|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East : Iraq
US media begins preparing the public for mass slaughter in
Iraq
By Bill Vann
28 September 2002
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
In the midst of the Bush administrations drumbeat for
an invasion of Iraq, the government and the media have begun to
prepare public opinion for a massive slaughter of innocent Iraqi
civilians, as well as substantial American military casualties.
For the most part, both the Bush administration and the media
have portrayed an invasion as a simple matter of taking
out Saddam Hussein and liberating a grateful
Iraqi people. Such a feat, they maintain, will be accomplished
with satellite-guided precision bombs destroying a few presidential
palaces and bunkers, while leaving the general population largely
unscathed.
A few retired senior military officersundoubtedly expressing
deep misgivings within the Pentagons uniformed commandhave
attempted to throw cold water on this scenario, warning that the
war could prove protracted and bloody. Testifying before the Senate
Armed Services Committee September 23, Gen. Joseph Hoar, who was
the senior US commander in the Middle East after the 1991 Persian
Gulf War, cautioned that US invaders could confront 100,000 Iraqi
troops with thousands of artillery pieces defending Baghdad.
Affirming that US forces would ultimately conquer the city,
Hoar continued: But at what cost? And at what cost as the
rest of the world watches while we bomb and have artillery rounds
exploded in densely populated neighborhoods?
In house-to-house fighting, he warned, you could run
through battalions a day at a time ... because of casualties,
adding that such combat would resemble the last 15 minutes
of Saving Private Ryan.
Articles appearing in three of the most influential national
US newspapers Friday took up the question of a nightmare
scenario of urban warfare in Iraq. With the Bush administration
preparing to launch the most powerful military machine on the
face of the earth against a backward and relatively defenseless
country, all three papers sounded a remarkably similar theme:
if slaughter does take place, the blame will rest with the Iraqis.
A USA Today article based on sources in the Pentagon
cited plans for a lightening war against Iraq involving
massive air power, air-dropped troops seizing key facilities,
and the wholesale surrender of the Iraqi military.
The article cautions, however: [I]ts possible that
the Iraqi leadership would try to create the conditions for ...
street-by-street gun battles.
The Washington Post similarly warns in its article:
Iraqs military likely would respond to a US invasion
by attempting to lure American forces close to Baghdad and other
large population centers, where Iraqi commanders believe their
soldiers would be less vulnerable to air strikes and civilians
would be more willing to fight for the government, according to
senior government officials and diplomats here.
The idea that the Iraqi military is setting out to create
the conditions for street fighting or to lure American
forces close to Baghdad is curious, to say the least. The
Bush administration is loudly demanding UN and congressional approval
for an unprovoked preemptive invasion of Iraq for
the purpose of overthrowing its government and assassinating its
president. Clearly, such goals cannot be achieved without storming,
occupying and subduing Baghdad and other major cities.
The Post claims that the danger of urban warfare arises
from a new strategy that the Iraqi military devised
based upon the experience of the 1991 Gulf War. During that
war, US ground forces were able to easily overrun Iraqi troops,
whose trenches and bunkers provided little cover from American
artillery and bombs, the article states. Now Iraqi
officials have indicated that they would fight a very different
war by shielding their soldiers in cities and trying to draw US
forces into high-risk urban warfare.
Iraqs generals would be criminally irresponsible if they
placed their forces in the open desert so that they could be slaughtered
from the air. But the principal change in strategy from the first
Gulf war stems from Washingtons military objectives. In
1991, the US war was conducted for the ostensible purpose of expelling
Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The war now being prepared is aimed
at conquering Iraq and establishing a US protectorate to rule
that country and administer its oil wealth. Such a regime
change is virtually inconceivable without urban warfare.
The story goes on to quote an unnamed diplomat as saying that
the Iraqi army preferred to stay in the cities so that it can
mix with the civilian population. The diplomat added: If
soldiers start sniping from apartment buildings filled with people,
what can the Americans do? They cant very well blow them
up.
The obvious implication is that Iraqs military is prepared
to use the population of Baghdad as human shields,
taking advantage of the Pentagons supposed principled aversion
to inflicting casualties on civilians.
Similar assertions were made in a column by Nicholas Kristof
entitled Fighting Street to Street published in the
New York Times on the same day. American restraint is
Iraqs ace going into the war, Kristof writes. Iraq
knows that the United States cannot bomb schools, mosques and
residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of places to hide
its army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy an enemy
that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent
on a different approach.
The same theme was featured on that evenings NBC news
report, with a former general warning that Saddam Hussein planned
to deploy 15,000 crack Republican Guard troops for urban fighting
in Baghdad, and a reporter predicting that such combat would unavoidably
result in thousands of Iraqi deaths, military and civilian alike,
as well as heavy US losses.
This is war propaganda, pure and simple. Those who write such
lines know that they are turning reality inside out to further
the predatory aims of the US government.
Who says that the US cannot bomb schools, mosques and
residential neighborhoods, or that if American units are
fired upon from Baghdad apartment buildings, they wont just
blow them up? Avoiding the slaughter of civilians
at all costs is not part of the Pentagons military doctrine;
avoiding casualties among your own forces is.
Every major intervention by the US military has involved deliberate
attacks on defenseless civilian populations. From the carpet-bombing
of Hanoi to the My Lai massacre, the US waged a war in Vietnam
that claimed the lives of two million people, most of them unarmed
civilians. In the 1989 invasion of Panamaimprobably cited
by US officials as a model for the regime change they
hope to accomplish in Iraqas many as 4,000 civilians were
killed when the US bombed a crowded working class neighborhood.
In the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, thousands of civilians
were killed and wounded. Targets included passenger trains, farming
villages and non-military factories.
The last Gulf War saw the targeting of a bomb shelter in the
Baghdad district of Al-Amariya, killing 288 civilians, most of
them women and children. And, the more recent invasion of Afghanistan
has seen repeated war crimes against the civilian population.
There is little doubt that in the first days of an assault
on Baghdadthe best efforts of military censors notwithstandingimages
will be broadcast of distraught people digging for their loved
ones through the rubble of apartment buildings demolished by US
bombs or cannon fire.
The stories appearing in the press today are aimed at preparing
for the horror and revulsion that will be felt in the US and around
the world over the inevitable carnage that will accompany an invasion
of Iraq. The press is seeking to convince people in advance that
they should not believe what they will see with their own eyesthe
mass murder of Iraqi civilians by the US military.
When these killings take place, the coordinated line from the
White House, the Pentagon and the media will be that it is Saddam
Husseins fault, not that of the US invaders. The civilians
were killed because they were used as human shields.
Or, it was not US bombs at all, but a misfired Scud missile or
Iraqi anti-aircraft shells that caused the devastation. Everyone
knows that American restraint would not permit such
atrocities, but the Iraqis do not place the same value on
human life as we do. These are the shop-worn and racist
lies used in every war of aggression.
The media is deliberately misleading the public on every issue,
from the real aims that are being pursued in the war buildup against
Iraqoil, not weapons of mass destructionto
the criminal methods that will be used to accomplish them. This
campaign of lies and misinformation is the surest indication that
the war that the Bush administration wants is aimed at benefiting
only the ruling corporate elite at the expense of the vast majority
of working people in America and all over the globe.
See Also:
US, UK warplanes bomb civilian airport
in Iraq
[27 September 2002]
US press enlists for war on Iraq
[25 September 2002]
The Bush administration wants war
[18 September 2002]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |