Is America Turning Toward “Night”

***

Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed.

Never shall I forget that smoke.

Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky.

Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever.

Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live.

Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust.

Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself.

Never.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Is America Turning Toward “Night”

Anger and Fear Don’t Justify Iraq War

Perhaps the threat of war is only to force Saddam Hussein to accept inspectors. If that is what George W. Bush has been doing all along, the war resolution was a mere chess move, with Congress the pawns. One of us thought so — a telling comment on what form of government he thought he was under.

The rest of us took the vote at face value: It was time to discuss the morality of war, because our government was on the verge of starting one.

Gary Chamberlain of Seattle University presented the Christian theory of the just war. It says, first, that the purpose of war be defensive only; second, that the scale of bloodletting be no greater than needed; third, that the war benefit humanity by more than it costs; and fourth, that it be a last resort, undertaken in a mournful and reflective spirit.

There is more to it than that, but that is the gist of it, and it no more allows a war on Iraq than a war on Idaho.

Herewith my case, a bit more ordered than from the podium a week ago.

Iraq has not attacked any of its neighbors in 12 years. It is not attacking the United States. It could not occupy and defend one square mile of American territory or defend any part of its own against us. It has no allies. Its airspace is controlled by our air force. It is weak and poor, its economy and public health wrecked by Saddam’s militarism and 12 years of our embargo.

Last time America fought Iraq, the ratio of dead Iraqis to dead Americans was on the order of hundreds to one. It was a slaughter.

Why do it again? Because Americans imagine that Saddam Hussein may develop a nuclear weapon and set it off in the United States. Does he have such a weapon? No. If he did, he would say so, as North Korea has, if only to get Bush off his back. If Saddam had a nuclear weapon, would he set it off here? Only if he were nuts.

Saddam Hussein is no more insane than his idol, Joseph Stalin, who also had the bomb and didn’t drop it. Deterrence stopped Saddam from using chemical weapons on American, British or French troops in 1991, and deterrence has stopped him from invading anyone for 12 years.

The CIA did a study of Saddam and concluded that he would use a nuclear weapon, if he had one, if he were being invaded and his back were to the wall. Indeed, Saddam now threatens to attack Israel in just that circumstance.

Why do it?

Conquest of Iraq would not be a war for oil, as is darkly suggested by the left. The United States is not going to steal Iraq’s oil. If America occupies Iraq, it will let in a legion of TV reporters, social workers, diplomats and Iraqi carpetbaggers who will raise the alarm on any theft of Iraqi petroleum. And rightfully so. Iraq will need every petrodollar.

Nor would a war be about “access” to oil. Access to oil is created by the ability to pay for it. America has plenty of access to oil right now.

Why, then, start a war? Because among Americans there is anger at the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, and an unfamiliar fear of terrorism. Our government has not been able to find Osama bin Laden. But it can find Iraq.

Americans yearn for an enemy to be cut up with razors, and Saddam Hussein is an enemy all Americans know. Thrashing Iraq will settle old scores and save the family face of Bush. It has already sent the Democrats into the wilderness.

Bill Clinton must be beside himself. He played the game of war, but his bets were all small ones. As panelist David Brewster noted, George W. Bush bets big.

Would an invasion of Iraq be a just war? That is a question for the Plymouth Congregational Church, Seattle University and other places of tradition and thought. Washington, D.C., is focused on other things.

Bruce Ramsey’s column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is bramsey@seattletimes.com.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Anger and Fear Don’t Justify Iraq War

U.S. Trained Iraqi Chemical Weapons Experts

November 22, 2002

SEATTLE — U.N. weapons inspectors should have no trouble communicating with some of the scientists in Iraq’s weapons program. After the Gulf War it was discovered that many of Saddam Hussein’s top engineers were educated in the United States then forced to work on Iraqi military projects.

“We had a couple of individuals who said they were made an offer that they could not refuse,” said Richard Spertzel, former U.N. weapons inspector.

But even after the U.S. government learned of Saddam’s Western education program and the coercion he used to keep those scientists, American universities continued to open their doors, with approval from the INS.

This is a move some analysts say the country can no longer afford to make.

A Georgia State University study found during the 1990s that 112 Iraqi students received science and engineering PhDs in the U.S. and more than 1,200 of these potentially sensitive degrees were handed out to students from countries that sponsor terrorism.

“You’ll see many (North) Koreans, some Iranians, you’ll see folks from Iraq and other people who could be Al Qaeda sympathizers or sympathizers to Saddam Hussein,” said David Christian, a military analyst.

Universities will be required to start tracking foreign students beginning in January and will have to let the INS know when a foreign student drops out, moves or changes his or her major.

But some educators dismiss the program as an unnecessary burden.

“We believe we should allow equal access to bright, talented students all over the world, and not screening them out just by an accident of where they were born,” said Marsha Landolt, graduate student dean at the University of Washington.

“One out of a million people may have a bent toward weapons of mass destruction and going back and developing them,” Christian said. “But can we afford that?”

