Mehroz Sadruddin November 5, 2006

Tags: iraq , war

Invasion of Iraq

href="/tag/Iraq">Iraq in 2003.

As the whole world keenly watches the future of Iraq, as it unrolls, it would be beneficial for journalists, politicians, humanities students and influential intellectuals to clearly know the reasons for which Iraq was invaded.

While it is true that planning for a potential invasion of Iraq began soon after President assumed office on January 20th 2001. While Bush was reading out from a story book “My pet goat” to school children in Florida, America was burning on that fatal day of September 11. Since then, the whole web of blame games has been directed towards Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Based upon faulty intelligence reports which claimed about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and links with Al-Qaeda (the network chiefly blamed for 9/11) , America invaded Iraq in 2003. The Western media reporting was highly biased as it ignored the economic and political reasons and objectives due to which this war was waged.

This essay focuses on the political issues and reasons that led to the American invasion.

1—They new that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It is a known fact that senior operatives at the Central Investigation Agency had informed officials of the Bush Administration that its claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were flawed and flimsy. However, without paying any heed, members of the Bush Administration, which included the President and the Vice President of the United States of America, kept on gloating over them. David Sirota and Chisty Harvey write in These Times (3rd- August-2004)

. “As the 9/11 Commission recently reported there was no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Similarly, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. With US casualties mounting in an election year, the White House is grasping at the straws to avoid being held accountable for its dishonesty.” (1)

. “Top administration officials repeatedly ignored warnings that their assertions about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and the connections to Al-Qaeda were over stated. In some cases, they were told their claim were wholly without merit, yet they went ahead and made them anyway. Even the Senate report admits that the White House ‘misrepresented’ classified intelligence by eliminating references to contradictory assertions. In short, they knew that they were misleading America and they did not care.” (2)


Thus, what we now know is that the whole issue and chaos surrounding the weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by Saddam Hussein, was actually a case fabricated from head to toe. It would not be wrong to say that the Bush administration chose the wrong way to ‘disarm’ Saddam Hussein. In actual terms, he had no bi-chemical or nuclear weapons at his disposal. By the end of 2002, intelligence officials were increasingly sure that assertions and baseless claims about Iraq’s bio-chemical and nuclear weapons programme were invalid and grossly overstated. Despite of warnings and other repercussions, the Bush administration continued to make those baseless mind-boggling claims as if it was business as usual. By repeatedly ignoring the warnings of senior intelligence officials and by dismissing the findings of the United Nations weapons inspector teams, the Bush Administration did not only play a positive role in making the war extremely unpopular around the world, but also betrayed the American people. Increasingly supportive of the conservative evangelicals (born again Christians), even the Bush Administration has exercised narrow mindedness and acute non-secularism in whatever it has done with respect to Iraq. With regards to those banned weapons, here is an account about what happen to them.


In it October 18-2004 issue, Time magazine’s Johanna Mcgueary reports about Charles Duelfer’s findings. Charles Duelfer is a forms United Nations arms inspector.

“The vast array of evidence uncovered to date shows that when the US led coalition invaded in March 2003, Saddam had not been armed with WMDs for a decade and that his ability to make new ones had been in a state of continual degradation.” (3)

Since the end of the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein’s options had been reduced and politically, his reach had been reduced to Iraq’s geographic boundaries. As the sanctions continued to pulverise Iraq and getting out of them was his primary goal. He knew that this was only possible once he had done away with those banned weapons. Therefore, all the banned weapons were destroyed by 1993.

When Iraq claimed in 1995 that it had unilaterally destroyed its entire arsenal of anthrax, botulinum and other agents after the Gulf War, there the United States buffed these claims off by saying that Iraq still had the capacity of producing biological weapons. However, what the Charles Duelfer report and latest media reports now confirm is that Iraq probably destroyed all its agents by 1992 and had shown no interest in bio-chemical warfare after the destruction of the Al-Hakam biological weapons plant in 1996.

In October 2002, the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) stated that Iraq had begun to produce mustard, sarin and VX. In his pre-war presentation to the United Nations Security Council, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had shown satellite pictures of transportation of such biological agents from a factory to a field. However, in due course of time, was it discovered that this satellite depiction was a major error, which according to the data obtained by CNN, was an ambulance basically carrying medicines.

In his pre-war presentation to the Security Council, Colin Powell insisted that Iraq was trying to procure ‘yellow cake’ from Nigeria and was also trying to procure aluminium tubes which would be used to enrich uranium. These were some mere exaggerations made by Colin Powell in what is now a discredited speech. Today what we know is that since the Gulf War, Iraq had made no move towards reconstituting a bio-chemical or nuclear weapons programme. Such was the underlying deviation/difference between the truth and the lies being used by the Bush Administration. The Bush administration had resorted to all what it could in order to scare the American people by manipulating the media and thus preparing the nation for war, a war that could have been avoided easily, a war that has led to the killing of more than forty thousand Iraqis, a war that has cost American taxpayers more than $250 billion, a war that is surely the most unpopular and costly war of modern times.

The report of weapons inspector Charles Duelfer says: -

"ISG did not discover chemical process or production units confi gured to produce key precursors or CW agents. However, site visits and debriefs revealed that Iraq maintained its ability for reconfi guring and ‘making-do’ with available equipment as substitutes for sanctioned items.


"ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months."

ISG stands for the Iraq Survey that was formed after the Operation Iraqi Freedom. True, that Iraq could have produced large quantities of Sulphur mustard within six months, but this still does not define as to why the United States felt the need of invading Iraq? The bottom line is that a whole nation could not have been pulverised for the deeds of a few select individuals.

The report further goes on to comment that: -


" Despite reported high-level discussions about the use of chemical weapons in the defense of Iraq, information acquired after OIF does not confi rm the inclusion of CW in Iraq’s tactical planning for OIF. We believe these were mostly theoretical discussions and do not imply the existence of undiscovered CW munitions."


This is absolutely true, for if Iraq would have had substantial amount of chemical weapons, they would have surely used it against the march of the imperialists, or best, just like in 1991, the imperialists would not have casually marched towards leading Iraqi cities.

There is evidence available to show that the administration knew exactly about how it was manipulating classified information and betraying the masses in its quest to prepare its case of unleashing raw military power against a paralysed army and the helpless but strong, committed and determined civilians of Iraq. Writing in These times, David Sirota and Christy Harvey have the following words: -


“And so the Bush Administration struck fear into the hearts of Americans about Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, starting with nuclear arms. In his first major address on the Iraqi threat in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem saying “Iraq reconstituted its nuclear weapons programme.” (4)

These words were uttered by President Bush in October 2002. Before this, an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iraq in 1997 claimed that there was no solid evidence available which could have let to the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear programme. Similarly, in February 2001, the Central Investigation Agency delivered a report to the White House in which it said : -

“ We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programmes.” (5)


These evidences suggest that Americans were grossly mistaken when the thought that Saddam Hussein was armed till the teeth with weapons of mass destruction.

The case of a nuclear and Biochemical armed Iraq was surely a planted and there is no doubts in this. This has been adequately documented and researched since July 6th 2004, when the New York Times carried and opinion piece written by former American diplomat, Joseph Wilson. He was asked by the Bush Administration to visit Niger and investigate upon the allegations that Saddam had tried to pursue uranium from that country. The supposed uranium was to be made into weapons grade uranium. When intelligence agencies and members of the Bush Administration were seemingly bound to prove this fallacy correct, Wilson, through that opinion piece, hit them hard in the back. In that opinionated essay, it was shown that in reality, Iraq had never had any uranium procurement deal with any African nation! The research, investigations and press reports that followed, have shown us that the whole issue surrounding Iraq and the Weapons of Mass Destruction was purely a planted one and a mere diversion from the actual realities. Neither did Saddam had any of those banned weapons, nor could he pose a serious a threat to America or Israel, still the imperialists decided to invade.

What has happened since the invasion could be summarised in the following words: -

“ The US administration remains committed to its occupation and insistent on pushing ahead with a political process which is entirely without any credibility.” (6)


2—Israel.

Before the rise and election of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Israel only had one potential enemy in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein. Israel, however has an agenda that is to make sure that nothing or no one in the Middle East poses any threat to the Zionist hegemony in the Middle East.

Saddam Hussein, by now had had considerably political experience and was also generally popular among the Arab masses as the latter would see him as the only Muslim leader who was defiant of Israel and United States. He was also a dedicated well wisher of the Palestinians.

For all possible and known reasons, any sane person can come to the obvious observation the Israel was working side by side with the international community on Iraq, i.e. taking geographic and political measures in order to contain Iraq. Like the United States, even Israel seems to have learnt quite a bit about its underlying interests in Iraq. As Iraq is the cultural, physical, social and geographic centre of the Middle East and it has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves, its importance is very much there. Jewish leaders and intelligentsia has now come to know that in order to neutralise the heavy anti-Israel sentiments across the Middle East, it would have to win maximum number of hearts and minds in Iraq and would have to establish itself in that country.

One major interest that Israel could pursue is about the nuclear ambitions of Iran and the other one could be an aim to neutralise Palestinian and Arab nationalism. Speaking briefly, the first two points taken up, are meant for a straight forward failure, while the last two ones could be a partial success.

There is evidence showing that Israel had taken maximum part in the key intelligence make over which paved the way for the invasion. This was put forward in a review of the Jewish intelligence by a Jewish intelligence officer, brigadier Shlomo Bran in the Guardian(December-19-2003). He said: -

“Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by the American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.” (7)


Removing Saddam Hussein was surely a task of high importance for Israel and the Jewish lobbies in Washington. However, what the Jews, Americans and British had in mind, would surely be condemned to failure. The war would have been completely unjustified even if Saddam had those banned weapons, because killing thousands of innocent men, women and children could not be justified under any manifestation of international law. What the invaders did not take care of was the casualties of the people in Iraq and as direct outcome of their misdoings, more than forty thousand innocent Iraqi citizens have lost their lives and the country is on the brink of civil war.

