We're good at it. And it's a good thing. Because we're not much good at anything else! We can't make a decent car anymore. Can't make a VCR or a TV worth a fuck. Got no steel industry left. Can't provide decent health care for our old people. Can't educate our young. But, we can bomb the hell out of your country alright! Especially, if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that. That's our hobby That's our new job in the world - bombing brown people!

     Iraq, Panama, Greneda, Lybia - you got some brown people in your country? Tell them to watch out! Or we'll god damn bomb them. Who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? The Germans. They're the only ones. And that's because they wanted to cut in on our action - dominating the world. Bullshit! That's our fucking job!" - George Carlin

 The American Administration, faced with the 
prospect of engaging in a bloody onslaught, 
while in pursuit of economic interests abroad, 
must, of course, devise some kind of appealing 
rationale sufficient to soothe the occasional 
doubts of its professed "Christian" constituency. 
As every good American well knows, we don't go to 
war and kill people for selfish or 
frivolous reasons.  It has to be for freedom, 
democracy, their own good, or for our defense.  
The rationale used is generally referred to as 
propaganda.  It can be true, half true, highly 
exaggerated, or outright untrue.  It really doesn't matter.  The important 
thing is that it is believed -  and that it helps to unify the country and 
eliminate dissent, so that the war may be pursued more effectively.    
"Fighting for rights", and for "Freedom", are always used by both sides.  
Another general tact is to personify the enemy.  We're not really fighting 
against other people, we're against that bogeyman who has either duped or 
coerced his people into opposing us.  Pres. Bush (or Bosh) and his cohorts 
are usually referred to in Iraq as the "Great Satan".  And we have a word 
for Hussein : "Hitler".  To make these names stick, a number of 
transgressions and atrocities are inevitably cited in evidence.  Listed 
here are some of the more highly publicized "facts" about Saddam Hussein:

1) Saddam Hussein tortured prisoners.
2) Saddam Hussein gassed his own people.
3) Saddam Hussein presides over a police state, and he executes his 
   opposition.
4) Saddam Hussein engages in unprovoked attacks against innocent neighbors 
   (Naked Aggression).
5) Saddam Hussein is a madman, too dangerous to rule over a well- armed 
   oil-rich Mid-East state. 

      The statements above are generally conceded to be factual by the
American public, since most polls indicate that 90% favor the war effort. 
However, since that public gets most of its information via the mass media, 
which is highly influenced by commercial interests, and tends to believe 
statements by government officials, who are generally elected with the aid 
of funds from commercial interests, it's important to examine this 
"conventional wisdom"

TORTURE:    

     Torture is, of course, an abhorrent practice.  It should not be 
tolerated.  The Amnesty International organization has been exposing use of
torture in countless "Third World" regimes - regimes often coddled and 
supported by the U.S. for political or commercial reasons.  We are 
currently courting Pres. Hafez al Assad of Syria, whose record for 
terrorism, brutality, and torture is second to none in the Mid-East.  The 
U.S. has generally turned its head to these revelations and appeals by 
Amnesty International.  Torture is standard operating procedure in most 
Mid-East countries, as is, incidentally, also the case in many Latin 
American regimes, aided and supported by the U.S.  John Healey, Executive 
Director of Amnesty International states: "Pres. Bush made much of the fact 
that the "moral purpose" for the war could be found in Amnesty's horrific 
report.  But you and I know that for more that 10 years Amnesty has been 
reporting on Iraq's despicable human rights record... And the United States 
has consistently looked the other way.  For years Amnesty has publicized 
well-documented evidence of  gross violations by the governments of Iran, 
Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even Kuwait.  
But even today the United States and the world's governments close their 
eyes to such human rights abuses. Some of these abusers are now the U.S.'s 
allies in the Middle East ; and in other regions of the world they are 
among our most favored friends."  It's simply a fact of life, that in 
unstable regimes, arising from artificially created countries, getting 
information is often a matter of life and death, with "spies lurking behind 
each door", and insurgency a constant threat.  Such environments encourage 
the view of torture as an indispensable tool for obtaining that 
"information".   We, who live in America, having been blessed with 
affluence and political stability since the Civil War, find this difficult 
to understand.  Yet, the carnage and pillaging of Sherman's march through 
Georgia, and the atrocities committed at the Confederate prison camp at 
Andersonville serve as grim testament that war can make monsters of almost 
anyone. 

