Labor Unions Say “No” to Gulf War II

Whereas, since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have seen the beginning of a relentless new assault on labor — from the employers, and from the government acting on their behalf; and

Whereas, using the so-called “war on terrorism” and “national security” as a pretext, the Bush Administration has spearheaded a renewed assault on organized labor, starting with the use of Taft-Hartley (and threats to militarize the ports) against West Coast dockworkers…wholesale threats to the job security and union rights of 170,000 federal workers…the racist firings of experienced airport screeners…threats to curtail the right to strike and organize; and the impending contracting out of hundreds of thousands of federal jobs. On more than one occasion, government spokespersons have referred to union actions defending our jobs, working conditions and living standards as akin to terrorism, or as “aiding and abetting terrorists”, or as a “threat to national security”; and

Whereas, Bush’s war (on Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, the Philippines, where next?) has become the main engine for the repression of labor. “National security”, in the hands of a thoroughly anti-labor Bush Administration, is being used as a bludgeon against labor, with the intent of rolling back all the gains workers have won since the 1930s, including collective bargaining itself, and including social programs championed by the labor movement like welfare, social security, unemployment insurance; and

Whereas, a strong fight-back requires that labor make it a priority to stake out a clear, forthright and fighting stance against Bush’s war, and see the anti-war and anti-globalization movements as our strategic allies, needed if we are to defeat the assault on labor and move to the offensive. We got a glimpse of the potential power of this combination during the 1999 showdown in Seattle; and

Whereas, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. embodied the coming together of the labor, anti-war and civil rights movements during the tremendous upsurge of the mass movement in the 1960s, and we need to revive this powerful combination of the people’s forces to defeat Bush’s war and the racism that underlies it and that it promotes; and

Whereas, our opposition to the Bush Administration’s war on the Iraqi people, and to their attacks or threats against other smaller, sovereign countries around the globe, fits hand in glove with labor’s fighting defense of the interests of the working people of all races and nationalities here at home; therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, endorse the Martin Luther King weekend anti-war activities — the January 18, 2003 marches in San Francisco and Washington, DC in opposition to the war on Iraq, and the Grassroots Peace Congress being held in Washington, as well as the People’s Anti-War Referendum [“VoteNoWar”] by which millions of Americans are casting their “votes” against this war; and be it further

RESOLVED: That this council work to ensure that organized labor and the national AFL-CIO take a clear and early stand against Bush’s war.

— Adopted unanimously by the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, December 9, 2002

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Labor Unions Say “No” to Gulf War II

U.S. Deploying 90,000 Troops to Turkey?

ANKARA, Dec 13 (KUNA) — Turkish newspaper Hurriyet said Friday that the US administration completed technical and logistic preparations to send 90,000 American soldiers to six military bases in Turkey within the next few days.

Washington asked Ankara to allow some British troops to join the American forces in Turkey, expected to participate in a wide-scale military action against Iraq, the daily said. It added that Ankara was not comfortable with the American request.

“The Turkish administration permitted three US intelligence teams to be based in the Turkish-Iraqi border area to train members of the Iraqi opposition for participation in the possible war in Iraq”, the daily stated.

“The American intelligence teams in the frontier region started their work last October”, the newspaper said.

US Deputy Minister of Defense Paul Wolfowize submitted, last week, to the Turkish leadership a request to allow the US to send some American air force experts to inspect Turkish bases expected to be employed by the US in the possible attack on Iraq, according to the daily.

Hurriyet newspaper added that American experts would arrive by mid-December to check technical needs of six Turkish military bases, adding that the US administration plans to use two of these stations as major headquarters to control its military operations.

“The Pentagon requested from the Turkish government a permission to employ 14 civil airports for only logistic purposes”, Hurriyet daily stated.

“The Turkish administration was upset with the US demand regarding the usage of four Turkish ports … Ankara expressed reservation at two of these ports while remaining ports are a subject of negotiation with the American administration”, it added.

