Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fisk: How the world was duped

Expand Messages
  • World View
    How the world was duped: the race to invade Iraq. Robert Fisk The Independent, Octorber 3, 2005 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article316651.ece When
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      How the world was duped: the race to invade Iraq.
      Robert Fisk
      The Independent, Octorber 3, 2005
      http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article316651.ece


      When Colin Powell made his notorious final pitch for war at the UN
      Security Council, Robert Fisk was there. In the latest extract from
      his explosive new book, he recalls a tragi-comic occasion


      The 5th of February 2003 was a snow-blasted day in New York, the steam
      whirling out of the road covers, the US secret servicemen - helpfully
      wearing jackets with "Secret Service" printed on them - hugging
      themselves outside the fustian, asbestos-packed UN headquarters on the
      East River. Exhausted though I was after travelling thousands of miles
      around the United States, the idea of watching Secretary of State
      Colin Powell - or General Powell, as he was now being reverently
      redubbed in some American newspapers - make his last pitch for war
      before the Security Council was an experience not to be missed.



      In a few days, I would be in Baghdad to watch the start of this
      frivolous, demented conflict. Powell's appearance at the Security
      Council was the essential prologue to the tragedy - or tragicomedy if
      one could contain one's anger - the appearance of the Attendant Lord
      who would explain the story of the drama, the Horatio to the
      increasingly unstable Hamlet in the White House.



      There was an almost macabre opening to the play when General Powell
      arrived at the Security Council, cheek-kissing the delegates and
      winding his great arms around them. CIA director George Tenet stood
      behind Powell, chunky, aggressive but obedient, just a little bit
      lip-biting, an Edward G Robinson who must have convinced himself that
      the more dubious of his information was buried beneath an adequate
      depth of moral fury and fear to be safely concealed. Just like Bush's
      appearance at the General Assembly the previous September, you needed
      to be in the Security Council to see what the television cameras
      missed. There was a wonderful moment when the little British home
      secretary Jack Straw entered the chamber through the far right-hand
      door in a massive power suit, his double-breasted jacket apparently
      wrapping i tself twice around Britain's most famous ex-Trot. He stood
      for a moment with a kind of semi-benign smile on his uplifted face,
      his nose in the air as if sniffing for power. Then he saw Powell and
      his smile opened like an umbrella as his small feet, scuttling beneath
      him, propelled him across the stage and into the arms of Powell for
      his big American hug.



      You might have thought that the whole chamber, with its toothy smiles
      and constant handshakes, contained a room full of men celebrating
      peace rather than war. Alas, not so. These elegantly dressed statesmen
      were constructing the framework that would allow them to kill quite a
      lot of people - some of them Saddam's little monsters no doubt, but
      most of them innocent. When Powell rose to give his terror-talk, he
      did so with a slow athleticism, the world-weary warrior whose patience
      had at last reached its end.



      But it was an old movie. I should have guessed. Sources, foreign
      intelligence sources, "our sources ", defectors, sources, sources,
      sources. Ah, to be so well-sourced when you have already taken the
      decision to go to war. The Powell presentation sounded like one of
      those government-inspired reports on the front page of The New York
      Times - where it was, of course, treated with due reverence next day.
      It was a bit like heating up old soup. Hadn't we heard most of this
      stuff before? Should one trust the man? General Powell, I mean, not
      Saddam. Certainly we didn't trust Saddam, but Powell's speech was a
      mixture of awesomely funny recordings of Iraqi Republican Guard
      telephone intercepts à la Samuel Beckett that just might have been
      some terrifying proof that Saddam really was conning the UN inspectors
      again, and ancient material on the Monster of Baghdad's all too well
      known record of beastliness.



      If only we could have heard the Arabic for the State Department's
      translation of "OK, buddy" - "Consider it done, sir" - this from the
      Republican Guard's "Captain Ibrahim" , for heaven's sake. The dinky
      illustrations of mobile Iraqi bio-labs whose lorries and railway
      trucks were in such perfect condition suggested the Pentagon didn't
      have much idea of the dilapidated state of Saddam's railway system,
      let alone his army. It was when we went back to Halabja and human
      rights abuses and all Saddam's indubitable sins, as recorded by the
      discredited Unscom team, that we started eating the old soup again.
      Jack Straw may have thought all this "the most powerful and
      authoritative case" for war - his ill-considered opinion afterwards -
      but when we were forced to listen to the Iraqi officer corps
      communicating by phone "Yeah", "Yeah" , "Yeah?", "Yeah . . ." - it was
      impossible not to ask oneself if Colin Powell had really considered
      the effect this would have on the outside world.



      From time to time, the words "Iraq: Failing to Disarm - Denial and
      Deception" appeared on the giant video screen behind General Powell.
      Was this a CNN logo? some of us wondered. But no, it was the work of
      CNN's sister channel, the US Department of State.



      Because Colin Powell was supposed to be the good cop to the
      Bush-Rumsfeld bad cop routine, one wanted to believe him. The Iraqi
      officer's telephone-tapped order to his subordinate - "Remove 'nerve
      agents' whenever it comes up in the wireless instructions" - seemed to
      indicate that the Americans had indeed spotted a nasty new line in
      Iraqi deception. But a dramatic picture of a pilotless Iraqi aircraft
      capable of spraying poison chemicals turned out to be the imaginative
      work of a Pentagon artist. And when Secretary Powell started talking
      about "decades" of contact between Saddam and al-Qa'ida, things went
      wrong for the "General ". Al-Qa'ida only came into existence in 2000,
      since bin Laden - "decades" ago - was working against the Russians for
      the CIA, whose present-day director was sitting grave-faced behind Mr
      Powell. It was the United States which had enjoyed at least a "decade"
      of contacts with Saddam.



