Iraq: Beating a Dead Horse
By Eric Margolis
11/15/1998
NEW YORK - Last week, as the US was once again threatening
to bomb Iraq back to the stone age `for endangering world
peace,' Washington quietly announced it would proceed with
an incredible US $4.6 billion aid package for Stalinist
North Korea. American taxpayers, Japan and S. Korea are
paying for this deal, which includes two nuclear reactors,
years of free oil, and food.
Iraq is a nasty state run by a vicious regime. Even so, Iraq
currently threatens no one, save its own tormented people.
The UN has declared Iraq nuclear free. Iraq may have
secreted small quantities of chemical or bio weapons, but it
lacks the means to effectively deliver them.
Remember, as we listen to Washington and London howl about
Saddam's `terror weapons,' that the US, Britain and Europe
helped Saddam Hussein develop his gas and germ weapons. My
1990 reports from Baghdad revealed how a secret contingent
of British scientists were manufacturing anthrax and
botulism outside Basra, Iraq - with London's approval. The
west encouraged Iraq to use poison gas and toxins against
Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq's germ stocks came
from the USA.
Now look at North Korea. The dangerous, semi-demented regime
in Pyongyang constantly threatens to invade South Korea,
`burn Seoul with fire' (ie; use chemicals/nukes against a city
of 11 million), has 2-3 operational nuclear weapons, armed
forces of 1.2-million men, and a huge chemical/ biological
warfare arsenal, deliverable by thousands of missiles.
North Korea incessantly threatens `to exterminate' 37,000 US
troops based in South Korea and has targeted US bases in
Okinawa and Japan for attack by chemical-armed missiles
and/or commandos. All Japan is now in range of North Korea's
Nodong-1 missile, as was dramatically demonstrated recently
when Pyongyang launched a missile right over northern Japan.
US experts say nuclear-armed North Korea missiles may be
able to hit Hawaii and Alaska in three years.
President Clinton's response to North Korea's very real
threats? A $4.6 billion be-good bribe.
Look, next, at Serbia. The outlaw regime of war criminal
Slobodan Milosevic committed the worst atrocities in Europe
since Nazi Germany. Serbia has a large arsenal of chemical
and biological weapons, and has repeatedly threatened, if
bombed, to launch missiles at Western Europe, and to attack
US forces in Bosnia and the Adriatic.
Washington's response? Play footsie with Milosevic by giving
him half of Bosnia, and helping him hold on to rebellious
Kosova. Milosevic has become Washington's key ally in the
Balkans. Note: Serb forces killed 250,000 civilians in
Bosnia and Kosova. Saddam's army killed 500 people invading
Kuwait.
So why not bribe Saddam Hussein to be good - just like
horrid North Korea? Why not make a deal with Saddam, as
with Milosevic, to promote `stability?' After all, a
chaotic, post-Saddam Iraq will likely be far more dangerous
to the Mideast than today's nasty, but quiescent Iraq.
One gets the impression that under the Powell Doctrine, fashioned
during the 1991 Gulf War, the US military is only to be used
against nations that cannot fight back. Serbia and North Korea
do not fit this list.
A second answer is oil and domestic politics. Saddam cannot be
forgiven for challenging America's Mideast Oil Raj and
attacking Kuwait, a US protectorate. Washington's Arab oil
clients don't want to see Iraq resume pumping. Iraq has the
Mideast's second largest petroleum reserves after Saudi
Arabia. Already depressed oil prices will fall sharply if
Iraq resumes full-time exporting. The embargo on Iraq keeps
oil prices up, keeps US client regimes in power, and allows
them to buy more arms from the US and Europe.
Domestic politics are equally important. Saddam Hussein was
so demonized by President George Bush - who preposterously
called him `a second Hitler'- that no president can now be
seen to make a deal with the Iraqi leader. Being `soft on
Saddam' is the kiss of death in American politics, where
Muslim malefactors have replaced the old Red Peril as
America's favorite villains.
Iraq is no danger to the US, but it offers some potential
threat to Israel, as its 1991 missile attacks against Israel
showed. Still, Israel's extensive chemical and biological
warfare arsenal is the Mideast's largest - probably larger
than all the region' states combined. Israel is also the
Mideast's sole nuclear power, with 200-400 weapons. Any
Iraq gas or germ attack on Israel would trigger an immediate
Israeli nuclear strike that would eradicate Iraq and Saddam
Hussein.
Pro-Israel groups in the US, however, have been panicked
into believing Israel is in mortal danger from Iraq. As a
result, the White House is being pressed by the formidable
Israel lobby to demolish Iraq and keep it demolished, even
if this means quarterly bombings.
Ironically, before the 1991 oil war, some Israeli
strategists considered Saddam pragmatic, and amenable to
making a deal with Israel - particularly an alliance against
their mutual foe, Syria.
Saddam cares only about power and his own skin. Saddam
would as likely deal with Israel as anyone else, provided he
profited from it. Even an Iraqi-Israeli pact aimed against
Iran is possible. There are no absolutes in the labyrinthine
Mideast.
Feelgood bombing of Iraq is not strategy. It is childish
petulance, expressed with B-52's. Saddam's last-second volte
face once again wrong-footed Washington and showed the inherent
bankruptcy of US policy towards Iraq, which goes no further than
making the rubble bounce and trying to assassinate Saddam.
Brainpower, not firepower, is needed. If the US can sup with the
devil in North Korea or Serbia, why not Iraq? After all, Saddam
used to be the West's favorite Mideast SOB. Why not again? If the
west can't find a more amenable dictator to run Iraq, then it may
have to learn to live with horrid Saddam.
Copyright: Eric Margolis, 1998
