From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [misc.activism.progressive] Sorting Out the Iraq-Gate Scandal
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:22:31 GMT

A repost from misc.activism.progressive:

From: Blythe Systems <nytransfer%igc.apc.org@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: Sorting Out the Iraq-Gate Scandal
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:27:05 GMT


Via The NY Transfer News Service ^ All the News that Doesn't Fit


               Sorting out the "Iraq-gate" scandal

                          By Tony Murphy


The juicy new scandal being hyped in the commercial media and
echoed by many liberals is called "Iraq-gate." The considerable
attention given this issue, reflecting the current swing in the
ruling class towards Clinton and away from Bush, fills Democrats
with election-year excitement. Iraq-gate implicates President
George Bush in apparently criminal and immoral conduct, and
Democrats hope the scandal will help prevent his reelection.

However, the Democrats are pushing a misleading and dangerous
argument--misleading because it conceals the true role of the U.S.
in the Persian Gulf, and dangerous because, in buying into the
vulgar demonization of Saddam Hussein, it feeds the renewed "whack
Iraq" propaganda machine that is an essential component of plans
to attack again.

Weapons sales to Iraq

According to the Democrats, Bush built up Saddam Hussein by
supporting him militarily with government-backed loans which were
used to finance Iraq's weapons program. Congressional
investigators say this means the Bush administration either
knowingly financed Iraq's military, or ignored evidence that its
aid was used for military purposes.

There is nothing earth-shattering about U.S. military aid to
another country. It's done all the time, and always in order to
enhance the interests of the U.S. global military-corporate
complex. The Pentagon has found military aid very useful in
penetrating other countries' defense structures and winning pliant
collaborators. When weapons are sold to Third World countries, you
can be sure they are inferior to those in the hands of the
imperialists.

However, the media and the Democrats treat the sales as a scandal,
in part because Bush lied about them to Congress, but mostly
because they were made to Iraq. This country of 18 million people,
whose social policies in health, education and separation of
church and state are certainly among the more progressive in the
Arab world, has been reduced to the personification of evil in the
capitalist press.

Kuwait, on the other hand, which once was described as "less a
country than a family-owned oil corporation with a flag," suddenly
was turned into a bastion of democracy through the magic of the
media.

Iraq became `the enemy' before invasion

The media demonization of Iraq actually began in early 1990. It
reached a fever pitch six months later, after the invasion of
Kuwait. Who can forget the atrocity stories about Iraqi soldiers
yanking Kuwaiti babies out of incubators? Or the dire predictions
of chemical, biological and even nuclear attacks by "the monster
Saddam"? All were later proven untrue.

This campaign's most essential and enduring element has been the
portrayal of Iraq as a military powerhouse, able to achieve
nuclear capability at any moment. The media have focused their
full attention on Iraq's nuclear weapons program--which UN
officials recently stated is at least three years away from making
one crude atomic bomb--all the while ignoring Israel's 300
U.S^.-financed nuclear warheads.

"Iraq-gate" buys into the weapons hype on Iraq hook, line and
sinker. Nothing epitomizes the Iraq-gate approach better than a
cartoon that accompanied a recent cover story in the Village
Voice.  It shows U.S. support producing a reptilian, fang-toothed
Saddam Hussein, now strong enough to devour Kuwait.

By this logic, Iraq became so powerful the U.S. had to go to war
against it. Many claim that if the U.S. hadn't armed Iraq, the
Gulf War would not have been necessary.

Who was looking for a war?

The truth is that Washington wanted and sought a war with Iraq as
a pretext for intervention in the Persian Gulf--^and may do it
again. Ever since the rise of liberation struggles in many of the
oil-producing countries beginning in the 1950s--which eventually
won them greater bargaining power with the imperialist oil
corporations and helped poor countries like Iraq and Libya use oil
proceeds to provide impressive social services--the U.S.
imperialists have sought a pretext to fortify their presence in
the Middle East. The object is to better safeguard the hundreds of
billions in profits sucked up by the oil monopolies.