      Powell's new version of his President's State of the Union lie - that
      the "scientists" interviewed by UN inspectors had been Iraqi
      intelligence agents in disguise - was singularly unimpressive. The UN
      talked to Iraqi scientists during their inspection tours, the new
      version went, but the Iraqis were posing for the real nuclear and bio
      boys whom the UN wanted to talk to.



      General Powell said America was sharing its information with the UN
      inspectors, but it was clear already that much of what he had to say
      about alleged new weapons development - the decontamination truck at
      the Taji chemical munitions factory, for example, the "cleaning" of
      the Ibn al-Haythem ballistic missile factory on 25 November - had not
      been given to the UN at the time. Why wasn't this intelligence
      information given to the inspectors months ago? Didn't General
      Powell's beloved UN Resolution demand that all such intelligence
      information should be given to Hans Blix and his lads immediately?
      Were the Americans, perhaps, not being "proactive" enough? Or did they
      realise that if the UN inspectors had chased these particular hares,
      they would have turned out to be as bogus as indeed they later proved
      to be?



      The worst moment came when General Powell discussed anthrax and the
      2001 anthrax attacks in Washington and New York, pathetically holding
      up a teaspoon of the imaginary spores and - while not precisely saying
      so - fraudulently suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and
      the anthrax scare. But when the Secretary of State held up Iraq's
      support for the Palestinian Hamas organisation, which has an office in
      Baghdad, as proof of Saddam's support for "terror" - he of course made
      no mention of America's support for Israel and its occupation of
      Palestinian land - the whole theatre began to collapse. There were
      Hamas offices in Beirut, Damascus and Tehran. Was the 82nd Airborne
      supposed to grind on to Lebanon, Syria and Iran?



      How many lies had been told in this auditorium? How many British
      excuses for the Suez invasion, or Russian excuses - the same year -
      for the suppression of the Hungarian uprising? One recalled, of
      course, this same room four decades earlier when General Powell's
      predecessor Adlai Stevenson showed photographs of the ships carrying
      Soviet missiles to Cuba. Alas, Powell's pictures carried no such
      authority. And Colin Powell was no Adlai Stevenson.



      If Powell's address merited front-page treatment, the American media
      had never chosen to give the same attention to the men driving Bush to
      war, most of whom were former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists.
      For years they had advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation.
      Richard Perle, one of Bush's most influential advisers, Douglas Feith,
      Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning
      for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was elected US
      president. And they weren't doing so for the benefit of Americans or
      Britons. A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
      Realm, called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the US but for
      the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
      produced by a group headed by Perle. The destruction of Iraq would, of
      course, protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons - always
      supposing Saddam also possessed them - and allow it to defeat the
      Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon had in
      store for them.



      Although Bush and Blair dared not discuss this aspect of the coming
      war - a conflict for Israel was not going to have Americans or Britons
      lining up at recruiting offices - Jewish-American leaders talked about
      the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very
      courageous Jewish-American groups who opposed this madness were the
      first to point out how pro-Israeli organisations foresaw Iraq not only
      as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link
      the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any
      discussion of this topic had to be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen
      of Johns Hopkins University tried to do in The Wall Street Journal the
      day after Powell's UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations'
      objections to the war might - yet again - be ascribed to
      "anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing
      that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent". This nonsense was opposed
      by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argued that an
      Iraq war would leave Israel with even more Arab enemies.



      The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lay behind Rumsfeld's insulting
      remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of
      Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the France and
      Germany that opposed this war were the "new" Europe, the continent
      that refused, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It was Rumsfeld
      and Bush who represented the "old" America; not the "new" America of
      freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt.



      Rumsfeld and Bush symbolised the old America that killed its native
      inhabitants and embarked on imperial adventures. It was "old" America
      we were being asked to fight for - linked to a new form of colonialism
      - an America that first threatened the United Nations with irrelevancy
      and then did the same to Nato. This was not the last chance for the
      UN, nor for Nato. But it might well have been the last chance for
      America to be taken seriously by her friends as well as her enemies.



      Israeli and US ambitions in the region were now entwined, almost
      synonymous. This war, about oil and regional control, was being
      cheer-led by a president who was treacherously telling us that this
      was part of an eternal war against "terror". The British and most
      Europeans didn't believe him. It's not that Britons wouldn't fight for
      America. They just didn't want to fight for Bush or his friends. And
      if that included the prime minister, they didn't want to fight for
      Blair either. Still less did they wish to embark on endless wars with
      a Texas governor-executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who,
      with his oil buddies, was now sending America's poor to destroy a
      Muslim nation that had nothing at all to do with the crimes against
      humanity of 11 September 2001.



      Those who opposed the war were not cowards. Brits rather like
      fighting; they've biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian
      Fascists and Japanese imperialists for generations, Iraqis included.
      But when the British are asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough.
      Faced with the horror stories, Britons and many Americans were a lot
      braver than Blair and Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told
      Cromwell in A Man for All Seasons, tales to frighten children. Perhaps
      Henry VIII's exasperation in that play better expresses the British
      view of Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The
      British, like other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically,
      their opposition to this war might ultimately have made them feel
      more, not less, European.



      * Extracted from 'The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the
      Middle East' by Robert Fisk, published by 4th Estate on 3 October,
      £25. To buy the book at the special price of £22.50, including p&p,
      call Independent Books Direct on 08700 798897, or visit
      www.independent booksdirect.co.uk



      © 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.