by mim3@mim.org May 9, 2003
As we worked on this story, U.$. military leaders finally admitted that the united $tates may never find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.(1) As we all know, President Bush made sensational charges ranging from chemical to nuclear weapons to justify the invasion.
"Col. Richard R. McPhee says his teams have found no such weapons thus far.
"And members of McPhee's team and U.S. defense officials say that banned arms may never be found in Iraq."(1)
Sometimes simplistic "leftists" annoy us at MIM by taking whatever the rulers say and reversing it, a tactic by which some well-meaning people become completely predictable. Many have stressed that Bush has lied about weapons of mass destruction, because Iraq does not have any. To be sure, Bush has lied about weapons of mass destruction all along, but the question of their existence in Iraq is not a simple matter.
MIM does not have any theoretical reason to say that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The United $tates including Reagan, Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld all directly had a hand in giving them to Saddam Hussein, when he was a u.$. ally against Iran back in the 1980s, so they ought to know.(2) In history, the U.$. imperialists created Osama Bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein to fight old enemies, and now they are fighting Osama Bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein with the replacements of Osama Bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein: the cycle never breaks, because imperialism is a system that cannot learn to do without militarism, repression and terrorism.
More importantly, Iraq has money and capitalism creates both a legal and black market in weapons. Cash is under no unified control that could prevent arms trade of any kind. Such a task remains for the dictatorship of the proletariat. For a capitalist government to complain about arms trade or manufacturing under capitalism is absurd--a bad joke at the expense of the species.
Hence, MIM never had a predisposition to say Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. However, we do know that the U.$. Government deliberately sabotaged weapons inspections under Bill Clinton's authority. Clinton sought to install a new puppet regime in Iraq and deliberately sought to make the inspections fail in order to further his goal of "regime change." In Clinton's eyes, the world was in danger of ending sanctions on Iraq and going back to "business as usual" unless Clinton did something, so he sent the CIA to infiltrate the UN inspections teams and he bombed Iraq in the midst of his impeachment.(3)
So we cannot say that weapons of mass destruction are an impossibility in Iraq, but we also have to understand the context and motivations of the imperialists. One thing we know for certain: Iraq did not use a massively successful weapon of mass destruction against the u.$. invasion yet. That means that if Bush Jr. was right about Iraq's having WMD then Saddam Hussein was generous in not using them. Either way, Bush lied about Saddam Hussein or the WMD or maybe both. It's not possible for any other interpretation of the facts. Had we seen the WMD used by Iraq or had Bush said that Saddam Hussein was not a madman, not one of the world's worst dictators certain to use WMD as so many Pentagon scenarios assumed, then the facts would conform to what Bush said. That's not the case and that makes Bush a liar, who misinformed the public for his own purposes, thereby abusing the power of his office.
There could have been scattered deaths or poisonings at the hands of limited Iraqi chemical or biological weapons. Iraq could have used WMD for less than "mass" purposes. There is not enough freedom of the press for us to know the causes of all U.S. military casualties.(4) If the Pentagon can keep small uses of biological or chemical weapons under the lid, it has an incentive to do so, because the myth that no one uses weapons of mass destruction, especially against U.S. forces, is a useful myth to the imperialists at times. In truth, if it became common knowledge that anyone in the Mideast used weapons of mass destruction against I$rael or the united $tates, we do not know where it would end.
Even the united $tates admitted it had only 48 hours after the invasion to secure the weapons of mass destruction or face the risk of their use by Iraq or international ridicule. The United $tates failed in that stated goal and simply proved wrong.
Now the U.$. occupation has been going on two months. For the mere information of where to find a U.$. POW, the U.$. Government gave citizenship to an Iraqi. We can only guess what Uncle $am would have paid for an Iraqi willing to make it look like there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. With Iraq under U.$. control at least two months (and longer in the no-fly zones established since 1991), no one is going to believe any discovery of weapons of mass destruction at this point anyway. There is no way to prove the united $tates did not bring them in and plant them by this time.