“According to the Turkish constitution, the government should get the approval of the Turkish Parliament before allowing American forces to use Turkey’s military bases”, according to the daily.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on U.S. Deploying 90,000 Troops to Turkey?

Military to Call Up 27,000 More Reservists

December 14, 2002

The Navy and Army plan to alert about 27,000 National Guard and Reserve troops to prepare for a possible call to active duty, probably in the Persian Gulf region, defense officials said Saturday.

The decision to alert some reservists is a sign that the Pentagon is continuing to lay the ground work for a military operation against Iraq, should President Bush decide military force is necessary.

Virtually no military operation can be undertaken without the extensive use of the National Guard and Reserves because, by design, the active duty force is lacking in skills such as civil affairs and medical specialties.

If the United States should go to war against Iraq, the Pentagon probably would need to mobilize more than 100,000 National Guard and Reserve troops, not counting almost 51,000 already on active duty largely for homeland defense duties like flying combat patrol missions over areas of the United States.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said he could not confirm any alert order and stressed that notifying reservists to prepare for possible mobilization is a step short of actually calling them to duty.

Another defense official said, however, that the Navy and Army were told to give alert orders to about 27,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve. The New York Times, which reported the development in its Saturday editions, said that if Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld eventually approves a formal mobilization order, he probably would not do so before Jan. 1.

It normally takes about 30 days for National Guard and Reserve troops to get their personal affairs in order and report for duty, once they get a mobilization order.

The Times reported that the naval reservists who are to be alerted in coming days include stevedores, port handlers, coastal patrol crews and medical personnel. Army Reserve personnel would include military police, engineers and logistics specialists.

Davis, the Pentagon spokesman, said that while he was unaware of any alert order being given, “routine preparations are being made to ensure unit and personnel readiness.” He said the Pentagon has made it clear to reservists that they “should be ready to respond to the call if needed.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Military to Call Up 27,000 More Reservists

Persian Gulf—or Tonkin Gulf?

In a pair of editorials after the 1991 Gulf War, one of them titled “Don’t Shoot Down Iraqi Aircraft,” The New York Times called the plan to create vast “no-fly zones” (NFZs) in Iraq “legally untenable and politically unwise.” The editorials, based on a careful reading of United Nations resolutions, were explicit: “The [cease-fire] accord permits Iraq to fly all types of aircraft and sets no restriction on their use. Shooting them down would put the United States in the position of breaking an accord it is pledged to uphold.” Saying that Washington was entering “new and dangerous territory,” the Times warned, “The purpose [of the NFZs] is unclear, probably unwise and maybe even illegal.”

In fact, no UN resolution or other international authority exists to legitimize the NFZs, which are currently the scene of an intensifying air-to-ground firefight between an armada of U.S. and British warplanes and an ineffectual Iraqi defense system. The British-American presence over Iraq is a case of might-makes-right, and Iraq’s feeble attempts to defend its skies are justified under international law. Yet the NFZs are immeasurably more explosive now because a unilateral U.S. interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on Nov. 8, provides a pretext for launching the war that President George W. Bush wants.

Since the resolution’s passage, France, Russia, China and other nations, along with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have worried about the presence of “hidden triggers” in the resolution, and they’ve opposed unilateral action against Iraq. One of those triggers is embedded in the eighth paragraph, which reads, “Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or … of any member state taking action to uphold any Council resolution.” But American operations in the NFZs aren’t upholding any UN resolutions, a fact that hasn’t deterred the White House and the Pentagon from warning that Iraq’s self-defense efforts are reason enough to trigger U.S. military action. “The United States believes that firing upon our aircraft in the no-fly zone, or British aircraft, is a violation. It is a material breach,” says Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman.

The history of how 1441 was cobbled together proves otherwise. From the blustery and bellicose original draft peremptorily put forward by the United States, it was molded (under threat of veto by France, Russia and China) into a far more moderate one that strengthens the hand of the weapons inspectors now doing their work in Iraq. What’s not yet been reported is that the UN Security Council shot down an attempt by the United States to get the no-fly zones into 1441. “Language on the no-fly zones was in the draft resolution for 1441, but it was watered down to be very nebulous,” says a U.S. official, requesting anonymity. “We took out the specific no-fly-zone language.” That’s because the no-fly zones wouldn’t fly with other members of the UN Security Council.

Still, the United States insists on the existence of the hidden trigger. In an interview with The American Prospect, John B. Bellinger III, senior associate counsel to the president and legal adviser to the National Security Council (nsc), says that other countries clearly understand that Paragraph 8 refers to the NFZs. “They know why we put that in there,” he says, even if the specific reference to the zones didn’t make the cut. “We’ve told them, ‘You may not buy our legal theory,'” he says. “But the whole idea is to test Saddam’s cooperation.”

The legal justification for the British-American NFZs is based on a shaky interpretation of several past UN resolutions, especially 678, 688 and others. Resolution 678 invoked Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which authorizes member states to use military force, thus legitimizing the war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Resolution 688, passed after Baghdad suppressed internal revolts by Kurds in northern Iraq and Shi’a in the south, condemns Iraq’s repression of its own people. According to Bellinger, the United States, by imposing the NFZs is enforcing 688 and creating an aerial umbrella over Kurdish and Shi’a regions. That legal theory inelegantly combines 678’s authorization of force with 688’s condemnation of Iraq’s internal actions, even though 688 specifically does not cite Chapter 7. In any case, neither 678 nor 688 makes any reference to the NFZs, nor does any other UN resolution.

In fact, the NFZs were created — first in the north, in 1991, and then in the south, in 1992 — by the United States, Great Britain and France, acting unilaterally. (France dropped out, first refusing to go along with President Clinton’s expansion of the southern NFZ in 1996, then quitting altogether in 1998.) For more than a decade, the United States has played a lethal cat-and-mouse game over Iraq, carrying out increasingly provocative patrols, sometimes drawing Iraqi fire or radar targeting, and then launching widespread bombing or missile strikes. Since 1991, thousands of such sorties have been carried out. And since 1998, when fighting intensified, at least 300 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. and British attacks.

From the beginning, Iraq rejected the NFZs. “Iraq does not recognize the no-fly zone because it was not a UN job,” said then-Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz in 1993. “It was imposed by the Western powers.” Many nations agreed, but there was a stalemate at the United Nations. On one hand, the United States could not win support for the illegal NFZs in the Security Council, and it eventually gave up trying. On the other hand, opponents of the NFZs considered it fruitless to launch an effort to have them condemned, knowing that the United States and Britain would veto it. Still, the stalemate hasn’t prevented others from speaking out. “Air bombing of Iraqi targets by U.S. and British air forces is a breach of international law and UN resolutions,” said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov two years ago. “Russia calls for abrogating the so-called no-fly zones.”

Marjorie Cohn, an attorney and executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, has studied the issue of NFZs. “The no-fly zones have never been specifically authorized by the UN Security Council. They are illegal violations of Iraqi sovereignty,” she says. “The UN Charter is very clear. Only the Security Council can decide what measures can be taken to enforce Security Council resolutions.”

Specialists in national-security law who defend the NFZs agree that the United Nations has not endorsed them, but they argue that by having existed for more than a decade, they are now established facts. “They’ve been persisting so long that it’s almost become a kind of customary regime for the area,” says Ruth Wedgwood, professor of international law and diplomacy at John Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. “A lot of international law … is by acquiescence.” Similarly, Paul Schott Stevens, a former legal adviser to the nsc, says that the United Nations has tolerated the NFZs for so many years that they are now de facto legal. “They’ve been done with the full cognizance of the UN, and at least with their implicit approval,” says Stevens, co-author of a paper on Iraq and international law for the conservative Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

So far, the State Department has not brought up the issue of Iraq’s defense of its skies to the United Nations, preferring instead to catalog the alleged violations for future use. Perhaps that’s because France, Russia and China would reject such claims out of hand, and because Annan has made it clear that only significant obstruction by Iraq would be considered a violation of 1441. “I think the discussions in the council made it clear we should be looking for something meaningful and not for excuses to do something,” says Annan. On the other hand, the administration’s hawks believe that they don’t need to go back to the United Nations at all — that Washington, at a time of its own choosing, can go to war against Iraq without further UN approval.

