Dedication.

To the people of Vietnam whose victory over a vast, highly mobile, highly armed, military machine was one of the greatest triumphs of the human spirit. In comparison to the courage and resourcefulness of the Vietnamese the mass manufactured, consumers of advanced industrialized societies, driving around in their "padded cells" (John Papworth), seem like vacuous, spoilt, pampered, insensate, ecocidal, thugs.

A Deep Green Stance

This work may well be deemed 'emotional'. In the emotion-charged atmosphere induced by the Gulf war this is not surprising. Many would argue, however, that this puts a premium on a cool, dispassionate analysis. But, it is not humanly possible to step out of a semi-traumatized condition and write as if one were morally and physically redundant. No matter how forceful this work may be it certainly bears no comparison to what those on both sides of the frontline must have experienced during the war.

Lack of objectivity, however, has nothing to do with being 'emotional' but rather the refusal to consider, and respond to, other people's points of view. Objectivity also requires the intellectual integrity to admit that any conclusions reached may be wrong and, if better points of view are discovered, open to amendment.

This work is written from the Earth's perspective. It seeks to represent the interests of the Earth, and all its life forms. It is based on the deep green principle of an equality of status between all life forms. It upholds the view that humans must put the Earth First. It opposes racism, sexism, ageism, genderism, imperialism, humanism and speciesism. It cannot be defined as liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, anarchist, fascist or any other 'ist' or 'ism'.

FOREWORD

The world's premier military power used its vast economic wealth to pressure virtually every nation across the globe into supporting or, at the very least condoning, the relentless carpet bombing of a country without an offensive capability - a mere two decades after having committed the same war crime in Vietnam.

The sight of the Allies' huge military force assembled in the Gulf using the most advanced and destr­uctive weaponry ever devised to pound a Third World country into the Stone Age, was revolting enough but the bloodthirsty baying of the masses, the hysteria, bigotry and bias, of the gutter press and the foul belligerence of the country's cultural elite made it look even more disgusting.

The United Nations' authorization for the war transformed this regional conflict into a global concern which reflected not merely upon the protagonists and their supporters but on the whole human race. The evidence that has emerged bright and clear through the war's poisonous black clouds of lies, hypocrisies, bigotry, ignorance and utter inanities, is that the human race is out of control; seems not merely unwilling to take into account the environmental consequences of its actions but acts as if it is oblivious of the planet which gave it life; and has sunk into a moral and political quicksand in which it seems happy to reside. To most Northern consumers, 'Mother Earth' is nothing more than a fucking cheap tart.

The Allies' 'victory' means that advanced technology, consumerism and the ruthless exploitation of the planet's natural resources will become even more rampant despite increasing deforestation, increasing desertification, increasing pollution, increasing immizerization and increasing population. Capitalism is piling up the destruction behind us but all we see is a glossy, brightly lit, high tech, future; millionaires in deserts of their own making. We can live without economic growth and we can live without capitalism but we cannot live without the Earth. If it's a choice between the collapse of the world economy and the collapse of the planet's ecology then it has got to be the former. For the sake of the planet's survival there should have been no victors in this war except the United Nations. 

PART ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE MASSACRE.

"We're going to cut 'em off and kill 'em." (General Cohen Powell, United States Chief of Staff, talking about the Iraqi troops in Kuwait).

i) Kuwait was an artificial contraption designed purely to thwart German attempts to build a railroad to the Persian Gulf. That Kuwait cuts off Persia from the Gulf is no accident. It was a deliberate attempt to prevent the Germans from extending their power and influence eastwards.

i) YET ANOTHER DISASTER FOR THE BRITISH EMPIRE

There are many people in Britain who believe the British Empire is something to be proud of because it brought civilization to backward, uncivilized nations - not, of course, that the average working class, Sun loving, Coronation Street devotee, public house incumbent, could be said to be in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of wogs, nor that the average middle class, cultured, professional who claim they do care would let the poverty of billions of people around the world interfere with their double income, holiday home, double car, acquisitiveness.

Academics have written hefty tomes concluding that British imperialism was a civilizing rather than a corrupting influence on human civilization but the costs of this period, when the sun never set on the British Empire, were considerable in terms of the human lives lost and ruined. Although most of the Empire is now long gone, the problems it caused continue to reverberate around the world and will go on doing so for a long time into the future. For example, the civil war that is currently raging in Sri Lanka, in which thousands upon thousands of people are being slaughtered, is a product of British Imperialism when hundreds of thousands of cheap labourers were dragged into the country to work on British plantations.

There would have been no such thing today as a Gulf war if, over the last few centuries, the British had not intervened in the Middle East to shape it according to their own interests. 

Even though Kuwait was under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire, Britain concluded a treaty with the ruling al-Sabah family in 1899 solely to deny the Germans the opportunity of extending the Berlin to Baghdad railway to the Persian Gulf. The railway would have helped development in the country but because Britain feared German influence in the region it opposed the project. Kuwait became a British protectorate in 1914.

After the horrors of the bizarrely named, 'Great War', western imperialist countries divided up the world into various zones of influence. Britain created the country now known as Iraq after occupying key parts of the area during the war, "Created in 1920 as part of the post war peace settlement out of the former Ottoman provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, Iraq was under British Mandate until 1932. The first large oil find came in 1927 and by 1953 oil revenue accounted for nearly 50% of national income." (Guardian 18.1.91. p.9).

