I've been meaning to write about the racist nature of the War in Iraq, although work--both for pay, and at home--has limited my postings this week. I finally have some time, but I want to be relatively brief, both for reasons mentioned in my last post, and for personal reasons (hell, it's Thursday, payday is tomorrow, and I'd like to enjoy what's left of the evening).

So, here goes. Let's begin with my premise. At its core, the War in Iraq is RACIST. Why? Because of the following reasons:

Saddam Hussein, for all his evil, was not, and never was, a threat to the United States. But hey, he invaded Iran, he invaded Kuwait, he invaded, uh--well, he used poison gas against his own people, and he supported terrorists, right? Let's look at each of these events carefully.

The Iran/Iraq War

By the late 1970's, the United States had severed diplomatic relations with both nations involved in the conflict. In Iran, we suffered the humiliating debacle of foreign policy failure when the Shah fell from power (scroll to section marked REVOLUTION) and United States citizens were seized and held as hostages. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was consolidating his brutal rule. They had severed relations with the United States following the 1967 Arab Israeli War.
War broke out due to border disputes and friction between the secular rule of Hussein and the religious theocracy taking shape in Iran. Initially, the United States had no position on the war.

However, we began to see the potential of supporting Iraq, given our animosity towards Iran, and a worst-case fear of Islamic fundamentalism taking a stronger political position in the Middle East. Hence, we began to support the Iraqi side, providing intelligence (especially satellite photography and interpretation of the same) and some armaments. Of course, some may recall that we also supplied Iran with weapons in an infamous breach of law and ethics. Less well remembered was the incident involving the USS Stark, which suffered a direct hit from an Exocet missile fired by an Iraqi fighter jet. The link referenced notes that the United States acknowledged Iraqi culpability, but attempted to blame Iran nonetheless. It was during this time when the United States began to truly turn towards support for Iraq in the conflict.

Incidents of note: The Stark attack, the intel and photographic interpretation, the fact that sworn affidavits have been submitted indicating that the United States also provided weapons to Hussein should make our position clear--Hussein was one of our people in the region.

During the war, the United States removed Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism, reestablished diplomatic relations with Hussein, and, later, during the first Bush administration, made it clear that we liked the idea of Hussein being in control: "President George H.W. Bush signed National Security Directive 26 on Oct. 2, 1989. Classified ''secret'' but recently declassified, it said: ''Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence with Iraq.'"

Also, the links referred to will make it clear that our position, at the time, on Hussein's chemical attacks were greated with a shrug by the Reagan Administration. Sure, Bush the elder made some hay with it in 1990-1991, but did he really care?

The Invasion of Kuwait

Of course, this all changed less than a year later, following Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, undertaken following a careful conversation with April Glaspie during which he expressed resentment over border issues, particularly issues involving the Rumallah Oil Field, as well as frustrations with Kuwait demands for payments on debts incurred during the Iran/Iraq War. Glaspie did not make it abundantly clear that invasion was unacceptable--later, she really dropped the ball, indicating that little action would have been taken had Hussein merely taken the oil, and not the entire country.

That should convince anyone that neither Saddam nor Glaspie are the sharpest knives in the drawer. Hussein suddenly became more dastardly that the mullahs in Iran, and, as if they didn't have enough instances of him truly being despotic, he was falsely accused of baby-killing in Kuwait. Well, that's reason enough to go after him, even if the allegation was a pr gimmick... but, in the end, I think we all know what happened, more or less, during this war--Iraq was beaten like a Division III school taking on a Top Ten team in College Football. Of course, there's more to the story(click on link to photographs showing effects of depleted uranium).

But what does all this have to do with the latest quagmire, uh, I mean, Triumph, uh, I mean, ongoing battle in the region? Well, it all goes back to 9-11...

Tragedy

So much has been written about 9-11 that it is not necessary to reiterate it here. That said, it is important to emphasize the following--there were 19 hijackers. 15 were Saudi nationals. There were also at least one, possibly two, of Egyptian descent. THERE WERE NO IRAQIS. The act of terrorism was organized by a Saudi national, Osama bin Laden, who is on a wacko religious crusade against infidels. bin Laden had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia, then Sudan, and was spending his time encamped in Afghanistan--which we subsequently invaded, with the idea of smoking him out, as it were.

But, meanwhile, just long enough for bin Laden to become bin Forgotten, war fever was whipped up against Iraq. The fact that NONE of the attackers on 9-11 were Iraqi, the fact that Hussein and bin Laden HATE each other, the fact that the ONLY terrorists supported by Hussein are the pro-Palestinian variety (in fact, the TERRORIST--he was Abu Nidal--that's right, we've caught exactly ONE--and, by the way, I don't have any problem with Israel defending itself. I just don't think the United States should be required to do work Israel should do--and as far as Saddam providing cash to Palestinian suicide bombers, well, just about EVERY government in the region does so), the FACT that Iraq is an extremely complicated, even if weakened country, courtesy of war, sanctions, and, indeed, the psychopatic rule of Hussein--well, you still have NO evidence that Hussein was involved in ANY way with 9-11. Period. There IS NO EVIDENCE.

And, where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Remember? Go back to March 8th "news conference" for a moment. All about weapons, and while he pays lip service to the Iraqi people, the fact is that he's selling an invasion on WMD. Iraqi people/and or War on Terror are taking a back seat here. Meanwhile, our "love" for the Iraqi people is becoming increasingly a one-way relationship, as news report indicate at least 5,000 in active opposition (although I saw reports of as many as 50,000--at least till they went down the memory hole.

And while each US casuality is rightfully mourned--let me repeat, all of our casualities are AND SHOULD BE MOURNED AS HEROES, in spite of my opposition to the fighting--the fact is, no one has even bothered to come up with an official count of Iraqi dead, neither military nor civillian. How can this NOT be racist?

Lies about who we are fighting, lies about why we are fighting, lies about how we can "bring democracy" to the region 9no one "brings democracy" anywhere--people in a location TAKE democracy, as they've done throughout history)...what's left? I close, a little less well organized than I wanted, but satisfied that the point has been made, with this link, an excellent article in The Guardian UK, aptly titled The Return of Arabophobia...

The damage is just beginning. Damn.