One reason American universities are interested in recruiting foreign students is simply economics, as they tend to pay full tuition. Most graduate programs in the hard sciences include large numbers of non-U.S. citizens.

Soon these students will be under closer scrutiny, but the question looms: Did the attention come too late?

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on U.S. Trained Iraqi Chemical Weapons Experts

Students Walk Out of Class, Protest Gulf War II

Sonoma County high school and college students walked out of classes Wednesday to protest a possible war against Iraq, part of a national demonstration for peace.

About 300 students gathered to listen to speeches and sing protest songs at Sonoma State University. Three hundred high school students marched to Santa Rosa’s Old Courthouse Square. Police stopped an attempted sit-in at the military recruiting offices on Mendocino Avenue by a small number of students.

Smaller protests occurred on other high school campuses, including Analy High School in Sebastopol and Petaluma High School.

The rallies and marches were part of a national Student Day of Resistance initiated by Not in Our Name, an anti-war group founded after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to protest U.S. foreign policy.

Word of the activism is spread through Internet and e-mail contacts.

“We’re trying to raise awareness, to show students they can have a voice, and that when we come together, we can have a stronger voice,” said Stephen Dietrich, an SSU senior and a member of the Student Activist League of Sonoma, which organized the protest at the university. The league has about 10 core members.

“I don’t like seeing American boys killed, and not knowing where a war will end. Our reasons for going don’t seem to be based on any sort of hard evidence,” said Cecilie Hitchcock, an SSU graduate student who participated in the walkout.

Patrick Gardner, an SSU senior, said the economics of oil, not a quest for democracy, is behind the push for war.

He said there was no clear link between the U.S. war on terrorism and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

“The Bush administration is putting, not only Israel, but the entire Middle East at risk,” Gardner said.

SSU did not sponsor the protest but had no problem with students’ peacefully expressing their political views, SSU spokeswoman Susan Kashach said.

“We teach our students to care about issues and to be passionate about what they believe in. And that’s what this protest is,” Kashach said.

High school students also joined in the day of protests, with some in the Old Courthouse Square rally carrying anti-war signs and shouting “No blood for oil.”

The Santa Rosa High School students will be given unexcused absences for leaving campus but were allowed to return for afternoon classes, Assistant Principal Bill Blackerby said.

Asked about future walkouts, interim Principal Sue Sion said: “We’re certainly not going to encourage it. It’s a loss of class time…. If anything, we’ll be discouraging them.”

In Sebastopol, 60 to 70 Analy High School students marched down Main Street holding signs opposing war. At Petaluma High, 50 to 60 students left classes early in protest and were joined by “a great number” of other students at a lunchtime rally, said Sally Hill, assistant superintendent of Petaluma schools.

She said students violated the state Education Code when they walked out of class and might be penalized, but no decision had been made.

“The students have a right to speak out on issues. The principal is trying to arrive at a solution where they can do that and not disrupt classes,” Hill said.

The high school protests were coordinated by the Youth Coalition Against War, a group of about 20 young people that meets at the Peace and Justice Center in Santa Rosa.

“Students are concerned about what is going on in the world, and they realize that it affects their lives,” said Joe Crottogini, 19, an organizer.

The SSU protests kicked off four days of anti-war activities at the Rohnert Park campus.

Tonight, the Political Science Club is sponsoring a debate on “The War With Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy,” and Project Censored is coordinating an Iraqi War Teach-in and Peace Festival on Friday and Saturday.

You can reach Staff Writer Carol Benfell at 521-5259 or cbenfell@pressdemocrat.com

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Students Walk Out of Class, Protest Gulf War II

Depleted Uranium: America’s Military ‘Gift’ That Keeps on Giving

Despite scant coverage in the U.S. media, a controversy over depleted-uranium ammunition used in the Gulf and Balkan wars has been raging in Europe. Several governments that provided troops for these conflicts fear that a rash of unexplained illnesses in veterans–including hemorrhaging, tumors and cancers–may have been caused by ammunition fired by U.S. warplanes.

Germany, Italy, Norway and the European Parliament have called for a moratorium on using the ammunition, while the World Health Organization has announced plans for a study of civilians in Kosovo and Iraq who may have been exposed. Last week, Pekka Haavisto, the head of the United Nations’ investigation of depleted uranium, warned of the necessity to “closely follow the state of health” of those exposed to the ammunition in the Balkans.

Questions abound: Is there a causal link between depleted uranium and serious illnesses? What constitutes dangerous levels of exposure? How many soldiers and civilians have been exposed? How much plutonium is there in the ammunition?

One thing is certain: The Pentagon has inflamed the controversy by withholding information and stonewalling investigations. It is likely to remain a major headache for the Bush administration, especially for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic heavy metal that emits low-level alpha radiation. It is used in armor-piercing ammunition because it is extremely dense and pyrophoric, which enables it to punch and burn its way through hard targets such as tanks. But depleted uranium also contaminates the impact area with a fine depleted-uranium dust that presents a health hazard if inhaled in sufficient quantities.

In the aftermath of the Gulf War, research on rats conducted by the military’s Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute found that depleted uranium’s chemical toxicity–not its radioactivity–may cause immune system damage and central nervous system problems and may contribute to the development of certain cancers.

Dr. David McClain, the military’s top depleted-uranium researcher, told a presidential committee investigating Gulf War illnesses in 1999 that “strong evidence exists to support [a] detailed study of potential DU carcinogenicity.”

A separate Army-funded study conducted by the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, N.M., found that depleted uranium caused cancer when implanted in laboratory animals. While Fletcher Hahn, a senior scientist at Lovelace, cautioned about applying the findings to human beings, he also called the study “a warning flag that says we shouldn’t ignore this.”

Despite the military’s own research, however, in recent weeks Pentagon spokesmen have dismissed concerns about depleted uranium as unscientific hysteria and propaganda. For example, Army Col. Eric Daxon recently attributed concerns about depleted uranium to “a purposeful disinformation campaign” by the Iraqi government.

Yet, the Army anticipated the current controversy even before the war against Iraq. A July 1990 report from the U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command predicted that, “Following combat, the condition of the battlefield and the long-term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU [ammunition] for military applications.” The report added that depleted uranium is “linked to cancer when exposures are internal.”

Six months after the Army’s prescient report, U.S. and coalition fighting forces charged into Kuwait and Iraq, oblivious to the hazards of the 320 tons of depleted-uranium ammunition shot by U.S. tanks and aircraft.

When thousands of veterans reported myriad health problems after the war, a series of federal investigations queried the Defense Department about its use of depleted uranium. In each case, the Army Surgeon General’s office asserted that only 35 veterans had been exposed, a number so small that it did not justify further research.

Through Congressional inquiry and the determined work of Gulf War veterans’ advocates, however, the Pentagon was forced to dramatically increase its estimates of the number of veterans exposed to depleted uranium.

In January 1998, the Pentagon’s Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses made a long-overdue admission: “Combat troops or those carrying out support functions generally did not know that DU contaminated equipment such as enemy vehicles struck by DU rounds required special handling. The failure to properly disseminate such information to troops at all levels may have resulted in thousands of unnecessary exposures.”

The Pentagon’s figure of “thousands” tells us little about the effects of depleted uranium on these veterans. Unfortunately, until 1998 the Department of Veterans Affairs accepted the Pentagon’s original number and examined only 33 veterans exposed to depleted uranium.

Some of these veterans continued to excrete depleted uranium in their semen and urine six years after the war. Several have mild central nervous system problems. The VA removed a bone tumor from one veteran who was wounded by DU shrapnel.

In the absence of an epidemiological study of a larger number of exposed veterans, however, no firm conclusions about the role of depleted uranium can be drawn. Unfortunately, the lack of candor has continued even after Kosovo.

When the war ended, a United Nations task force asked NATO to identify areas contaminated with depleted uranium so that peacekeepers, civilians and relief workers might be warned about the potential hazard.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization inexplicably refused to comply with the request. In February 2000, eight months after the war, NATO finally confirmed that U.S. jets had released the equivalent of 10 tons of depleted uranium in Kosovo and Serbia.

Another seven months passed before NATO disclosed the 112 locations of contamination. But it wasn’t until last month–19 months after the bombing stopped–that NATO finally posted warning signs at the sites.

From all accounts, peacekeepers, civilians and relief workers in Kosovo were surprised to learn about depleted-uranium contamination in their midst. There, as in Iraq, children had long been playing on destroyed equipment. In addition, adults had scavenged destroyed equipment for usable parts and scrap metal.

European outrage increased when the U.N. disclosed that some depleted-uranium ammunition used in Kosovo contains plutonium and other highly radioactive elements. Pentagon spokesmen asserted that the amounts of plutonium in the ammunition are extremely low, but they have failed to publicly disclose the levels of plutonium in ammunition shot in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and Kuwait and on training ranges in Japan, Germany, Puerto Rico and the United States.

The Pentagon’s history of withholding information about depleted uranium has fueled suspicions among many of our allies. Rumsfeld should try a new approach: ordering full disclosure of all information and complete cooperation with international investigations.

Dan Fahey, is a former Navy officer, Gulf War veteran, and former Board Member of the National Gulf War Resource Center

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Depleted Uranium: America’s Military ‘Gift’ That Keeps on Giving

New Homeland Law Exempts “Leaky Gas Masks”

The triumphant Bush White House won a fresh victory yesterday when its homeland security bill was passed by the Senate. The Democrats had suspended their efforts to block the bill.

It will implement the biggest US government reorganisation in a half century by folding into the new anti-terror department all or parts of 22 federal agencies, including the coast guard, secret service and border patrol.

But there was controversy over the new bill, when it was discovered that makers of leaky gas masks and potentially dangerous vaccines were shielded from the threat of a lawsuit in clauses tucked away in the sweeping package of legislation.

Seven provisions – which crept into the bill after the Republican victories in the mid-term elections – were widely condemned for pandering to major donors to the party, especially the drug industry.

The Bush administration says that the legal cover is necessary to encourage drug companies to develop antidotes to smallpox and other killers without fear of litigation.

Meanwhile the FBI admitted yesterday that a defunct watch list of people it wanted to question over the September 11 attacks has “taken on a life of its own” after being circulated to private companies who have used it to screen customers.

Thousands of names were passed on to the private sector in an operation codenamed Project Lookout, in an attempt to track those listed at a time when it was thought further attacks could be imminent. The list included many innocent citizens that the FBI thought might have information relating to suspects.

Though the FBI scrapped Project Lookout more than a year ago, many of the people named on it have since found it impossible to have their names removed. According to the Wall Street Journal, many of those listed still have difficulty renting cars or boarding flights.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on New Homeland Law Exempts “Leaky Gas Masks”

Gulf War II Censorship Begins

WASHINGTON – When Army Times writer Sean Naylor linked up with the 101st Airborne Division in Kandahar to cover the Afghanistan fighting, he found that instead of the traditional practice of being housed with the troops, reporters were ”quarantined” in media tents.

During USA Today reporter Andrea Stone’s visits to Guantanamo, Cuba, she was never even allowed within shouting distance of the US-held detainees. And although he was traveling with US forces, San Diego Union-Tribune reporter James Crawley had to scan transcripts of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Washington briefings to glean any hint of information about the Afghan war-related mission he was covering.

”People on the ship wanted to talk about it,” he said. But ”everything was directed from the Pentagon. What do we need to do about it next time?”

That question was a rallying cry for the more than 100 journalists – many of them veterans of conflicts from Kosovo to Afghanistan – who gathered here last week for a conference sponsored by the two-month-old organization Military Reporters & Editors.

With a potential war in Iraq on the horizon, the answer they heard was not reassuring. Given Afghanistan as an object lesson, the consensus was that Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has taken the art of information control to new heights. And that isn’t likely to change in any battle for Baghdad. (Although keynote speaker Bob Woodward of the Washington Post offered the distinctly dissenting view that there was no more than a 50-50 chance of conflict.)

”This Pentagon practices, regularly, lack-of-information warfare against the press,” said Mark Thompson, Time magazine’s national-security correspondent. ”Longtime sources in the building that you could call up and visit, they don’t want to be called. … This is a much different place.” History Channel host Arthur Kent – best known as NBC’s ”Scud Stud” during the 1991 Gulf War – predicted that in the event of another war with Iraq, ”attempts to muzzle us … are going to be unprecedented.”

The media and military’s competing – if not clashing – agendas were highlighted in the remarks of Air Force Colonel Jay DeFrank, a Defense Department representative. Even as news outlets make plans to cover another war against Saddam Hussein, DeFrank declined to discuss such a contingency, saying that ”the president has made no decision about what we’re going to do.”

”We’re committed to access,” he told the MRE gathering. ”But it’s probably not going to be the access you want.”

Problems with access to battlefields is a major reason why the MRE was conceived during a journalism confererence at the University of Maryland last spring. Actually, as MRE president and Seattle Post-Intelligencer staffer James Wright acknowledges, the organization’s origins can be traced to a slightly lubricated bull session in a lounge ”where everyone was griping like you couldn’t believe.”

But MRE is about more than lobbying the Pentagon for a better view. It plans to offer training for journalists, providing them with practical advice on how to travel with troops, helping them understand the military culture, and advising them on how to win the trust of the men and women in uniform. Veteran Scripps Howard reporter Peter Copeland recalled how his editor once told him the way to achieve that last goal was to ”act like you’re on your first date.”

If many of the speakers spoke warmly of the relationship between journalists and rank-and-file troops, there was concern about the Pentagon’s top-down strategy of news management.

”There is a general sense that [information control] is just a higher priority with this administration,” said USA Today military writer and MRE vice-president Dave Moniz. ”Even a lot of uniformed military officers are blanching at these restrictions.”

Compound that with all the lethal uncertainties of a new war in Iraq, and the outlook isn’t good for reporters. Retired Army Major General John Meyer Jr. said that if the war plans he had read about were accurate, ”inherently, you have chemical, biological, and nuclear potential on the battlefield. … I would think your access will be harder to get.”

Wall Street Journal staffer John Fialka told his colleagues that such a war holds out the possibility that ”we’re going to have some dead bodies among us.”

Perhaps nothing reflected the uneasy relationship between the military and the media more clearly than a discussion of the Pentagon ”boot camp” training for journalists that began last weekend.

The physically rigorous program has been lauded by some media outlets as a positive step in improving the relationship between the Defense Department and reporters.

But juxtaposing the harsh physical demands of the boot camp with predictions of minimal access to any war, USA Today’s Stone mused aloud, ”Maybe they’re just trying to scare people off.”

