[Article] Did Saddam gas his own people?

shotamoose

The folllowing is an article from Today's New York Times by Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's 'senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war'. The article question whether we can say for sure that Saddam Hussein 'gassed his own people', specifically the Kurdish people of Halabja in 1988.

He says that we definitely know that the gassing took place during a battle between Iraq and Iranian soldiers who had seized the town. And he says there is some evidence that while Iraq definitely used chemical weapons, the gas that killed the people of Halabja might have come from the Iranians.

He also makes an interesting point towards the end about strategic control of water pipelines in the Middle East.

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE


MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.


Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

spongebob

Intruiging.

The Iraqis did gas the Iranians first though. 1 Million died in the first gulf war out of around 75m in both countries. Many 1,000's were gassed.

This 'water politics' theory (rather than the Oil Politics theory) has also been used to show that Israel would rather not let the Palestinians run their own state.

The author forgot to mention the greedy Turks in the article. They built the Ataturk dam in the 80's / 90's see This

Clintons Cat

Some points

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

And as such he was part of the whole Pro-Sadam spin machine set up to Protect US interests of the time (ie the continued support of Sadamns regime) and to minimise bad publicity from the affair.

Just pointing out his Historical role in the collusion of cover-up that led sadamn to believe he could get away with anything.
The Us at the time followed the line that is was the iranians who gassed their own troops.

Its a bit like the Holocaust Revisionists who say because there is no evidence Hitler signed any paperwork regarding the holocaust ergo there was no holocaust.

Political slight of hand.

BTW i think the term "His Own People" is a misnomer used to direct attention away from the whole "kurdish question" in a post sadamn administration,
After all much better to shoehorn the kurds into a geographically stable Iraq than risk upseting the Turks.

Clintons Cat

Far from there being an international outcry over halabja consider the following

Sir Geoffrey Howe, then Foreign Secretary (UK), told the House of Commons on 30th November that year: ' We have proclaimed the evidence of CW use as compelling but not conclusive. In such a situation one can isolate Iraq and make its unacceptable behaviour more likely or can try to establish and maintain a working relationship to make clear our very strong views on that aspect of Iraq's behaviour'. ( Pesh Merga, March 1989).

Shortly after the attack a Cabinet Minister went to Baghdad promoting business and doubling trade credits to Iraq. There was no linked conditions to stop the gas attacks. Thirteen British firms went on to display "defence" equipment at an International Exhibition for Military Production in Baghdad. They were joined by exhibitors from France, the USSR, China, Brazil and Egypt. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government did in fact take the matter up with the United Nations pressing for an independent investigation, but no support was forthcoming. At that time the matter did not even reach the agenda of the UN Security Council. Expressions of "concern" did not interrupt the normal routine of business.
Cite Source

Halabja march 1988 was not the only instance of Sadamns Use of Chemical weapons against the Kurds.In 1988 Doccumentary maker Gwenne Roberts was smaggled into Kurdish Iraq and took soil samples and interveiwed survivors of another chemical attack at Bassey Gorge on the 28 august 1988 in which Iraqi Airforce dropped chemical weapons on kurdish civillians.
The soil samples showed traces of both mustard gas and nerve agents.

In November 1988 US Senate foriegn relations commitee headed by Claiborne Pell sent an investigations team led by Peter Galbraith and Christopher Van Hollen to the region.
they reported back Iraq was using Chemical weapons as part of a policy of depopulating kurdistan and relocating its population elsewhere in iraq with the intention of the destruction of kurd identity,culture and way of life that has endured for centuries."
In short Genocide.

Clairborne Pell introduced the Prevention Of Genocide Bill 1988 which dispite recieving widespread approval was quashed by the Reagan administration as "counter productive"

Gorbechev refused to condemn or clarify their position on the use of Chemical weapons in meetings between the Kurds and Soviet representatives in Prague.

Kurdish opponents claim that by march 1989 Iraq had destroyed 4000 villages and settlements in kurdish iraq,A claim which is substantiated by the Rueters Funded Alertnet Organisation.

During this period iraq managed to garner enough support from the arab world and beyond to get its name removed from The UN Human Rights Commisions list of persistant human rights offenders.

......
Bibliography and main source of information"saddams war" by John Bulloch and Harvey Morris.

Additional Information from Human rights watch, Amnesty International and Alertnet

A full breakdown of Operation Anfal ,including survivor testomonies can be read at hrw.org

Clintons Cat

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities,

Both the PUK and the KDP sided with iran during the iraq/iran war does that mitigate the widespread use of chemical and nerve agents against combatents and non combatents alike?
to quote from the Anfal Report

The logic of the Anfal, however, cannot be divorced either from the Iran-Iraq War. After 1986, both the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), the two major parties, received support from the Iranian government and sometimes took part in joint military raids against Iraqi government positions; the KDP also had a rear base inside Iran. That Baghdad was entitled to engage in counterinsurgency action, to wrest control over Iraq's northeast border region and much of the mountainous interior from rebels, is undisputed. What Middle East Watch contends is that, in doing so, the central government went much further than was required to restore its authority through legitimate military action. In the process, Saddam Hussein's regime committed a panoply of war crimes, together with crimes against humanity and genocide.