The attack on Iraq was a continuation of this policy of U.S.
control over the Persian Gulf--not a policy blunder, as it is
being portrayed. The danger of the Iraq-gate argument is that it
leaves out this long-held objective of the U.S. imperialist
establishment, which has been implemented through both capitalist
parties. And it obscures several important facts which show that
the U.S. was quietly preparing for war before Aug. 2, 1990, the
date of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

The U.S. drive to crush Iraq began around 1988, when military
strategists identified war-weary Iraq as a Persian Gulf threat.
Bob Woodward's book "The Commanders" reports that in 1989, the
Pentagon revised war plan 1002, renaming it 1002-90. In this plan,
Iraq, worn down after eight years of war with Iran, replaced the
USSR as the Persian Gulf threat. The Oct. 15, 1990, Wall St.
Journal reported that the plan's overhaul, ordered by Joint Chiefs
of Staff chair Gen. Colin Powell, allowed the Pentagon to "plop
down a plan for the fastest large-scale deployment of U.S. forces
since World War II" just after Kuwait was invaded.

According to the British journal New Statesman, the National
Security Council presented a white paper to President Bush three
months before Kuwait's invasion, describing Iraq and Saddam
Hussein as "the optimum contenders to replace the Warsaw Pact."
This was the rationale for continued Cold War-level military
spending. So much for the peace dividend.

New strategies and disinformation

Iraq became the new target of U.S. intervention because it was no
longer needed as an ally against Iran, where the revolutionary
intervention of the masses had ebbed. Also, the rise of
counter-revolution in the USSR meant the U.S. could now wage war
against a Third World country unopposed; it even got the
acquiescence of the new Soviet leaders in the UN Security Council.

After the Iran-Iraq war, while the U.S. provided Iraq with credits
and dual-use equipment that helped maintain a facade of support
and cooperation, it cynically spread disinformation to justify its
war plans. This strategy was well understood in the Middle East:
The Arab League Council issued a statement in April 1990 that it
"viewed with extreme concern the political statements and the
unjust, hostile and tendentious media campaign against Iraq."

Most important, the U.S. colluded with Kuwait to wage economic war
against Iraq. An internal Kuwaiti government memo in 1989 shows
Kuwaiti and CIA intent to use "broad cooperation ... at a high
level" to "take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation
in Iraq." Iraq's social successes were looked on with great
nervousness by the Kuwaiti princes, who ruled dictatorially in a
country where only a small minority could attain citizenship and
the majority worked under slave-like conditions.

Kuwait deliberately overproduced oil and drove down the
agreed-upon OPEC price, shattering Iraq's efforts to rebuild after
the Iran-Iraq war. Kuwait also refused during this time to
negotiate border disagreements with Iraq, adopting a hard-line
stance toward a neighbor with whom it had traditionally been
cautious.

Deliberate enticement?

In the meantime, the U.S. facade of support led Iraq to believe
Washington would not intervene if the struggle with Kuwait
escalated. This came to light with the publication of an interview
between U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein.
With Iraqi troops gathered on Kuwait's border, the U.S. diplomat
had assured the Iraqi leader that the U.S. had "no opinion" on his
"border disagreement" with Kuwait.

A week later, after the invasion, the U.S. rushed troops, weapons
and warships to the Persian Gulf, and the "border disagreement"
became "naked aggression."

The Iraq-gate approach ignores these facts entirely, buying
President Bush's dishonest stance that his policy of cooperation
with Iraq was intended to bring Saddam Hussein into the "family of
nations."

As the U.S. government once again plays "war games" in the Persian
Gulf, the New York Times and Washington Post are claiming that
Hussein is "stronger than ever." Once again, the public is being
persuaded that overwhelming military force must be launched
against Iraq.

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton has endorsed such
force, showing that the Democrats pose no alternative to those who
want to stop the brutal Pentagon military machine. Last time, the
U.S. killed 250,000 Iraqis; thousands more suffered malnutrition
and disease as a result of the murderous UN sanctions. How many
will suffer this time for the protection of oil company profits?

Tony Murphy is a researcher for the Commission of Inquiry and
International War Crimes Tribunal that found the U.S. guilty of
crimes against Iraq.

                               -30-

(Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if
source is cited. For more info contact Workers World,46 W. 21 St.,
New York, NY 10010; "workers@igc.apc.org".)

-----
NY Transfer News Service
Modem: 718-448-2358  nytransfer@igc.org  nyxfer@panix.com

Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa