War in the gulf
The truth about Iraq

February (1999) saw the USA and Britain itching to start another war with Iraq.

The first Gulf War in 1991 - and the seven years of devastating sanctions that followed - killed at least 1.5 million Iraqis, half of them children. But the Americans insist that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. They demand the right for United Nations inspection teams to inspect his 8 presidential palaces. They also say that nothing but the threat of US airstrikes will make him back down.

The first Gulf War was just mass slaughter. The bulk of Saddam's army was made up of hundreds of thousands of untrained soldiers, mostly from the oppressed Kurdish minority or the religious Shia minority living in South Iraq. A month of carpet bombing ended in 40 hours of the most concentrated killing seen since Hiroshima. Tens of thousands of soldiers on the road fleeing Kuwait were massacred. A reporter who went there the next day found himself wading ankle-deep in blood and a US army officer commented that "Even in Vietnam, I didn't see anything like this." The final estimates are up to 200,000 soldiers killed and 700,000 wounded.

Apocalypse for the Iraqi people

The 88,000 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq didn't just hit the frontline soldiers, they hit targets throughout Iraq, killing thousands of civilians. They drove Iraq, previously one of the most developed countries in the region, back to the lowest rungs of the third world. The whole economic infrastructure necessary to support life was destroyed: nearly all the electrical power stations, bridges, roads, postal and telephone systems, oil refineries and factories. The surviving hospitals, water purification and sewage filtration facilities for drinking water and irrigation were useless for the lack of electricity. A United Nations report described the situation in Iraq after the war as "near-apocalyptic devastation."

Many military and economic targets were in the middle of civilian areas. So when the US decided to bomb Iraq "back into the last century" they took a significant chunk of the population with them (especially since 70% of the bombs missed their targets). But direct deaths from being blown up were vastly outweighed by the slow killing done by starvation and disease resulting from this economic destruction and sanctions.

Sanctions kill

Sanctions began before the war, in August 1990, and continue to this day. Because of them the devastation of the war hasn't been repaired. The UN has blockaded spare parts, machinery, fertilisers, pesticides and animal feed. Sanctions also cover such dangerous items as ambulances, bicycles, sandals, toilet paper, and toys. The deal is Iraq swaps oil for food and some medicines, none of which are enough, so people are starving and suffering from easily-cured diseases.

Over 7 years the US and UK have repeatedly refused to ease up on sanctions or even set a deadline for ending them, using their veto as permanent members of the UN Security Council. They've admitted that the sanctions' purpose is to kill and starve as many Iraqis as possible until there is so much unrest that the Iraqi Army topples Saddam. The US and UK are murdering the Iraqi people, and they know it.

One in every twenty Iraqis has died. 4,800 children die every month, 160 a day. Yet every six months when the sanctions come up for review at the UN Security Council , the US refuses to allow them to be relaxed.

The latest crisis

On October 29 Saddam Hussein banned American inspectors going into his palace, to create a crisis that would focus attention on Iraq. It's a desperate bid to escape from the trap the US has put his regime in, and it worked- it's reopened a split in the western camp.

Russia, France, and the Arab states have backed negotiations and a deadline to end sanctions, while the US and UK continue to oppose concessions. In 1991 bribes and threats were used by the US to assemble a coalition against Iraq which included most Arab regimes. But in 1998 none of the Arab states except Kuwait supports airstrikes or will even allow the US to launch planes from their territory, because they're terrified their people will revolt if they do. And France and Russia are owed billions of dollars by Iraq, and have contracts lined up that they can only cash in on if sanctions end.

Due to this isolation the US grudgingly allowed Kofi Annan, the head of the UN, to go to Iraq to bargain with Saddam Hussein. On February 22 they reached a deal by which supposedly Iraq will allow inspection teams into the palaces with diplomats from friendly countries accompanying them. In return Annan promised to push for a deadline for sanctions.

So is this peace at last? The US says it will wait and see, and is threatening to act alone without the Security Council's backing if it's not satisfied, which it won't be till Saddam is out of power (all the new troops and planes are to stay in the Gulf so they can strike when they want). Saddam won't stick to the agreement for long unless there's progress on the sanctions. So prepare for conflict in the future- the crisis in Iraq is far from over.

What if there is a war?

REVOLUTION says if war starts we need to back Iraq against the warmongers in 'our own' country. There will be massive Iraqi civilian casualties. Iraq will be destroyed even further. Victory in war will also massively increase the power of British and US imperialism to exploit and dominate the region.

A victory by Iraq against the US would also give hope to the whole region- there is a huge well of discontent and unrest in countries like Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia, while the Palestinian revolt is on the rise again in Israel. This doesn't mean REVOLUTION will be waving photos of a smiling Saddam on demonstrations or selling the 19 volume "The Life and Times of Our Great Leader S. Hussein" door to door. It does mean siding with the Iraqi people, who will be in a better position to overthrow Saddam if US and British imperialism is weakened.

Who will get rid of Saddam?

It's the job of the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam. They are the only ones who can do it in a progressive way. When an imperialist power like Britain or America wants to get rid of a dictator, its only so they can put in place another one who's more obedient. And they can do it. In 1991 after the Iraqi defeat 15 of 18 provinces revolted against Saddam - the US stood by as they were crushed. The US just wants a coup by officers in the army to get rid of him and take control of Iraq from above.

Unrest has continued since then, with gun attacks on secret police officers and mortar attacks on the offices of Saddam's Ba'ath Party. Saddam is desperate and is arming students and volunteers, many of whose relatives were killed in the 1991 uprising. This is where the force to overthrow him will come from- from below, not the US bombers.

Lessons from the last Gulf War

A paper by the Anerican military published in 1995 stated that the US would be more dependent than ever on Middle East oil in the 21st century, and would need to make sure it controlled the region to "ensure the flow of oil at reasonable prices".

After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 when the Iranian people overthrew the hated, US-backed Shah, US imperialism was very weak- it took 3 months to get one armoured division to the Gulf. In the 1980s the US put pressure on the petromonarchies of the Gulf States and used their fear of Iran and Iranian-style revolutions to get treaties for allowing bases.

By the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US needed only 3 weeks to get the core of Gulf War forces to the Middle East. Since its 1991 victory it has used its domination to extend this. Now it has 20,000 troops permanently based in the Gulf along with 320 warplanes and an aircraft carrier fleet with nuclear subs and about 200 deadly cruise missiles. Supply ships and equipment stored and ready to use on Gulf bases allow it to get 2 armoured divisions and 10,000 troops to the Gulf in 3 days.

These gains allow it to be right on the scene next time a revolution against a US-backed ruler threatens Western control of the oil fields, or one of their own rulers doesn't stick to their programme and they need to give him a smack, like Saddam. Victory also gave the US and UK the clout to lean on the Gulf states and pump out oil at very cheap prices.

It also sent out a clear message to all the Middle East and every third world, exploited country: See Iraq? Mess with us and that's what you'll get. Exploitation, foreign military domination and dictatorships that are needed to maintain it, are the basic features of imperialism, and all of them intensify when imperialism wins. We need to side with the people of the Middle East against their kings, presidents, emirs and sultans, and that means siding against the imperialist US and British troops when they go in to prop up these regimes and protect the oilfields of the Western multinationals.

BACK TO THE TOP

Is war inherent to capitalism?

War in Iraq - which side are we on?

War: what is it good for

Capitalism creates war

The truth about Iraq

Puppest, black gold and tyranny

Who is the real terrorist