While many readers will be familiar with the attack on Halabja, in March 1988, in which up to 5,000 Kurdish civilians died -- the incident caused a brief international furor -- they may be surprised to learn that the first use of poison gas against the Kurds by the central government occurred eleven months earlier. All told, Middle East Watch has recorded forty separate attacks on Kurdish targets, some of them involving multiple sorties over several days, between April 1987 and August 1988. Each of these attacks were war crimes, involving the use of a banned weapon; the fact that noncombatants were often the victims added to the offence.

By our estimate, in Anfal at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children, were killed out of hand between February and September 1988. Their deaths did not come in the heat of battle -- "collateral damage" in the military euphemism. Nor were they acts of aberration by individual commanders whose excesses passed unnoticed, or unpunished, by their superiors. Rather, these Kurds were systematically put to death in large numbers on the orders of the central government in Baghdad -- days, sometimes weeks, after being rounded-up in villages marked for destruction or else while fleeing from army assaults in "prohibited areas".

Having looked at the authors 1990 report the Logic is fairly confounding,
According to the Author the Iranians risked alienating public and military support amongst their Kurdish allies by gassing their families...Does that sound very likely?
Furthermore since 1988 no kurds have spoken out against the Iranians for such a huge betrayal,This doesnt sound plausible to me.

why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Whilst a few political commentators and politicians have invoked Halabja as a reason for ousting Sadamn,it plays no part in the drafting of the current round of UN resolutions upon which the Americans wish to enforce "regime change" will base their actions.
Those rely upon Sadamns compliance or non compliance with the weapons inspectors and wether or not he has been attempting to procure weapons of mass destruction.
BTW i dont agree support or non support of other repressive regimes should be used as a mitigation for allowing such an injustice as Sadamns Anfal campaign to stand

A far more interesting question would be Why are we (the US) supporting so many represive regimes? And if so which and why?

Clintons Cat

This might help to explain why the Importance of Halabja is being Underspun,legitimised even as an act of war,though the author of the piece seems to be unaware of the Geneva Convention and various UN treaties outlawing the use of Chemical and Nerve Agents.
General Nizar Al-Khazraji is apparently now one of The Good Guys

Clintons Cat

Here is some more articles, related to the issues raised in the original article and further reading on the issue.

The long term effects of Gas attack upon civillians and background information upon Gwenne Roberts and Christine Gosden
Here]-[Gosdens Congressional testimonial

During that time, scores of Iraqi aircraft sorties dropped a mix of
chemical agents, including mustard gas, and the nerve agents Sarin,
Tabun, and VX. According to Gosden, there also are reports that
cyanide was used in the attack. In addition, she said there is some
indication that a biological agent mixed with tear gas may have been
part of the lethal chemical mixture.


Until now there has been no systematic research carried out in
Halabja, and the city and its suffering people have been virtually
forgotten, Gosden said. However, she said she hopes to change that by
launching a detailed study of the population and the long-term effects
of the damage caused by chemical weapons.


Gosden said the list of long-term effects she uncovered with the help
of local physicians in Halabja is in itself evidence of the terrible
effects of these weapons. They include: respiratory, eye, and skin
problems, severe depression and an increase in suicides, a range of
cancers, including leukemia and lymphomas in children, infertility,
and a miscarriage rate four times higher than that of other nearby
Iraqi towns.

Iraqs use of Neve agents is documented here,far from being restricted to Mustard Gas,the Iraqis use of nerve agents in the field including Sarin and Tabun began as early as 1984 and production of VX in 1987

Iraqs Chemical weapons production 1981-92

In March 1986 UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar formally accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Iran. Citing the report of four chemical warfare experts whom the UN had sent to Iran in February and March 1986, the secretary general called on Baghdad to end its violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol on the use of chemical weapons. The UN report concluded that "Iraqi forces have used chemical warfare against Iranian forces"; the weapons used included both mustard gas and nerve gas. The report further stated that "the use of chemical weapons appear[ed] to be more extensive [in 1981] than in 1984." Iraq attempted to deny using chemicals, but the evidence, in the form of many badly burned casualties flown to European hospitals for treatment, was overwhelming. By July 1986 it was estimated that Iraqi chemical warfare was responsible for about 10,000 casualties.]

Production of the nerve gases tabun (GA) and sarin (GB) started in 1984

VX was the focus of its research efforts in the period after September 1987. Iraq has stated that between late 1987 and early 1988, a total of 250 tons of phosphorous pentasulphide and 200 tons of di-isopropylamine were imported, these being two key precursors required for the production of VX. For the other precursors required, Iraq claims to have used only approximately 1 ton of methyl phosphonyl chloride (MPC) from a total of 660 tons produced indigenously. The remaining MPC is claimed to have been used to produce DF, then used in GB/GF production. The fourth precursor required for VX, ethylene oxide, was generally available, being a multi- purpose chemical.

