|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America : US
Politics
US-British air strikes on Baghdad: Bush draws first blood
By Barry Grey
17 February 2001
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email
In his first foreign policy decision, newly installed President
George W. Bush authorized an unprovoked air attack on the outskirts
of Baghdad, escalating the ongoing US war against the Persian
Gulf country.
Twenty US and four British warplanes, taking off Friday morning
(US time) from land bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the aircraft
carrier USS Harry Truman in the Persian Gulf, attacked thirty
targets at five separate sites near the Iraqi capital. According
to American officials, the sites were radar and command and control
installations.
The raid was the first attack on targets outside the so-called
no-fly zones and the first assault on the Baghdad
region since the four-day air war carried out by the US and Britain
in December of 1998. Since that time American and British planes
have carried out hundreds of strikes against Iraqi targets, civilian
as well as military, in the southern and northern no-fly zones
that were established by the US and its allies in the aftermath
of the 1991 Gulf War. These zones, which cover most of the land
mass of Iraq, were decreed without even the legal fig leaf of
United Nations resolutions.
According to Iraq, some 300 Iraqis have been killed and more
than 800 injured since the US and Britain began conducting almost
daily air strikes in the no-fly zones. Only last Sunday seven
people were killed and seventeen houses destroyed in air strikes
in the south, and on Tuesday two children were killed and their
mother injured in a bomb explosion in the southern province of
Kerbala.
These brutal actions are carried out as part of a sanctions
policy that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis from disease and malnutrition since the end of the Gulf
War. To this day American diplomats are holding up billions of
dollars of imports needed for civilian transportation, electric
power generation, the oil industry and medical treatment on the
grounds that they could potentially be put to military use.
Friday's strikes typified the lopsided and cowardly character
of the US persecution of Iraq. The warplanes fired their high-tech
missiles from within the southern no-fly zone, more than thirty
miles from their targets and well beyond the reach of Iraqi anti-aircraft
fire.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein condemned the attack and said
it was part of preparations by the US, in alliance with Israel,
to launch a larger assault against the Arab nations and
the Palestinians. Iraqi TV showed shots of numerous injured
civilians and claimed that one woman had died in the bombing raids.
In the hours following the strikes reports surfaced of massive
demonstrations by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
denouncing the US-British aggression. A leading official from
the Russian Defense Ministry called the attack an affront
to international security and the world community, and a
French Foreign Ministry spokesman disassociated Paris from the
bombings, saying, We were neither told nor consulted on
these raids.
Bush authorized the air strikes on Thursday, prior to leaving
for a one-day meeting in Mexico with newly elected President Vicente
Fox. At a press conference at Fox's ranch on Friday, following
the raids, Bush said he had authorized the attack, which he characterized
as a routine implementation of US policy toward Iraq.
While denying that the raids marked a shift in US tactics, he
issued a thinly veiled warning that further large-scale attacks
would come if the regime in Baghdad continued to challenge US
war planes patrolling the no-fly zones.
In an example of the newspeak that has become the
hallmark of US foreign policy, Bush said, Our intention
is to make sure the world is as peaceful as possible.
This posture of pacifism by means of long-range, precision-guided
missiles was reiterated by Pentagon spokesman Lt. Gen. Gregory
Newbold, who told a press conference that the air strikes were
a self-defense measure.
Newbold's claim is based on the tortured logic that is routinely
used to justify Washington's vendetta against a defenseless nation.
Starting from the premise that the United States has the right
to trample on Iraqi sovereignty and keep the country in a state
of constant terror and semi-starvation, Washington concludes that
any measures taken by the Iraqi regime to defend itself against
US bombers are aggressive actions that threaten the lives of American
airmen. Accordingly, recent efforts by Iraq to strengthen its
anti-aircraft defenses are portrayed as further evidence of Saddam
Hussein's demonic role in the Middle East.
This absurd position is accepted uncritically by virtually
the entire political establishment and retailed to the public
by the mass media. Democratic Party support for Friday's raids
on Baghdad was signaled by Samuel Berger, former national security
adviser to former President Clinton, who told CNN, This
is a completely appropriate action. This has been done before.
The assertion by US officials that Friday's air strikes were
routine actions, far from indicating a policy of moderation,
betokens a more aggressively militaristic posture. A signal is
being sent both to Baghdad and to America's recalcitrant alliesin
particular France and Russiathat Washington reserves the
right, under the cover of enforcing the no-fly zones, to strike
any Iraqi targets, at any time and with as much forces as it deems
fit, and feels no compunction to consult with fellow members of
the UN Security Council, let alone obtain their consent.
Thus Bush's first foreign policy initiative is an announcement
of a unilateralist stance more extreme than that exhibited by
the Clinton administration.
The aggressive foreign policy significance of the air strikes
is underscored by their coming on the eve of next week's tour
of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf by Secretary of State
Colin Powell. Washington wants to whip the Arab regimes into line
behind its sanctions policy, increasingly unpopular in the region,
and reaffirm its position of dominance over the peoples of the
Middle East.
Notwithstanding the pacifist phrase-mongering of Bush and the
misinformation from the US media, it is impossible to obscure
the fact that the current assault on Iraq is being conducted by
the very people who presided over the 1991 invasion of the country.
Powell, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in overall
military command, and the new vice president, Richard Cheney,
was the secretary of defense. The father of the current president
occupied the White House. The real economic and geo-strategic
motives that underlie Washington's aggressive policy in the oil-rich
region are underscored by the personal and financial ties that
link both George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George W., as
well as Cheney, to the US oil industry.
The escalation of military action against Iraq has, as well,
a definite domestic political significance. As the World Socialist
Web Site has warned more than once since the Republicans gained
control of the White House by fraudulent means, the Bush administration
is bound to carry out military adventures overseas, sooner rather
than later. A highly unstable government, resting on an extremely
narrow base of support and viewed by millions as illegitimate,
one, moreover, that is committed to a policy of social reaction
under conditions of mounting economic crisis and distresssuch
a government will inevitably turn to military actions abroad as
a means of offsetting its crisis at home.
See Also:
The world historical implications of
the political crisis in the United States
[6 February 2001]
Will George W. Bush launch
a new US war of aggression against Iraq?
[25 January 2001]
Bush prepares a government
of reaction and militarism
[18 December 2000]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |