PART SIX: AFTER THE MASSACRE

xxviii) THE TRAGEDY OF THE WAR

What makes the Gulf war even more of a tragedy than the loss of life, the destruction of the environment and the devastation of wildlife is that it distracted attention from much more urgent global concerns.

There may be many people who disagreed with the moral objections to the Gulf war because they accepted the Allies' propaganda. However, by looking at the cont­ext in which the war took place, it should be possib­le to see the war illuminated in an entirely differ­ent light. The true evil of the Gulf war can be seen in what the Allies did outside the abbatoir just as much as what they did inside it.  

Mass Poverty and Environmental Destruction.

In the months leading up to the Gulf war, Ethiopia, Sudan and other countries across vast areas of Africa were yet again on the verge of mass starvat­ion, "The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization warns that 15 countries face "exceptional food emergencies" in 1991." (Gurdian 29.12.90 p.1). For the first time in 70 years there have been out­breaks of cholera around the world. Cholera has broken out in Malawi, Peru (now spreading into Columbia), and Zambia, (Guardian 1.3.91. p.12).  

Whilst billions of pounds were spent on the hideous war in the Gulf, millions of children were on the verge of starvation in Africa because they couldn't get hold of some scraps of food. In Britain, for example, the war meant that, "The Treasury has postponed the payment of £11 million of emergency food aid to relieve the famine affecting 27 million people in Africa because of the rising costs of the Gulf war and unemployment on the government's con­tingency fund." (Guardian 14.2.91. p.8). 

To put this in its most objective way it is fucking disgusting. To put it in an even more impartial fashion so that it might get through even to those over-paid, over-privileged people who live in the over-industrialized nations of the world and who have become so respectable they're unwilling to even think about the shit they are dumping on the planet; it is fucking, fucking, fucking disgusting. These cowardly, self centred, shrivelled up, livestock oomans are far more degenerate than Saddam Hussein.

What is more, "The effect of the Gulf war on the economies of at least 40 Third World countries has been the equivalent of a natural disaster according to a report prepared by six British aid agencies." (Michael Simmons, Guardian 4.3.91. p.8).

It has to be recognized that the world's political and military leaders are not interested in helping the poor. They would rather spend taxpayers' money on planning and preparing for wars than saving people's lives. They would rather provoke wars and engage in the most futile, pointless and bloody, conflicts, e.g. the Vietnam war, than lift a finger to help the poor.

In the past, millions of wealthy people in the industrialized world believed it was feasible to remain indifferent to the plight of the Third World poor. Today, however, this position is no longer tenable because the poor are destroying the Earth; they are destroying the environment which Northern consumers need to survive. If the poor were once regarded as living so far away that it was almost as if they existed on another planet and could safely be ignored, today they must be seen as neighbours of the rich and must be looked after or else the whole neighbourhood will collapse.

So, for all the short sighted, cretinous, car-owning, double income, holiday home, consumers who are too busy enjoying themselves to give a damn about people who are starving, and who seem to be oblivious to the destruction of the planet around them, this is the choice they face; either support the Pax Americana and carry out a wholesale exterm­ination of the poor before they irreparably damage the planet, or, carry out a programme of wholesale deindustrialization and allow the poor to look after themselves since they are able to do so far better than imperialist governments touting aid.

In case there are those who may find it all too easy to slip from callous indifference to revolting exterminism, it should be appreciated that if the rich decided to exterminate the poor, the poor would defend themselves, just like Saddam Hussein, by destroying the environment and everyone will lose. The first and most important political lesson of the Gulf War is that the poor can inflict long term damage on the environment which will be far more devastating than the short term massacres carried out by the Allies' highly armed thugs.

The message of the Gulf war is that the world's poor should give the industrialized nations of the world an ultimatum; stop oppressing us, stop expro­priating our resources or we will destroy the plan­et's environment. Of course, the former would be far more preferable. But it has to be recognized that Northern nations are so besotted with consum­erism; so ignorant in their understanding of the basic facts of life concerning the planet which has created and nourished them; so fucking arrogant about their superiority over nature, just because they've learnt to push a button to make a room light up; and so bigotted against 'wogs', that it is inconceivable that they will change and rescue the millions of people in the Third World who are on the verge of starvation. If the Allies are going to continue with their scorched Earth policy then the poor should go out with dignity, unlike the defenceless Iraqi troops who were shot in the back, and torch the planet. 

GATT. 

Whilst one part of the America government was prep­aring the cold blooded murder of tens of thousands of Iraqi troops fleeing Kuwait, another part was at the recent round of GATT talks laying down ultimatums to the rest of the world, that if they did not abandon tariffs on agricultural products then America would use its economic muscle to penalize them. It wanted a global free trade agreement that would remove all restrictions on cheap food imports.

If this ultimatum had been successful (and it is still in the process of being negotiated) it would accelerate environmental destruction, Under the proposed new GATT regime it would be illegal "for one country to impose stricter pollution controls than those in force elsewhere if those controls interfere with trade."