Still, the arms-inspection regime has the hawks feeling caged. That sentiment was pervasive during a mid-November event at the American Enterprise Institute, the roost for a flock of hawks, including Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. An errant fire alarm had gone off, sending scores of people tramping down 12 flights of stairs before a seminar with five former Iraqi military officers could get under way. As they carried their cups of coffee and half-eaten croissants, the institute’s troops chattered about the re-entry of UN weapons inspectors into Iraq — and the mood wasn’t good. “We can only hope and pray that this doesn’t mean we are boxed in,” said a high-level Department of Defense official involved in planning the Bush administration’s war against Iraq.

It’s no secret that the NFZs could provide a trapdoor out of that box. By increasing the pace of its patrols in the NFZs and by stepping up the aggressiveness of its response to Iraqi defenses, the U.S. military can push the U.S.-Iraqi standoff closer to the brink. “If we get a couple of aircraft shot down, or a pilot taken hostage, all bets are off,” says a leading specialist in international law. “We will continue to take actions in the no-fly zones,” says Bellinger, the nsc counsel. “What’s provocative is that Iraq has continued to take actions against U.S. planes.”

Could U.S. military action against Iraq trump the inspections regime? There’s a precedent. In 1998, when President Clinton decided to launch a massive bombing attack against Baghdad, UN inspectors in Iraq had to pack up and leave. Iraq didn’t kick them out, though the perception that it did has lasted to this day. If Iraq continues to cooperate with the inspectors, or if Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, moves a bit too slowly for the White House, the intensifying shooting war in Iraq’s skies could suddenly make all that irrelevant once again.

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Persian Gulf—or Tonkin Gulf?

U.S. Sold Iraq Chem-Bio Weapons in 1980s

Reports by the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs — which oversees American exports policy — reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia.

Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defence Dep-artment documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee’s rep orts on ‘US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq’, undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis — the micro-organism that causes anthrax — were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers’ City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: ‘The United States provided the government of Iraq with ‘dual use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.’

This assistance, according to the report, included ‘chemical warfare-agent precursors, chem ical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment’.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: ‘UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licences issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq’s chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programmes.’

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the ‘executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record’.

It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the ‘evidence of proof’ that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.

However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN’s former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations des troyed most of Iraq’s wea pons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.

According to Ritter, between 90{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} and 95{cd9ac3671b356cd86fdb96f1eda7eb3bb1367f54cff58cc36abbd73c33c82e1d} of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during ‘the ravages of the Gulf War’.

Ritter has described himself as a ‘card-carrying Republican’ who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a ‘liar’ over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. ‘We have seen none of this,’ he insists. ‘If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.’

He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

The UN’s former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq’s weapons programme.

Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were ‘comprehensively trashed’ on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.

‘We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,’ von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. ‘They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.’

[Note: the company that provided the biological agents to Iraq in the 1980s with the approval of the Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce, American Type Culture Collection, is based in Virginia. ATCC has biowarfare samples stored at George Mason University in Fairfax, County, Virginia.]

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on U.S. Sold Iraq Chem-Bio Weapons in 1980s

Time to “Show the Goods”

Picking up the gauntlet thrown down by the United Nations, Iraq has wrapped it in 12,000 pages and thrown it back with the thud of a Sunday newspaper at the White House door. Intelligence now moves to center stage.

President Bush’s dilemma was crystal clear when Gen. Amir al-Saadi, an advisor to Saddam Hussein, defended Iraq’s declaration that it has no weapons of mass destruction. On Sunday, Al-Saadi challenged the United States to ”forthwith come up with anything to the contrary” and give it to U.N. inspectors.

Administration officials are likely to keep reciting the mantra that ”the burden of proof is on the Iraqis,” but the Bush team now faces irresistible pressure to release the incriminating evidence it says it has against Iraq.

