FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Weapons of Mass Distraction

by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

If Iraq is lying (and it is difficult to imagine Mr Saddam Hussein telling the truth about the time of day) then let it be proved. Saying over and over again that Mr Hussein tells lies and therefore must have NBC weapons is not good enough

Let us be realistic about repeated US assertions that Iraq has nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons. (President George Bush calls them “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, which is a dreary propaganda phrase.) If America has evidence of these weapons it could produce it without compromising intelligence sources. Mr Bush and his staff keep announcing that Iraq possesses these things, yet refuse to give us proof.

Take Condoleeza Rice whose piece “Why we know Iraq is lying” appeared in the papers last week. She wrote that “Richard Butler, the former chief UN arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people.” It is a classic ploy of the propagandist to link a respected figure with undeniable facts to produce an unverifiable but convincing shock-horror headline-grabber. We all know what could happen “if” a warhead “were” filled with VX and landed in a city. But nobody has shown us that there are operational warheads (as distinct from the dozen rusty 122mm carriers found two weeks ago), or that there is any VX to put in them, or any launchers to deliver them to “a city”. These claims are made without evidence and used deliberately to mislead the American people.

Make no mistake: if it is determined by the UN that Iraq has one single nuclear weapon, or an operational long-range rocket, or a store of biological agents, or a stock of chemicals assessed by inspectors as being specifically for use as weapons, there will then be no doubt that Iraq will have violated Security Council Resolution 1441 and will have to take the consequences as decided by the Council. Under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter the Council can “take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security”. There is, of course, one major proviso that has been ignored and will continue to be ignored by the United States, and that is Article 46, which states that “Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff committee”. Fat chance of that happening. Nevertheless, if Iraq is proved to have any of these ghastly weapons (of which America has the largest stocks in the world), then it must pay the price.

But Ms Rice says, “Many questions remain” about Iraq’s alleged NBC programmes, and “it is Iraq’s obligation to provide answers”. The question posed to Iraq was “Do you possess NBC weapons?” Iraq’s answer is “No”. If Iraq is lying (and it is difficult to imagine Mr Saddam Hussein telling the truth about the time of day) then let it be proved. Saying over and over again that Mr Hussein tells lies and therefore must have NBC weapons is not good enough. Ari Fleischer, the spokesman for Mr Bush, said on January 9, “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.” OK: where are they? If it is known “for a fact” that there are weapons, then it must be known where they are. You can’t identify something you can’t see, unless you’re getting decidedly metaphysical about worldly affairs. Just show us one nuclear device “” not even a bomb, just a thingy that is nuclear. Just show us one picture taken yesterday of a missile with an NBC warhead. Let us see evidence that there is a missile launcher ready to shoot off a missile that could “kill up to one million people”. All right: we’ll settle for a missile that could kill a thousand people. Produce evidence that Iraq has one vial of VX agent. Then we will say you were right, and watch you reduce Iraq to rubble.

The United States of America, whose taxpayers pay forty BILLION dollars a year for information gathering and intelligence processing, is verging on the omniscient. OK, so it can’t find Osama bin Laden, which, it is said, is the Number One National Priority (although one wonders about this, given the obsession of Mr Bush with Mr Saddam Hussein whom he damns in every speech, while he never refers to Mr bin Laden), but US agencies (and their colleagues in Israel, the UK and Australia) can listen to every telephone and radio conversation in the world. They can examine every fax and email, assess Airbus production facilities and similar anti-American activities (the French found out about this economic spying but can’t do anything about it), analyse the defences of friend and foe alike, and are in general an Olympic-class nosy parker.

The US has had Iraq under the closest possible surveillance for 12 years. There are satellites galore, silently imaging the entire country by photography and electronic means at all times of day and night. There are devices that “see” through roofs and into the ground. There are satellites scooping up every conversation by radio, telephone and computer. Additionally, US and British aircraft operate daily over two thirds of Iraq in their illegally-imposed “no-fly zones”. Intelligence gathering aircraft fly in these zones and along the Iraq border. They complement the satellites in gathering vast quantities of information about Iraqi defences (and civilian commercial enterprises, in preparation for the US takeover of the country) and practice guiding strike aircraft to a multitude of targets, not only in the “no-fly” areas but also in the third of Iraq that they permit to be under central government control. Iraq is quite a large country (six tenths the size of Texas) but there is not an inch that has not been closely examined. (The US proposal to send U-2 reconnaissance aircraft to “help” the UN was an absurd afterthought, and intended solely to confuse matters in order that Washington could claim non-cooperation by Baghdad.)

It is fatuous for the Bush administration to say that information cannot be provided to the UN, or evidence to the world, about Iraq’s alleged NBC arsenal because “we don’t want to betray our sources”, as if these were Mr Saddam Hussein’s valet, PA or ADC. (Sorry, guys.) Show us the pictures of the nuclear weapons plants, and the rockets and the canisters of chemical weapons. Or provide transcripts of intercepted communications indicating existence of these things. The methods themselves aren’t secret. It is quite possible Iraq has some very nasty weapons. OK: where are they? And if you produce evidence now, why did you take so long?

BRIAN CLOUGHLEY is a former military officer who writes on international affairs. His website is www.briancloughley.com

 

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious madness in Ulster
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
January 19, 2017
Melvin Goodman
America’s Russian Problem
Dave Lindorff
Right a Terrible Wrong: Why Obama Should Reverse Himself and Pardon Leonard Peltier
Laura Carlsen
Bringing Mexico to Its Knees Will Not “Make America Great Again”
John W. Whitehead
Nothing is Real: When Reality TV Programming Masquerades as Politics
Yoav Litvin
Time to Diss Obey: the Failure of Identity Politics and Protest
Mike Whitney
The Trump Speech That No One Heard 
Conn Hallinan
Is Europe Heading for a “Lexit”?
Stephen Cooper
Truth or Twitter? Why Donald Trump Is No John Steinbeck
Binoy Kampmark
Scoundrels of Patriotism: The Freeing of Chelsea Manning
Ramzy Baroud
The Balancing Act is Over: What Elor Azaria Taught Us about Israel
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail