Veterans for Common Sense

December 20, 2002

People who don’t know the Middle East sometimes wonder why Arabs mistrust the United States. Perhaps an old story – from another time when people were worried about war and oil prices – will explain some of what motivates the Arabs now.

In January 1974, President Richard Nixon’s back was to the wall. Watergate was only the most prominent of his troubles. The continuation of the OPEC oil embargo, and the economic consequences of that situation, were a major frustration and embarrassment. Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were looking impotent before the world and before the American people.

In late December 1973, there had been a meeting of Arab oil ministers in Kuwait at which they had reached a decision that lifting of the oil embargo should be accomplished in stages directly linked to commensurate steps toward “full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242,” which called for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian lands in exchange for full Arab acceptance of Israel.

Kissinger was furious, seeing this as another instance of intolerable Arab “blackmail.” A month of nasty bickering ensued, with Kissinger growing increasingly intemperate.

Despite efforts by all the Arab leaders to find a compromise solution that would placate Kissinger, the Saudis, Egyptians and Kuwaitis remained in agreement on one crucial point of principle: No linkage to Resolution 242 meant no lifting of the embargo. The U.S. president had repeatedly promised full implementation of the resolution, and his secretary of state should be expected to honor that commitment.

On Jan. 25, Nixon sent another in a series of personal letters to King Faisal, in which he made this crucial statement: “In earlier messages to Your Majesty I have said that events have proven the wisdom of your counsel over the years. My Government is now embarked upon and committed to a course of action that can, I am convinced, bring a just and durable peace to the Middle East. The first fruits of that commitment are reflected in the agreement on the disengagement of forces signed last Friday, under which Israel forces will withdraw into Sinai as a first step toward a final settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 338 and 242.”

On Jan. 28, as the CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, I received an urgent privacy-channel message from Kissinger explaining in confidence that Nixon was becoming desperate. Would it be possible, Kissinger asked with extravagant politesse, to obtain King Faisal’s permission for the president to announce to the American people in his State of the Union address two days later that the oil embargo would soon be lifted?

I met that night with two of King Faisal’s sons, Saud, now foreign minister, and Turki, newly appointed ambassador to Britain. After lengthy consultation with their father, they agreed that I could convey King Faisal’s approval on two conditions.

First, Nixon would be welcome to announce in his speech that he had received assurances from “friendly leaders” in the Middle East that an urgent meeting would be called to discuss lifting of the embargo.

Second, the president’s announcement should include unequivocal linkage to full implementation of a Middle East peace settlement based on Resolution 242. The explicit enjoinder conveyed by King Faisal was that Nixon should employ in his State of the Union speech precisely the same phraseology that he had used in his personal letter to Faisal just three days before: that the recent disengagement in Sinai was only the “first step” toward full implementation of resolutions 242 and 338.

I conveyed the Saudis’ insistence that the key words “first step” be included in the speech. This specific prearranged signal would confirm and validate the public commitment of the president of the United States to follow through on his repeated private promises to King Faisal to put the full energies of the U.S. government behind the achievement of a just and lasting peace for the Palestinians.

I clearly recall an observation made that evening by Prince Turki, a young man of 27 at the time. He remarked that by asking the U.S. president to employ the same words that he himself had just written in a personal letter to a fellow head of state, we could be confident that no one, not even Henry Kissinger, would dare to portray the request as an unreasonable “demand” on the part of the Saudi king.

Two days later, Nixon declared the following before a joint session of Congress: “Let me begin by reporting a new development which I know will be welcome news to every American. As you know, we have committed ourselves to an active role in helping to achieve a just and durable peace in the Middle East, on the basis of full implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The first step in the process is the disengagement of Egyptian and Israeli forces which is now taking place.”

“Because of this hopeful development,” Nixon continued, “I can announce tonight that I have been assured, through my personal contacts with friendly leaders in the Middle Eastern area, that an urgent meeting will be called in the immediate future to discuss the lifting of the oil embargo. This is an encouraging sign. However, it should be clearly understood by our friends in the Middle East that the United States will not be coerced on this issue.”

It seemed that Nixon, with Kissinger at his elbow, could not bring himself to honor the true spirit of the agreement. That last sentence, containing a veiled but unmistakable threat, probably reflected the resentment that Kissinger felt at having been outmaneuvered. Certainly in Arab eyes, Nixon’s choice of those words seemed to deprive the statement of sincerity and credibility. After all, this tough talk was coming from a frightened and insecure man who had been begging King Faisal for help just 48 hours earlier.

The writer, a CIA officer for 26 years, was the agency’s chief of station in Saudi Arabia from 1970 to 1977. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

That’s right, now you can “buy” a military service record. Well, sort of.

