First: does this scare anyone else? Or is it just me?
Moving on – it would seem that despite the efforts of the Iraqi government to downplay the issue, six years after the US assault on Fallujah a stunningly high rate of birth defects is being witnessed by local physicians. While not a single investigation has been attempted to support the government’s claim that birth defects in the Fallujah largely coincide with the national average, local physicians that spoke with the BBC have claimed that birth defects are not a once in a while phenomenon – rather a daily one…
“…in the impressive new Fallujah General Hospital, built with American aid, we found a paediatric specialist, Dr Samira al-Ani, who told us that she saw two or three new cases every day.
Most of them, she said, exhibited cardiac problems.
When asked what the cause was, she said: “I am a doctor. I have to be scientific in my talk. I have nothing documented. But I can tell you that year by year, the number [is] increasing.”
The specialist, like other medical staff at the hospital, seemed nervous about talking too openly about the problem.
They were well aware that what they said went against the government version, and we were told privately that the Iraqi authorities are anxious not to embarrass the Americans over the issue.
There are no official figures for the incidence of birth defects in Fallujah.
The US military authorities are absolutely correct when they say they are not aware of any official reports indicating an increase in birth defects in Fallujah – no official reports exist.
But it is impossible, as a visitor, not to be struck by the terrible number of cases of birth defects there.
We heard many times that officials in Fallujah had warned women that they should not have children.
We went to a clinic for the disabled, and were given details of dozens upon dozens of cases of children with serious birth defects.
One photograph I saw showed a newborn baby with three heads.
While we were at the clinic, people kept arriving with children who were suffering major problems – a little girl with only one arm, several children who were paralysed, and another girl with a spinal condition so bad I asked my cameraman not to film her.
At the clinic we were told that the worst problems were to be found in the neighbourhood of al-Julan, near the river.
This was the heart of the resistance to the Americans during the two major offensives of April and September 2004, and was hit constantly by bombs and shells.
We went to a house where three children, all under six, were suffering from birth defects.
Two boys were partially paralysed, and their sister clearly had serious brain damage.
Like all the other parents we spoke to, their mother had no doubt that the American attacks were responsible.
Outside, a man who had heard we were there had brought his four-year-old daughter to show us. She had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot.
She was also suffering from a number of other serious health problems. The father told us that the house where they still lived had been hit by an American shell during the fighting in 2004.
There may well be a link with drinking-water, especially in al-Julan.
After the fighting was over, the rubble from the town was bulldozed into the river bank, and most people in this area get their water from the river.
The true causes of the problem, and the question of the effects of the weapons the Americans used, can be resolved only by a proper independent inquiry by medical experts.”
Now, does that sound ‘normal’ to you? That despite the ‘official word’, such a high concentration of birth defects is occurring in a place where the US military used incendiary weapons and then defended their use by claiming the shells were only used for ‘screening purposes’ to hide troop movements? If you’re unaware, the use of incendiary weapons produces particles that are cast off by the initial explosion of ordinance, causing severe internal and external damage.
While the use of such weapons aren’t explicitly limited by treaties when used against military targets, the use of incendiary weapons in any civilian area is strictly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions. This leads us back to the debate that arose when evidence of WP use first reared its head in 2004. Despite claims that a ‘benign’ version of the chemical was used, in actuality the US most likely used Mark 77’s, which are 500 to 750 pound incendiary bombs consisting of several different agents: kerosene-based fuel with a low concentration of benzene, an oxidizing agent, and white phosphorus. Photographs that came out of Fallujah after the assault lend credence to this assertion.
The MK-77 was introduced to replace napalm as the US’s primary incendiary weapon of choice. While journalists covering the war in Iraq questioned military spokespeople about the use of ‘napalm’, the official response was always that napalm was no longer used – and that’s ‘technically’ true. Unfortunately, what military spokespeople didn’t say was that MK-77’s were used – something that they didn’t have to offer up because they had been asked about napalm, not newer incendiary ordinance. That misconception was also turned into a comfortable lie when the United States informed the British Ministry of Defense that MK-77’s had not been used in Iraq. The falsehood was then presented to the British Parliament by Defense Minister Adam Ingram, ultimately resulting in an apology by both Ingram and then US Secretary of State for Defense John Reid, as MK-77’s had been used by the US since the commencement of the initial invasion in 2003.
If the United States thought it acceptable to lie to an allied foreign government, then whose word is worth more – theirs or that of Iraqi physicians that are witnessing the affects?
It all comes down to perception – making this subject no different than that of rendition or illegal detention. The United States is, for all intents and purposes, ‘above’ such criminality, transforming the crimes that it does commit into ‘necessities’ given the perpetual perception of American ‘moral superiority’. Under such a guise, the unthinkable is not merely possible, but entirely probable.
March 4, 2010