It would be a disaster for the Third World, "From the perspective of peasant producers in Africa and other food deficit regimes, it would be a disast­er." (Tim Lang, Letters, Guardian 20.3.91. p.20). Hundreds of millions of small farmers will be push­ed off the land to create large farms that will in­crease profits. Even more food will exported in the midst of increasing poverty. And those areas of the planet that are still wild will be destroyed and replaced by farming factories.

"If we allow the new GATT proposals to be adopted, then the entire world will effectively be trans­formed into a vast 'Free Trade Zone' within which human, social and environmental imperatives will be ruthlessly and systematically subordinated to the purely selfish, short term  financial interests of a few transnational corporations." (Edward Gold­smith The Ecologist Nov-Dec 1990 p.204).

The parallel between the mass murder of Iraqi troo­ps and the impoverishment of hundreds of millions of poor in the Third World is exact. The government which deliberately exterminated Iraqi troops was at the same time deliberately planning to immizerate the world's poor. The obscene social conditions in many central American and Carribean countries, where large landowners have expropriated land from, and even murdered, subsistence farmers, so that they could earn large profits selling food to rich industrialized consumers, would be repeated around the world. It is no surprise that the American government props up the corrupt, murderous governments of Central America.   

It is often said that the environment has got to be exploited in order to pay for the costs of protecting the environment. In the same way, the poor have got to be exploited to pay for the costs of giving them charity.    

Rejuvenating the Cold War.

Instead of going to the aid of Gorbachev and his reform processes, and preventing the Soviet Union from sinking into a morass of social, economic, political, nationalistic  and military conflicts, the Allies chose not only to undermine him by ignoring his peace discussions with Iraq but nearly toppled him by the relentless pursuit of their illegal war aims in the Gulf war.

The Gulf war exacerbated the conflict within the Soviet Union between the reformists and the conservatives. Russian conservatives benefitted enormously from the Allies' aggression in the Middle East, "For the one thing guaranteed to precipitate the fall of Gorbachev and a return to cold war attitudes is the outbreak of a huge, hi-tech war on the Soviets southern border involving the Red Army's old enemy." (Ian Aitken Guardian 18.2.91. p.23. See also Guardian 14.2.91). The Gulf war nearly allowed the conservatives to oust Gorbachev and, thereby put back onto the agenda the invasion of the Baltic States, the permanent stationing of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe and a return to the cold war.

But, it wasn't just the military who were unsettled by the conflict. Many of the USSR's 70 million Moslems supported Saddam Hussein and deplored the way in which Gorbachev sided with the Allies. Despite the fact that many Moslem dominated states in the USSR wanted independence from Russia and opposed the Cold War imperialism of the Russian military, they found themselves united with the military against Gorbachev. This generated an intense level of pressure on Gorbachev who was forced to the brink before recovering. Just exactly how close he came to ordering the invasion of the Baltic states, and surrendering to the conservatives, could be seen from Gavin Hewitt's report for Panorama, (March 4th 1991). The consequences of the Gulf war wil continue to reverberate throughout the Soviet Union for a long time to come.

Remilitarization.

It has been noted earlier (section two) how America's Middle East policies during the 1970s and 1980s led to a whirlwind of weapons' proliferation.

Firstly, the Americans supplied the Shah of Iran with huge amounts of weapons to help protect American interests in the Middle East.

Secondly, after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism under Ayatolah Khomeini, America looked to Iraq to control Iran and to act as its Arab ally in the Gulf. It supplied huge amounts of arms to allow Iraq to fight a proxy American war with Iran.

Thirdly, Under the pressure of the Israeli government and the Jewish lobby in America who feared the increasing military power of Iraq, the Americans armed the Israeli military with the most sophisticated weapons in the world. The Americans pumped up the Israeli military until it is now the third most powerful armed force in the world.

Fourthly, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, which Iraq saw as a reward for its proxy American war against Iran, America cajoled as many countries around the world into sending military forces to the Gulf. It armed Syria, which up till then been regarded as a terrorist state. But, perhaps worst of all, it tried to force the world's two economic superpowers to ignore their non-military constitutions in order to send forces to the Gulf.

Nicholas Ridley was right to express concern about the military implications of a reunited Germany. His anxieties had been quickly confirmed. No sooner had the agreement to reunite the two Germany's been reached than Chancellor Helmut Kohl was demanding that the border dispute with Poland needed to be settled. No wonder alarm bells rang. The echoes of 1939 were too loud to be ignored. (However, Ridley was a little hypocritical given Britain's own war mongering; and showed evident signs of intellectual senility when a few months later he criticized Germany for not sending troops to the Gulf war. First he wanted to keep Britain out of Europe because the Germans were too militaristic and then because they were not militaristic enough).

Pressure was also put on Japan to change its constitution and send a military force. If Japan rearms then, in the short term, it will fuel a regional arms' race. In the long term, if south east Asia's ecology collapses because of over-industrialization, then Japan will be forced to invade surrounding countries.

If Japan uses its advanced technology to rebuild its military power and, once again, becomes a global imperialist power this will have a direct line of descent from the American government's inability to come to terms with a frail old man living in a Parisian attic. 

