The 1991 War Against Iraq: Did the U.S. Government Desire to Have People Informed about Going to War? by Michael Hauben (written in 1991) Did the U.S. government want the American people to be well informed on the serious question of whether the U.S. should initiate a war against Iraq? Since August 2 all United States authority figures (e.g. the media and the government) have only given reasons to or enforced why people should be in favor of a war against Iraq. The view opposed to a U.S. sponsored war in the Gulf was censored and intimidated greatly by those promoting the war. Many Arab people feel that it is wrong that American and other external forces are meddling in Arab affairs. The American government sent troops to the Gulf, not to free Kuwait, but for its own distinctive reasons. The American administration continually changed the reasons given to justify a war against Iraq. Such a changing string of explanations clarifies that there wasn't a good or honorable reason in the first place to justify sending massive amounts of American troops to the Gulf region. The reasons also contradicted each other. The first reason the Bush administration gave to justify the "most extensive and rapid U.S. military mobilization since the end of World War II" (1) was to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion by Iraqi military forces. This reason set a basis to get the American forces into the Gulf, but this proved not to be the real reason. Once the bombing of Iraq and Kuwait commenced on January 16, it was obvious the American forces clearly had an offensive mission and not a defensive mission. In fact the U.S. troops weren't protecting Saudi Arabia once the SCUD missile attacks started, but were protecting the American presence in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia was used as the launching pad for the American attack on Iraq. Giving the reason that the U.S. was defending Saudi Arabia was also phony because Iraq's military could have done things differently if their plan was to invade Saudi Arabia. Iraqi forces had plenty of time during the six days between the initial invasion of Kuwait, August 2nd, and August 7th to have moved into Saudi Arabia. Once the U.S. announced that it would be sending troops to Saudi Arabia on August 7th, there was plenty of time for Saddam Hussein to make his move before any American troops would arrive at Saudi Arabia from mainly Germany and the U.S. After the Republican Guard swept into Kuwait City, they headed south to defend the border against a possible Saudi counter attack. The fact that they dug in at the border was early evidence that there was probably no intention of trying to take Saudi oil fields. (2) Rather than sharing with the American people an analysis of the situation, George Bush personalized this as a conflict between "good" and "Saddam Hussein, the next Hitler." "We're dealing with Hitler revisited" (3) was just one way that Bush linked Hussein with Hitler. This is part of the psychological war that was waged against Iraq. The basis of this reasoning is to picture Saddam Hussein as an insane man bent on world domination. Saddam did say to the Arab people he would attempt to reunite the Arab peoples, as his political party, the Ba'th party is pan-Arabist (4). There is a feeling of many Arab people that they are one people, and that the current boundaries were limitations put on the Middle Eastern countries to keep them fighting by the colonial powers during the early part of this century. If Saddam Hussein didn't take Saudi Arabia, then how would he take over the world? The very logic in this reasoning seems to be opportunist. Even if Iraq held onto Kuwait, the sanctions would prevent Saddam Hussein from gaining profits from the extra oil of which Iraq would control the production and would cause loss of Iraq's only export, its own oil. The other part of calling Saddam the next Hitler was claiming the U.S.'s job was to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons. This reasoning was that Iraq would produce nuclear weapons that would make them a threat, and that Iraq can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. This is hypocritical when the U.S.A. is the only country in all of history to use atomic bombs, and at least five of the countries in the coalition have nuclear weapons. In all of their greatness, the bombs dropped on Nagisake and Hiroshima could have been dropped on uninhabited islands to demonstrate their power, as suggested by many scientists, but instead hundreds of thousands of lives had to be demolished to show their power. Civilians were destroyed in a terrorist act. Plans for a nuclear bomb are easy to acquire, but it takes