This mounting challenge was foreshadowed last week when chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix asserted that now is the time ”for those who say they have evidence to put this evidence on the table.” Reflecting Blix’s scarcely concealed impatience, one of his deputies suggested that it would be more helpful if the United States shared with U.N. inspectors whatever leads it might have, rather than sit back and bad mouth the inspection process.

A defensive tone echoed through presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer’s protest last week that President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would not have asserted that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction ”if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.” Perhaps the prodding by several senators will help pry loose what evidence there is and shed light on why the Bush team has been so reluctant to share it.

While tight-lipped on any specific evidence, the administration has kept up a steady drumbeat of warnings of Iraqi perfidy. Just two days before Iraq delivered its declaration, Rumsfeld voiced his expectation that Hussein will “continue to lie and deceive and deny.”

The drumbeat aside, statements by U.S. officials on and off the record do not inspire confidence in the persuasiveness of the U.S. case against Iraq. Administration officials are now telling the press that there is no single piece of evidence to undermine the Iraqi declaration. Instead, they are relying on ”patterns of Iraqi purchases and scattered reports of defectors,” as well as Hussein’s history of deceit.

Nor was Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz entirely convincing in responding to NATO ambassadors last week, when he likened the evidence to pornography: “I can’t define it, but I will know it when I see it.”

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice’s frantic search for new Iraqi scientist-defectors is another sign that the U.S. case is not airtight. Why is the Bush team pushing so hard for new defectors if it already has ”solid evidence” against Iraq?

Rumsfeld’s penchant for hyperbole is winning few converts. His claim that evidence of close coordination between Iraq and al Qaeda is ”bulletproof,” for example, has made him the laughing stock in Washington.

Less amusing is the fact that the president’s closest advisors have him regurgitating ”intelligence” markedly out of sync with the CIA. For example, Bush’s suggestion on Oct. 7 that Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon ”in less than a year” is at odds with the formal estimate of the entire intelligence community that Iraq cannot do so until the last half of the decade, at the earliest.

When U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., was in Iraq last fall, he was asked on camera whether he thought the president would mislead the American people. I could almost hear a collective gasp go up from the TV rooms of my flag-bedecked neighborhood.

McDermott responded calmly that presidential lying to justify making war has bipartisan precedent. He used the example of Lyndon Johnson’s lying about the second ”firefight” in the Gulf of Tonkin, the gullibility of Congress and the disaster that ensued.

In the coming days, the Bush team will no doubt adduce evidence of Iraqi noncompliance with the latest U.N. resolution. But caveat emptor. The honest-broker intelligence role played in past crises by the CIA has been appropriated by the Department of Defense.

Rumsfeld has consolidated his control over imagery intelligence and defector debriefings. He is likely to have a free hand in selecting, shaping and presenting the intelligence — unless CIA Director George Tenet asserts his statutory prerogative as chief foreign intelligence advisor to the president. The country will be well served if Tenet has the courage to do his job and “tell it like it is.”

… Ray McGovern, a former Army intelligence officer and CIA analyst, is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Time to “Show the Goods”

Gulf War II Price Tag For Each State

Here is the National Priorities Project’s recent factsheet on the “Cost of Invading Iraq to your State.”

Please go to our website at:

www.nationalpriorities.org/iraq.pdf

and see page 2 for your state’s price tag.

You may want to consider using this factsheet to contrast the enormous amount of money it will cost your state to go to war with your state’s current fiscal crisis and proposed budget cuts.

Can your state afford to spend hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars to fight this war? Or will your tax dollars provide more security by addressing the millions of people who have no health insurance, whose schools are falling apart, who can’t find the training to get out of low-wage jobs?

Other possibilities: write an op-ed or letter to the editor, talk to your elected officials. Circulate the factsheets to your local chapters and groups. Post the link on your website. Inform the public!

Please check out our website at

www.nationalpriorities.org

For more data on needs in your state, see our database at

www.nationalpriorities.org/database.

Thank you and good luck (to us all!) in your efforts.