Fortunately both Japan and Germany resisted the pressure during the war but it is believed that both will soon attempt to change their constitutions so that in the future they can participate fully in a good war. The long term consequences of these two countries rearming themselves are too dreadful to contemplate. The attempt to re-militarize Germany and Japan is the most short sighted stupidity imaginable. American foreign policy is fostering global, military, self destruction.

The Global Drugs' War.

Washington is the gangster capital of the world. The links between the CIA and the mafia, America's 'Unholy Roman Empire', which is far and away America’s biggest industry, are very strong. Whilst the gangsters in the White House committed war crimes in Iraq their wealthy lumpenproletarian colleagues in the drugs' world found that the war was an enormous benefit because it drained drugs' enforcement agencies of the vital resources they needed to combat the drugs' trade. "The Gulf war has opened a window of opportunity for drug traffickers on the land and sea approaches to the United States." (Guardian 14.2.91. p.12). This stoked up even more gang warfare and murder, "The final United States death toll in the war was 79 dead, or rather less than the number of murders in the American capital since January 1st." (Martin Walker Guardian 1.3.91 p.2). 

There is something else here as well; an irony indeed. In the Vietnam war, it was the soldiers who blew themselves sky high on drugs in order to escape from the insanity of a meaningless war. In the 1990s the army has cleaned itself up and it's American society that is crippling itself with hard drugs. In effect the Vietnam war is still going on but in America not south east Asia. The Vietnam war did for drugs what Prohibition did for alcohol.

The Rejuvenation of High Technology.

Just as the Vietnam war became the grand premiere for what was, at the time, the world's most advanced weapons such as anti-personnel bombs, napalm, etc., so the Gulf war has been used to introduce the world's latest high tech weaponry. It has to be appreciated that the technological developments that have taken place between these wars was the most spectacular that has ever occurred. Never has such a vast range of new weaponry been unveiled. And never have these weapons been so powerful and so accurate. If this military development is any indication of America's economic development then the environmental destruction that must be going on around the world must be terrifying.

In the Gulf war the weapons that entered combat for the first time were the F117A Stealth Bomber; the Tomohawk cruise missile; the A-10 Thuderbolt jet the tank buster or warthog; lazer designated bombing; the Patriot anti-missile missile; heat seeking missiles; the 'Daisy Cutter'; the Multiple Launch Rocket System; the Apache assault helicopter; infra-red and photo reconnaissance satellites and spy planes; night vision warfare, etc., etc..

These weapons, unlike those in the Vietnam war, were greeted with widespread public admiration - if not outright jubliation. This popular glorification of high-tech weaponry was due not only to the fact that their accuracy and power dramatically reduced the expected number of Allied' casualties, but to the on-board cameras fitted onto these weapons. The pictures emitted whilst these weapons were in flight enabled the world to follow voyeuristically the path of destruction and to admire their accuracy. But since these pictures were cut out on impact, they left the impression of a sanitized war. It is highly unlikely that world opinion would have felt so impressed with these weapons if the camera had kept rolling after the missiles exploded especially, for example, in the civilian air raid shelter in Baghdad which killed hundreds of people.

There were, however, masses of film of death and destruction that were never shown on television. The AH-64 Apache attack helicopter used night vision cameras to find and destroy their targets. These helicopters are armed with such advanced technology that they gave the enemy no chance of even spotting the attack let alone retaliating. As one pilot put it, "They had no idea where we were or what was hitting them." (John Balzar, Guardian 25.2.91 p.24). The pictures taken of this game of human skittles were recorded and then, like an after match investigation, replayed at base. One reporter was allowed to see some of the tapes and what he saw was entirely different from the antiseptic footage shown on national television, "The evidence is displayed in startling, sharp, intensdely violent videotapes from gun cameras." (John Balzar). Doubtlessly as soon as the troops get back home some of these tapes will be turned into snuff movies for the delectation of those who enjoy blood sports.

George Bush was so impressed with the performance of America's high tech weaponry he announced, even whilst the war was in progress, two major decisions which have committed America to an even greater dep­endence upon advanced technology. Firstly, he gave a huge financial boost to the flagging 'Star Wars' pro­ject. Secondly, he decided to resuscitate America's flagging nuclear power industry, "Mr Bush proposes ... to expand the development of nuclear power." (Iain Guest, Guardian 22.2.91. p.29). Even worse, it has just been discovered that, "The Pentagon is secretly developing a nuclear powered rocket for hauling giant weapons and other military payloads into space as part of the Star Wars programme." (William Broad Guardian 4.4.91. p.12). It has to be suggested that George doesn't live on a planet. He inhabits a high tech fantasy world of surgical strik­es, precision bombing, collateral damage, impregnable defences, cheap limitless energy, etc..

Few political commentators have tried to characterize George Bush's administration but it became apparent during the Gulf war that George Bush is a leading apostle of high technology. It was his idea to send a manned space mission to Mars - and thereby spread human pollution into the rest of the universe. When he became President he nominated Dan 'Damian' Qualye as Chair of the United States Space Council to push through the project. The only time that Damian, "He's so creamy he practically moos" was known to stutter was during George Bush's presidential election cam­paign when, in the televised debate with his oppon­ent, he was asked, "What have you personally done for the poor?" Poor Damian is so rich nobody had told him there was such a thing as poverty. He won't even look after his own planet and now he's trying to get to Mars. It has to be suspected that he'll run out of planets one day and all his wealth will never buy him out of that predicament. 