A former Army infantry solider, John Park, is auctioning off his military record on eBay. It goes on sale Dec. 14th under the listing, “For The Man Who Has Everything,” to be sold to the highest bidder on Dec. 23rd.

Exactly who needs a military record for Christmas? According to Park, “Quite a few hawks. Actually, the chicken-hawks, the ones that didn’t serve in the military.” Park quips, “That’s why I call it YAWN (You’re a War-Hero Now), `cause that’s what I do when I hear them advocating war with Iraq, a war they won’t fight themselves.”

“I expect the buyer to be against the war, someone fed up with one hawk in particular.” The former G.I. can’t help but grin when he says, “It’s the ultimate slap in the face for a hawk, someone buying them a military record. Can’t you just picture the sour face on a pompous hawk when they find this under their tree?”

Park’s military record is unique, but not for the reasons you probably think. During his tour of duty (1983 – 85) he was one of the few people from a white, middleclass background serving in the enlisted ranks as an infantry soldier, and the only one with a college degree in the entire 193rd Infantry Brigade.

Although the draft was abolished in 1973, Park thought it was important for middleclass Americans to do their part. “Obviously, I was alone in my beliefs, `cause I was the only Young Republican enlistee on my base.” But it took more than being “an Army of one” for him to turn his back on long held GOP ideals.

“I woke up at 2 AM one Sunday to shouts, ‘We’re going to war!’ For twelve long, agonizing hours we sat with our M-16s while people got sick, really sick, waiting to board choppers and go to war. But nobody would tell us where we were going, who we’d be fighting, or even why. It was utterly and completely insane. If you’ve gotta die for your country, they can at least tell you why.”

As it turned out, Park’s outfit, the 1st/187th Infantry Battalion, based at Ft. Davis, Panama, never boarded those choppers. They weren’t needed for what turned out to be a mission to rescue American medical students studying in Grenada, dubbed The Grenada Invasion.

“Lots of people roll their eyes when you say Grenada. They say, ‘That wasn’t even a real battle.’” Park snaps, “Tell it to the soldier that lost a leg there, or the families of the ones that died there.’”

“That’s the problem,” says Park with a deep sigh, “we’re bombarded by hawks that don’t understand the real consequences of war.”

Now a staunch Independent, Park isn’t shy about where he stands on the war debate. “I’m all for going after Osama. But Iraq? No way.” However, he readily admits, “I know I see it different from most middleclass people because I was a grunt (a frontline soldier).”

However, Park is far from the first person in his family to have served. His father fought in WWII, as did five uncles. And two of them made the ultimate sacrifice for their country; Bill Pace, a graduate of the Naval Academy and a fighter pilot, was shot down over the Pacific, and Gardner Park, a decorated infantry officer, was killed in the D-Day invasion.

Given his family’s distinguished history of military service, one has to wonder how he can part so easily with his military record. Park is quick to answer. “You have any idea what the unemployment rate is for Vets? About double the national average.”

Park joined their ranks last December when his job as Program Director for ABC Television Affiliate WTXL in Tallahassee, FL, was consolidated due to a corporate merger. But he was concern-ed about the staggering unemployment rate for Veterans long before he became a statistic.

Part of his job at WTXL was selecting Public Service Announcements for the station. “I looked all over the country for PSAs that urged people to hire Vets, but couldn’t find any.”

Still boyish looking with his blonde hair and bright blue eyes, Park laments, “When I was a kid PSAs with the slogan, ‘Hire the Vet,’ ran all the time. But now nobody cares in the middle and upper classes `cause they don’t serve in the military. Even worse, they’re the ones that make hiring decisions.”

Although Park is still looking for a job even after sending out hundreds of resumes, all is not bleak. He and fellow writer Larry Gordon recently made a deal with a small publisher to co-write a non-fiction book about shark attacks in The Gulf of Mexico. And having appeared in commercials and the cult classic, DEADLY PREY, a campy 1987 film in which he plays—ironically—a soldier, Park hopes to land some work as an actor. “Maybe someone in Hollywood is willing to hire a vet. Maybe I can even play a soldier again.”

Asked if he’d do it all again, serve as a solider in real life, Park stares out the window at the cold rain outside, “In a perfect world, sure. But then we wouldn’t need a military, would we?”

So why would he sell his military record in an imperfect world? “Starting a war’s easy, but a lotta people are gonna get stuck with the dirty work. And that means they won’t be home for the Holidays, not this year . . . and some not ever again. I hope the hawk that winds up with my old military record will take just a minute to think about that on Christmas morning.”

