Michael Albert of Zmag Interviews
Noam Chomsky on Iraq
1. Has Saddam Hussein been
as evil as mainstream media says? Domestically? Internationally?
He is as evil as they come,
ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the modern era. No one would
want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his reach does not extend
very far.
Internationally, Saddam invaded
Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly turned
to chemical weapons (also with Western support). He invaded Kuwait and
was quickly driven out.
A major concern in Washington
right after the invasion was that Saddam would quickly withdraw, putting
"his puppet in [and] everyone in the Arab world will be happy"
(Colin Powell, then Chief of Staff). President Bush was concerned that
Saudi Arabia might "bug out at the last minute and accept a puppet
regime in Kuwait" unless the US prevented Iraqi withdrawal.
The concern, in brief, was
that Saddam would pretty much duplicate what the US had just done in
Panama (except that Latin Americans were anything but happy). From the
first moment the US sought to avert this "nightmare scenario."
A story that should be looked at with some care.
Saddam's worst crimes, by
far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons against
Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture,
and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of
the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly.
It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and
eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words:
"with our help."
The crimes were well known
at once, but of no particular concern to the West. Saddam received some
mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation was considered too
extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and Bush #1 continued
to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading partner right through
his worst atrocities and well beyond.
Bush authorized loan guarantees
and sale of advanced technology with clear applications for weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of the Kuwait invasion,
sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent what he was doing.
Britain was still authorizing export of military equipment and radioactive
materials a few days after the invasion.
When ABC correspondent and
now ZNet Commentator Charles Glass discovered biological weapons facilities
(using commercial satellites and defector testimony), his revelations
were immediately denied by the Pentagon and the story disappeared. It
was resurrected when Saddam committed his first real crime, disobeying
US orders (or perhaps misinterpreting them) by invading Kuwait, and
switched instantly from friend to reincarnation of Attila the Hun.
The same facilities were
then used to demonstrate his innately evil nature. When Bush #1 announced
new gifts to his friend in December 1989 (also gifts to US agribusiness
and industry), it was considered too insignificant even to report, though
one could read about it in Z magazine at the time, maybe nowhere else.
A few months later, shortly
before he invaded Kuwait, a high-level Senate delegation, headed by
(later) Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, visited Saddam,
conveying the President's greetings and assuring the brutal mass murderer
that he should disregard the criticism he hears from maverick reporters
here.
Saddam had even been able
to get away with attacking a US naval vessel, the USS Stark, killing
several dozen crewmen. That is a mark of real esteem. The only other
country to have been granted that privilege was Israel, in 1967. In
deference to Saddam, the State Department banned all contacts with the
Iraqi democratic opposition, maintaining this policy even after the
Gulf war, while Washington effectively authorized Saddam to crush a
Shi'ite rebellion that might well have overthrown him -- in the interest
of preserving "stability," the press explained, nodding sagely.
That he's a major criminal
is not in doubt. That's not changed by the fact that the US and Britain
regarded his major atrocities as insignificant in the light of higher
"reasons of state," before the Gulf war and even after --
facts best forgotten.
2. Looking into the future,
is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream media says?
The world would be better
off if he weren't there, no doubt about that. Surely Iraqis would. But
he can't be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the US and Britain
were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology that
he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably
did.
10 years ago the Senate Banking
Committee hearings revealed that the Bush administration was granting
licences for dual use technology and "materials which were later
utilized by the Iraq regime for nuclear missile and chemical purposes."
Later hearings added more, and there are press reports and a mainstream
scholarly literature on the topic (as well as dissident literature).
The 1991 war was extremely
destructive, and since then Iraq has been devastated by a decade of
sanctions, which probably strengthened Saddam himself (by weakening
possible resistance in a shattered society), but surely reduced very
significantly his capacity for war-making or support for terror.
Furthermore, since 1991 his
regime has been constrained by "no fly zones," regular overflights
and bombing, and very tight surveillance. Chances are that the events
of Sept. 11 weakened him still further. If there are any links between
Saddam and al-Qaeda, they would be far more difficult to maintain now
because of the sharply intensified surveillance and controls.
That aside, links are not
very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to the 9-11 attacks,
nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam and bin
Laden were bitter enemies, and there's no particular reason to suppose
that there have been any changes in that regard.
The rational conclusion is
that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than before 9-11, and far
less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial support from
the US-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If Saddam
is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global
enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn't that true a year ago? And
much more dramatically, in early 1990?
3. How should the problem
of the existence and use of weapons of mass destruction in the world
today be dealt with?
They should be eliminated.
The non-proliferation treaty commits countries with nuclear weapons
to take steps towards eliminating them. The biological and chemical
weapons treaties have the same goals. The main Security Council resolution
concerning Iraq (687, 1991) calls for eliminating weapons of mass destruction
and delivery systems from the Middle East, and working towards a global
ban on chemical weapons. Good advice.
Iraq is nowhere near the
lead in this regard. We might recall the warning of General Lee Butler,
head of Clinton's Strategic Command in the early 90s, that "it
is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that
we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with
stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and
that inspires other nations to do so."
He's talking about Israel
of course. The Israeli military authorities claim to have air and armored
forces that are larger and more advanced than those of any European
NATO power (Yitzhak ben Israel, Ha'aretz, 4-16-02, Hebrew). They also
announce that 12% of their bombers and fighter aircraft are permanently
stationed in Eastern Turkey, along with comparable naval and submarine
forces in Turkish bases, and armored forces as well, in case it becomes
necessary to resort to extreme violence once again to subdue Turkey's
Kurdish population, as in the Clinton years.
Israeli aircraft based in
Turkey are reported to be flying reconnaisance flights along Iran's
borders, part of a general US-Israel-Turkey policy of threatening Iran
with attack and perhaps forceful partitioning. Israeli analysts also
report that joint US-Israel-Turkey air exercises are intended as a threat
and warning to Iran. And of course to Iraq (Robert Olson, Middle East
Policy, June 2002). Israel is doubtless using the huge US air bases
in Eastern Turkey, where the US bombers are presumably nuclear-armed.
By now Israel is virtually an offshore US military base.
And the rest of the area
is armed to the teeth as well. If Iraq were governed by Gandhi, it would
be developing weapons systems if it could, probably well beyond what
it can today. That would very likely continue, perhaps even accelerate,
if the US takes control of Iraq. India and Pakistan are US allies, but
are marching forward with the development of WMD and repeatedly have
come agonizingly close to using nuclear weapons. The same is true of
other US allies and clients.
That is likely to continue
unless there is a general reduction of armaments in the area.
Would Saddam agree to that?
Actually, we don't know. In early January 1991, Iraq apparently offered
to withdraw from Kuwait in the context of regional negotiations on reduction
of armaments, an offer that State Department officials described as
serious and negotiable. But we know no more about it, because the US
rejected it without response and the press reported virtually nothing.
It is, however, of some interest
that at that time -- right before the bombing -- polls revealed that
by 2-1 the US public supported the proposal that Saddam had apparently
made, preferring it to bombing. Had people been allowed to know any
of this, the majority would surely have been far greater. Suppressing
the facts was an important service to the cause of state violence.
Could such negotiations have
gotten anywhere? Only fanatical ideologues can be confident. Could such
ideas be revived? Same answer. One way to find out is to try.