Whether the Earth can be transformed into a technol­ogical edifice is surely one of the most grandiose, expensive and eco-suicidal vanities ever to cross the mind of that unecological creature homo pollutant. Turning the planet into a technological paradise is only going to make the world fit for robots.

Firstly, one of the reasons the Allies were forced to go to war in the first place was because some of this advanced technology was getting into the 'wrong' hands i.e. Saddam Hussein who was moving towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Secondly, advanced technology weaponry is so expensive to research, develop, employ and replace that it has to be used 'swiftly and decisively' to reduce costs and in a particularly violent fashion way to prevent any possibility of damage being done to the equipment. The American war machine, therefore, is not only far more trigger happy than it has ever been before, it is far more exterminist in nature.

Thirdly, the reliance on technolgy is typical of the Western approach to the management of human affairs. The Kuwaiti' problem was such that it could be solved by isolating it from the wider problems of the Middle East i.e. by adopting the concept of non linkage, and then tackled technologically.

The Gulf war was a high tech war in many senses; the Allies did not just use technologically advanced weapons; they used technology to solve a political problem; they acted under the economic imperatives inherent in expensive high tech equipment and they were trying to retrieve technological secrets that had escaped Pandora's box. The Allies successes in the Gulf war are regarded as a total vindication of, and victory for, technology. This has caused one of the most dangerous long term repercussions of the war; technological triumphalism. 

Global Warming.

It has already been noted above that it was only a few months after the publication of the report by the United Nations' Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, which demanded drastic action on global warming, that the Allies decided to go to war in the middle of one of the world's biggest oil fields. It was all too symbolic then that a few weeks after the start of the Gulf war it was annou­nced that 1990 had been the warmest year on record.

Throughout the Gulf massacre George Bush talked about the need for a new world order. This would be laughable if wasn't for the sickening way in which, over the last couple of years, the American admini­stration has sabotaged every international effort to combat global warming, "At the 72 nation conference in the Hague in November 1989 a proposal for a freeze on emissions of CO2 by the year 2,000 was blocked by the UK and the US." (Guardian 8.11.89. p.24. See also, New Internationalist, April 1990). It even sabotaged the United Nations' efforts to find a political solution to global warming at the Second World Climate Conference in November 1990. In other words, at the very same time as the Bush administration was telling the world that America would act as a global policeman it was acting like an eco-criminal sabotaging the United Nations' efforts to combat global warming.

Bush is not merely opposed to action against global warming he doesn't even believe it poses a threat, "US President George Bush, asked to comment on the consensus that the world faces a potentially disas­terous global warming linked to the greenhouse eff­ect, replied, "That's not what my scientists are telling me." (New Scientist 15.12.90. p.26). This totally unscientific denial of global warming helps to show yet again why the Gulf war was unjustifiable. 

Shortly after the start of the war a report was issued about the grave threats to human survival posed by the destruction of the environment. This report did not emanate from some allegedly 'cranky green' institute (let alone from 300 of the world's leading climatologists!!) but from one of the most prestigous research institutions within the capit­alist system, the Organization for Economic Co-op­eration and Development, which represents the world's richest nations; "A grim picture of a det­eriorating environment, with ever more affluent consumers intent on worsening the pollution of land, sea and air is published tomorrow by the OECD." (Guardian 28.1.91. p.6). There is only one war the United Nations should have been fighting and that's the war against global warming and the pending collapse of the planet's ecology.

As has just been pointed out, the spectacular succ­ess of America's high-tech weaponry in the Gulf war has rejuvenated interest in high technology and, as a result, George Bush announced his intention to revive the flagging nuclear power industry. This will exacerbate global warming. Even worse, he decided to keep faith with fossil fuels; "President Bush unveiled his long awaited national energy policy on Wednesday. Mr Bush proposes to open a wildlife refuge in Alaska to offshore oil drilling and to expand the development of nuclear power. At the same time he has ignored proposals from his Secretary of Energy to reduce the consumption of oil by cars as well as inefficient heating and lighting." (Iain Guest, Guardian 22.2.91. p.29). Once again, this stance, supporting highly pollut­ing forms of energy reflects on the morsality of the Gulf war. If Bush can be so disasterously and so obviously wrong over energy does this not undermine confidence in his judgement about the need for the Gulf war and the hideous way in which it was conducted?

There is the additional danger that even if Bush can eventually be persuaded that global warming is a real threat to human survival, he will tend to believe that this ecological problem can be solved technologically. It can be argued, however, that ecological problems need ecological solutions and that it is not possible to solve ecological issues technologically. If the industrialized nations do not soon learn that there are no technological quick-fixes to global warming then it will be too late to apply ecological solutions.

