|
CounterPunch
February
6, 2003
A Riposte to Gen. Powell
Where are the
Incubators?
by PAUL de ROOIJ
On February 5th, the US Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, delivered his lengthy accusation of Iraqi attempts to
build and retain weapons of mass destruction. The setting was
eerily reminiscent of the presentation of the key propaganda
event that justified the first Gulf War. At that time, also
at the United Nations, the Hill & Knowlton propaganda specialists
concocted the "throwing babies out of incubators" charade,
starring the daughter of the Kuwait ambassador. If they needed
to concoct such a lie in 1991 to change US public opinion when
there was a clear case of Iraqi aggression, then one should be
on guard now when the grounds for war are much more tenuous.
A bit of historical context should perhaps guard us from lending
too much credence to "evidence" concocted by the US
and presented by Powell himself. We should also expect more
fabrications and staged provocations; in fact, the US has never
let a bit of truth stand in its way of a war.
One of the most important messages coming
out of the Powell presentation was the reiterated threat against
the UN. He stated that it should either play along with the
US or it will be rendered meaningless; this threat almost drives
a nail through the UN's coffin. The post-War basis for international
law would be overturned in favor of a world where the US would
rule by the "might is right" principle--a principle
one assumed had been totally discredited. Secretary General
Kofi Annan looked on impassively throughout without uttering
a statement afterwards. Perhaps his diminutive voice will from
now be even further muted. He could hide in some of the bombproof
cars that have been given to him by the US and Germany--but why
the UN Secretary General would need such vehicles is a mystery.
In fact, the US has attained expertise
in crafting UN resolutions or accords that will guarantee an
outcome leading to war. During the Ramboulliet Conference about
Kosovo, the conditions of the Accords were so onerous that they
were certain to be rejected, and therefore an unnecessary war
ensued. UN Resolution 1441 requiring inspections and that Iraq
come clean seems also to have been crafted in such a way that
it could provide the excuse for war. That was the open and shameless
implication evident from Powell's presentation.
First of all, the UN resolution put the Iraqis in the impossible
situation that they must prove that they do NOT have any weapons
of mass destruction. Any proof proffered or any inspection will
not enable them to satisfy the resolution--Americans will always
state that Iraqis are hiding something. The Iraqis obviously
had no choice other than to go along with the resolution, but
either way the outcome seems to be war.
Powell emphasized the importance of the satellite photographs
proving that there were chemical or biological weapons. If the
photos actually showed this, then why can't the inspectors be
flown to the locale? Furthermore, there are very good grounds
for Iraqis to be moving around their assets given the impending
war. They would be total idiots to let them sit in plain sight
to be easily bombed by US planes. So, the motive attributed
by Powell for hiding them is entirely legitimate given the perceived
risk of the onset of war. The same explanation can be proffered
if Iraqis are found trying to hide bunkers--this is called camouflage.
Had the American buildup been delayed until after the inspectors
had a chance to determine the status of the various weapons programs,
then moving weapons around would have been suspicious. With
tens of thousands of troops surrounding Iraq there are very good
reasons to spread those weapons around, hide them, or to safeguard
expensive equipment.
Powell stated that the Iraqis were spying
on the UN inspection team and intimated that this somehow would
be illegitimate. Since history is a useful guide, then we know
that the previous inspection teams were used by the US to spy
on Iraq. Scott Ritter, a former inspector, has said this much
himself. If the US is building a massive military force around
Iraq, and if it is likely using the UN inspection team for spying,
then it is legitimate to take defensive measures. Again, the
US buildup makes Iraqi countermeasures understandable, and not
attributable to some perverse motive. Using this same argument
it is also understandable why Iraqis don't want US U2 spy plane
over-flights. NB: the image of a U2 airplane shown during the
presentation disingenuously showed a UN symbol on the airplane--this
would be a rare sight indeed if it were true. How could data
gathered from such an airplane be controlled by the UN?
Scott Ritter has stated that nuclear
weapons and their radioactive components are very easy to spot.
Airplanes flying over Iraq could detect these. So, Powell's
assertions about the silly aluminum tubes are dubious. The shelf
life of both chemical and biological weapons is very short--extensive
facilities are necessary to keep such weapons effective. Once
again, Scott Ritter suggested that the existence of the large
facilities needed for such an effort could easily be monitored.
The only way Powell gets around this is to suggest the facilities
are on trucks that assemble into mobile factories! This seems
like a silly suggestion, but it also will guarantee that the
Iraqis will trip over UN 1441. If they claim they don't have
such mobile factories, then the US will claim that they are deviously
trying to hide them. If they were factories allegedly in a fixed
location, then the inspectors could settle this issue (potentially
averting war), but in their mobile form, the US can always claim
that they are not accounted for.
Even if the Iraqis had the chemicals
or biological agents, this still leaves the trickier issue of
dispersing these weapons effectively over an area where their
enemy is located. It is hard to imagine that such chemicals
or biological agents could be elevated to weapons of "mass"
destruction. It jars one's imagination to think that a country
living under crippling sanctions could have developed missiles
or even radio controlled airplanes that would have posed a threat
to US troops 500 km away.
Perhaps the poorest section of Powell's
speech was one that dealt with the association with "terrorists".