Pamela Schwartz, Outreach Director, National Priorities Project, 17 New South Street Suite 302, Northampton, MA 01060, 413-584-9556 (phone), 413-586-9647 (fax), email: pamela@nationalpriorities.org

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Gulf War II Price Tag For Each State

Former troops worry about Gulf War syndrome, what weapons Saddam might use

“I think we should have finished what we started the first time around,” said James Sylvester, 31, of Odessa, Texas, a soldier with a transportation unit in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

“I wish that we had taken care of it the first time,” said Barry Kaplan, 44, of Connecticut, who served in the Persian Gulf with the 3rd Armored Division out of Hanau, Germany. “A lot of us wanted to turn Baghdad into a suburb of New Jersey.”

The troops were stopped 11 years ago far short of Baghdad. Then President George H.W. Bush had determined that all requirements of the U.N. resolution, which simply required Iraqi forces to leave Kuwait, had been met.

The war came to a halt with Saddam Hussein still holding the reins of power, as he does to this day. And indications are that another Persian Gulf War is in the offing. Some vets even now refer to their war as “the first Gulf War.”

Desert Storm began in a patriotic furor, with troops leaving for war in a festival of red, white and blue. The air war lasted six weeks and the ground war lasted 100 hours.

The combat claimed 148 American lives. Another 467 were wounded.

And when the Johnnies came marching home again, they were met with parades and more flag-waving.

Tainted victory

But the victory has been tainted. Not only is Saddam still in place, the legacy of the Gulf War is an illness.

Nearly 200,000 of the 567,00 eligible veterans who served in the Gulf have filed disability claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Nearly 8,000 veterans have died.

Veterans say the Pentagon has not aggressively sought the cause for the illnesses, which they think could have been caused by anything from chemical agents in the field, to depleted uranium in ammunition or the pills and vaccinations they were given.

So, as the country prepares for another war in the same “sandbox,” some veterans have doubts about the wisdom of such an undertaking.

“I don’t see how we can send troops into that region if we say we still don’t know the reason for Gulf War illness,” said Mike Woods, 33, who is 100 percent disabled with neurological problems. He is president of the National Gulf War Resource Center, which helps veterans fight for compensation.

Steve Robinson is executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center. His conversations with vets every day almost always address the pending war.

“Those that are sick and fighting for benefits are very concerned,” he said. “Those that are not want to go back and finish the job they started in 1991.”

Robinson has sat in on congressional hearings in recent months in which the Department of Defense has admitted problems with equipment to protect troops from chemical and biological weapons and a lack of gear to treat soldiers in the field who are affected by such weapons.

The lessons from 1991, he said, have not been learned. He sees no reason to rush to war.

Cost of war

Charles Sheehan-Miles is a Gulf War veteran in Reston, Va. He also is a co-founder of Gulf War Veterans for Common Sense, which has attracted a few thousand veterans to its call for a public discussion prior to any new combat against Iraq.

Sheehan-Miles, a tanker with the 24th Infantry Division during Desert Storm, said the Administration is not talking about the cost of the war — in casualties and dollars — or what the occupation of Iraq will require.

“The fact is, if you are going to commit thousands of American lives and potentially billions of dollars, then there should be some public discussion,” he said.

He said the organization, which was formed over drinks in a local bar, is not anti-war. The members represent a range of political views.

Their common goal is a rational appraisal of what is required for any future war against Iraq, he said, and what are the possible repercussions.

“My deepest fear is that we may be the aggressors in another world war,” he said.

Kyle Bittner, 39, was a scout sniper with the Marines during the war. Now he suffers from cancer, which he claims is result of his service in the Gulf.

He said he wasn’t properly trained to use the chemical gear. He also doesn’t agree with those who think any war will be a cakewalk.

“It’s going to get ugly,” he said. “It’s not going to be an easy war. You can’t win a major campaign through the air. You still have to put people on the ground.”

Woods, too, thinks it will be a different war because the objective is different.