So, whilst 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 implementing radical changes through GATT which would turn the world into a free trade zone; it was encouraging polluting forms of energy; it was encouraging Earth wrecking forms of technology; and finally, it was blocking action from being taken against one of the biggest environmental threats facing humankind. Making the world a safer place to live in was a glorious and noble objective if it meant declaring war, mercilessly pounding a Third world country into the Stone Age, shooting unarmed soldiers in the back and buggering up the environment but not if it meant putting an end to the rapacious greed of American businesses and vulgar, overpriviliged, denatured, planetless, mass manufactured, plastic packaged, consumers inflicting wholesale destruct­ion on the planet's ecology. When George Bush comp­lained bitterly about Saddam Hussein's scorched Earth policy, the magnitude of his deception (or self deception) was on a par with that of Adolf Hitler. George Bush is an eco-nazi and should be treated as such.

What hope is there of saving the human race from extinction when it is led by such a well educated imbecile? Is it really possible for world leaders with a carpet bomb mentality to have any understan­ding of ecology and any respect for the Earth? Today's world leaders can't even control the global arms' trade let alone curb the wars which are currently raging around the world, so what is 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. It is to be hoped that it disappears before it destroys much more wildlife. 

xxix) RECONSIDERING MILITARY STRATEGY; A MILITARY BOOST FOR REFORESTATION

A high ranking military officer pointed out that, "During the Iran-Iraq war the USSR had sold Iraq $23.5 billion in arms followed by another $2-3 billion after 1988." (Air Vice Marshal Tony Mason, Guardian 2.3.91 p.23). Mason goes on to say that Iraq's military tactics were largely influenced by the Russians who, after America's overwhelming 'victory' in the Gulf war, were reported to have ordered a total rethink of their military strategy.

Although the Iraqi military was reputed to be the fourth largest in the world, it did not possess an offensive capability. This is why it failed to defeat Iran, despite air superiority and American satellite information on the location of Iranian troop emplacements; why, after its invasion of Kuwait, it failed to launch a pre-emptive attack on American troops sent over to defend Saudi Arabia; and why the Kafjii expedition during the Gulf war was such a failure. The Iraqis hopes of a military victory (sic) against the Allies lay solely in defending their entrenched positions - which they abjectly failed to do. 

Saddam Hussein was guilty of a terrible military misjudgement in believing that a Third World country with Second World weapons could fight a conventional, albeit defensive, war with America. This war has demonstrated beyond doubt that America is the world's premier military force and that the gap between its power and that of any other country, including Russia, is vast. At the moment, no country can defend itself against, let alone defeat, America in a traditional military confrontation.

The Americans have the fastest, the most powerful, and the most technologically advanced aeroplanes; the best radar early warning detection systems to protect against air attacks or missiles; the best satellites, photo-reconnaisance and infra-red detection systems for locating their enemies; the best communications systems so rely this information to destroy the enemy; the most accurate artillery and horrendous incendiary and anti-personnel weapons; the fastest and most powerful tanks; the fastest and most powerful helicopters; and, added to all this, a night fighting capability which gives it a frightening advantage over its opponents, etc., etc.. America has a decisive technological supremacy in virtually every category of military hardware.

The only chance the Iraqi military had of 'winning' the Gulf war was to have thrown away its large, cumbersome weapons and relied on urban guerilla warfare. But, even if it had done this, it would have left the country in rubble. 

Any country confronting this degree of military supremacy is vulnerable not merely because of the inadequacy of its conventional military hardware but because of its centralized economic and industrial infrastructure. The Americans can carry out massive aerial bombardments to destroy so-called 'military related targets' e.g. factories, telecommunications' networks, bridges, waterworks, administrative buildings, power stations, etc., and force a government into submission simply by crippling a country's economy. In effect, the Americans can win wars without even fighting. The only countries which can now challenge America are those prepared to be bombed back into the Stone Age.

Third, Second, and perhaps even First, World countries must completely rethink their military strategies if they want to defend themselves against American imperialism. They will have to give up their expensive, conventional, status symbol, weapons i.e. their aircraft, tanks, armoured personnel carriers, artillery, missiles, etc., and also decentralize their economies so that they do not rely on large construction projects, large scale manufacturing industries and centralized power stations which are extremely vulnerable to air attack.

They will have to create a highly decentralized society camoflauged by border to border forests, and a decentralized army to fight guerilla wars not only under extensive tree cover but with the help of, just as was the case in Vietnam, a widescale network of underground tunnels.

At present, the country which, according to these principles, would be best able to defend itself from America aggression is not Russia, certainly not any European country, nor any South American country but China. China has a considerable amount of forest cover, although rapidly diminishing, and has created a vast network of underground tunnels from where it could defend itself.

Otherwise, countries will just have to wait until America suffers an economic collapse before they can free themselves from American military dominance. But, America is not going to allow this to happen when there is a planet full of defenceless countries to exploit.

If the Americans were really sincere about peace in the Middle East then Congress should reverse its decision over Jerusalem.

xxx) LEGITIMIZING THE WAR

The Gulf war was immoral in conception and execution. There are a number of reasons for regarding the war as immoral:-   

DON'T FORGET TO MENTION THAT Saddam was fighting a defensive war against Zionist expansionism.

Luring Iraq into a War.