Even the major intelligence agencies dispute a link with Al
Qaeda. Stating that somehow the Iraqis are responsible for terrorists
in the Northern part of Iraq, which isn't even under their control,
should have seemed foolhardy enough to suggest. Furthermore,
to taint groups like Hamas or other Palestinian resistance groups
with the same brush as Al Qaeda should have alerted all of us
that something fishy was afoot. Hamas is an Islamic-based political
grouping that initially was fostered by the Israeli secret services--it
has since then become a legitimate opposition force. Furthermore,
the Israelis have a propensity of labeling anyone who doesn't
accept the narrow confines of their accepted political discourse
as a "Hamas militant"--it is a vaguely defined catch-all
label. It is odd to lump a legitimate resistance movement against
Israeli occupation with the terrorists the US is currently railing
against.
The intercepted conversations over the radio are an insult to
the audience's intelligence. "Don't talk about nerve agents,
I repeat" Give us a break! Most likely, the clowns surrounding
Powell didn't have the Hill & Knowlton expertise to concoct
a more effective story.
Powell suggested that a teaspoon-full
of anthrax would cause havoc in the US. He stated that a few
grams of the stuff had paralyzed the US Senate and Congress in
2001. Of course, he didn't mention that the most likely source
for the anthrax that caused this scare was one or another US
scientist. Suggesting that Iraq was the origin of anthrax was
a clear attempt to rekindle the fears most Americans were subjected
to in 2001, and a less than honest presentation of the issue.
Powell also personalized the alleged Iraqi prevarication. Instead
of highlighting Iraqi mendacity, he always sought to personalize
it as "Saddam's lies". This construct suggests that
the US is only after Saddam, and that "one bullet"
would do the trick as Ari Fleischer suggested some months ago.
However, at the same time that the US is demonizing Saddam Hussein
as an individual, it has been made abundantly clear that the
war against Iraq is going to be massive and devastating. If
Powell really was only going after Saddam Hussein, then the current
war would seem to be unnecessary--a mere assassination is needed.
Instead, the war that is being prepared will certainly harm
millions of people in the area. This is an admission that Powell
would not like to make--millions of people around the world would
object. A rather transparent propaganda ploy was used to present
the conflict as focusing on one demon--thus diminishing the implications
of the horrors that actually await the region. [1]
Make no mistake--General Powell was trying
to sell a war, and unless one takes into account recent history,
then it could have been a decent performance. However, in 1968
Major Powell was involved in whitewashing the My Lai massacre
in Vietnam--a clear attempt to keep that war running and lie
to Americans that nothing out of the ordinary had happened there.
During the Vietnam War Americans were lied to on a massive scale,
and the man perpetrating one of the biggest lies about My Lai
was today standing on the moral high ground justifying war against
Iraq. For this type of performance, one is promoted to the rank
of General--and certainly, Exxon will name their next oil tanker
after him!
Actually, General Powell is reputed to be one of the most moderate
and sensible members of the Bush regime. If so, then imagine
the rest of the gang. Just the thought makes one shudder.
One has difficulty finding a humorous
angle to this sordid situation, but the UN and the US have provided
one. Today, at the UN, a curtain was drawn over a replica of
Picasso's Guernica--a painting that is an indictment of war and
the barbarity inflicted by man on man. [2] Throughout the spectacle,
one became acutely aware that the whole event was stage-managed.
The mere suggestion about the horrors of war would have been
out of place, clashing with the case for war offered by Powell
and the other dogs of war.
[1] If history is any guide, then we
know that after the war--if there is one--then all of us will
be treated to the public ridicule of Saddam Hussein by the purported
find of tons of pornographic materials and oversize edible sexy
underwear. Saddam Hussein's intimate wardrobe may also come
under the propaganda spotlight. Similar materials were planted
in the house of Salvador Allende in 1973 to impugn the character
of the man.
[2] One only wonders why Kofi Anan allowed
the UN to be used in this way.
Paul de Rooij
is an economist living in London and can be reached at proox@hotmail.com
Yesterday's
Features
James Davis
Watching
the Fragments Fall:
Shuttle Crash as Entertainment
John Stanton
Hubris
and Shady Contractors:
Why NASA's O'Keefe Should Resign
Saul Landau
Bush
and Mexico:
A New Butt-Kisser
Milan Rai
Oil and
War
Jason Leopold
How Reliant Energy Bilked California
Consumers and Got Away with Only a Slap on the Wrist
Robert Jensen
The
Message from Porto Alegre:
Restrain the Empire!
Neve Gordon and Catherine Rottenberg
The Empire Strikes Back: Sharon and Settlers Destroy the Infrastructure
of Palestinian Existence
Edward J. Steele
War Dollars: What's a Few Zeroes Among Friends?
CounterPunch Wire
More Signs of Protest:
British Version
Website of the Day
Masturbate
for Peace!
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February
1 / 2, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Railroading
Rosenthal; PeeWee and the Sex and the Sex Police
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Star Whores: Astronomers &
Apaches on Mt. Graham
Dian
Hardison
Former NASA Engineer: "I Fucking Warned Them"
Jerry Kroth
Jung & the Shuttle: Symbol &
the Sychronicity with the Columbia Disaster
Dave
Lindorff
Bush
& HItler: The Strategy of Fear
Behzad Yaghmaian
Report from Istanbul: the Peace
Movement in Turkey
Alan
Maass
Emptying Death Row
Forrest Hilton
The Weight of Forgetting: the Bolivian
Blockades in Context
Kurt
Nimmo
Inventing Crimes: FBI/CIA Entrapment
Matt Taibbi
Iraqt-Up: At Peace Rallies, Hundreds
of Thousands Go Missing
Jeremy
Scahill
Live
from Baghdad: FoxNews: Paying Saddam
Don Atapattu
Songs of Protest
Brian
J. Foley
An Immodest Proposal
Lawrence McGuire
Poker at Camp David
Adam
Engel
Just
Do It: Outrunning the President
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|