I was emailed this morning by a first year college student in Atlanta that asked me a very straightforward question. I should preface all of this by saying they admitted to coming from a very conservative family that supports US efforts in Iraq and the Bush administration.

Their question was very simple - ‘where do I begin if I want to understand the relationship between Iraq and America?’

This, of course, is a very complex question, even though it appears to be very straight forward. The answer to such a question would require an immense response, as there is a great deal of information that one has to consider when examining the relationship between not only the United States and Iraq, but Iraq and the West. Therefore, I will do my best to point things in the right direction, and if it at all interests anyone, please take some time to do some independent research of your own.

One: Indefensibility And The Disregard Of Historical Realities Regarding The Support Of Iraqi Human Rights Abuses

Prior to the invasion itself, and during the first year of the occupation, this blog was a flurry of activity. Some, who have since disappeared – often claiming that their points of view were being silenced primarily as an excuse to avoid having to confront the fact that their positions were becoming less defensible, leaving them with little choice than to rely on antagonistic discourse for the sake of convolution– tended to completely disregard past US involvement with the regime of Saddam Hussein. Many who supported the war pointed to the main points promoted by the Bush administration and also lent heavily on UN resolutions created and used by Security Council heavy weights – primarily the United States and the UK, the former of which uses the discontinuation of funding as a threat when it requires UN obedience – as the primary justifications for the invasion and occupation. (*)

What escaped popular discourse at the time (and still does) was US complicity with regards to the regime of Saddam Hussein and the human rights abuses committed while Iraq was a US benefactor. During the run up to the war, and during its early phases, members of the current administration often pointed to, for example, Halabja as an example of the genocidal tendencies of the Hussein regime. The invasion, beyond the rhetoric of needing to preempt Iraq’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, which turned out to be a fallacy, was promoted as the freeing of an oppressed people that had suffered under a cruel dictatorship. But what was not discussed, or ever referenced, was that during the years that Hussein’s regime was responsible for crimes against humanity, the support of the United States was considerable. Even after the incident at Halabja, US support for the Hussein regime was not curtailed by the Reagan administration. That same year, because of the Halabja incident, the United States Senate voted unanimously to pass The Prevention Of Genocide Act which called for the termination of Iraqi oil imports to the US and assistance to Iraq. The legislation was ultimately prevented from taking effect by the Reagan administration who called it premature based on faulty intelligence that the attacks had been carried out by Iran. Despite such barbarity, the relationship between the US and Iraq was not terminated and support for Hussein’s regime continued. In fact, up until 1989, the US Center For Disease Control both sold and sent anthrax, botulism, brucella melitensis, and West Nile virus to Iraq.

The United States was not alone complicit either [1]…

- The British government funded the construction of a chlorine factory, the purpose of which was to manufacture mustard gas. Matrix Churchill also received government funding to supply parts for what later became known as Project Babylon.

- ‘An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium and its government also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure - 16% of the international sales.’

- ‘Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.’

- ‘The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.’

- Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.’

- ‘India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.’

- ‘Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.’

- ‘Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.’

- ‘China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.’

- ‘Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982.’

- ‘Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.’

As an aside, though not surprising to those that study such intricacies, it was later discovered that the US was selling weapons to both sides during the war while limiting logistical support to just Iraq – such as passing along satellite intelligence that allowed the Iraqis to watch and counter Iranian movements and to aid them in targeting chemical weapon strikes against the Iranians. The latter being the province of the CIA.

Two: Involvement In Iraqi Affairs Before The Hussein Regime

One of the better references to this particular subject, though there are many, is Tariq Ali’s book Bush In Babylon. In it, Ali talks about the decimation of the Iraqi Communist Party after the Ba’athist seizure of power and the aid of the United States in helping the Ba’athists identify Iraqi Communist Party members who were then rounded up and terminated.

But more important was the US backed assassination attempt of General Abdul Karim Qassim in 1959, in which Hussein was a key figure…

“In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed “close ties” with Qasim’s ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party “as its instrument.”

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim’s movements.
Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of “Unholy Babylon,” said the move was done “with full knowledge of the CIA,” and that Saddam’s CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish’s account.

Darwish said that Saddam’s paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.â€?

While the attempt on Qassim failed, he would eventually be removed from power in a coup in 1963 orchestrated by Iraqi military officials with ties to the Ba’athist party, though they would later be purged from government by President Abdul Salam Arif, who was himself removed in a bloodless coup in 1968 led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, who would assume the roll of President. From 1964 to 1967 Hussein was imprisoned, though he would escape in 1967 and then play a role in the coup, ultimately becoming Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr’s deputy. By 1969, Saddam Hussein had become one of the most influential figures within the Iraqi Ba’athist party, and by 1979, the year he took power, the controlling figure of the Iraqi military – the loyalty of which was paramount in his ascension.

Three: The Abandonment Of Historical Reality

So why, given America’s history with Iraq, was it so simple to divert people’s attention away from the fact that the West has helped men like Hussein more than they have hindered them? The answer to that question is steeped in a variety of things, the least of which is the overwhelming educational apathy of the general public and their indissoluble belief in the incorruptibility of their own system of government. Add the national trauma of 9/11 into the equation and it’s almost like programming robots to do nothing other than look straight ahead.

The devaluation of historical context in this entire affair has been undeniable, as well as pointing to a vastly dangerous trend in our society. For the sake of protecting an overwhelming sense of our own infallibility, we have sacrificed those bits of history that prove otherwise. That being the case, no wrong is now ever too wrong to be forgotten.

For more on this subject, please refer to The George Washington University National Security Archives Saddam Hussein Source Book as a starting point.

* Despite the resolutions regarding Iraq, the legalities of the invasion itself contravened the 53rd Article of the United Nations Charter.

Want to bookmark or share this entry?



This entry was posted on Thursday, March 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.