For many years the Israeli government had been warning the American government against its policy of arming Iraq in order to quell Islamic fundamentalism in Iran. When during the summer of 1990 the Israelis became convinced that Iraq was going to invade Kuwait it issued an ultimatum to the Bush administration that if America did not attack Iraq then it would. America found the prospect of a regional war intolerable because a number of Arab states would have sided with Iraq and, thereby, forced Israel into using some of its nuclear weapons. The Bush administration, therefore, changed its policy and lured Iraq into invading Kuwait so that it could attack Iraq.

Allies' Immoral and Illegal War Aims.

At best, the Allies' were fighting a pre-emptive, defensive, war to avoid the use of weapons of mass destruction and their secret war aim was to liquidate Iraq's military power and its military capability so that it would no longer pose a threat not so much to Kuwait but to Israel. This was a proxy Jewish war. It was less about oil and 'restoring despotism to Kuwait' than protecting Israel. The Gulf war had little to do with Kuwait.

At worst, however, the powerful Jewish lobby in America and the increasingly racist Israeli government grossly overestimated the threat posed by Iraq, which did not have an offensive capability, to bounce Bush into a proxy Zionist war so that after Israel's main regional rival had been defeated, it could, at a later and more convenient date, expand into new territories to provide the homes, and crucial water resources, for the expected influx into Israel over the next five years of 2 million Russian Jews which will increase the country's population by 50%.

In either case, these war aims went far beyond those laid down by United Nations' resolutions. The Allies did not accidentally stray beyond the UN mandate for the war but used it as a cover for their illegal, war aims.

Sanctions.

The Allies had a choice in confronting Iraq; negotiate, sanctions or war. There was no need to go to war because sanctions would have been effective. This is the critical factor which makes the Gulf war immoral. Bush chose war. This was his war.

Demonization.

Saddam Hussein was not a monster and some of the causes for which he fought were just, i.e. opposing Western exploitation of Kuwaiti' oil resources (which belong to the Arab masses not western consumers); Arab nationalism and a Palestinian State. Iraq has to be condemned for its invasions of Iran and Kuwait; its repeated threats to destroy Israel; and its use of chemical weapons; but, it has to be recognized that, since the second world war, America has caused far more death and destruction from wars than Iraq; that the number of deaths caused by American imperialism DURING PEACETIME far exceeds the number of deaths caused by Iraq during its wars against Iran, the Kurds and Kuwait; and that Britain has killed more people with gas attacks in Iraq than Saddam Hussein himself. It is immoral to wage war against a country which has been falsely defined as monstrous.

Environmental Crimes.

It was known that a war would cause widescale destruction to the planet's life sustaining processes. The war was immoral given its known consequences. The United Nations should have refused to authorize the war on environmental grounds alone irrespective of the impact it would have on humans.

Allied Contempt for the United Nations.

The Allies' insistence on respect for the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations was fraudulent. Over the last few decades the Allies, especially Britain and America, have often treated the United Nations with the utmost contempt. America has been on the verge of pulling out of the United Nations for years and, by the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, found itself in the embarrassing position that its membership had lapsed. So, in order to submit resolutions about the invasion to the United Nations it was forced to hurriedly pay its membership fee.

Allied Contempt for United Nations' Resolutions.

The Allies' advocacy of total adherence to UN resolutions was outright hypocrisy and a plain sham. Britain and America have vetoed dozens of resolutions submitted to the Security Council protesting against acts of aggression - including, ridiculously enough, a resolution condemning Iraq's, American inspired, invasion of Iran. They have ignored resolutions that have been in existence for over twenty years, i.e. those relating to Palestine. But, by far and away the worst example of illegal behaviour, is that America has legitimized actions condemned in UN resolutions, e.g. the formal recognition of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the continued Zionist colonization of the occupied territories. The United States has also condoned and aided Israel's illegal acquisition of weapons grade uranium and the construction of nuclear weapons.

Illegitimate Ultimatums.

Given that it was immoral for the Allies to have 'secret' war aims which went far beyond UN resolutions; and even more immoral to use these resolutions to camoflauge their illegal war aims; it was nothing less than a moral depravity for the Allies to insist that Iraq obeyed the strict letter of UN law solely in order to ensure that they could fulfil their illegal war aim which was the cold blooded, extermination of tens of thousands of Iraqi troops. General Chief of Staff Colin Powell stated weeks before the start of the war that they were going to "CUT OFF AND KILL" the Iraqi army in Kuwait.

War Crimes.

The Allies use of carpet bombing and weapons of mass destruction were war crimes.

Illegal War Actions.

The Allies invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal. Its massacre of the withdrawing Iraqi army was immoral.

Eclipse of the United Nations.

One of the most telling pieces of evidence that the Allies were manipulating the United Nations and pursuing their own, illegal, war aims was the total eclipse of the United Nations during the war. Firstly, the Allies opposed any Security Council meetings during the war which, in the end, was forced to meet only when Iraq put forward its first peace plan. And then, when it did meet, America and Britain insisted the meetings were held in closed session. Secondly, Perez de Cuellar, General Secretary of the United Nations, stated that, "This is a United States war, not a United Nations war." (Guardian 13.2.91. p.21). Thirdly, just as the ground war was about to get underway it was reported that, "More than 500 staff members (of the United Nations) have signed a petition asking the Secretary - General, Perez de Cuellar, to call for an immediate cease fire." (Guardian 22.2.91. p.2).

