Download PDF of this full issue: v28n1.pdf (10.2 MB)

Fraggin'

By Bill Shunas

I see that Gulf War II has been postponed for a while so the evening news can concentrate on Monica. In this latest Gulf-go-round, none of the players were righteous. Apparently Saddam was continuing to produce biological and chemical weapons. Unlike many dictators, he has used these weapons. That scared other governments, but it shouldn't have. Remember, he used them only for his benefactors. That was back at a time when he was an ally of the United States. Maybe he was only trying to emulate his benefactors.

Clinton certainly didn't look good either, and that applies even if you supported the US using force. Until the Secretary General of the United Nations bailed his ass out, he was on his way to another little war. That of course would have meant a lot of dead civilians plus a few American dead.

Dead civilians are acceptable by historians if you accomplish something - or get to write the history. In this situation, Clinton couldn't accomplish anything because there are only two military targets. One is to terminate Saddam Hussein. This could only happen with lots of dead American soldiers, and Clinton don't want to go there. The other acceptable target would be the chemical and biological factories, but since he don't know where all of them are, it would not be a successful mission. The only thing that would have worked is nuking the place, but nobody this side of Madeline Albright is for that.

You remember the movie "Dr. Strangelove." It came out 25 or 30 years ago and was very popular because it made fun of nuclear war and those who would promote it. Rumor has it that it was popular with Madeline Albright too. Unlike most normal people, she liked it because she could relate to the good doctor. Unfortunately, as Secretary of State, she is the chief diplomat of the US, and diplomacy seems to be the only way out of this situation. That won't happen with her around.

What I am wondering about is motivation. I suspect that Saddam's defiance helps keep him in power. Remember, Iraq was a developing country. Many of its people were beginning to enjoy 20th century amenities. Then the Gulf War came along and bombed them back into the nineteenth century. Now they're poor again, and 25% of their infants die. They probably have a lot of hate for Saddam, so he provokes the US, Clinton responds, they remember the last American air attack and hate Clinton more than Saddam, who now plays the defiant hero's role.

As for the US, you always have to follow the dollar if you're looking for motivation. In the case of Iraq, the first Gulf War happened at a time when Saddam was planning to lower the price of oil and increase his sales volume. That was a no-no, and Iraq had to pay for it. That time and this time there was also a matter of saving face. Saving face has an economic component. If some country successfully rebels and exits the US-dominated market system, then others might also be encouraged to do so. So they can't be allowed. (According to the Pentagon Papers and Robert McNamara, saving face played a large part in keeping the unwinnable war in Vietnam going for so long.)

If the basic reason for being willing to slaughter Iraqis is economic, how do individual presidents and those who support them willingly partake in the decision to slaughter? Certainly racism plays a part. After all, the Iraqis are not like (most of) us. But I think it goes deeper.

Before things got peaceful, I heard Clinton say that if we had to rain destruction on Iraq, it would be all Saddam's fault. There is no logic in that statement, but it serves (because he believes it) to absolve Clinton and friends of all moral responsibility. But it goes farther than simply absolving them. It claims that they are now instruments of morality as they understand it.

Remember when, during the situation leading up to Gulf War I, George Bush always mispronounced Saddam's name? It always sounded like Sodom as in Sodom and Gomorra, the two biblical cities that were destroyed (including the babies) because they were evil. That came after Ronald Reagan's presidency where he referred to his enemy as the Great Satan. This is the righteousness that Clinton inherited.

Okay, congregation, get out your bibles and turn to Ezekiel, Chapter 9. The Lord is pissed at the people of Jerusalem for their sinful ways. He tells his servant Ezekiel, "Pass through the city after him and smite! Your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women." Then turn to Joshua, Chapter 6, where Joshua fought the battle of Jericho (invading the land of Canaan). "Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword." Inquiring minds want to know: why did they get so upset with the asses?

So, I guess it's part of our Judeo-Christian heritage to slaughter people when they're bad - and when they don't follow the American way that we know will be good for the rest of the world if they'd only listen. You have to understand that when you're president. Either that or Ezekiel and Joshua were having oral sex with a young babe and started a war to cover their tracks.

Many people got a kick out of the movie "Wag The Dog" coming out at this time and seeming to reflect reality. A president starts a war to cover up his sexual misconduct. One commentator suggested that it was the opposite, that they created the sex scandal to cover up an embarrassing war. Actually, that makes more sense. Clinton looks like he's making love, not war. Nothing would have been accomplished by Gulf War II. And there was a bonus. His popularity rose. I guess Americans lust in their hearts like Jimmy Carter and wish that they were playing around too. So it was better he kept it in his pants, especially for the old men, young men and maidens, children and women, sheep, oxen and asses of Iraq.

Bill Shunas is a Vietnam veteran, author and editor of the newspaper for the American Postal Workers Union at AMC-O'Hare. He's a member of the Chicago chapter of VVAW.