This Unclassified doccument on Iraqs Potential threat to the US Forces at the time of the first gulf war seems to directly contradict much of Pelletiere's assesments of Iraqs ability to deploy nerve agents
USCENTCOM

IRAQ'S USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS DURING THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR,
COUPLED WITH THE EVER INCREASING PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES AND
CAPACITIES, INDICATE THE WILLINGNESS OF IRAQ'S LEADERSHIP TO EMPLOY
THESE WEAPONS. THE CONCERN TO U.S. FORCES IS GENUINE, AND SHOULD NOT
BE CONSIDERED MINIMAL FOR THOSE TROOPS LOCATED IN FORWARD POSITIONS.[/

spongebob

Originally posted by Clintons Cat

This Unclassified doccument on Iraqs Potential threat to the US Forces at the time of the first gulf war seems to directly contradict much of Pelletiere's assesments of Iraqs ability to deploy nerve agents
USCENTCOM

Pelletiere didn't consider the longterm effects of the Radioactive mush that the US left behind during the second gulf war as they rolled Saddam out of Kuwait.

Here is decription of the DU Problem in Iraq which will last around 4.5 Billionyears it seems

shotamoose

Originally posted by Clintons Cat

BTW i dont agree support or non support of other repressive regimes should be used as a mitigation for allowing such an injustice as Sadamns Anfal campaign to stand

Neither do I. In fact I think it's one of the weakest arguments you could put forward.

Thanks for all the info on the Alfa, I think I'm a lot better informed about this now.

shotamoose

More follow up, these from the letters page of the NYT:

February 5, 2003
To the Editor:
Re "A War Crime or an Act of War?," by Stephen C. Pelletiere (Op-Ed, Jan. 31):

In 1988, as a staff member working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I documented Iraqi chemical weapons attacks on 49 Kurdish villages in Dihok Province along Iraq's border with Turkey. These attacks began on Aug. 25, 1988, five days after the Iran-Iraq war ended, and were specifically targeted on civilians.

As a result of the committee's report, the Senate unanimously approved comprehensive sanctions on Iraq.

Between March 1987 and August 1988, Iraq made extensive use of chemical weapons against Kurdish villages as part of a campaign aimed at depopulating rural Kurdistan. These attacks have been well documented by human rights groups, forensic investigators and the Kurds themselves. Many occurred in places far from the front line in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Kurdish survivors of the Halabja attack all blame Iraq, and many report seeing Iraqi markings on the low-flying aircraft that delivered the lethal gas. While the most deadly, the Halabja attack was one of between 60 and 180 such attacks that took thousands of civilian lives.
PETER GALBRAITH
Washington, Feb. 3, 2003
The writer is a former United States ambassador to Croatia.
•
To the Editor:

Re "A War Crime or an Act of War?" (Op-Ed, Jan. 31):

Stephen C. Pelletiere writes that Iran, not Iraq, might have been responsible for the 1988 gassing of Kurdish civilians in Halabja.

Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed survivors from Halabja and reviewed 18 tons of Iraqi state documents to establish beyond doubt that the attack was carried out by Iraq.

Iraqi forces used mustard and nerve gases, as well as mass executions, to kill some 100,000 Kurds in the genocidal 1988 Anfal campaign. The commander, Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid, said of the Kurds, in a taped speech obtained by Human Rights Watch: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community?"

The evidence is incontrovertible: Iraq is responsible for the crime of genocide, committed against its own Kurdish population. The gassing at Halabja was part of that crime.
KENNETH ROTH
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
New York, Feb. 3, 2003
•
To the Editor:

Stephen C. Pelletiere ("A War Crime or an Act of War?," Op-Ed, Jan. 31) refers to a United States classified report, unknown to us, that would appear to exonerate the culprit in the tragedy at Halabja, Iraq, in March 1988.

This report stands in stark contrast to the United Nations investigation team findings, which invariably singled out the Iraqi Army as the culprit in the use of chemical weapons.

The Iranian government was the party that brought the Halabja tragedy to the attention of the United Nations and invited the international media to visit the city under its escort, the action that helped make clear who the culprit was.

Unfortunately, United States political expediency at the time obstructed the United Nations' efforts to investigate this incident fully.
MORTEZA RAMANDI
Press Attaché, Mission of Iran
to the United Nations
New York, Feb. 3, 2003

THE NEW YORK TIMES February 5, 2002

Clintons Cat

Originally posted by Clintons Cat

BTW i dont agree support or non support of other repressive regimes should be used as a mitigation for allowing such an injustice as Sadamns Anfal campaign to stand
Originally posted by Shootamoose
Neither do I. In fact I think it's one of the weakest arguments you could put forward.

I didn't put the arguement forward i was replying to the statement in the original article

Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

I further qualified my position by stating i didnt believe Halabja played any part in the forthcoming decision to go to war,thats not to say i wouldnt want Sadamn to be Indicted as a war criminal and tried at an International Warcrimes tribunal. I just dont think it plays a major factor in the decision making process.

Thanks for all the info on the Alfa, I think I'm a lot better informed about this now.

You are Welcome,

shotamoose

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
I didn't put the arguement forward i was replying to the statement in the original article

Er, I didn't mean 'you' as in you, Clintons Cat. I meant 'you' as in 'one' or 'somebody'

Clintons Cat

Thats cool.
Just wanted to iron out any ambiguities in my Position.