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Gulf War II Censorship Begins

What Bodies?

Leon Daniel, as did others who reported from Vietnam during the 1960s, knew about war and death. So he was puzzled by the lack of corpses at the tip of the Neutral Zone between Saudi Arabia and Iraq on Feb. 25, 1991. Clearly there had been plenty of killing.

The 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) had smashed through the defensive front-line of Saddam Hussein’s army the day before, Feb. 24, the opening of the Desert Storm ground war to retake Kuwait. Daniel, representing United Press International, was part of a press pool held back from witnessing the assault on 8,000 Iraqi defenders. “They wouldn’t let us see anything,” said Daniel, who had seen about everything as a combat correspondent.

The artillery barrage alone was enough to cause a slaughter. A 30-minute bombardment by howitzers and multiple-launch rockets scattering thousands of tiny bomblets preceded the attack by 8,400 American soldiers riding in 3,000 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvees, armored personnel carriers and other vehicles.

It wasn’t until late in the afternoon of Feb. 25 that the press pool was permitted to see where the attack occurred. There were groups of Iraqi prisoners. About 2,000 had surrendered. But there were no bodies, no stench of feces that hovers on a battlefield, no blood stains, no bits of human beings.

“You get a little firefight in Vietnam and the bodies would be stacked up like cordwood,” Daniel said. Finally, Daniel found the Division public affairs officer, an Army major.

“Where the hell are all the bodies?” Daniel said.

“What bodies?” the officer replied.

Daniel and the rest of the world would not find out until months later why the dead had vanished. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers, some of them alive and firing their weapons from World War I-style trenches, were buried by plows mounted on Abrams main battle tanks.

The Abrams flanked the trench lines so that tons of sand from the plow spoil funneled into the trenches. Just behind the tanks, actually straddling the trench line, came M2 Bradleys pumping 7.62mm machine gun bullets into the Iraqi troops.

“I came through right after the lead company,” said Army Col. Anthony Moreno, who commanded the lead brigade during the 1st Mech’s assault. “What you saw was a bunch of buried trenches with people’s arms and legs sticking out of them. For all I know, we could have killed thousands.”

A thinner line of trenches on Moreno’s left flank was attacked by the 1st Brigade commanded by Col. Lon Maggart. He estimated his troops buried about 650 Iraqi soldiers. Darkness halted the attack on the Iraqi trench line. By the next day, the 3rd Brigade joined in the grisly innovation. “A lot of people were killed,”’ said Col. David Weisman, the unit commander.

One reason there was no trace of what happened in the Neutral Zone on those two days were the ACEs. It stands for Armored Combat Earth movers and they came behind the armored burial brigade leveling the ground and smoothing away projecting Iraqi arms, legs and equipment.

PFC Joe Queen of the 1st Engineers was impervious to small arms fire inside the cockpit of the massive earth mover. He remained cool and professional as he smoothed away all signs of the carnage. Queen won the Bronze Star for his efforts. “A lot of guys were scared,” Queen said, “but I enjoyed it.” Col. Moreno estimated more than 70 miles of trenches and earthen bunkers were attacked, filled in and smoothed over on Feb. 24-25.

What happened at the Neutral Zone that day has become a metaphor for the conduct of modern warfare. While political leaders bask in voter approval for destroying designated enemies, they are increasingly determined to mask the reality of warfare that causes voters to recoil. There was no more sophisticated practitioner of this art of bloodless warfare than President George H. W. Bush. As a Navy pilot during World War II, Bush knew the ugly side of war.

He once recounted how a sailor wandered into an aircraft propeller on their carrier in the South Pacific. The chief petty officer in charge of the flight deck called for brooms to sweep the man’s guts overboard. “I can still hear him,” Bush said of the chief’s orders. “I have seen the hideous face of war.”

Bush was badly stung by the reality of warfare while president. After the 1989 American invasion of Panama – where reporters were also blocked from witnessing a short-lived slaughter in Panama City – Bush held a White House news conference to boast about the dramatic assault on the Central American leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega.

Bush was chipper and wisecracking with reporters when two major networks shifted coverage to the arrival ceremony for American soldiers killed in Panama at the Air Force Base in Dover, Del. Millions of viewers watched as the network television screens were split: Bush bantering with the press while flag-draped coffers were carried off Air Force planes by honor guards. Dover was the military mortuary for troops killed while serving abroad. On Bush’s orders, the Pentagon banned future news coverage of honor guard ceremonies for the dead. The ban was continued by President Bill Clinton.

Shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Bush summoned battlefield commanders to Camp David, Md., for a council of war. Army Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, chief of Central Command with military responsibility for the Persian Gulf region, flew from Tampa, Fla.

He and Central Command’s air boss, Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles Horner, were flown from Andrews Air Force Base, Md., by helicopter to the retreat in the Catoctin Mountains near Thurmont, Md. Horner said golf carts took them to the president’s cabin. Bush was wearing a windbreaker.

