 |
 |
 |
 
Iraq and Poison Gas
by DILIP HIRO
8.28.02
It is suddenly de rigueur for US officials to say, "Saddam
Hussein gassed his own people." They are evidently referring to the
Iraqi military's use of chemical weapons in the Iraqi Kurdistan town of
Halabja in March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War, and then in the area
controlled by the Teheran-backed Kurdish insurgents after the
cease-fire in August.
Since Baghdad's deployment of chemical arms in war as well as peace was
known at the time, the question is: What did the US government do
about it then? Nothing. Worse, so strong was the hold of the pro-Iraq
lobby on the Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan,
it succeeded in getting the White House to frustrate the Senate's
attempt to penalize Baghdad for violating the Geneva Protocol on
Chemical Weapons, which it had signed. This led Saddam to believe
that Washington was firmly on his side--a conclusion that paved
the way for his invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War, the full
consequences of which have yet to play themselves out.
 |
 |
 |

"From mid-1986, assisted by the Pentagon...Iraq improved
its accuracy in targeting, hitting Iran's bridges, factories
and power plants relentlessly, and extending its air strikes
to the Iranian oil terminals in the Lower Gulf. "
|
 |
 |
 |
During the five years following October 1983, Iraq used 100,000
munitions, containing chiefly mustard gas, which produces blisters
first on the skin and then inside the lungs, and nerve gas, which
attacks the nervous system, but also cyanide gas. From the initial
use of such agents in extremis to repel Iranian offensives, the
Iraqis went on to deploy them extensively as a vital element of
their assaults in the spring and summer of 1988 to retake lost territories.
At the time, even as the US government had knowledge of these attacks,
it provided intelligence and planning assistance to the Iraqi army,
according to an August 18 front-page report by Patrick Tyler in
the New York Times.
Iraq's use of poison gases to regain the Fao Peninsula, captured by Iran
in early 1986, was so blatant that the United Nations Security Council
could no longer accept Baghdad's routine denials. After examining 700
Iranian casualties, the UN team of experts concluded that Iraq used
mustard and nerve gases on many occasions.
Yet, instead of condemning Iraq unequivocally for its actions, the Security
Council, dominated by Washington and Moscow, both of them pro-Baghdad,
balanced its condemnation of Iraq with its disapproval of "the prolongation
of the conflict" by Iran, which had refused to agree to a cease-fire
until the Council named Iraq the aggressor (which America got around
to doing in 1998!).
 |
 |
 |

"Contrary to its proclamations of neutrality, Washington
had all along been pro-Iraq."
|
 |
 |
 |
Contrary to its proclamations of neutrality, Washington had all
along been pro-Iraq. It lost little time in supplying Baghdad with
intelligence gathered by the Saudi-owned but Pentagon-operated AWACS
(Airborne Warning and Control Systems) flying in the region. This
tilt became an embrace after the re-election of Reagan as president
in November 1984, when Iraq and America re-established diplomatic
ties.
From mid-1986, assisted by the Pentagon, which secretly seconded its Air
Force officers to work with their Iraqi counterparts, Iraq improved its
accuracy in targeting, hitting Iran's bridges, factories and power
plants relentlessly, and extending its air strikes to the Iranian oil
terminals in the Lower Gulf. Under the rubric of escorting Kuwaiti oil
tankers, the Pentagon built up an armada in the gulf, which clashed with
the puny Iranian navy and destroyed two Iranian offshore oil platforms
in the Lower Gulf in retaliation for an Iranian missile attack on a
US-flagged super-tanker docked in Kuwaiti waters.
It was against this backdrop that Iraq began striking Teheran with its
upgraded Scud ground-to-ground missiles in late February 1988. To
recapture Halabja, a town of 70,000 about fifteen miles from the border,
from Iran and its Kurdish allies, who had seized it in March, the Iraqi
Air Force attacked it with poison gas bombs, killing 3,200 to 5,000
civilians. The images of men, women and children frozen in instant
death, relayed by the Iranian media, shocked the world. Yet no
condemnation came from Washington.
It was only when, following the truce with Teheran in August, Saddam
made extensive use of chemical agents to retake 4,000 square miles
controlled by the Kurdish rebels that the Security Council decided to
send a team to determine if Iraq had deployed chemical arms. Baghdad
refused to cooperate.
But instead of pressing Baghdad to reverse its stance, or face an
immediate ban on the sale of US military equipment and advanced
technology to Iraq by the revival of the Senate's bill, US Secretary of
State George Shultz chose merely to say that interviews with the Kurdish
refugees in Turkey, and "other sources" (which remained obscure),
pointed toward Baghdad's using chemical weapons. These two elements did
not add up to "conclusive" proof. Such was the verdict of Shultz's
British counterpart, Sir Geoffrey Howe. "If conclusive evidence is
obtained, then punitive measures against Iraq have not been ruled out,"
he said. But neither he nor Shultz is known to have made a further
attempt to get at the truth. Baghdad went unpunished.
That is where the matter rested for fourteen years--until "gassing
his own people" became a catchy slogan to demonize Saddam in the
popular American imagination.
Dilip Hiro is the author of Sharing the Promised
Land: A Tale of Israelis and Palestinians (Interlink), Between Marx
and Muhammad: The Changing Face of Central Asia (HarperCollins),
Neighbors, Not Friends: Iraq and Iran After the Gulf Wars (Routledge),
War Without End: Rise of Islamist Terrorism and the Global Response
(also Routledge) and the forthcoming Iraq, Myth and Reality, Culprit
or Cat's Paw?, (Nation Books).
|
 |
 |