– end –

About the writer: Jim Broaddus is a veteran of 30-plus years in the broadcast industry, including stints as owner and general manager of more than a dozen radio stations. He is now a wildlife conservationist and freelance writer living in Panama City, Florida. Contact him at: (850) 722-9927 or bearcreekcattery@juno.com

Last week brought yet another terrifying headline from an American newspaper: “US suspects al-Qaida got nerve agent from Iraqis”.

The 1,800-word story in the Washington Post last Thursday got off to a reasonably promising start by saying: “The Bush administration has received a credible report that Islamic extremists affiliated with al-Qaida took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or late in October, according to two officials with firsthand knowledge of the report and its source.”

Less promisingly, the second paragraph begins: “If the report proves true … ” The remaining 28 paragraphs offer little to suggest that it actually is true, and several reasons for thinking it may not be. Paragraph six tells us: “Like most intelligence, the reported chemical weapon transfer is not backed by definitive evidence.”

Paragraph eight says: “Even authorised spokesmen, with one exception, addressed the report on the condition of anonymity. They said the principal source on the chemical transfer was uncorroborated, and that indications it involved a nerve agent were open to interpretation.”

In paragraph 12, we are told that the report may be connected to a warning message circulated to American forces overseas and an unnamed official is cited as saying that the message resulted only from an analyst’s hypothetical concern.

As one would expect from the Washington Post, the story is carefully written and meticulously researched. But it’s basically worthless.

The reporter had clearly spoken to a lot of different people but he failed – not for want of effort – to substantiate the claim that Iraq provided al-Qaida with nerve gas. Although some officials were happy to describe the claim as “credible”, none appeared willing to stand up and say that they, personally, believed it.

The sensible course of action at that stage would have been to abandon the story, or at least file it away in the hope of more evidence coming to light. That might have happened with any other story, but in the case of Iraq at present the temptation to publish is hard to resist.

This particular story was more tempting than many because it carried, as the American military would say, a multiple warhead. It not only suggested that Iraq – contrary to its recent declaration – does possess chemical weapons but, additionally, that it has close links with al-Qaida.

The effect, if not the intention, of publishing the story was to give currency to both these ideas. Stories in the Washington Post are instantly regurgitated by other news organisations around the world, usually at much shorter length and without all the cautionary nuances of the original.

Iraq itself helped the story along by issuing a denial which – since it could produce no evidence by way of rebuttal – simply sounded unconvincing.

The Post’s story is also discussed on the BBC website. Under the headline “Wanted: an Iraqi link to al-Qaida “, Paul Reynolds, the website’s world affairs correspondent, views it as part of a long and unsuccessful effort to link Iraq with al-Qaida.

“One of the most intriguing questions in the ‘war on terrorism’,” he writes, “is whether there are contacts between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaida network. Intelligence agencies are constantly looking for the ‘missing link’.”

The quotation marks around “missing link” distance the BBC from the idea that such a link exists, though the definite article preceding it suggests otherwise. Why are intelligence agencies looking for “the” missing link and not “a” missing link?

Journalistically, it’s more interesting to talk about a “missing” link than a “possible” link but even when the tone of discussion is sceptical – as it was in the BBC’s case – there’s still a drip effect. The more we mention missing links, the more people will assume they are out there somewhere, waiting to be found.

The risk of giving currency to false or questionable claims is now a daily problem for those of us who try to write about Iraq without turning into other people’s weapons of mass deception.

Even a simple reference to Iraq’s weaponry can be problematic. Some readers object that “weapons of mass destruction” is a tendentious phrase. “Chemical, biological and nuclear” is accurately descriptive, though it becomes too much of a mouthful when used repeatedly in a story. Reuters news agency and others increasingly – and rather emotively – talk about “doomsday weapons”. In practice, “doomsday” is beginning to mean anything nasty possessed by Iraq, though not by the United States.

Last Wednesday, for example, a Reuters report stated: “The United States threatened possible nuclear retaliation against Iraq if its forces or allies were attacked with doomsday weapons.” Let’s see how that looks the other way round: “The United States threatened retaliation with doomsday weapons against Iraq if its forces or allies were attacked with chemicals.”

In terms of mass death, it takes 28 Halabjas to make one Hiroshima.

Meanwhile, to the delight of pharmaceutical companies, the United States is pressing ahead with its smallpox vaccination programme – though the recent New York Times “scoop” about an Iraqi smallpox threat looks increasingly shaky. On December 3, Judith Miller, the paper’s “bioterrorism expert” reported an unverified claim that a Russian scientist, who once had access to the Soviet Union’s entire collection of 120 strains of smallpox, may have visited Iraq in 1990 and may have provided the Iraqis with a version of the virus that could be resistant to vaccines and could be more easily transmitted as a biological weapon. (See “Poisoning the Air”, World Dispatch, December 9.)