The Christian Science Monitor correctly pointed this out already in April: "'Even if large amounts of these weapons were found, I could imagine the public in Germany and around Europe questioning whether the finds were true or simply planted evidence,' says Jens Van Scherpenberg, a security expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin."(5) The CSM also pointed out that the single most popular (86%) "major reason" given by the U.$. public for the invasion was weapons of mass destruction.(5)
In any case, we believe that Russian President Putin represents "responsible" global bourgeois opinion on this subject. He pointed out right away during the invasion that there was now no way for the united $tates to establish credibly what weapons were there and where they came from. In the first place, it is not often that a participant in a war is regarded as a reliable source of information on a question of propaganda value about a country just conquered. Iraq denied it had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion. Claiming Iraq had them, the united $tates invaded. The united $tates has no credibility now on the question.
There is no question of fact here. U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton admitted that the rest of the world is not allowed in to verify the WMD question: "I don't think there is any role for the UN in the short term in searching for, or identifying, or securing weapons of mass destruction."(6)
It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it scenario that Putin is preventing in the u.$. case. Bourgeois internationalist opinion holds that the UN is legitimate. The United $tates decided to do without the UN, so now it cannot expect international legitimacy for its claims regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Putin pointed out the obvious to the U.$. and British public who certainly would not have heard it from their own press.
Much later, he slammed Tony Blair on his interpretation of intelligence data. ""Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding in an underground bunker somewhere, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction, and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and destroy the lives of thousands of Iraqis,'" Putin said.(7)
Putin's statement has several layers of meaning. First there is the question of the UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction and the years of inspections. Putin's statement is a reminder that the UN resolutions agreed to by the united $tates and Britain on the question still stand. Next is the point that if Bush and Blair are right, then Putin has no choice but to continue upholding the UN resolutions and keep looking for the weapons, because as he said, Saddam may be shacked up with a nuke somewhere. Putin is justified in his thinking by the many Pentagon statements saying that Iraq is as large as California and that the Pentagon has not searched it all yet. This also means sanctions cannot end according to the UN resolutions; even though, the united $tates and Britain want their colonial regime in Iraq not to have to face sanctions. The last level of meaning that Russian reporters picked up and foreigners reported is that this is all ludicrous and maybe it is best if Bush and Blair just admit that they were full of shit all along. Then it might be possible for the UN to set it all right.
A Salt Lake City columnist said, "So many thousands of Iraqis (2,500 civilians and perhaps 10,000 soldiers) were killed, 137 U.S. and British soldiers died, looters destroyed most of Iraq's cultural heritage while "coalition" troops stood idly by -- and nobody has found any WMD."(7) Might we add that the likelihood of more war and terrorism to avenge Iraq has increased and there is no dent in the global legal and illegal market for weapons. Quite the contrary, the Bush & Blair actions will spur weapons acquisitions globally.
Notes:
1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-09-banned-weapons_x.htm
This could just be a ploy to make subsequent inventions by the united $tates more
credible.
2. The ole boys sent "numerous
shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to
former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make
biological weapons," according to Newsweek,
23Sept2002. So when Bush and Rumsfeld say they are sure Saddam Hussein
has WMD, who are we at MIM to say "no"? As the joke goes, the united $tates
is so sure Iraq has WMD, because it still has the invoices. It's just a matter of time before they
are all declassified.
3. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bookstore/books/violence/milanrai.html
4. Just ask the social-fascist regime in China which says it could not learn
any "freedom of the press" in its coverage of the Iraq war, because the Pentagon
threw Chinese reporters out of briefings and restricted all reporters' questions.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200304/04/eng20030404_114563.shtml
5. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0409/p01s03-woiq.html
6. http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/web_article_display.cfm?ARTICLE_CATEGORY=GenIn&ARTICLE_ID=175621
7. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05052003/commenta/commenta.asp