In case anyone should deceive themselves about the nature of British rule in Iraq, "Saddam Hussein was not the first to use chemical weapons against the Iraqi population. When tribesmen of the Euphrates rose in rebellion against British military rule in the summer of 1920, the British army used gas shells - "with excellent moral effect" - in the fighting which ensued." (David Omissi, Guardian 19.1.91. p.27). About 9,000 people are believed to have been killed by these attacks. Whilst British people may have no memory of this event (presumably because death and destruction shouldn't be allowed to ruin the Empire's romantic appeal?) it is all too likely that it has not been forgotten by the Iraqis. 

British control in the region involved not only chemical gas attacks but the use of the air force for civilian controls, "Some Iraqi villages were destroyed merely because their inhabitants had not paid their taxes. British pilots machine gunned women and children as they fled from their homes. This 'police bombing' was too much for some air force officers to stomach. Other officers seemed to enjoy the work. One who did was Arthur Harris, who would later achieve fame for the bomber offensive against Germany in the Second World War." (David Omissi, Guardian 19.1.91. p.27). (The infamous 'Bomber' Harris invented the tactic of saturation bombing to create firestorms which inflicted terrible damage on some German cities - although, such is the British way, he was denied any military honours after the war).

After the First World war, Britain obtained the mandate not only for Iraq but Palestine. The creation of the Israel was a product of British intervention, although not intention, which continues to cause a huge loss of life.

The Gulf war is just another episode in Britain's bloody history. It has to be asked what right Britain had returning to the Middle East trying to solve other country's problems when it has caused so many of the disputes currently raging around the world and which can't even solve the colonialist problems in its own backyard?

ii) THE MIDDLE EAST WHIRLWIND

After the Arab-Israeli war in 1967, when Kuwait and a number of other Arab countries cut off oil supplies to the United States and other Western powers, the American government regarded Iran as the best hope of protecting its interests in the Middle East and duly provided Iran with large supplies of the most sophisticated weapons. This support was reinforced after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and OPEC's two oil price rises of the 1970s. The Americans enabled the Shah of Persian to build up the biggest and most powerful armed force in the region. The Americans also armed Israel but was regarded more as an American colony than an ally because it was impossible for the Israelis to intervene in Arab affairs without triggering a war with Arab countries. Iran had been heavily armed by America to protect its interests in the Middle East. During the Islamic revolution in Iran, Israel was as helpless as America to do anything to protect the Shah. 

When the Shah of Iran, a puppet ruler installed and protected by America, was overthrown by a popular revolt, Ayatollah Khomeini was welcomed back to the country and assumed the role of head of state. This was a twofold disaster for the Americans. Not only had they lost an ally, one of the world's biggest militaries was under the control of a militant Islamic fundamentalist. What made this worse, was that in the wave of Moslem fundamentalism that was sparked off by the revolution, American officials and civilians were taken prisoner and held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran. Khomeini seemed to take a great deal of satisfaction in taunting President Carter and arraigning the United States as the Great Satan.

Americans were infuriated but impotent. The attempt to rescue the hostages with a high tech, commando raid ended up as a fiasco. When Reagan came to power he vowed to turn America into the world's greatest military power to ensure that such a humiliation would never happen again.

The Americans were intent on revenge against Iran but were also extremely concerned that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism threatened to cause a domino effect across vast areas of the world. America saw Iran as a threat not only to its neigbours, Russia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq; but to the Gulf States; to Arab countries along the north African coast; and to Moslem states in the far east. If Arab nationalism had been a worry for Western imperialists then a united Islamic world was a far more daunting prospect - especially when Iran possessed such a powerful, well armed, military force. Something had to be done to contain Iran and to recover from this diplomatic travesty.

America was not the only country panic stricken about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. So were the increasingly Westernized Arab governments in the Gulf whose huge profits, from the oil price rises of the 1970s, had been deposited with  Western banks thereby linking their interests with those of the West. America and the Gulf states came to see Iraq, nominally a Russian client, as a replacement for Iran, and Saddam Hussein as a replacement for the Shah. In order to help him succeed to power, the CIA furnished Saddam with information about his enemies and he then promptly executed them.

It didn't take much pressure by America and the Gulf states to persuade Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. Th American and Britain support for the war was the reason why they combined to block a Security Council resolution condemning the invasion. Iraq conducted what was, in effect, a proxy American war. The West now had an ally who could curb the military power of the country which, the previous decade, the West had turned into a formidable armed force. It was now able to enjoy the prospect of taming Iranian military power and containing Islamic fundamentalism. The west supplied Iraq with a huge array of weapons and munitions and even protected Iraqi ships in the Persian Gulf. What is more, "By 1987 the United States' embassy in Baghdad was giving the Iraqis satellite intelligence about Iranian troop movements. This helped Saddam target his gas attacks." (Guardian 22.8.90 p.37). And, "At least twenty British companies have helped to build Iraq's military machine." [Guardian 25.1.91)}. When, in 1988, 37 marines on the USS Stark were killed by an exocet missile accidentally launched by an Iraqi jet, Iraq and America were such good chums the American government accepted Iraq's apology.

By the time the war was over, and it has to be suspected that Iraq allowed the war to drag on for eight years so that it could obtain a huge supply of munitions, Iraq possessed the fourth biggest military in the world. 

Having heavily armed Iran only to see the Shah toppled; and having heavily armed Iraq to attack Iran, America then found itself in a deja vu predicament when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Now something had to be done to cut Iraq down to size. What was worse, however, was that Iraq and Israel, whom it had also heavily armed during the 1980s, were threatening each other's destruction. As a response to the political dungheap which they had created for themselves, the Americans sought an alliance Syria and Saudi Arabia against Iraq. This meant arming Syria, "While the US administration turns a blind eye, Syria is using Gulf war related financial aid from Saudi Arabia to purchase new heavy weapons, expand its army, and nurture long standing territorial ambitions, according to analysts in Washington." (Guardian 6.2.91. p.2). It also meant ceding territory to Syria, allowing the Syrian military to oust Iraqi backed General Aoun from Lebanon, "The Syrians were only able to do this as they received permission (an American guarantee of no Israeli retaliation) to use combat planes in Beirut for the first time ever." (Socialist Worker Review Nov 1990 no.136 p.7).

So, within a matter of months of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was turned from a trustworthy ally who could be armed with vast quantities of deadly weapons, into an all-embracing, all-threatening, ogre. Syria, which for many years had been regarded as a terrorist state because of its involvement with the Lockerbie bombing was welcomed as a valued ally; (it ought to be remembered that the Americans had originally blamed Colonel Gaddafy for the Lockerbie bombing and, as a consequence, had attempted to assassinate him by bombing his presidential palace). And, finally, Iran, which had been the cause of America's strategic consternation throughout the 1980s, was welcomed back into the fold of the "family of peace-loving nations" (George Bush) and its neutrality in the Gulf war respected.

During the 1980s, American policy in the Middle East was a whirlwind of weapons' proliferation in which it armed one country only to have to arm another to destroy the first and so. These idiotic policies have already caused two military disasters, and, if the Americans are not careful, will lead to more. The travesty of America's foreign policies can be seen not only in the wars it has caused but in its constantly changing allegiances. These dazzling changes of pace might be greatly admired on the football field but in the diplomatic world they expose a dangerous inability to understand the world's complexities and the wise exercise of power.

The changes in America's foreign allegiances have each led to parallel domestic changes. In each case, the American government has whipped up millions of Americans into a frenzy of 'Nuke 'em' hatred against political leaders they have never heard of; against countries about which they knew nothing; and against causes which they don't understand and couldn't care about anyway - only to find that a few years later the American government has asked its captive audience to see these leaders as friends and allies.

iii) The loss of Pakistan from Bhutto to a more Islamic minded dictatorship. The loss of Nicaragua.

iii) THE RESURRECTION OF THE GLOBAL POLICEMAN 

In the 1970s the idea of America's decline in military power and prestige became increasingly commonplace. The humiliation in Vietnam was followed by the collapse of the Portuguese empire, which gave a huge boost to Russian influence because many of the nationalist movements in the newly emergent independent countries turned to Russia for help; the Islamic revolution in Iran which saw the country change from an American ally into a hugely threatening enemy; and the invasion of Afghanistan. Whilst America seemed to be in decline, the Russians, and their huge war machine, seemed to be moving into the ascendancy.

The decline of America's military power was put into reverse as soon as Reagan became president. He gave priority to a policy of winning global military supremacy and ordered a colossal build up of America's armed forces. As the military build up continued throughout the 1980s, America began to reassert its military prowess through the invasions of Grenada and then Panama.

Then Gorbachev came to power and Russia, in effect, retired as a military superpower. Quite unexpectedly, and almost overnight, and almost by default, America had achieved its objective. Over the following years, Russia withdrew from Afghanistan, removed Cuban troops from Angola and Mozambique and began withdrawing from Eastern Europe.

However, America acquired political hegemony only recently when it managed to persuade countries throughout the world to support its resolution to the United Nations demanding 'the restoration of despotism' in Kuwait. Given America's long hostility toward the United Nations, which even reached the stage where it has withdrawn from UNESCO and was even  threatening to withdraw from the organization, its victory in winning this resolution was tantamount to a coup detat against the United Nations. This was the event which ended the era of superpower rivalry that had existed since the second world war and began the new age of American supremacy.

America's rapid military and political ascendancy, however, has been shadowed by a marked decline in its economic power which is why, during its war effort in the Gulf, it was forced to take the unique step of asking for financial assistance from its no-combattive allies thereby prostituting its military into a mercenary army. Its political and military supremacy is not likely to last long with a second rate economy - unless it engages in an imperialistic policy. 

Despite America's military supremacy, it has been increasingly argued that the Bush administration might not have decided to resurrect America's claim to be the world's policeman if it hadn't been pushed in this direction by Margaret Thatcher who saw Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, an old British imperialist protectorate, and a possible Gulf war as an opportunity to push her bellicose, free market, self righteousness onto the centre of the world stage. There were, of course, other pressures that shifted Bush away from his administration's apparent disinterestedness in what was happening on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border but Thatcher's presence in America when the invasion took place and her almost intransigent, 'No Negotiations with Terrorists' stance ('No Negotiations with Terrorists Except Menachem Begin And A Load of Other State Terrorists' is probably more accurate) may have been the explosive cataylst that focussed these forces and brought about the change in the direction of American foreign policy, (See Tam Dalyell, Letters to the Guardian 21.2.91 p.20). 

It was amusing then that no sooner had she found a new source of global elevation, (after her grandiose, and vacuous, speeches about the need to save the planet's life support system) than she was forced out of office by a rebellion within her own party. There have been many explanations as to why she was handbagged but the most obvious was that many of her colleagues were terrified that she might be allowed any influence over the conduct of the Gulf war especially since nuclear weapons might be involved. It is not a unique event for a British Prime Minister to be replaced in the middle of a war but, unlike her hero Winston Churchill who was made Prime Minister specifically to lead the war effort because of his great military qualities, Thatcher, who regarded herself as one of the great warriors of the modern world, was sacked precisely because she could not be trusted as a war leader. The Belgrano and Libyan bombing affairs had put huge question marks over her sanity let alone her allegedly infallible instincts. The difference in stature between Churchill and Thatcher could hardly be seen more starkly.