“The president was very concerned about casualties,” Horner recalled. “Not just our casualties but Iraqi casualties. He was very emphatic. He wanted casualties minimized on both sides. He went around the room and asked each military commander if his orders were understood. We all said we would do our best.”

According to Horner, he took a number of steps to limit the use of anti-personnel bombs used during more than 30 days of air attacks on Iraqi army positions. Schwarzkopf’s psychological warfare experts littered Iraqi troops with leaflets that warned of imminent attacks by B52 Strategic Bombers. Arabic warnings told troops to avoid sleeping in tanks or near artillery positions which were prime targets for 400 sorties by allied aircraft attacking day and night.

“We could have killed many more with cluster munitions,” Horner said of bomblets that create lethal minefields around troop emplacements once they are dropped by aircraft.

But Bush’s Camp David orders were also translated into minimizing the perception – if not the reality – of Desert Storm casualties. The president’s point man for controlling these perceptions was Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense. And, to Cheney, that meant controlling the press which he saw as a collective voice that portrayed the Pentagon as a can’t do agency that wasted too much money and routinely failed in its mission. “I did not look on the press as an asset,” Cheney said in an interview after Desert Storm.

He was interviewed by authors of a Freedom Forum book, “America’s Team – The Odd Couple,” which explored the relationship between the media and the Defense Department. To Cheney, containing the military was his way of protecting the Pentagon’s credibility. “Frankly, I looked on it as a problem to be managed,” Cheney said of the media.

This management had two key ingredients: control the flow of information through high level briefings while impeding reporters such as Leon Daniel. According to Cheney, he and Army Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, orchestrated the briefings because “the information function was extraordinarily important. I did not have a lot of confidence that I could leave that to the press.”

The relentless appetite of broadcasting networks made Pentagon control a simple matter. Virtually every U.S. weapon system is monitored by television cameras either on board warplanes and helicopters or hand-held by military cameramen or individual soldiers. This “gun camera” footage may be released or withheld depending on the decisions of political bosses of the military. So when the air war began in January 1991, the media was fed carefully selected footage by Schwarzkopf in Saudi Arabia and Powell in Washington, DC. Most of it was downright misleading.

Briefings by Schwarzkopf and other military officers mostly featured laser guided or television guided missiles and bombs. But of all the tons of high explosives dropped during more than a month of night and day air attacks, only six per cent were smart bombs. The vast majority were controlled by gravity, usually dropped from above 15,000 feet – 35,000 feet for U.S. heavy bombers – where winds can dramatically affect accuracy. And there never was any footage of B-52 bomber strikes that carpeted Iraqi troop positions.

Films of Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched by U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf were almost daily fare from the military. Years later, the Navy would concede these subsonic jets with 2,000 pound warheads had limited success. These missiles are guided by on-board computers that match pre-recorded terrain maps, shifting left or right as landmarks are spotted. But the faceless desert offered few waypoints and most Tomahawks wandered off, just as the French Legion’s lost platoon did in the Sahara.

The only reliable landmark turned out to be the Tigris River and Tomahawks were programmed to use it as a road to Baghdad and other targets. But Iraqi antiaircraft gunners quickly blanketed the riverside. The slow moving Tomahawks were easy targets. Pentagon claims of 98 per cent success for Tomahawks during the war later dwindled to less than 10 per cent effectiveness by the Navy in 1999.

Just as distorted were Schwarzkopf’s claims of destruction of Iraqi Scud missiles. After the war, studies by Army and Pentagon think tanks could not identify a single successful interception of a Scud warhead by the U.S. Army’s Patriot antimissile system. U.S. Air Force attacks on Scud launch sites were portrayed as successful by Schwarzkopf.

The Air Force had filled the night sky with F-15E bombers with radars and infrared systems that could turn night into day. Targets were attacked with laser guided warheads. In one briefing in Riyadh, Schwarzkopf showed F15E footage of what he said was a Scud missile launcher being destroyed. Later, it turned out that the suspected Scud system was in fact an oil truck.

A year after Desert Storm, the official Air Force study concluded that not a single Scud launcher was destroyed during the war. The study said Iraq ended the conflict with as many Scud launchers as it had when the conflict began.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Colin Powell, with President Bush at his side, addresses reporters May 23, 1991 in the White House Rose Garden after the President announced that he was reappointing Powell to a second term. Bush praised Powell for his advice and leadership in the war against Iraq and the invasion of Panama.

In manipulating the first and often most lasting perception of Desert Storm, the Bush administration produced not a single picture or video of anyone being killed. This sanitized, bloodless presentation by military briefers left the world presuming Desert Storm was a war without death.

That image was reinforced by limitations imposed on reporters on the battlefield. Under rules developed by Cheney and Powell, journalists were not allowed to move without military escorts. All interviews had to be monitored by military public affairs escorts. Every line of copy, every still photograph, every strip of film had to be approved – censored – before being filed. And these rules were ruthlessly enforced.