It has to be admitted, however, that this interpretation of the Gulf war may be inadequate if not plain wrong. After all, it is extremely difficult determining what the protagonists were trying to achieve because of the problems involved in distinguishing between their real objectives, informally stated objectives (perhaps to win the support of certain countries), publicly stated objectives (perhaps to win the support of the domestic population), wishful thinking and, of course, sheer bluff.

It could be argued that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait made the Allies radically reappraise their attitude toward the United Nations. It may have made them realize that the prevailing state of international lawlessness could not be allowed to continue; that a new world order was necessary; and that, in future, all United Nations' resolutions must be respected, and obeyed, fully and unconditionally. It is also possible that the Allies' war aims were restricted solely to the 'liberation of Kuwait' and the fulfilment of the other United Nations' resolutions on the Gulf and that they did not have any 'secret war aims'. 

What this modicum of doubt implies is that the real nature of the Gulf war will become apparent only after it is over. If, in the future, the Allies abide by United Nations' resolutions then it is more likely that they were acting properly in the war with Iraq; if, however, they go back to their old ways and ignore UN resolutions, then this will indicate that they had pursued illegal war aims. In other words, the Allies' relationship to the United Nations is critical for understanding the nature of the Gulf war.

What is also involved here is that although the Gulf war was immoral in conception and execution, the issue of the war's legitimacy remains unresolved. After all, as Hannah Arendt has argued, politics shouldn't be judged in moral terms but according to its worldliness. If events after the Gulf war reveal that the Allies have learnt from their past mistakes concerning relationship to the United Nations, and the crucial issue of course is what the Allies will do about UN resolution 242 and Israelis withdrawal from the occupied territories, then this would give the war a degree of legitimacy. If, on the other hand, the region collapses into chaos and Israel finds itself 'provoked' into another war in which it wins yet more territory then this will render the Gulf war wholly illegitimate.

There are two developments arising out of the Gulf war that would give the war a degree of legitimacy.

Firstly, the Allies must live up to the principles upon which they conducted the war against Iraq; "Unless Saddam Hussein adopts Security Council resolutions in full there will be a land conflict." (John Major, House of Commons; Guardian 22.2.91. p.8); "There must be full implementation of all Security Council resolutions." (George Bush, Guardian 16.2.91. p.3). The more that the Allies live up to these principles, the more feasible it is to argue that the Gulf war did have some legitimacy.

Secondly, the United Nations must continue to be given the respect and authority with which it was invested by the Allies during the Gulf war. If, therefore, the UN becomes a more effective body in protecting the world's long term peace and security than it was before the war then this, correspondingly, will give the war a degree of legitimacy. There are various criteria by which the stature of the United Nations can be assessed:-

Preventing Wars.

It is critical to the survival of the planet's ecology, and thereby the survival of all life forms on Earth, that the United Nations prevents the outbreaks of any further wars, given that, "The 127 wars since 1945 have caused 21.8 million war related deaths." (Guardian 15.2.91. p.19). 

Control of the Global Arms' Trade.

The United Nations must take over responsibility for controlling the global arms trade. America and its Allies made a terrible mistake in selling arms to Iraq and Israel. (It should be remembered that the British government was caught in the act of selling a 'supergun' to Iraq. It is well known that if Britain hadn't been prepared to sell it then America or France or Germany would have done so. Selling weapons to a country that might one day become an enemy is almost tantamount to treason. Fortunately, only a few Allied troops found themselves butchered by their country's own weapons).

Guaranteeing the Survival of All People's.

A more powerful United Nations would have to apply itself to those invasions not covered by United Nations' resolutions such as China's invasion of Tibet and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor (which has cost a couple of hundred thousand lives). It is imperative that the United Nations actively seeks to provide states for all dispossessed minorities not only the Palestinians but the Kurds etc., and to guarantee the survival of all small states such as Israel. The case for a Kurdish state is as strong as the case for a Palestinian case.

Reparations.

Given that Iraq is being requested to pay reparations to Kuwait then the United Nations must compel America to pay reparations for its hideous, immoral and illegitimate war of devastation against Vietnam.

Recantations.

The Allies must compelled to publicly apologize for the sale of weapons to Iraq and for the war crimes committed on the Iraqi people.

The American Congress must apologize for flouting a United Nations' resolution when it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and thereby legitmized Israel's occupation of the East Jerusalem.

Britain must apologize to the Iraqi people for the war crimes it committed during its occupation of Iraq.

Reconstituted United Nations.

The most critical test as to whether the United Nations will become a more authoritative institution is whether its political structure is reformed so that it serves the interests of all countries and all peoples around the world. It must be changed so that no one country or group of countries can dominate and thereby leave it open to accusations of bias.

If, then, as a result of the Gulf war, the United Nations is transformed into an authoritative body which tackles such issues as those laid out above, this will give the war a considerable degree of legitimacy. If it is not able to implement any of these measures then the legitimacy of the war will decline significantly. In future, the more that the Allies ignore UN resolutions and, the more they condone acts of aggression, then the more illigitimate the Gulf war. 