an entire elaborate manufacturing system to develop and build such weapons. Even the CIA didn't feel that Iraq could develop a nuclear weapon so quickly. During the build-up of troops the American government told us another reason for the war would be to protect the American people's lifestyle. The great majority of Americans would probably disagree with this statement as many American people have to struggle to get by. Again, as with the majority of other reasons, this one was abandoned rather quickly. After the fighting started on January 16, the Bush Administration announced that the war against Iraq would be to punish aggression, liberate Kuwait and return its rightful government. What this war is about however was an attempt to restore the status quo. (5) Both American and Iraqi forces were "liberating" Kuwait from the Emir and his family; those who were receiving the wealth from the land and not those who work in Kuwait. The U.S. forces have since "liberated" Kuwait from the Iraqi troops. However, this war has now brought the Kuwaiti people together stronger in an effort to replace the monarchial system of government. If anything, this might be the one good thing resulting from this war. The status quo the U.S. war was protecting is the major oil companies' control of the oil in the Middle East, and the current status of Israel. Saddam Hussein agreed to pull out of Kuwait if the Arab countries would sit down with Israel and figure out if there was any way to figure out the problems about the Middle East. The aggression that was prominent in this war was the useless destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure by U.S. bombing missions. Bush said the bombing was "targeting Saddam's vast military arsenal". (6) While military targets might have been part of those that were hit, the destruction of roads, electric power plants, pumping stations, bridges, all government buildings including post offices and finally the air-raid shelter and other occurrences of the killing of civilians represent the plan of the American government to destroy Iraq as a modern country as opposed to just destroying its military capacity. This is a sickness that was part of the war effort. Who is the U.S. government to decide what countries should be modern? How can the U.S. government "police" the world? Apparently they are testing the waters after the end of the cold war. Some countries in the UN cow-towed to the U.S.'s push for a war. The United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar stated that the U.S. "exceeded the Security Council's mandate by unilaterally deploying military forces and establishing a blockade - an act of war against Iraq." (7) Anyone who closely takes a look at this war will realize that once the reasons were flawed, you couldn't support this war. One of the main reasons any responsible person should be opposed to the U.S. war against Iraq was that the average Arab person is against foreign intervention into the Iraq - Kuwait dispute. What's important about this idea is shown by a senior official of a Tunis-based Arab organization, "Even if Saddam was wrong, we can't allow the United States to simply come and destroy a brother Arab state." (8) Twice before, in 1961 and 1973, Iraq attempted to claim Kuwait as part of Iraq. Both times, however, the Arab League dispatched peace keeping troops and restored the normal standings of Kuwait and Iraq. (9) On August 2, the Arab League foreign ministers met in an emergency session and urged foreign powers not to act so as to provide time for an Arab diplomatic solution. (10) The Bush administration prevented this from happening by sending Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney to visit King Fahd of Saudi Arabia on August 5. King Fahd agreed, for the first time ever, to allow U.S. troops to be based in Saudi Arabia. "Arabs," said Hussan Eltaher, a director of the Calgary-based Institute of Middle Eastern Research, "believe that most of to the problems in modern Middle East politics are due to the unnatural carving-up of the area." (11) What Iraq was challenging was the "legitimacy of the existing political and economic order in the region, which the U.S. is striving to maintain." (12) The Middle Eastern people also view the control of the region's resources and the resolution of longstanding grievances to be at stake. One major grievance that the Iraqis have is when Britain set the borders in 1922, those borders deliberately limited Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf. (13) Washington's goal to restore the "rightful government" of Kuwait doesn't boost morale among the Arab people, as the government of Kuwait was never popular with even the leaders of the other oil producing Arab countries. The Arab people are not the only ones to be harmed by this war. In an effort against the American people, the government used the media to provide a vehicle for the Pentagon's propaganda. The U.S. government basically allowed their Saudi Arabian allies to decide who got to "cover" the war. Visas are given out selectively to reporters whose coverage they like. (14) The U.S. government's push for a war fever has created anti-Arab racism, reinforced militarism, and has encouraged a bullyism to spring up in many places. (15) Anti-Arab racism has been utilized by Pan Am Airlines, who refuses to carry Iraqi passport holders. "In San Diego, where 800 Iraqi- Americans live, people have been attacked, businesses burned or shot up." (16) Arab people have been questioned and watched by the FBI, in what is being called harassment by these people. This war represented not only an attack on the Middle Eastern people, but also on the American people. In a sense this war was an attempt to see how far the U.S. military could go in its aggression against foreign countries and against the rights of people at home. Many millions of people around the world questioned the foreign involvement in the Iraqi - Kuwait dispute by protesting out in the streets. (17) More prominent people, such as the Defense Minister of Franceand a Vice Admiral of the Italian Naval Operations resigned from their posts in protests against what their countries had gotten involved in. Having no honorable reason they could present, receiving condemnation from crowds of people around the world and conforming to western dominance in the post-Ottoman Arab world, the U.S. government is clearly overstepping its bounds in foreign policy, and revealing its role as being a pillar of the status quo in a changing world. Notes (1) Joe Stork and Ann M. Lesch, "Why War? Background to the Crisis," "Middle East Report", Nov/Dec 1990, p. 11. (2) David Fairhall and Richard Norton-Taylor, "Elite corps is Iraq's," "Manchester Guardian Weekly", 10 February 1991, p. 7. (3) The Journal, narr. Leslie Mckinnen, prod. Susan Dandow, CBS, 1 March 1991. (4) Marr, Phebe, "The Modern History of Iraq," (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985; London: Longman, 1985), p. 123. (5) John Perkin, "The body bags begin to flow," "Manchester Guardian Weekly, 10 February 1991: p. 1. (6) George Bush, "Transcript of the Comments by Bush on Air Strikes Against the Iraqis," "The New York Times," 17 January 1991, Sec. A, p. 15. (7) Joseph Gerson, "U.S./Iraq War: New Order 'In a World Gone Mad'," "Resist Newsletter", November 1990, p. 4. (8) Lisa Beyer, "Saddam Hussein as the Lesser of Two Evils," "Time", 15 October, p. 54. (9) Stork, p. 12. (10) Chronology of the Crisis: May 1990 to January 1991," Persian Gulf Update, 10 January 1991, p. 6. (11) Mary Nemeth, "The Map-makers' legacy: Arabs blame the crisis on colonial powers," Maclean's, 27 August 1990, p. 30. (12) Stork, p. 11. (13) Stork, p. 12. (14) Richard Reeves, "Pentagon wins war to control news as media surrender without a fight," "Detroit Free Press", 21 February 1991, sec. A, p. 13. (15) Gerson, p. 7. (16) "Exit from Hell?" Editorial, "The Village Voice," 5 February 1990, p. 25. (17) Shugar, Anthony, "It's WWI Again," "The Village Voice", 5 February 1991, p. 36. Bibliography Beyer, Lisa. "Saddam Hussein as the Lesser of Two Evils." "Time", 15 Oct. 1990, pp. 54-55. "Chronology of the Crisis: May 1990 to January 1991." "Persian Gulf Update", 10 Jan. 1991, pp. 6-7. "Exit from Hell? Editorial". "The Village Voice", 5 Feb. 1991, p. 25. Fairhall, David and Richard Norton-Taylor. "Elite corps is Iraq's." "Manchester Guardian Weekly", 10 Feb. 1991, pp. 6-7. Gerson, Joseph. "U.S./Iraq War: New order 'In a World gone Mad'." "Resist", Nov. 1990, pp. 2, 5-7. "The Journal". Narr. Leslie McKinnen. Prod. Susan Dandow. CBC. 1 March 1991. Marr, Phebe. "The Modern History of Iraq". Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; London: Longman, 1985. Nemeth, Mary. "The Map-makers' legacy: Arabs blame the crisis on colonial powers." "Maclean's", 27 Aug. 1990, p. 30. Perkin, John. "The body bags begin to flow." "Manchester Guardian Weekly", 10 Feb. 1990, p. 1. Reeves, Richard. "Pentagon wins war to control news as media surrenders without a fight." "Detroit Free Press", 21 Feb. 1991, sec. A, p. 13. Shugar, Anthony. "It's WWI Again." "The Village Voice", 5 February 1991, pp. 36,39. Stork, Joe and Ann M. Lesch. "Why War? Background to the Crisis." "Middle East Report", Nov./Dec. 1990, pp. 11-18. "Transcript of the Comments by Bush on Air Strikes Against the Iraqis." "The New York Times", 17 Jan. 1991, Sec. A, p. 15.