA29541@poly.math.cor:-670107203:000:12946
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Jan 27 14:40:00 1993


From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: US Rationale for Iraqi Strikes Fraud


    "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..."
******************************************************************
[From PeaceNet's media.issues; see misc.activism.progressive on UseNet]
******************************************************************
/* ---------- "US Rationale for Iraqi Strikes Frau" ---------- */ 
/** 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. 
** End of text from cdp:media.issues ** 

Conf? 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:26241 soc.culture.arabic:6913 soc.culture.lebanon:5653