Dumping Thatcher, however, had another benefit for the Allied cause. Her 'No Negotiations with Terrorist' stance had meant that she refused to recognize Syria as a member of the Allied coalition because it was a terrorist state. America, however, was a lot more accustomed to funding, arming and collaborating with terrorists, and needed the support of countries like Syria to back up its claim about Arab support for the coalition. So, as soon as Thatcher resigned, the British government re-established diplomatic contacts with Syria and the Allies welcomed yet another devious dictator into their midst.

PART TWO: BUILD UP TO THE MASSACRE

iv) A CESSPIT OF LIES AND HYPOCRICIES

On July 24th 1990 a small part of the Iraqi army marched to the Kuwaiti border. Instead of launching an immediate full scale invasion, it parked there for a week before, on August 2nd, marching into Kuwait. Saddam wanted his reward for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and civilians who had lost their lives fighting on behalf of America to rectify its mistake in over-arming Iran.

This patience on the border showed the caution with which Saddam Hussein acted. He was testing world opinion to see whether it was likely to condone the invasion. During this period there was plenty of time for the whole world to forcefully express its opposition to the threatened invasion. And yet there was no forcefully expressed opposition from either America or from Britain. On the contrary, the United States' ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, assured him that, "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border diasgreemnent with Kuwait."

It was not that America was caught unawares by this unexpected development or that they believed that Saddam Hussein was such a peaceful fellow that he could be trusted never TO invade Kuwait. On the contrary, "Two weeks before the invasion of Kuwait Moshe Arens, Isreal's Defence Minister made an official visit to Washington along with the head of Military Intelliegnce and the head of Mossad secret service for talks with the United States' Defence Secretary Dick Cheney. "The talks concentrated mostly on the Iraqi threat," Mr Arens said." (Guardian 7.3.91. p.10). Iraq was enticed into a trap.

Within hours of the invasion Bush, with Thatcher behind him, denounced Iraq and, in the United Nations, the Security Council passed resolution 660 demanding that Iraq should withdraw from Kuwait immediately and unconditionally. Within days, Iraq's and Kuwait's foreign accounts were frozen and the United Nation's agreed to impose sanctions on Iraq.

The hypocrisy over the adoption of sanctions was blatant. The West had not applied sanctions against Israel when it occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip nor when it invaded Lebanon. Indeed, the West had not imposed sanctions against Israel for any of its numerous transgressions against the Geneva Convention. It had not applied sanctions against Syria for its invasion of Lebanon.

After a decade of Thatcher's incantations against the principle of sanctions it was surprising to find her wholeheartedly supporting their use. She had vigorously and mockingly opposed sanctions against South Africa on the grounds that the people they were intended to help would be hurt the most and yet her support for sanctions against Iraq were far more draconian because they even included food and medicines. In other words, she was prepared to starve the Iraqi people as a way of putting pressure on Saddam. But why should the Iraqi people be made to suffer even more because of their dictator? What is more, if there was a war then tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iraqi civilians and soldiers would be injured and would suffer terrible agonies because there was insufficient medicines to treat them. This was nothing less than barbarism.

It was only in the middle of September that, "Members of the UN Security Council were preparing to vote on guidelines that would allow deliveries of food and medicines to Iraq and Kuwait." (Guardian 14.9.90). But on a practical level the guidelines were never implemented, "Austrian officials said that Iraq had sent a cable to two United Nations agencies asking for a mission to investigate its need for food supplies and medicines. The telegrams were handed to the Security Council's Sanctions committee which must approve all such requests." (Guardian 24.1.91. p.3). It wasn't until February 18th that a photocall's worth of medicines were sent to Iraq and even then it was restricted to civilian use as if allowing soldiers to writhe in agony because they weren't any anesthetics was morally acceptable. Fucking barbaric.

"Iraq, ravaged by war and threatened by disease, is beginning to receive humanitarian aid." (Guardian 11.3.91. p.10).

On August 7th Bush ordered American troops to the Gulf to defend Saudi Arabia from a possible Iraqi invasion. It was stated that the Allies had no intention of invading Iraq. Sending troops to Saudi Arabia was commonly regarded as a bluff to frighten Iraq into leaving Kuwait. The main liability of bluffs, however, is that if they are called then the choice is either having to back down in humiliation, which was clearly not possible for the Allies, or having to up the stakes. So, when Saddam refused to be intimidated the Allies were forced to escalate the threat and, on November 8th, Bush unilaterally decided to double the number of American troops to be sent to the Gulf to give the Allies an offensive capability. America and Britain then announced their intention of 'liberating' Kuwait. It was argued that if sanctions didn't work then there would have to be a war. It was reiterated that the Allies would not invade Iraq.

At this point, both the Americans and the British believed they had the right to launch their own military operation in the Gulf. In the end, however, they were persuaded to obtain the approval of the United Nations and, on November 29th, succeeded in winning enough support for the adoption of resolution 678. This gave the Allies the right to use force, "by any necessary means" to expel Iraq from Kuwait. The Iraqis were given until January 15th 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait or else force could be used to expel them. It was repeated that Iraq would not be invaded.

If there had been hypocrisies over sanctions, the declaration of war was even more scandalous. There are so many incidents where America and Britain have prevented the United Nations from doing anything about acts of aggression or war that listing them would be a lengthy process. To give one appalling example, "The Indonesian invasion and annexation of East Timor which reached near genocidal levels thanks to diplomatic and material support from the two righteous avengers of the Gulf." (Noam Chomsky, Guardian 10.1.91. p.21).