Jewish interests were profound and the Jews were to actively pursue them and the number or innocent Iraqis butchered in cold blood, was simply not their concern. In order to keep their hands clear, the Israeli intelligence, Mossad worked in collaboration with American and British intelligence agencies and had worked hard enough behind the scenes to prepare a completely farcical and fabricated case for the Iraqi invasion. The security of Israel has been quite near and dear to successive American administrations (and there fore an essential part of American foreign policy), this one not being an exception. The Jewish lobbies in Washington continue to control all essential decision making processes in Washington as they control large sections of multinational corporates, intelligence and the media.


There are other factors that explain that as to why Israel supported the allied invasion of Iraq. They pertain to the Israel-Palestine conflict and the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme. By the time the first intifada ended, Israel had surely felt the need to neutralise Arab nationalism had the Zionist policies were to prevail in the Middle East. The best way it could have done that was to start a massive under the ground public relations and intelligence based campaigns and missions in Iraq. Such a campaign is indeed underway, but pronouncing an outcome right now would be an incorrect calculation.

Israel has been deeply interested in the proceedings of Iran’s nuclear programme. In this particular area, Israel seems to have been playing its cards really well. It has been monitoring and manipulating both, state and non-state actors operating in Iraq. Whether this strategy succeeds or not, is beyond the scope of this analysis, but what we will now look into is that how is Israel pursuing this strategy in collaboration with its American and British friends.

Where American History of the last six decades has seen major wars, there the more than a thousand years of Jewish history has been filled with bloodshed, war and deceit. This surely tells us that the Americans and the Jews resorted to the use of force in case of Iraq, when there were other feasible options clearly available. Israel’s interests started to receive their shocks soon after the declaration of “Mission Accomplished” by President Bush. The Israelis were shocked to learn that the Americans could not control the violence in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib scandal exposed. The other thing that bewildered them was a drastic increase in the influx of Arab speaking, highly trained non Iraqi militants who are often referred to as ‘non-state actors.’ These militants are not only fiercely anti-American and anti-Zionist, but also deeply pro-Iranian and Pro-Palestine. Israel has been doing all what it can to avoid an open confrontation with them, but it may not be able to drag its feet for long enough.


America’s involvements in Iraq before the invasion.

Research based data suggests that a major part of America’s eye on Iraq, was something that was based long before the invasion, or even its planning took root. After Operation Desert Storm, Iraq was forced into those harsh United Nations sanctions. Two-thirds of Iraq were rendered as no fly zones. These areas were under tight British and American control. Regularly did we get to hear about battles between the British/American jets and Iraqi anti-aircraft guns. Those harsh sanctions had killed about two million Iraqi children in a decade. A 1998 law passed by the American Congress and signed by President Clinton had allowed a $97million military assistance to Iraqi opposition groups in order to “ remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein and promote emergence of a democratic government.” (8) This fact clearly gives us an indication about how much was the United States going up against Saddam Hussein By employing coercive diplomacy by using those so called ‘opposition groups’ as their proxies. Today, we know a lot more about the functioning and doings about those opposition groups, thanks to Judith Miller and the New York Times. Members of these groups were spoon-feeding the Western media with all their false and fabricated propaganda regarding Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. What these groups were actually doing was that the CIA was spending millions on them and the propaganda machinery and they were just told to put forward the official view point whether they approved of it or not.

Not only was America interfering in the political procedures in Iraq after Desert Storm, but they had also planned military offensives did the need arose. Two operations were underway during the years when the British and American coalition forces controlled the two no fly zones. Operation Southern watch, the bigger of the two, pilots who were flying over the region had entered Iraqi airspace no less than one hundred and fifty thousand times, ten thousand times alone in 2002 and surprisingly, not a single American pilot or aircraft was lost.(9)

The Pentagon had employed five graduated options in case the Iraqis fired on American aircrafts. Air strike counterattacks were automatic, however to carry an offensive and to strike targets outside the no-fly zones, a direct approval of the President was required. The United States military planning of an offensive in case of attack seemed to be increasingly translucent. An operation by the name of Desert Badger was to be executed had an American pilot been shot down. (10)


The above paragraphs provide us with ample evidence to ascertain the level at which the United States remained involved (perhaps obsessed) with Iraq after Operation Desert Storm and before the current invasion.

Today we can see the death, destruction, violence and bloodshed seething through the streets of Iraq and we also know who is responsible for it, but the question now is how can we bring about a change?


References.

1-In these times(August-03-2004)

2-In these times(August-03-2004)

3-Time Magazine(October-18-2004)

4-In these times(August-04)

5-CIA report, February 2001.

6-New York Times (July-06-2003)

7-The Guardian(December-16-2005)

8-The Guardian(December-9-2003)

9-Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack Page ten

10-Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack Page ten.

11-Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack Page eleven.

12-Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, Page 317