“Saddam knew [in 1991] we weren’t coming for him,” he said. “[This time], he’ll have absolutely no reason not to use everything in his arsenal.”

He is, he said, “scared to death for the troops” who will be asked to fight the next Gulf War.

James Sylvester’s father, Vic, a veteran of Vietnam, said a Gulf War veteran in Odessa was recently buried. The man was only 38 and left behind two young sons.

“The casualties of the Gulf War are still continuing,” he said.

And then, for sake of clarity, he added, “The first Gulf War.”

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Former troops worry about Gulf War syndrome, what weapons Saddam might use

60,000 Troops Ready to Attack Iraq

About 60,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, as well as about 200 warplanes, are in or near the region. The Army alone has 9,000 soldiers, 24 Apache helicopter gunships and heavy equipment for two armored brigades in Kuwait.

Equipment for a third brigade is steadily arriving on ships usually based in the Indian Ocean, and some matériel will be stored at a new $200 million logistics base, Camp Arifjan, south of Kuwait City.

By late next week, four aircraft carriers will be poised to strike Iraq on short notice, with a fifth in Southeast Asia ready to steam to the gulf in a crisis.

Two of the carriers, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, are heading home, but the Navy will keep their crews together about two weeks longer than the usual 30 days after arrival in case they are ordered back to the gulf.

Special Operations forces in the region are refining plans to hunt for Scud missiles and clandestine weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. About 1,000 military planners, led by Gen. Tommy R. Franks, have assembled in Qatar and other gulf states for a computer-simulated exercise that begins Monday and is intended as a model for an offensive against Iraq, officials said.

Taken together, these are unmistakable signs that before long, President Bush will be in a position to order an attack to disarm Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, and have it carried out within days, senior military officials said.

“The pieces are going into place that are the basic building blocks for a combination of military options,” said Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who will take over the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee next month.

Or as one senior defense official put it this week, “We are rapidly getting to the point where if called upon, we’d be able to execute operations in Iraq.”

The steady buildup — brought together with little fanfare by air and by ship — is intended to put increasing pressure on the Iraqi government to disarm, and perhaps to persuade Mr. Hussein’s generals to defect or rebel against him.

“This is really their last chance to decide to either have a peaceful resolution, which requires giving up those weapons, or have us do it by force,” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said this week in Turkey.

For now any talk of war is muted as the administration prepares to review Iraq’s declaration of any weapons of mass destruction that it may possess. Officials say that the process of dealing with Iraq’s disclosure — including any subsequent diplomatic discussions, further weapons inspections and possibly another United Nations resolution — could delay any attack for weeks or months.

Pentagon officials say the armed forces could attack now, if required, but several diplomatic and military steps would need to be completed before the United States could go to war on its own terms, officials said.

The administration wants to use Turkey as a major staging base for American ground troops, who would swoop into northern Iraq to protect the vast oil fields of Kurdistan and combine with allied forces pushing up from Kuwait to put the government in Baghdad in a vise.

But Turkey has balked at permitting ground forces, prompting the White House to invite Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of the largest party in Turkey’s new governing coalition, to meet with President Bush on Tuesday.

“We’re quite comfortable with what we can do from the south,” Mr. Wolfowitz said this week. “Obviously, if we are going to have significant ground forces in the north, this is the country they have to come through. There is no other option.”

Britain, another vital ally, is expected to contribute several thousand armored forces, but has not yet begun to send them.

American active-duty troops could be flown in quickly aboard chartered airliners to join their equipment. But any major campaign would require activating tens of thousands of reservists, largely to help defend American military bases, power plants and transportation hubs at home against possible terrorist reprisals. Mobilizing reserve units typically takes about 30 days, but a senior defense official said the Pentagon was looking at ways to speed up the process.

The Pentagon has plans to mobilize as many as 265,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves, roughly as many as for the Persian Gulf war in 1991, if President Bush orders an attack. Senior military officials said large-scale mobilizations would not begin before January, and even then would probably be made in stages to soften the political impact.