Since the article was published, colleagues of the now-dead scientist, Nelja Maltseva, have said that she last visited Iraq in 1971-72 (as part of a global smallpox eradication effort) and last travelled abroad (to Finland) in 1982.

Another of Ms Miller’s scoops, on November 12, cited “senior Bush administration officials” as saying that Iraq had ordered a million doses of atropine, which is an antidote to nerve gas, but also a routine drug for treating heart patients. This was interpreted as evidence that Iraq not only possesses nerve gas but intends to use it in a conflict with the United States – hence the need to protect its own forces from accidental injury.

The US then threatened to block a continuation of Iraq’s oil-for-food programme unless atropine were included in the list of “suspect” items that Iraq cannot import without permission from the United Nations’ sanctions committee.

As I pointed out in world dispatch last week, the sudden horror over atropine was very strange, given that the US had previously allowed Iraq to buy large quantities on normal medical grounds, and that UN had lifted all restrictions on Iraqi purchases of the drug only six months earlier.

This highly relevant information, which Ms Miller had failed to mention, eventually found its way into the Washington Post and the wires of Associated Press. The response from the New York Times was to run the Associated Press report without reference to Ms Miller’s flawed scoop.

By no means do all the dubious scare stories about Iraq come from shadowy intelligence sources or officials who can’t be named.

Last September, Turkish police announced the arrest of two men in a taxi who were apparently smuggling 35lb of weapons-grade uranium to Iraq from somewhere near the Syrian border. But a few days later it emerged that the material was harmless, containing only zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese. Its actual weight was only 5lb but the police, in their excitement, had weighed the lead container as well.

One day, perhaps, one of these scare stories may turn out to be true – but don’t hold your breath waiting for it. In the meantime, readers are welcome to send more examples by email, to the address below.

brian.whitaker@guardian.co.uk

The sergeant was puzzled. His vision was dimming. His nose began to run and then there seemed weight on his chest and he struggled to breathe. His squad of riflemen deployed in the desert of southern Iraq watched in horror as their leader began vomiting before collapsing into a bundle of convulsions.

These are the telltale signs of nerve gas poisoning that could come from a tiny drop of Sarin on an exposed wrist. A listing of these effects are part of the lesson plan U.S. Marines were offering a group of journalists who may wind up on the battlefield if President George W. Bush launches Desert Storm II. The Pentagon offered to prepare reporters with a rough basic training program at Quantico, Va. starting last month.

Nerve gas – Sarin – has been in the arsenal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at least since he ordered it used by his troops against ill-prepared Iranian forces after Iraq’s 1981 invasion. Hussein’s expertise in manufacturing and weaponizing Sarin makes it certain the nerve gas will be on the priority list of U.N. weapons inspectors now in Baghdad, according to US intelligence.

For President George Bush the Elder in 1991, his worst nightmare was the vision of American forces writhing from the effects of Sarin as they moved to oust Iraq from the tiny sheikdom of Kuwait.

Fear of media coverage of such nerve gas attacks may have led Bush to order a press blackout when allied troops began to roll on February 24,1991. “They didn’t want pictures in the living room of our troops being rocketed with Sarin,” said a senior general who helped plan Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf’s attack. “No pictures.”

Schwarzkopf as did most military planners doubted Hussein would use the nerve agent. He lacked an effective delivery system–122mm rockets–and an errant breeze could waft the vapor in the wrong direction. And, then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney promised a gas attack by Baghdad would produce an “overwhelming,” but unspecified U.S. response. The always uncool Vice President Dan Quayle piped up that Cheney was talking about using nuclear weapons on Hussein.

For whatever reason, Iraq never used one of its most potent “weapon of mass destruction,” resulting in a sigh of relief by both the political and military leadership of the Persian Gulf War.

But the terror weapon was unleashed–unwittingly–by U.S. Army engineers after most of the fighting was over. It produced the largest allied casualty list of the war. American taxpayers are financing more than $4 billion a year in compensation to Gulf War veterans and their families.

According the Central Intelligence Agency and the Army, 4.8 tons of Sarin nerve gas was released into the atmosphere in northern Iraq when engineers destroyed 1,610 Kaytusha rockets tipped with Sarin warheads. The first release– from 1,060 of the 122mm Soviet-made rockets– on March 4,1991 was limited because they were destroyed with explosives placed inside storage bunkers at a crossroads called Kamisiyah.

