- With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press
and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war
in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical
first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq.
Our opinions should be solicited and heard before troops deploy for battle,
not after they have returned wounded, ill or in body bags.
-
- Another invasion of Iraq in 2002 will be very different
from the invasion of 1991. The war's mission has changed in the intervening
years, from removing Iraq from Kuwait to removing the entire Iraqi government
and military establishment from power. Because the goal of the U.S. military
has changed, the Iraqi army may retreat to the cities, where they may face
better odds than in the desert.
-
- During the open desert tank battles of '91, U.S. tanks
out-classed and out-fought obsolete Iraqi tanks, and U.S. infantry captured
tens of thousands of poorly supplied Iraqi soldiers operating without command
and control from Baghdad. But in the urban warfare scenario of 2002, pitched
infantry skirmishes and ambushes in cities may present a more level battlefield
for Iraqi troops fighting in their hometowns. The Iraqi military can be
expected to fight for each block within each city with the most ruthless
means available. When faced with the impending overrun of their nation,
the Iraqi military didn't hesitate to use chemical weapons against Iran.
-
- Because of these significant differences, here are 10
reasons why, as a Gulf War combat veteran, I oppose a second Gulf War as
a costly and preventable mistake.
-
- 1. U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological
warfare agents -- if Iraq is capable of using them. The gas masks, detection
alarms and protection suits don't work, according to internal Department
of Defense documents uncovered during investigations by the U.S. General
Accounting Office. This leaves U.S. troops highly vulnerable to chemical
and biological attack. U.S. chemical and biological warfare agent casualties
in 2002 could be significantly higher than in 1991. Only a few months ago,
the Pentagon sent out a press release stating 140,000 U.S. soldiers were
exposed to low-levels chemical agents near Khamisiyah, Iraq during the
Gulf War. While these soldiers appeared to return home healthy, many tens
of thousands face long-term disabling medical problems that are difficult
to treat.
-
- 2. Scientific evidence shows that even low-level chemical
exposures are dangerous. According to a recent National Academy of Sciences
report (Gulf War and Health, September 2000), low-levels of chemical warfare
agents cause long-term medical problems. This conclusion is based on research
resulting from the sarin attack in Japan in 1995.
-
- 3. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from
mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According
to the product label insert made by BioPort in Michigan, the sole producer,
the experimental anthrax vaccine has caused several deaths. The National
Academy of Sciences this year concluded there are some risks to the hotly
debated vaccine.
-
- 4. The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic.
Scientific research funded by the military and released two years ago links
exposure to depleted uranium (DU) ammunition with cancer in rats. Solid
depleted uranium bullets, ranging in size from 25mm to 120mm, are used
by U.S. tanks, helicopters and planes to attack enemy tanks and armored
personnel carriers. The Gulf War battlefield is already littered with more
than 300 tons of radioactive dust and shrapnel from the 1991 Gulf War.
Another war will only increase the radioactive and toxic contamination
among U.S. soldiers. As of today, U.S. troops are not fully trained about
the hazards of depleted uranium contamination, even though Congress enacted
a law in 1998 requiring extensive training, especially for medical personnel.
-
- 5. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from
mandatory pills given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According
to testimony before Congress (Rand Corporation, 1999), the experimental
pyridostigmine bromide (PB) anti-chemical warfare agent pills "can't
be ruled out" as linked to Gulf War illness. During the war, soldiers
were told to take one pill every eight hours. After the chemical alarms
sounded, some soldiers, out of legitimate fear for their lives, took more
than the prescribed amount. To date, the long-term consequences of PB pills
remain largely unknown.
-
- 6. The Iraqi civilian opposition was abandoned by U.S.
troops in the first Gulf War. After U.S. troops had liberated Kuwait and
conquered southern Iraq at the end of February 1991, former President George
H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi opposition, mainly civilians, to rise up
against the Iraqi dictatorship in March 1991. However, former President
Bush left the rebels twisting in the wind to be ruthlessly killed by the
Iraqi army's Republican Guard flying helicopters allowed by the cease-fire
arranged by U.S. military and political leaders. U.S. troops in southern
Iraq in March 1991 were ordered not to interfere. How can U.S. troops or
Iraqi rebels be confident this won't happen again? Long oppressed by the
Iraqi military, what will the civilian population do if Iraq is liberated?
The American public won't support a long-term occupation and high casualties.
-
- 7. Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first
Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route
inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered
thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire (documented
in the article, "Overwhelming Force," by Seymour Hersh, The New
Yorker, 2000). Many U.S. soldiers returned home with serious objections
about the course and consequences of such actions, including the horrific
carnage of the "highway of death," littered with hundreds of
destroyed cars, tanks and human remains (see "Prayer at Rumayla"
by Gulf War veteran Charles Sheehan-Miles, Xlibris, 2001). Will there be
another massacre of Iraqi soldiers? Will Iraqi troops slaughter U.S. soldiers
in retaliation, killing U.S. prisoners or retreating U.S. soldiers? And
will the press be allowed onto the battlefield to record what really happens?
-
- 8. No one has been held accountable for arming Iraq with
chemical and biological weapons from 1980 to 1990. A recent news article
reported that top aides for former presidents Reagan and Bush armed Iraq
with these weapons during Iraq's war against Iran between 1980 and 1988
("Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," New
York Times, Aug. 18, 2002). Some of these former George H.W. Bush aides
now work for President George W. Bush. These advisors did nothing to stop
the sale of the chemical agents to Iraq, did nothing to stop the use of
the agents by Iraq, and did nothing to tell the world about Iraq's crimes,
even when the world learned Iraq used poison gas against civilians. These
top political aides have remained silent for more than 14 years, and many
refused to comment on the recent news reports.
-
- 9. U.S. allies in Europe oppose invading Iraq. They have
refused to supply soldiers, funding or logistical support. Some of the
serious U.S. battlefield casualties from 1991 were sent to U.S. military
hospitals in Germany. Where will our casualties be flown to for emergency
care if Germany follows through on its policy to remain neutral and not
allow the use of German airspace? This contrasts sharply with the more
than 30 nations allied with the U.S. during Desert Storm in 1991. Today,
the U.S. has no Arab allies. In 1991, the U.S. forgave billions in outstanding
loans owed by Egypt to buy its support. Now Egypt and other Middle Eastern
nations oppose a second invasion of Iraq. If something goes wrong, where
will U.S. troops retreat if Saudi Arabia won't allow U.S. troops within
its borders? We must avoid another Gallipoli.
-
- 10. The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be able
to care for additional casualties because VA can't even take care of current
VA patients. Most veterans now wait six months to see a VA doctor, and
most veterans wait more than six months to receive a decision on a VA disability
claim. Many of those waiting in line are Gulf War veterans, many with unusual
illnesses. According to VA, of the nearly 700,000 veterans who served in
Desert Shield and Desert Storm, more than 300,000 have sought VA healthcare,
and more than 200,000 have filed VA disability claims. Two weeks ago, President
Bush slashed $275 million from the healthcare budget of the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
-
- Although the Iraqi government is a corrupt dictatorship
that must eventually be removed, current proposals to remove the government
by deploying hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops are deeply flawed. A
premature attack against Iraq, especially when the public opposes it, would
be a horrible mistake. Since 1990, more than 400 U.S. soldiers have died
in the Gulf War theater of operations. Untold hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis, both soldiers and civilians, also died. A second invasion of Iraq
for one man is not worth one more life; let's use common sense and avert
a second Gulf War.
-
- The author is a Gulf War combat veteran.
-
- © 2002 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
|