The likelihood is that after the war the United Nations will become as ineffectual as ever it was - indeed, having been used so blatantly by the Allies, as a political prostitute, it might even lose what little credibility it once had. What is more, having been seen by the whole world to preside over Allied war crimes, such as carpet bombing, invasions and mass executions, fewer people will regard it with respect. The above criteria will expose not only how much this most cowardly war is bereft of legitimacy but reveal the true extent of the depravity not merely of the Allies but, because of the involvement of the United Nations, the majority of humans on Earth. 

xxxi) THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE ENVIRONMENT; 'A DEFINING MOMENT'

The doubts about whether the United Nations will emerge from the Gulf conflict with more or less credibility than it had before the war have been emphasized because there is another much more fundamental role that the United Nations must adopt in the future. The human race is faced by global ecological problems which can be tackled only by a global authority such as the United Nations. The fairness and impartiality of the United Nations will be critical to the success of the draconian actions that need to be taken to avert a global environmental catastrophe such as global warming. The United Nations must represent the Earth and all its life forms not merely a particular country or group of countries or one species. 

The United States' government refuses to accept that global warming poses a threat to human survival because it realizes that American consumers would have to make the biggest sacrifices in their standards of living if the planet's ecology is to be saved from a collapse. In the past it has prevented the United Nations from taking action against global warming, (see section twenty eight). If, as a result of its coup d'etat against the United Nations after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it succeeds in consolidating its dominion over the United Nations, then it will be in an even stronger position to block or sabotage the drastic changes implied by the scientists working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

Eventually, however, the United States' government will be forced to acknowledge global warming and to support global action to avoid increasing disasters. The real danger, then, is not that America will continue to ignore or block the United Nations but that it will start to take environmental dangers seriously and use the UN to push through draconian measures designed not so much to save the planet but to defend the American way of life.

There are two fundamentally different ways that America might combat global warming. The first is to use the United Nations to embark on a green Pax Americana to protect the extravagant lifestyles of its own people at the expense of the rest of the world. This would involve policies that have not been seen since the last attempt to create a new world order and include; preventing other countries from industrializing; forcing poverty stricken Third World countries to carry out massive reforestation projects in which billions of people will be rendered superflous; invading any country which failed to maintain supplies of the resources America needed to keep its industries functioning; installing puppet regimes or maintaining an occupying force to guarantee these supplies; and, finally, concocting wars in order to exterminate hundreds of millions of people who are being forced to destroy the environment because they are on the verge of starvation. In other words, the American government could treat the rest of the world as an ecological hinterland that supplies America with the natural resources and climatic stability it needs to maintain its current standard of living.

The second course of action is for America to transfer, along with all the other countries in the world, substantial elements of its sovereignty to the United Nations which will be transformed into an independent and impartial global authority capable of acting as guardian of the environment. The United Nations would then implement the following global policies to combat global warming so that the rights and interests of all countries and all species were treated on a just and fair basis:-

* the development of a global carbon audit;

* the adoption of a global carbon budget;

* the implementation of the global carbon unit; and

* the supervision of regional carbon compensation schemes in which each region (the size of the current English county) has to compensate the Earth for, an ecologically determined, proportion of its carbon emissions.  

* the creation of environmental crimes such as a Crime against the Earth. This would match the crime against humanity so that any government, company or individual which caused global environmental damage would be punished. This would require the establishment of a United Nations' Earth Tribunal.

* all countries must comply to the deep Green principle that all animal species must be preserved.

These, then, are two contrasting options for remedying the potential disaster facing life on Earth. James Baker was right to suggest that the Gulf war was a "defining moment". Given the enormous sacrifices and changes required by the second option, the likelihood is that America will pursue the first course of action.

America is by far the biggest polluter on Earth whether this is nuclear waste, carbon dioxide, CFCs, toxins, insecticides, dioxins, etc., etc.. It is by far the biggest exploiter of the Earth's resources. It is by far the biggest user of energy - and by far the biggest waster of energy. Irrespective of how well American politicians may present themselves on television as protectors of freedom and liberty, as apostles of all that is fine, beautiful and apple pie - they are eco-nazis. This is why, despite Saddam Hussein's disdain for human rights; his use of chemical weapons; his illegal invasion of Kuwait; and the terrible treatment of ordinary Kuwaiti people; Iraqi's resistance to American imperialism has to be applauded. The fact that Saddam Hussein was hugely popular throughout the Third World is indicative of the widespread exploitation and pillage being carried out in these countries by the Allies. The biggest tragedy of the Gulf war was that America won it.

The most important of the many images to have emerged from this war is the striking parallel between Saddam Hussein and Allied leaders. Saddam Hussein didn't understand the colossal power of the military force lined up against him and, foolishly and tragically, challenged this might with the result that his country is now in ruins. But this perversity is no different from the Allied countries who are currently treating the Earth with contempt because they don't understand, they refused to understand, the colossal power of the Earth's natural forces. The Allied leaders are Saddamites. The sooner they are thrown out of their office (windows) the better. I for one will not weep when they drop out of sight.