CIA and Army experts argued the bunkers kept most of the Sarin vapor out of the atmosphere. Worse however was a second engineer demolition of 550 Kaytushas on March 10. These rockets containing Sarin-filled warheads were destroyed in an open pit. More than 130,000 American troops were deployed within the 15 mile radius of the Sarin vapor cloud created by the March 10 blast.

Those units affected with troops in 1st Mechanized, 24th Mechanized, 82nd Airborne, 1st Armored, 3rd Armored and 1st Cavalry Divisions as well as smaller reserve and national guard units. The plume also covered sections of occupied Kuwait but no estimates of population were made by the CIA and Army.

Disclosure of the Sarin plume over U.S. troops came in 1996 when the administration of President Bill Clinton was still disputing both the cause and effects of the so-called Gulf War syndrome. Then, 8,000 veterans of Desert Storm had a collection of symptoms including fatigue, sore joints, sleeplessness, stomach problems and skin disorders.

Pentagon officials learned about the Sarin releases in 1994 but did not tell ailing veterans or the public about the plume of nerves until two years later. Just as smelly was Pentagon handling of Desert Storm records of detection of airborne poisons by U.S. units before the groundwar began. Defense officials blamed a malfunctioning hard drive for destroying two separate sets of chemical detections.

As the number of victims soared, the Pentagon insisted the Sarin releases were not a cause. Nerve gas dissipates within hours. But some critics, including Jim Tuite, a Senate investigator who helped stage the first Congressional hearings on the issue, had a different view.

Tuite has uncovered East german records of workers who handled stores of Sarin nerve gas. Low level exposures to the gas for years had given them the same sort of symptoms plaguing Gulf war veterans. And, Tuite argues other Iraqi chemical weapons were released into the air during a month of bombing Hussein’s storage areas and military factories.

Army doctors, the Department of Veterans Affairs and most of the U.S medical community continued for a decade to view the Gulf War syndrome as mysterious and unexplainable. So far, 167,000 men and women who served in the conflict have been granted various degrees of disability by the government along with different cash payments and pension rights. Today, they account for almost half of the disabled Gulf War vets who, along with their wives and children, get $370 million a month, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Paul Sullivan of the Gulf War Veterans association [National Gulf War Resource Center] says the cumulative total of men and women affected–veterans, active duty, national guard and reserve soldiers who served in the 1991 conflict–is closer to 200,000.

It wasn’t until this fall–11 years after the event–that the Veterans Affairs Department for the first time acknowledged toxic exposures as a cause of Gulf War illnesses. Two recent Pentagon studies finally reached the same conclusion: low does of Sarine exposure are linked to long-term neurological problems.

These concessions come after a pounding by Congress, the media and grassroots organizations such as Sullivan’s Gulf War group.

Still, there is no mention of Sarin it the latest Pentagon report on the Gulf war syndrome although another culprit has been pinpointed–dirty air.

“Many veterans of the Gulf War have expressed concern that their unexplained illnesses may result from their experiences in that war,” said Dr. William Wenkenwerder Jr., assistant defense secretary for health.

“Of primary concern,” for affected troops, Wenkenwerder said, “was poor air quality that was the result of several factors: blowing sand, emissions from petro-chemical complexes, civilian and military vehicle traffic and oil well fires in Kuwait.”

©2002 Patrick J. Sloyan
Contributing Editor
ppsloyan@starpower.net

Patrick J. Sloyan won the Pulitzer prize for his coverage of Desert Storm while Senior Correspondent for Newsday. He wrote this article while a Fellow at the Alicia Patterson Foundation. Sloyan currently in writing a book on the seeds of the Vietnam War.

Here is the leaked list of US corporations alleged to have provided weapons of mass destruction to Iraq:

A – nuclear, K – chemical, B – biological, R – rockets (missiles)

1) Honeywell (R,K), 2) Spektra Physics (K), 3) Semetex (R), 4) TI Coating (A,K), 5) UNISYS (A,K), 6) Sperry Corp. (R,K), 7) Tektronix (R,A), 8) Rockwell (K), 9) Leybold Vacuum Systems (A), 10) Finnigan-MAT-US (A), 11) Hewlett Packard (A.R,K), 12) Dupont (A), 13) Eastman Kodak (R), 14) American Type Culture Collection (B), 15) Alcolac International (C), 16) Consarc (A), 17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K), 18) Cerberus (LTD)(A), 19) Electronic Assiciates (R), 20) International Computer Systems, 21) Bechtel (K), 22) EZ Logic Data, Systems,Inc. (R), 23) Canberra Industries Inc. (A), 24) Axel Electronics Inc. (A).

Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam

By Tony Paterson
The Independent (UK)
December 18, 2002

Baghdad’s uncensored report to UN names Western companies alleged to have developed its weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq’s 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programme, a German newspaper said yesterday.