When a Scud missile eventually hit American troops during the ground war, reporters raced to the scene. The 1,000 pound warhead landed on a makeshift barracks for Pennsylvania national guard troops near the Saudi seaport of Dahran. Scott Applewhite, a photographer for the Associated Press, was one of the first on the scene. There were more than 25 dead bodies and 70 badly wounded.

As Applewhite photographed the carnage, he was approached by U.S. Military Police who ordered him to leave. He produced credentials that entitled him to be there. But the soldiers punched Applewhite, handcuffed him and ripped the film from his cameras. More than 70 reporters were arrested, detained, threatened at gunpoint and literally chased from the frontlines when they attempted to defy Pentagon rules.

Army public affairs officers made nightly visits to hotels and restaurants in Hafir al Batin, a Saudi town on the Iraq border. Reporters and photographers usually bolted from the dinner table. Slower ones were arrested.

Journalists such as Applewhite, who played by the rules, fared no better. More than 150 reporters who participated in the Pentagon pool system failed to produce a single eyewitness account of the clash between 300,000 allied troops and an estimated 300,000 Iraqi troops.

There was not one photograph, not a strip of film by pool members of a dead body – American or Iraqi. Even if they had recorded the reality of the battlefield, it was unlikely it would have been filed by the military-controlled distribution system. As the ground war began, Cheney declared a press blackout, effectively blocking distribution of battlefield press reports. While Cheney’s action was challenged by Marlin Fitzwater, the White House press secretary, the ban remained in effect. Most news accounts were delayed for days, long enough to make them worthless to their editors.

Accounts of Iraqi troops escaping from Kuwait – the carnage on the Highway of Death – were recorded by journalists operating outside the pool system.

Schwarzkopf repeatedly brushed off questions about the Iraqi death toll when the ground war ended in early March. Not until 2000, during a television broadcast, would he estimate Iraq losses in the “tens of thousands.” The only precise estimate came from Cheney. In a formal report to Congress, Cheney said U.S. soldiers found only 457 Iraqi bodies on the battlefield.

To Cheney, who helped Bush’s approval rating soar off the charts during Desert Storm, the press coverage had been flawless. “The best-covered war ever,” Cheney said. “The American people saw up close with their own eyes through the magic of television what the U.S. military was capable of doing.”

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

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on What Bodies?

Thoughts of a Pro-War General

[Editor’s Note: The General failed to mention the US already destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure during 12 years of bombing. The General failed to mention Bush Administration plans to occupy Iraq. And, the General failed to mention how the US blew up chemical weapons at Khamisiyah, Iraq, resulting in the world’s largest friendly fire incident — exposing 140,000 US troops to chemical warfare agents.

***

If war comes, the United States will not be trying to conquer Iraq or destroy its infrastructure and armed forces. Rather, the goal will be to surgically remove Iraq’s leadership, neutralize weapons of mass destruction and reach out to Iraq’s own citizens to form a new nation.

The mission requires a different kind of soldier—Special Forces that can slip inside a country, link up with dissident groups, and find and destroy hard targets. I had the honor of commanding our Special Operations Forces (SOF) during the Panama invasion and the gulf war.

The SOF—Delta, SEALs, Green Beret A Teams, Rangers, Night Stalker helo crews, Air Force commandos—are the best in the world, highly trained, well led, superbly equipped. Many of them were “blooded” in combat in Afghanistan or have been thrown into hot spots around the world.

They were once disparaged by the regular military as oddballs and “snake-eaters,” but no longer. Gen. Tommy Franks of U.S. Central Command, the overall commander in the region, knows the value of Special Forces. He will make use of them, I believe, to a greater degree than ever before.

Removing Saddam Hussein and his cronies probably cannot be achieved by straightforward high-level bombing. Our high-tech intelligence gathering from planes and satellites is amazing, but Saddam is a well-practiced deceiver who rarely stays in one place for long. We may need troops on the ground to track and spot, using laser designators (as they did so successfully in Afghanistan) or, conceivably, an old-fashioned sniper’s rifle.

One of their trickier tasks will be to root out chemical and biological weapons. Bombing WMD sites from the sky runs the risk of unleashing deadly plumes that can kill surrounding civilian populations. We may have to use our own soldiers to find and disarm these deadly weapons. Without going into detail, I can say that we have teams well trained for this dangerous work.

U.S. forces may also have to stop Saddam from delivering WMD. It has been reported that there are already Special Forces roaming the Western Desert of Iraq. If so, they are looking for mobile Scud launchers put there by Saddam to launch a surprise attack on Israel. After the gulf war, it was widely reported that the United States had failed to find or destroy any of Saddam’s Scuds.

I know this is not true. I have seen the helicopter-gunship video of their successful strikes and debriefed their operators. I know that SOF took out six to eight Scuds, mostly by using SOF helicopters operating 250 miles behind enemy lines and guiding in airstrikes.

