5 February 1998 Edition
Whiff of imperialism in the air over Iraq
By Dara Mac Neill
In the small matter of chemical weapons and other instruments of mass destruction, Iraq could ask for no better tutors than the two Western powers now ranged against it.
In the past, both the US and Britain have resorted to such weaponry in order to further their own political, economic and military goals.
The nuclear massacres perpetrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not designed to subdue a Japan that refused to surrender. Rather, they were an assertion of US military primacy on a global scale, a signal of the intensification of the Cold War.
In Vietnam, two decades later, criminal use of the deadly Agent Orange defoliant either killed or maimed an estimated 300,000 civilians, and ensured the `death' of one quarter of south Vietnam's expansive forests, by 1970.
However, for many Iraqis it will be Britain's record which comes more readily to mind. In 1920, the British imperial writ still ran in large areas of the Middle East, including present day Iraq. That control, however, was threatened by an insurrection.
Britain, weakened by World War I and heavily pre-occupied with an unwinnable war in Ireland, was understandably furious at this latest display of disloyalty.
Winston Churchill characterised the Iraqi revolt as ``only part of a general agitation against the British empire and all it stands for.''
Another senior diplomat articulated the generally-held sense of disgust at the Iraqis' sense of insurrectionary opportunism.
``To kick a man when he is down is the most popular pastime in the East, sanctioned by centuries of precept and practice.''
Thus situated atop the moral high ground, the British put to good use the commanding view their elevated position afforded them: an aerial bombing campaign of civilian villages was ordered.
An anonymous member of the then British cabinet described this counter-insurgency tactic in brutally simple terms - ``the bombing of the women and children of the villages.''
However, this was but the latest in a series of imperial atrocities that had been visited on the Iraqi people.
The previous year, while serving as Secretary of State for War, Winston Churchill was approached by RAF Middle Eastern Command. The airforce had a proposal.
Aware that a lack of ground forces in Iraq led to the natives assuming a rather indifferent attitude to the imperial writ (and taxes), the RAF suggested the use of chemical weapons. (Such weapons had been dropped by the RAF on Bolshevik forces during the Western invasion of Russia that followed the triumph of the Bolshevik revolution).
More explicitly, they suggested to Churchill that the chemicals be used ``against recalcitrant Arabs as (an) experiment.''
Churchill readily assented. His justification of the ``experiment'' would have been enough to convict anyone else of war crimes:
``I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.''
He went on to note that the imperial forces were obligated to use any weapon that would procure a ``speedy termination of the disorder on the frontier.''
Today, more `disorder on the frontier' threatens the use of massive firepower to solve a dispute which, once again, carries more than a whiff of the imperial. The ``recalcitrant Arabs'' of Churchill's time are alive and well in the Western consciousness.
During the Gulf War, the tonnage of explosives dropped on Iraq was equivalent to seven Hiroshimas. An estimated 200,000 Iraqi civilians died.
Still, to judge by the latest flurry of activity, the West failed to achieve its objectives. So what is now proposed? Another ten, fifteen, twenty Hiroshimas?
Certainly, they have the capacity. The aircraft carriers now steaming towards confrontation in the Gulf carry millions of tonnes worth of explosives.
Yet, this escalation is itself in clear breach of the original UN resolution, with which Iraq is accused of failing to comply.
That resolution demands the removal of all `weapons of mass destruction' from the Middle East.
And in alleged pursuit of that goal, the US and Britain are adding hugely to the destructive capacity that exists in the region.
In addition, Arab states point to the nuclear arsenal maintained by Israel - an estimated 200-300 devices - the largest in the region, certainly outstripping anything Hussein has managed to amass.
However, the Israelis' potential for destruction is measured not by the contents of their nuclear arsenal, but by their support for the West. In this manner, Israeli weapons of mass destruction become harmless elements in the country's `defensive capability.'
In the same manner, the United States was perfectly happy to supply anthrax to Saddam Hussein, during the 1980s. Then, Hussein was a friend and ally.
So his forays into biological warfare were, naturally, `defensive'. In other words, he had permission.
Indeed, it was during this same period of `friendship' that Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurdish villages. To this day, the number of Kurdish civilians murdered as a result of Hussein's attacks remains unclear.
In the eyes of Hussein's regime the Kurdish people were (and are) the selfsame ``uncivilised tribes'' that peopled the fetid imagination of the young Churchill.
Implicitly, Hussein had permission to use his chemical weapons against the Kurds. The failure of Western governments to get overly exercised meant a corresponding lack of anxiety on the part of the Western media to investigate and highlight the attacks. Hence the deaths were not the media event they would be, were he to repeat the action today. Permission has been withdrawn.
Should Britain and the US - the main protagonists - proceed with military action against Iraq, there are fears that a full-scale conflagration could erupt.
Crucially, these fears are currently being expressed (albeit hesitantly) among senior US military personnel. According to recent reports, officials in the Pentagon have been worried by the outcome of several recent wargame exercises, during which an attempt was made to predict the outcome of a new confrontation in the Gulf.
The largest of these exercises (Global `95) was conducted over a three week period, in the US. The exercise ended with the US using nuclear weapons against Iraq.
More recently, the Assistant Secretary of Defence, Kenneth Bacon, was pressed on how the US would respond to any Iraqi use of `weapons of mass destruction'. His reply was instructive: ``We will respond decisively with devastating force,'' adding later that nothing had been ``ruled in or out.''