Berlin’s left-wing Die Tageszeitung newspaper said it had seen a copy of the original Iraqi dossier which was vetted for sensitive information by US officials before being handed to the five permanent Security Council
members two weeks ago. An edited version was passed to the remaining 10 members of the Security Council last night.

British officials said the list of companies appeared to be accurate. Eighty German firms and 24 US companies are reported to have supplied Iraq with equipment and know-how for its weapons programmes from 1975 onwards and in some cases support for Baghdad’s conventional arms programme had continued until last year.

It is not known who leaked the report, but it could have come from Iraq. Baghdad is keen to embarrass the US and its allies by showing the close involvement of US, German, British and French firms in helping Iraq
develop its weapons of mass destruction when the country was a bulwark against the much feared spread of Iranian revolutionary fervour to the Arab world.

The list contained the names of long-established German firms such as Siemens as well as US multi-nationals. With government approval, Siemens exported machines used to eliminate kidney stones which have a “dual
use” high precision switch used to detonate nuclear bombs. Ten French companies were also named along with a number of Swiss and Chinese firms. The newspaper said a number of British companies were cited, but did not name them.

“From about 1975 onwards, these companies are shown to have supplied entire complexes, building elements, basic materials and technical know-how for Saddam Hussein’s programme to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons of mass destruction,” the newspaper said. “They also supplied rockets and complete conventional weapons systems,” it added.

The five permanent members of the Security Council — the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China — have repeatedly opposed revealing the extent of foreign companies’ involvement, although a mass of relevant information was collected by UN weapons inspectors who visited the country between 1991 and 1998. The UN claims that publishing the extent of the companies’ involvement in Iraq would jeopardise necessary
co-operation with such firms.

German involvement outstripped that of all the other countries put together, the paper said. During the period to 1991, the German authoritiespermitted weapons co-operation with Iraq and in some cases “actively encouraged” it, according to the newspaper which cited German assistance allegedly given to Iraq for the development of poison gas used in the 1988 massacre of Kurds in northern Iraq. It said that after the massacre America reduced its military co-operation with Iraq but
German firms continued their activities until the Gulf War.

Die Tageszeitung quoted sources close to the US Vice President, Dick Cheney, as saying the Bush administration was hoping to prove a German company was continuing to co-operate with the Iraqi regime over the
supply of equipment allegedly useful in the construction of weapons of mass destruction.

American weapons experts have recently voiced concern that the German Government has permitted Siemens to sell Baghdad at least eight sophisticated medical machines which contain devices that are vital for
nuclear weapons. The machines, known “lithotripters”, use ultrasound to destroy kidney stones in patients. However, each machine contains an electronic switch that can be used as a detonator in an atomic bomb,
according to US experts. Iraq was reported to have requested an extra 120 switches as “spare parts” during the initial transaction.

The delivery of the machines was approved by the European Commission and the UN because sanctions against Iraq do not apply to medical equipment.
Siemens and the German Government have insisted that the machines, which are being used in northern Iraq under a World Health Organisation programme, cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

December 18, 2002

First it was Roger Ailes, the chairman of the Fox News Channel, who advised the US President to take the “harshest measures possible” against those who attacked America on 11 September, 2001.

Let us forget, for a moment, that Fox News’s Jerusalem bureau chief is Uri Dan, a friend of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the author of the preface of the new edition of Sharon’s autobiography, which includes a revolting account of the Sabra and Chatila massacre of 1,700 Palestinian civilians and Sharon’s innocence in this slaughter.

Then Ted Koppel, one of America’s leading news anchormen, announced that it may be a journalist’s duty not to reveal events until the military want them revealed in a new war against Iraq.

Can we go any further in journalistic cowardice? Oh yes, we can. ABC television announced, a little while ago, that it knew all about the killing of four al-Qa’ida members by an unmanned “Predator” plane in Yemen but delayed broadcasting the news for four days “at the request of the Pentagon.” So now at least we know for whom ABC works.

The Pentagon said that the murdered men – and let’s not lose sight of the “murdered” bit, though that’s not the word ABC used – were between “two to 20” of the top ranks of al-Qa’ida. Really? So were they numbers two, three, four and five in al-Qa’ida? Or numbers 17,18,19 and 20? Who cares? The press are onside. Don’t ask who is resisting forthcoming US censorship of the Iraq war. Ask who is first to climb aboard the bandwagon.

In Canada, the situation is even worse. Canwest, owned by Israel Asper, owns over 130 newspapers in Canada, including 14 city dailies and one of the country’s largest papers, the National Post. His “journalists” have attacked colleagues who have deviated from Mr Asper’s pro-Israel editorials.