However, once resolution 678 had been passed, Britain and America, once the most vociferous opponents of the United Nations', began a global diplomatic and media campaign to win global support for the war by arguing the world had to abide by United Nations' resolutions. After decades of abusing the United Nations, America and Britain were suddenly filled with praise for this global authority and emphasized the need for civilized countries to obey international law.

To say that the Allies seemed very choosy about which United Nations' resolutions they obeyed is to severely underestimate the level of the Allies' myopia. Resolution 242 has been ignored for 23 years. The Israelis had annexed some parts of Palestine and merely occupied other parts; imposed martial law on the Palestinians; denied them all civil and political rights; taken over their homes; demolished their homes; murdered and terrorized Palestinian men, women and children; kept them locked up in Jewish ghettoes, etc., etc., whilst the Allies have done nothing to resolve the situation. 

The price America paid for the adoption of resolution 678 was a tacit agreement with the Russians to carve up the Baltic States (withdrawn once the hypocrisy of such an action became too blatant for the politicians to cover up) and with the Syrians allowing them to impose their dominance in northern Lebanon - even though the point of the war against Iraq was supposed to be stopping this sort of aggression. In total, the 'liberation of Kuwait' entailed undermining the anti war constitutions of Japan and Germany; sacrificing the Baltic States, the Palestinians, and northern Lebanon, and radicalizing hundreds of millions of Arabs and a billion Moslems around the world.

When President Reagan put America on course for global military supremacy, its huge rearmament programme was accompanied by a change of military doctrine. The new military strategy was based on the concept of winning wars by the use of overwhelming force. This strategy had been developed after the failure of the allegedly 'piecemeal' actions taken in Vietnam - which left the country with a million people dead, millions of acres of land poisoned by defoliants, and an estimated 26 million bomb craters!!

The new American military doctrine has a number of implications. The economic costs of maintaining this colossal military machine are so considerable it has to be used in one huge and decisive effort - a ’wham bang thank you ma'am' strategy. The longer the military machine is engaged in action the more expensive it is to maintain so that although they might be winning a war they could still fail to be victorious because of its crippling financial costs. As a consequence, the military is forced to act extremely ruthlessly to ensure not merely that its objectives are achieved but achieved quickly enough to prevent an economic disaster. The implication of this is that any delay in military operations such as diplomacy must be kept to a minimum. The sheer expense of this military machine virtually rules out diplomacy for the sake of a prompt military victory.

When the Americans sent their massive military machine to Saudi Arabia it entailed such a huge financial burden there was simply no possibility of using this force merely to prop up sanctions. Once in Saudi Arabia the military had to go to war as soon as was politically practical. This meant that sending such a huge military machine to enforce sanctions undermined the United Nations' sanctions, "The despatch of a huge expeditionary force which cannot be maintained in the desert for long, undercuts the reliance on sanctions." (Noam Chomsky, Guardian 10.1.91. p.21).

At the turn of the year, as the deadline for Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait drew near, there was an increasing number of politicians, retired military experts and academics who began to argue that sanctions were not working and that the only option left was war. In fact these so called experts were lying; sanctions were working - after all, as John Pilger pointed out, they had a good chance of succeeding because the usual sanctions' busters, Britain and the United States, were giving them their full support. However, because of the huge military presence in Saudi Arabia, sanctions could not be given the time to work. The Allies were being forced to go to war because of the economic costs of a military machine that was supposed to be so frightening that it would never need to go to war.   

As the United Nations' deadline drew closer, more and more Allied sychopants were drafted in to promote the idea, on the Allies' behalf, that if the Iraqis were to be dislodged from Kuwait then there might have to be large scale incursions into Iraq to isolate Kuwait. For a long time the Allies had persisently stated that they would not attack Iraq. But, on January 6th, John Major promised that if Iraq withdrew from Kuwait then the Allies would not attack. This was repeated again a few days later, January 9th, when America's secretary of state James Baker met Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz. The promise not to attack Iraq had been transformed into a promise that it would be.

v) A CLUSTER BOMB OF WAR AIMS

In the lead up to the war, it was commonly recognized amongst the Allied' leadership that there was a great deal of confusion amongst the public about the Allies' war aims. This was because there seemed to be so many of them that, like a cluster bomb, people didn't dare pick one up in case it blew off an arm or a leg. For a long while after the invasion of Kuwait, the Allies simply could not state which war aim had priority.

Bush originally stated the war was to protect the west's oil supplies and ensure the preservation of the American way of life - by which he meant the continued rape and pillage of the planet.

A few days later, he stated it didn't have anything to do with oil but was concerned solely with restoring freedom and democracy in Kuwait. The man who supported the overthrow of Allende, who presided over the CIA's enormous global drugs' deals to finance American state terrorist activites around the world, who was involved in the Noreiga drugs' deal affair, who knew nothing about the Iran-Contra scandal, in which top White House officials sold anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of a number of American hostages held in captivity in Lebanon whom President Reagan was desperate to have released to help him secure a second term as President, and then used a portion of the $48 million that Iran paid for the arms to buy weapons for the Contra rebels who raped, tortured, maimed and executed thousands of innocent people in Nicaragua, this self same scumbag suddenly found his scruples and decided that the only thing a decent president could do was to restore freedom and democracy in Kuwait. It has to be pointed out that the violence  inflicted on Kuwaiti people by Iraqi troops during the invasion was insignificant in comparison to that sanctioned by Bush, and other criminals in the American government some of whom are now thankfully resting in prison, when they armed the Contra terrorists. If there was any justice in the world then Bush would also be behind bars for his part in soliciting these murderous intrusions in Nicaragua.

When it was pointed out that there was no freedom or democracy in Kuwait the war aim was shifted to, 'the restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait'. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any legitimate government in Kuwait ever since it was recognized. The power handed down by British imperialists to the al-Sabah family has remained firmly in the hands of that family and has never derived from the people through democratic elections. What is more, the Kuwaiti government consists of despots who maintain their power through the secret police which arrests, tortures and murders adversaries. Kuwaitis do not have civil or political rights; women are not allowed to drive cars. That British troops should be laying down their lives for wealthy, degenerate, despots like this is bewildering. 

Another war aim, a lot truer to the character of the highly educated, very wealthy, and well dressed thug who inhabited the White House was that he wanted to "kick ass." Even more chillingly he said, "No price was too heavy to pay" to force an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. (Guardian 3.1.91. p.5).

A fifth aim was that 'aggression must not be allowed to stand'. This, of course, completely muddled everyone since virtually anyone who reads serious newspapers couldn't fail to know that the CIA had been busy financing and encouraging dozens of conflicts around the world (usually with the help of global drugs' deals which almost rival those of the mafia - not merely the contra terrorists, but the US backed guerilla movement UNITA led by Jonas Savimbi in Angola, as well as one of the most barbaric of all wars in Mozambique in which thousands of people have been hacked to death in the most appalling fashion).

The 'no appeasing dictators' war aim caused so much incredulity if not outright mirth amongst the more worldly sections of society that it didn't tend to be mentioned except in the company of the most patriotic, narrow minded, bloodthirsty, fascist minded Republican and Conservative party meetings. 

Another war aim was to stop Saddam Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia and then the other Gulf states. This war aim, however, was not mentioned too often or in too great a detail on the grounds that it bore an uncanny resemblance to the domino theory that had been used to legitimize the carnage in Vietnam. The idea that the Americans should explain their war aims in terms of an Arab domino effect would have been a publicity disaster since, firstly, the public would have asked what had happened to the Vietnamese domino effect? A million people died because of this ideological crap and yet, after the Vietcong's victory, how many countries have gone communist? Is communism currently sweeping around the countries of the Pacific rim? Secondly, however, the American government did not want the world to be reminded of all the war crimes it had committed in Vietnam. The Allies were doing their best to condemn Saddam for possessing and using chemical weapons so it would have undermined public support for the war if America's large scale use of chemical weapons in Vietnam had been given too much publicity.

It is true that Saddam is a pan-Arabist/pan-Islamacist but, between them, the Arabs could have curbed his ambitions. Secondly, sanctions would also have led to a reduction in Iraq's aggression. But, most importantly of all, as the Iran-Iraq war revealed, Iraq did not possess an offensive capability. It could not, therefore, be classed as a regional superpower on a par with Israel, the third most powerful military in the world, which possesses a formidable offensive capability.

Another off-the-cuff war aim was that Saddam had to be stopped before he did something worse given that, eventually, he might acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction is undoubtedly a serious issue and of all the war aims mentioned so far this seems to be the most significant. The risks involved in allowing countries to develop such weapons are frightening.

Three issues are involved. Firstly, Saddam's possession of unconventional weapons is a defensive strategy. Iraq is faced by the world's third most powerful military just across the Golan heights. Many Iraqis feel suffocated by this dominance, especially since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which 20,000 people were killed, and need to feel some protection against this threat. Secondly, Iraq does not have a huge offensive capability such as that possessed by the Israelis and stands no chance of winning a nuclear war against Israel. Besides, according to the nuclear weapons' strategists it would be a good thing if Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction because this would balance Israel's nuclear weapons and provide stability in the region.

Thirdly, any semi-industrialized nation can produce lethal chemical weapons which could be used for mass destruction, "What makes chemical weapons so difficult to control internationally is that military nerve gases are akin to pesticides and the precursors of both are widely manufactured in commercial chemical plants." (David Fairhall, Guardian 9.1.91. p.19). The only definite way of stopping countries from developing 'the poor man's nuclear bomb' is to prevent them from industrializing.

Would Saddam Hussein act responsibly if he possessed weapons of mass destruction? It has to be suggested that Saddam Hussein is no more of an extremist, no more of a terrorist, and no more of a mass murderer than either Menachem Begin or Yitzah Shamir. True, Iraq used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds and thousands were killed but, by the same token, the Israel military killed 20,000 during its invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s and has murdered over 600 unarmed, civilian, Palestinians since the start of the Intifada in December 1987.

It is possible that Saddam might have wanted to use his nuclear weapons to pressure Israel into a settlement of the Palestinian issue but the risks of doing so would have been too great. The prospect of a regional nuclear war between Israel and Iraq would have aroused the indignation of the world community which would have forced both of them to come to some agreement. As it is, Israel's sole possession of nuclear weapons means that the Palestinian issue is unlikely to be solved and the intense frustration and anger that this will cause will make Israel's use of these weapons more likely.

The significance of this war aim was weakened when Saddam was denounced as a new Hitler. This analogy was used not merely by the professional journalists, and pro Zionist bigots such as American Congressman Tom Lantos, "Saddam Hussein represents consummate evil." (Newsnight 19.2.91), but by President Bush. Such demonization is preposterous. Firstly, there is no difference between him and dozens of other murderous, brutal dictators that America has been more than willing to support e.g. Pinochet, Marcos, Suharto, Batista, Begin, and Papa Doc, etc.. Secondly, it is utterly crass to compare him with Hitler because all this does is to devalue the unique and terrifying crimes initiated by Hitler in setting up gas chambers. It is one thing to say that Saddam wants to be the next Nasser but it is entirely different to see him as a Hitler. The Americans have created so many Hitlers over the last few years it has to be asked, 'Who's next? Just how many Hitler's are there in the world today?' It has to be pointed out that the reason that Saddam Hussein got into power was with the help of the CIA and that America virtually forced Iraq into a war with Iran. What Bush was looking at was a product of his own evil.

The validity of this war aim was yet again undermined by another bit of hype which suggested Saddam Hussein was a madman. But is it really plausible to accuse him of being mad when he could see so clearly what millions of people in Britain and the United States could not, that Thatcher is an "insane hag"?

Even whilst these war aims were flitting across the world stage like 'a thousand points of light' they were joined by another; that the Allies had to go to war because if they didn't the Israeli's would. The American government could not allow Israel to go to war because this would ignite the Arab world so it had to attack Iraq before Israel went to war.

Adding to this airburst of war aims, was the proposal that the war would be the start of a new world order. But, even here there was confusion. Some seemed to believe the new world order would be created by America whilst others thought responsibility should be taken by the United Nations which, at long last, after years of US induced ineffectiveness, might become the ultimate global authority. Given that the Americans were once again talking about resurrecting their role as the global policeman, it seems reasonable to suppose that what was in their mind was a Pax Americana.

Conversely, the prospects for the United Nations emerging as a global authority plummeted the moment the war started. Almost as soon as the war started the United Nations returned to the obscurity to which it had become long accustomed because of the contempt in which it is still held by the Americans. The first meeting of the United Nations' Security Council after the declaration of war against Iraq did not take place until February 13th and even then the meeting took place in private session. 

That America should claim it was concerned about a new world order would be laughable if wasn't for the sickening way in which it has sabotaged the United Nations' efforts to combat global warming, "At the November 1989 global warming conference in the Netherlands the United States delegates helped torpedo the final statement so no firm commitments were included." (New Internationalist, April 1990). It did exactly the same the following year, this time at the Second World Climate Conference in November 1990.

So, at the same moment as the American government was proclaiming it had to go to war to save the world, it was doing its best to destroy the planet by preventing any action from being taken against one of the biggest environmental threats facing humankind. Making the world a safer place to live in is a glorious and noble objective if it means declaring war, mercilessly pounding a Third world country into the Stone Age and buggering up the environment but not if it means putting an end to the rapacious greed of American business interests and vulgar, overpriviliged, denatured, planetless, mass manufactured consumers who are inflicting wholesale destruction on the planet's ecology. What hope is there of saving the human race from extinction when such double standards and utter crassness abounds? Is it really possible for world leaders with a carpet bomb mentality to have any understanding of ecology and any respect for our planetary home? Today's world leaders can't even control the global arms' trade let alone curb wars currently raging around the world so what's the likelihood of their being able to curb their excessive carbon activities for the sake of human survival. The human race is on its way out.

The outbreak of the war did nothing to bring relief from this hail of war aims. On the contrary, in vivid contrast to the spectacular scenes of 'laser guided precision bombing' the Allies' continued to spray out war aims like a sub machine locked into the grasp of a mortally wounded soldier. But, as the war progressed, it gradually became apparent that many of these war aims had been decoys and that the Allies had, all along, possessed a very precise objective. When the Allies denounced Saddam Hussein for lying and cheating on all the agreements he had made it has to be wondered whther the Allies had ever listened to themselves constantly disguising their real war aims. 

vi) PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE WAR

The support given to the war by virtually all sections of society from the masses, to academia, and the cultural elite, as well as all sections of the media from the tabloids to the broadsheets and television, was a truly odious spectacle. Suddenly, supposedly decent, even liberal minded, people from all walks of life and many shades of opinion were baying for action and even demanding that Iraq be nuked. There can be no doubt that support for the war was rooted in the deepest racism that pervades British society and which is reflected in the racist nature of the British military.

Despite, the considerable pressure for people to support the war, there was still a tiny minority who opposed it. By far the most surprising opponent of the war was the Pope, who called the Gulf conflict, "unworthy of humanity" and said, "Those responsible should abandon it immediately." (Guardian 15.2.91. p.2). The British media chose to ignore this fact, perhaps to save the embarrassment of the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain who ignored papal infallibility and stated that a war would be justifiable.

Overall, however, opposition to the war was an abject failure. The size of national and local demonstrations was paltry. Opposition to the war was under-represented in the media partially for the legitimate reason that it was almost non existent.

The Labour Party.

Another reason for this absence of an opposition to the war was the Labour party's refusal to fulfil its parliamentary function and act as an opposition. The factor that determined the Labour party's position on the Gulf was that it had to win the next election and could not be seen as failing to support British troops in the Gulf.

This pragmatism has become the trade mark of the Kinnock leadership. All that Kinnock  seems to be capable of doing is trailing after conservative prime ministers. For years he followed Thatcher and, during the war, he followed Major. He'd become such a Thatcherite that, after the election of the new Conservative party leader, he increasingly found himself to the right of John Major. His political failures are of such a magnitude that he even makes Harold Wilson look good. At least Wilson was strong enough to keep British troops out of Vietnam. Kinnock likes to dress himself up as Thatcher but in reality he's worse than Harold Wilson.

The Loyal Labour Opposition.

During the Gulf war a large number of the country’s glitterati wrote a joint letter to the Guardian and, whilst claiming to be natural Labour voters, complained about the Labour leadership's war mogering stance. If they all worked for a large multi-national corporation that claimed it was providing jobs to help the poor but which nevertheless supported the most ruthless measures to suppress dissent then many of them would resign. In fact they'd have less reason to leave the multinational corporation than they would the Labour party because resigning from their job would deprive them of an income to feed their families. In essence, the Labour party isn't any different from a multi-national corporation.

The Papers.

If the tabloids have made a major contribution to the cretinization process then the high brow papers, with the striking exception of 'The Guardian', haven't been far behind.

Television.

The bias and bigotry paraded on television screens about the war was shocking. A whole range of political, military, and academic, crackpots appeared on television seemingly for the sole purpose of giving credence to the government's policy. The time allocated to those opposed to the war was minimal. 

Even worse has been the large amounts of prime time television that has been given to a whole string of Isreali government spokespeople such as Benjamin Netanyahu and Yitzhak Shamir who are out and out racists. These appearances on television has given these racists an air of legitimacy and acceptability and no effort seems to have been made whatsoever to balance their bigotry with spokespeople from the Palestinain Liberation Organization. British television, especially news broadcasts, over the last couple of decades has been a microphone for Zionist racist propaganda but during the war it became a megaphone. Television programmes ought to be compelled to give a health warning about the exterminist views of these Israeli government officials before they are interviewed.

Just as shocking was the complete unwillingness of television to devote any time to examining the nature of the Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian societies for whom British troops were laying down their lives. Why wasn't the sexist, racist, despotic and murderous nature of these regimes exposed so that the public could decide whether to support the war?

The Gulf war was a fabulous opportunity for television to explain the history of Arabia; its struggles against British Imperialism; the nature of Islamic societies; the way Islamic societies feel about the problems in the middle east, etc., etc.. Instead there was a virtual news blackout concerning Arab reaction to the war.

It is understandable that there will be a patriotic bias in the news but there is no reason why this should be the case in documentaries. 

The only programme on the Gulf that possessed any intellectual integrity was Brian Walden's 'War in the Gulf'. This made a hard hitting analysis of the Allies' war aims and carried out some sensible market research into people's views about the war which revealed a very strong concern about Arab opinion around the world. This seemed to disturb the establishment so much that Brian Walden disappeared and the programme was effectively emasculated.

It was interesting that John Snow on 'Newsnight' with his huge battleboard explaining the military positions of the various forces in the Gulf did not mention once the possiblity that the Allies would attack Iraq from the west even though, militarily,  this was most obvious strategy and the one that was eventually followed. The fact that this strategy must have been obvious even to a five year old doesn't say very much for Saddam Hussein who seems to have planned for a sea borne landing. 'Newsnight' prime role seems to have been helping to deceive the enemy rather than informing the public.

The Masses.

If public opinion polls are to be believed, support for a war in the Gulf was lukewarm during the period leading up to the start of war but overwhelming once it begun. However, whether they are an accurate guide to public opinion has to be questioned given a snippet of information provided by an American news programme which reported that in Britain, over 10,000 complaints were made to the television authorities about programmes which had to be dropped because of the coverage of the war. This, in itself, is a massive poll. Whether this indicates that people were voting with their remote controls and opposed the war or, rather appalling, supported it but weren't interested in who was being massacred, is an open question. It can be speculated, however, that the criterion which determines whether someone supports or opposes the war has nothing to do with class, educational, or occupational, status but whether people own a car.

The British public, which knows virtually nothing about international affairs and even less about the Gulf, seems to have been most committed to the proposition that Saddam Hussein had to be put down because he'd be even more of a menace in the future withouty realizing in the slightest that this war aim went beyond the United Nations' mandate on the Gulf war.

vii) BUSH'S WAR; THE ALLIES REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE

The Allies continuously repeated that the cause of the war was Saddam Hussein and that, in effect, the war had started on August 2nd when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Yet it was the Allies who decided to attack Iraq. Iraq did not attack the Allies. The Allies had three options; negotiations, sanctions, or war. They chose war. It was their choice. This was Bush's War.

This was Bush's war in another sense. The first response from America and Britain to the invasion of Kuwait was the demand that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Kuwait. This uncompromising line remained the same to the end of the war.

Allied intransigence was not confined only to Iraq but to the United Nations, "The Allies are against any United Nations' Security Council intervention until Iraq agrees to withdraw from Kuwait." (Guardian 24.1.91. p.3). 

As the deadline for Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait drew closer, Bush declared he wanted, "To go the extra mile for peace"; surely one of the shortest steps ever taken in the name of humanity; one small step for peace one giant leap into an abbatoir. When secretary of state James Baker met Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, for last minute 'talks' he was, rather disengenuously, outraged that the Iraqis were 'inflexible'. Considering that the Allies were refusing to negotiate, these efforts were primarily a public relations' gimmick to win domestic support for the war and were not intended to persuade Iraq to compromise.

None of the peace feelers put out by Saddam Hussein were explored for the simple reason that the Bush seemed to have no desire for anything other than a war - not even peace. This was transparent given the oft mentioned, 'Nightmare Scenario' in which the Allied leaders admitted that they were more frightened by Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait than having to face the prospect of thousands of troops being killed in war! Bush's refusal to negotiate became even more revealing during the war when Iraq stated it was willing to withdraw. Bush chose war and he wasn't going to be denied the opportunity to wage war.