Perhaps Mr Bacon has been reading Churchill's memoirs.
In the small matter of chemical weapons and other instruments of mass destruction, Iraq could ask for no better tutors than the two Western powers now ranged against it.
In the past, both the US and Britain have resorted to such weaponry in order to further their own political, economic and military goals.
The nuclear massacres perpetrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not designed to subdue a Japan that refused to surrender. Rather, they were an assertion of US military primacy on a global scale, a signal of the intensification of the Cold War.
In Vietnam, two decades later, criminal use of the deadly Agent Orange defoliant either killed or maimed an estimated 300,000 civilians, and ensured the `death' of one quarter of south Vietnam's expansive forests, by 1970.
However, for many Iraqis it will be Britain's record which comes more readily to mind. In 1920, the British imperial writ still ran in large areas of the Middle East, including present day Iraq. That control, however, was threatened by an insurrection.
Britain, weakened by World War I and heavily pre-occupied with an unwinnable war in Ireland, was understandably furious at this latest display of disloyalty.
Winston Churchill characterised the Iraqi revolt as ``only part of a general agitation against the British empire and all it stands for.''
Another senior diplomat articulated the generally-held sense of disgust at the Iraqis' sense of insurrectionary opportunism.
``To kick a man when he is down is the most popular pastime in the East, sanctioned by centuries of precept and practice.''
Thus situated atop the moral high ground, the British put to good use the commanding view their elevated position afforded them: an aerial bombing campaign of civilian villages was ordered.
An anonymous member of the then British cabinet described this counter-insurgency tactic in brutally simple terms - ``the bombing of the women and children of the villages.''
However, this was but the latest in a series of imperial atrocities that had been visited on the Iraqi people.
The previous year, while serving as Secretary of State for War, Winston Churchill was approached by RAF Middle Eastern Command. The airforce had a proposal.
Aware that a lack of ground forces in Iraq led to the natives assuming a rather indifferent attitude to the imperial writ (and taxes), the RAF suggested the use of chemical weapons. (Such weapons had been dropped by the RAF on Bolshevik forces during the Western invasion of Russia that followed the triumph of the Bolshevik revolution).
More explicitly, they suggested to Churchill that the chemicals be used ``against recalcitrant Arabs as (an) experiment.''
Churchill readily assented. His justification of the ``experiment'' would have been enough to convict anyone else of war crimes:
``I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.''
He went on to note that the imperial forces were obligated to use any weapon that would procure a ``speedy termination of the disorder on the frontier.''
Today, more `disorder on the frontier' threatens the use of massive firepower to solve a dispute which, once again, carries more than a whiff of the imperial. The ``recalcitrant Arabs'' of Churchill's time are alive and well in the Western consciousness.
During the Gulf War, the tonnage of explosives dropped on Iraq was equivalent to seven Hiroshimas. An estimated 200,000 Iraqi civilians died.
Still, to judge by the latest flurry of activity, the West failed to achieve its objectives. So what is now proposed? Another ten, fifteen, twenty Hiroshimas?
Certainly, they have the capacity. The aircraft carriers now steaming towards confrontation in the Gulf carry millions of tonnes worth of explosives.
Yet, this escalation is itself in clear breach of the original UN resolution, with which Iraq is accused of failing to comply.
That resolution demands the removal of all `weapons of mass destruction' from the Middle East.
And in alleged pursuit of that goal, the US and Britain are adding hugely to the destructive capacity that exists in the region.
In addition, Arab states point to the nuclear arsenal maintained by Israel - an estimated 200-300 devices - the largest in the region, certainly outstripping anything Hussein has managed to amass.
However, the Israelis' potential for destruction is measured not by the contents of their nuclear arsenal, but by their support for the West. In this manner, Israeli weapons of mass destruction become harmless elements in the country's `defensive capability.'
In the same manner, the United States was perfectly happy to supply anthrax to Saddam Hussein, during the 1980s. Then, Hussein was a friend and ally.
So his forays into biological warfare were, naturally, `defensive'. In other words, he had permission.
Indeed, it was during this same period of `friendship' that Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurdish villages. To this day, the number of Kurdish civilians murdered as a result of Hussein's attacks remains unclear.
In the eyes of Hussein's regime the Kurdish people were (and are) the selfsame ``uncivilised tribes'' that peopled the fetid imagination of the young Churchill.
Implicitly, Hussein had permission to use his chemical weapons against the Kurds. The failure of Western governments to get overly exercised meant a corresponding lack of anxiety on the part of the Western media to investigate and highlight the attacks. Hence the deaths were not the media event they would be, were he to repeat the action today. Permission has been withdrawn.
Should Britain and the US - the main protagonists - proceed with military action against Iraq, there are fears that a full-scale conflagration could erupt.
Crucially, these fears are currently being expressed (albeit hesitantly) among senior US military personnel. According to recent reports, officials in the Pentagon have been worried by the outcome of several recent wargame exercises, during which an attempt was made to predict the outcome of a new confrontation in the Gulf.
The largest of these exercises (Global `95) was conducted over a three week period, in the US. The exercise ended with the US using nuclear weapons against Iraq.
More recently, the Assistant Secretary of Defence, Kenneth Bacon, was pressed on how the US would respond to any Iraqi use of `weapons of mass destruction'. His reply was instructive: ``We will respond decisively with devastating force,'' adding later that nothing had been ``ruled in or out.''
Perhaps Mr Bacon has been reading Churchill's memoirs.