As Index on Censorship reported, Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter for the Montreal Gazette has been monitoring Canwest’s interference with its own papers. “They do not want any criticism of Israel,” he wrote. “We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East…”

But now, “Izzy” Asper has written a gutless and repulsive editorial in the Post in which he attacks his own journalists, falsely accusing reporters of “lazy, sloppy or stupid” journalism and being “biased or anti-Semitic”. These vile slanders are familiar to any reporter trying to do his work on the ground in the Middle East. They are made even more revolting by inaccuracies.

Mr Asper, for example, claims that my colleague Phil Reeves compared the Israeli killings in Jenin earlier this year – which included a goodly few war crimes (the crushing to death of a man in a wheelchair, for example) – to the “killing fields of Pol Pot”. Now Mr Reeves has never mentioned Pol Pot. But Mr Asper wrongly claims that he did.

It gets worse. Mr Asper, whose “lazy, sloppy or stupid” allegations against journalists in reality apply to himself, states – in the address to an Israel Bonds Gala Dinner in Montreal, which formed the basis of his preposterous article – that “in 1917, Britain and the League of Nations declared, with world approval, that a Jewish state would be established in Palestine”. Now hold on a moment. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 did not say that a Jewish state would be established. It said that the British government would “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” The British refused to use the words “Jewish state”.

This may not matter much to lazy writers like Mr Aspen. But when it comes to the League of Nations being involved, we really are into mythology. The League of Nations was created after the First World War – had it existed in 1917, it might have stopped the whole war – and Mr Asper is simply wrong (or, as he might have put it, “lazy, sloppy or stupid”) to suggest it existed in 1917.

At no point, of course, does Mr Asper tell us about Israeli occupation or the building of Jewish settlements, for Jews and Jews only, upon Arab land. He talks about “alleged Palestinian refugees” – about as wrongheaded a remark as you can get – and then claims that the corrupt and foolish Yasser Arafat is “one of the world’s cruel and most vicious terrorists for the past 30 years”. He concluded his speech to Israel’s supporters in Montreal with the dangerous request that “you, the public, must take action against the media wrongdoers”.

Wrongdoers? Is this far from President Bush’s “evildoers”? What in the hell is going on here?

I will tell you. Journalists are being attacked for telling the truth, for trying to tell it how it is. American journalists especially. I urge them to read a remarkable new book published by the New York University Press and edited by John Collins and Ross Glover. It’s called Collateral Language and is, in its own words, intended to expose “the tyranny of political rhetoric”. Its chapter titles – “Anthrax”, “Cowardice”, “Evil”, “Freedom”, Fundamentalism”, “Justice”, “Terrorism”, Vital Interests” and – my favourite – “The War on…” (fill in the missing country) tell it all.

Meanwhile, rest assured, the journalists are getting onside, to tell you the story the government wants you to hear.

December 17, 2002

Last week brought yet another terrifying headline from an American newspaper: “US suspects al-Qaida got nerve agent from Iraqis”.

The 1,800-word story in the Washington Post last Thursday got off to a reasonably promising start by saying: “The Bush administration has received a credible report that Islamic extremists affiliated with al-Qaida took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or late in October, according to two officials with firsthand knowledge of the report and its source.”

Less promisingly, the second paragraph begins: “If the report proves true … ” The remaining 28 paragraphs offer little to suggest that it actually is true, and several reasons for thinking it may not be. Paragraph six tells us: “Like most intelligence, the reported chemical weapon transfer is not backed by definitive evidence.”

Paragraph eight says: “Even authorised spokesmen, with one exception, addressed the report on the condition of anonymity. They said the principal source on the chemical transfer was uncorroborated, and that indications it involved a nerve agent were open to interpretation.”

In paragraph 12, we are told that the report may be connected to a warning message circulated to American forces overseas and an unnamed official is cited as saying that the message resulted only from an analyst’s hypothetical concern.

As one would expect from the Washington Post, the story is carefully written and meticulously researched. But it’s basically worthless.

The reporter had clearly spoken to a lot of different people but he failed – not for want of effort – to substantiate the claim that Iraq provided al-Qaida with nerve gas. Although some officials were happy to describe the claim as “credible”, none appeared willing to stand up and say that they, personally, believed it.

The sensible course of action at that stage would have been to abandon the story, or at least file it away in the hope of more evidence coming to light. That might have happened with any other story, but in the case of Iraq at present the temptation to publish is hard to resist.

This particular story was more tempting than many because it carried, as the American military would say, a multiple warhead. It not only suggested that Iraq – contrary to its recent declaration – does possess chemical weapons but, additionally, that it has close links with al-Qaida.