A couple of Scuds were destroyed by antitank missiles launched by the teams. In the after-action reports, one sergeant major described being so close to a Scud launcher that he had his face singed by the explosions ignited by an airstrike he called in.

Denying Saddam the support of his people and the Army is a daunting task. SOF Psychological Operations units (about a quarter of whom are women) will use TV, radio, leaflets, videos and newspapers to sow discord and doubt. In the gulf war, psy-war operations were instrumental in persuading 50,000 to 70,000 Iraqi defections.

Even more critical, perhaps, will be SOF and CIA support to the Iraqi opposition. If they succeed in fomenting a rebellion against Saddam, the war could end quickly—without heavy cost of Iraqi or American lives.

Posted in Gulf War Updates, Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Thoughts of a Pro-War General

Fascism Comes On Little Cat Feet

Just wondering.

But this isn’t a column about the Gestapo, the Brownshirts and the Blackshirts. It’s about our new Homeland Security Department (due to be approved by the Senate today), government jobs and events in the state of Michigan.

In Michigan last week, federal agents started to use roving checkpoints to seek illegal immigrants, drug runners, weapons and terrorists.

Is this legal? Yes, according to the Detroit Free Press. “Under federal law,” the newspaper reported last week,” the Border Patrol can set up checkpoints up to 100 air miles from any international border, or from the shoreline. Within the first 25 miles, federal agents can stop drivers who seem suspicious, and they can search and conduct surveillance of private property.”

Who knew?

Think of the places within those 100-mile or 25-mile limits. To name a few: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Savannah, Jacksonville, El Paso, San Diego, Portland, Sacramento, Bangor, Buffalo, Detroit, Tucson . . .

So you can get up in the morning at home in Vallejo, drive out of your driveway and immediately be pulled over by a Customs agent who demands proof of your citizenship while he searches your car. Then, unsatisfied, he can search your house.

It’ll be like the colonial days, except the cops will be good Americans instead of tawdry British troopers. And forget the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The way they get around that is to declare all searches “reasonable.”

Is there, uh, something basically wrong with this in the land of the free and the home of the brave? No, according to the mostly conservative voices I’ve been hearing since Sept. 11, 2001.

“If you haven’t done anything wrong, if you have nothing to hide, what do you care if they search you?” they ask.

What I didn’t know, until I read the Free Press last week, is that federal cops have been setting up their little checkpoints all over the Southwest border for several years now.

In Texas, Arizona and California, the newspaper reports, “temporary checkpoints have become permanent, and agents now patrol neighborhoods in cars and on bicycles.”

The Free Press quotes Isabel Garcia, a public defender in Pima County (Tucson), Ariz.: “The situation is pretty bad here. We’re watched all the time in our churches and our barrios. Racial profiling becomes their No. 1 law-enforcement technique.”

The Border Patrol, as might be expected, defends its actions. “We routinely run into a lot of narcotics traffickers,” a patrol spokesman told the newspaper. “Because of those checkpoints, those narcotics are kept out of our schools and our streets. We also take a lot of criminals for nonimmigration offenses. We run into children who are kidnapped.”

Oh, they do it for the children! Ain’t that wonderful?

I suppose one could argue that there is merit in having federal police officers stop suspicious people at will. Perhaps they could go a step further and perform curbside colonoscopies, thus saving lives by finding heretofore undetected cancers.

Fascism doesn’t descend on a nation overnight. A nation has to be prepared for it first. In California, we long ago accepted checkpoints for imported fruits and vegetables. In the last decade or so, the whole nation has accepted sobriety checkpoints.

We are being prepared. In the Southwest, we now have an expanding series of checkpoints. As of last week, similar stations were introduced to the Upper Midwest.

Our fears support these checkpoints. In California, we fear tainted produce, which could destroy our agriculture industry. We all fear drunk drivers. We fear drug runners. We fear unchecked illegal immigration, and now we fear infiltrating terrorists.

The land of the free and the home of the brave has become the land of the partly free and the home of the fearful.

So we support El Presidente George W. Bush’s push for a national police force, to be named the Homeland Security Department. We want to be safe, and we think we’ll become safe if we have 170,000 various cops working for Mr. Bush, dependent on him and him alone for their salaries, their promotions and their job security.

If Congress thinks that’s a good idea, it’ll probably go along with Mr. Bush’s latest scheme, to remove 850,000 federal workers from civil service protection and farm their jobs out to private contractors.

This is called an economy move. What “economy” means in this case is fewer jobs, lower wages and reduced benefits.

Bush seeks to win the daily double, reduced union strength combined with a labor force dependent on him and his Big Business supporters.

And we’re going to give him that winning ticket, while we trust him to use his incredible powers judiciously.

As I said at the beginning, this is not a column about Brownshirts, Blackshirts and the Gestapo. Not yet.

Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist and liberal iconoclast. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at harleysorensen@yahoo.com

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Fascism Comes On Little Cat Feet