The force in place by next month would be large enough to begin the “rolling start” of an offensive, but additional armored and air forces would have to be sent from Europe and the United States to sustain a larger attack that could mass 200,000 to 250,000 American troops.

“We’d be ready to begin strikes in a meaningful way if told to do so, but then you’d then have to have a rapid, rapid deployment of additional forces,” said one senior Navy official.

Throughout the gulf region these days, there is a constant hum of military preparations. Army forces are conducting exercises in desert ranges in Kuwait that simulate territory they would roll across in Iraq.

Carrier-based jets patrolling the no-flight zone in southern Iraq carry out mock bombing runs against Iraqi airfields and military bases. Air Force engineers at Diego Garcia, a British base in the Indian Ocean, are erecting portable hangars to protect the sensitive radar-evading skin of the B-2 bombers that will soon be stationed there.

Planners are readying the heavy equipment and supplies now aboard ships at Diego Garcia that would sustain more than 17,000 marines for up to 30 days. Navy Seabees based in Spain have been dispatched to Kuwait for construction duties at two bases.

Military logistics and supply experts have been in the region for months preparing for incoming matériel. Tugboats, forklifts and other cargo-handling equipment needed to prepare ports for the arrival of tanks and other armored equipment are coming in.

In Kuwait, the Army has two brigades’ worth of heavy equipment in place. A typical armored brigade set includes 88 M1A1 Abrams tanks, 88 M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and 16 120 millimeter mortars, an Army spokeswoman said.

Equipment from a third brigade stored on ships at Diego Garcia is flowing in. One of the Navy’s giant roll-on/roll-off cargo ships, the Watkins, disgorged a load of heavy Army equipment in July, and a sister vessel, the Watson, is on the way with equipment for an armored battalion task force, Army officials said.

Special Operations forces are planning covert missions that would be pivotal in the opening hours and days of any campaign. These operations would include destroying Scud missiles that Iraq could launch at Israel.

“We’re doing everything prudent and proactive that we can without starting a war in the process,” said one military official.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on 60,000 Troops Ready to Attack Iraq

New Gulf War II Estimate: $1.9 Trillion

Researchers concluded in a study released Thursday that war with Iraq could cost the United States from $99 billion to more than $1.9 trillion over a decade.

The lower figure assumes a successful military, diplomatic and nation-building campaign; the higher figure assumes a prolonged war with a disruption of oil markets and a U.S. recession, the authors say in a study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Both figures assume a U.S. involvement in the country for 10 years.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said it was premature to comment on cost estimates.

“War is the last resort,” he said. “We’re hoping for a peaceful solution.”

The 1991 Persian Gulf War (news – web sites) cost America an estimated $61 billion, but allies reimbursed all but about $7 billion. By some accounting methods, the United States may have even made a profit.

Direct military spending could range from $50 billion in a short campaign to $140 billion in a prolonged war with Iraq, said the study titled, “War With Iraq: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives.” The study was done by the academy’s Committee on International Security Studies.

The report cautioned that aside from the estimates of direct military costs, all the numbers should be “regarded as informed conjecture.”

Occupation and peacekeeping costs could be $75 billion in the best case to $500 billion in the worst, the study said. Reconstruction and nation-building costs are estimated at $30 billion to $105 billion, and humanitarian aid at $1 billion to $10 billion.

Economic ripples of war with Iraq are likely to spread beyond budgetary costs, with the prospect of raising the cost of imported oil, slowing productivity growth and possibly triggering a recession, the report said.

A prolonged disruption of world oil markets could cost the U.S. economy up to $778 billion, the researchers estimated. On the other hand, Iraq’s huge oil resources could satisfy U.S. needs for imported oil at current levels for almost a century and otherwise benefit the economy by $40 billion.

A short war could actually benefit the United States in terms of its macroeconomic impact, which includes employment, by $17 billion. A long war, in contrast, could have a $391 billion negative effect.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, founded in 1780 and based in Cambridge, Mass., is an international society of scientists, scholars, artists, business people and political leaders.

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on New Gulf War II Estimate: $1.9 Trillion