The effect, if not the intention, of publishing the story was to give currency to both these ideas. Stories in the Washington Post are instantly regurgitated by other news organisations around the world, usually at much shorter length and without all the cautionary nuances of the original.

Iraq itself helped the story along by issuing a denial which – since it could produce no evidence by way of rebuttal – simply sounded unconvincing.

The Post’s story is also discussed on the BBC website. Under the headline “Wanted: an Iraqi link to al-Qaida “, Paul Reynolds, the website’s world affairs correspondent, views it as part of a long and unsuccessful effort to link Iraq with al-Qaida.

“One of the most intriguing questions in the ‘war on terrorism’,” he writes, “is whether there are contacts between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaida network. Intelligence agencies are constantly looking for the ‘missing link’.”

The quotation marks around “missing link” distance the BBC from the idea that such a link exists, though the definite article preceding it suggests otherwise. Why are intelligence agencies looking for “the” missing link and not “a” missing link?

Journalistically, it’s more interesting to talk about a “missing” link than a “possible” link but even when the tone of discussion is sceptical – as it was in the BBC’s case – there’s still a drip effect. The more we mention missing links, the more people will assume they are out there somewhere, waiting to be found.

The risk of giving currency to false or questionable claims is now a daily problem for those of us who try to write about Iraq without turning into other people’s weapons of mass deception.

Even a simple reference to Iraq’s weaponry can be problematic. Some readers object that “weapons of mass destruction” is a tendentious phrase. “Chemical, biological and nuclear” is accurately descriptive, though it becomes too much of a mouthful when used repeatedly in a story. Reuters news agency and others increasingly – and rather emotively – talk about “doomsday weapons”. In practice, “doomsday” is beginning to mean anything nasty possessed by Iraq, though not by the United States.

Last Wednesday, for example, a Reuters report stated: “The United States threatened possible nuclear retaliation against Iraq if its forces or allies were attacked with doomsday weapons.” Let’s see how that looks the other way round: “The United States threatened retaliation with doomsday weapons against Iraq if its forces or allies were attacked with chemicals.”

In terms of mass death, it takes 28 Halabjas to make one Hiroshima.

Meanwhile, to the delight of pharmaceutical companies, the United States is pressing ahead with its smallpox vaccination programme – though the recent New York Times “scoop” about an Iraqi smallpox threat looks increasingly shaky. On December 3, Judith Miller, the paper’s “bioterrorism expert” reported an unverified claim that a Russian scientist, who once had access to the Soviet Union’s entire collection of 120 strains of smallpox, may have visited Iraq in 1990 and may have provided the Iraqis with a version of the virus that could be resistant to vaccines and could be more easily transmitted as a biological weapon. (See “Poisoning the Air”, World Dispatch, December 9.)

Since the article was published, colleagues of the now-dead scientist, Nelja Maltseva, have said that she last visited Iraq in 1971-72 (as part of a global smallpox eradication effort) and last travelled abroad (to Finland) in 1982.

Another of Ms Miller’s scoops, on November 12, cited “senior Bush administration officials” as saying that Iraq had ordered a million doses of atropine, which is an antidote to nerve gas, but also a routine drug for treating heart patients. This was interpreted as evidence that Iraq not only possesses nerve gas but intends to use it in a conflict with the United States – hence the need to protect its own forces from accidental injury.

The US then threatened to block a continuation of Iraq’s oil-for-food programme unless atropine were included in the list of “suspect” items that Iraq cannot import without permission from the United Nations’ sanctions committee.

As I pointed out in world dispatch last week, the sudden horror over atropine was very strange, given that the US had previously allowed Iraq to buy large quantities on normal medical grounds, and that UN had lifted all restrictions on Iraqi purchases of the drug only six months earlier.

This highly relevant information, which Ms Miller had failed to mention, eventually found its way into the Washington Post and the wires of Associated Press. The response from the New York Times was to run the Associated Press report without reference to Ms Miller’s flawed scoop.

By no means do all the dubious scare stories about Iraq come from shadowy intelligence sources or officials who can’t be named.

Last September, Turkish police announced the arrest of two men in a taxi who were apparently smuggling 35lb of weapons-grade uranium to Iraq from somewhere near the Syrian border. But a few days later it emerged that the material was harmless, containing only zinc, iron, zirconium and manganese. Its actual weight was only 5lb but the police, in their excitement, had weighed the lead container as well.

One day, perhaps, one of these scare stories may turn out to be true – but don’t hold your breath waiting for it. In the meantime, readers are welcome to send more examples by email, to the address below.