      But that was a long time ago, and few today would hold Lincoln, Lee, 
or Grant responsible or culpable for what was done by their men in the name
of freedom. The evidence certainly indicates that Saddam Hussein is guilty 
of either practicing or condoning torture.  And, opposing torture is a very 
admirable goal.  But, simply removing a man who practices it will not do. 
Removal of the real grievances that give rise to the unstable conditions 
that foster this type of inhumanity is the only real answer!  Let's put the 
blame where it belongs.  Set aside the propaganda, and ask, what caused 
these conditions?  How can they be changed?  And what can we do to help end 
them? If we don't, we're no less guilty than Saddam!     

USE OF POISON GAS:     

     Both Iran and Iraq used poison gas in the war.  Saddam Hussein has not
publicly admitted responsibility for the infamous 
gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja.  There is some evidence, or, at 
least, claim that the type of gas that befell the town (cyanide) was of 
Iranian origin.  Notwithstanding, it appears most likely the Iraqis were 
responsible for the chemical attack on Halabja.  Apparently, the Kurds were 
involved with the Iranians in a strategy to capture the Kirkuk oil fields 
in Northern Iraq.  Halabja was the furthest point of Iranian advance.  The 
Iraqi retaliation at Halabja appeared to destroy the Iranian initiative.  
The tide in the war turned at that point towards Iraq.  (An event that must 
have provided, at least, some comfort to authorities in the U.S. who were 
supporting Iraq at that point in time)  A typical example of U.S. behavior 
then found Rep. Sen. Alan Simpson visiting Bagdad and putting his arm 
around Saddam Hussein, asking that we not condemn this man for using poison 
gas on the Kurds.  It might also be noted here that both sides in W.W.I, in 
which we participated, used poison gas.  And, in any event, the gas attack 
on Halabja can hardly rank in the same league of horrors as the havoc 
wreaked on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the U.S. in WWII.  Consequently, it 
would have to be viewed as a trifle hypocritical of the U.S. to place 
Saddam Hussein on trial for this particular indiscretion.    

THE POLICE STATE AND ELIMINATION OF THE OPPOSITION:  

A brief historical background at this point might best help us to understand
the position of a man like Saddam Hussein.  As was well depicted in the 
historical novel, "Laurence of Arabia", the Allies had promised the Arabs 
self-rule and self-determination in exchange for their support in fighting 
against the Central Powers during the First World War.  When the war was 
over, the Arabs were double-crossed and the promises ignored!  Since then, 
few Heads of State have been known to survive removal from power in Iraq - 
a  fate often shared by the loser's supporters as well.  The dance has had 
a familiar pattern since the British installed the first modern regime 
(King Fisal) in 1920. Initially, the British, while retaining ultimate 
power over the monarchies, and "strongman" type leaders in Iraq, still 
wished to maintain a semblance, or appearance, of democracy; so elections 
and a parliament were established.  Thus, the unfortunate head of state 
would invariably find himself between "the rock and the hard place".  He 
could not remain popular, or stay in power without pleasing the Iraqi 
people. And, at the same time, he could not long oppose or defy his British 
overlords, who were hated by the Iraqi people.    No leader was secure.  
Opposing factions were everywhere.  Iraq's boundaries had been drawn with 
little consideration for ethnic, cultural, religious, or language 
differences in the area.  Nor were topographical features considered 
important.  They did, apparently, give serious consideration to geophysical
 features (oil).  The British had simply laid things out in a way that they 
felt would be in their own convenience. The helpless Iraqi administrators 
were just expected to "make do".     Almost always, the central issue 
leading to the eventual coup, and removal from power, of each succeeding 
regime, was Kuwait!  As each head of state would feel compelled to publicly
proclaim that Kuwait really belonged to Iraq, the British Intelligence 
(B.I.) or later even the C.I.A. would locate or establish an opposition 
group to provide a  new coup in hopes of finding a more "enlightened" 
leader.     At one time, one head of state, Gen. Kassim, managed to survive 
an assassination attempt by a Col. Arif.(Incidentally, Saddam Hussein, 
himself was at one time involved in an attempt to assassinate Kassim) 
Kassim, noted for a tendency towards leniency, (a rarity in Iraqi politics) 
decided to spare Col. Arif.  Later, in 1961, after publicly announcing 
that "Iraq regards Kuwait as an integral part of its territory, and does 
not recognize the special relationship between Britain and Kuwait ...", 
Kassim was overthrown in a coup figureheaded by Col. Arif.  Kassim asked 
Arif to spare his life, as he had once done for Arif.  Arif replied that 
he could not help.  And, Kassim, one of the few Iraqi leaders who had shown 
any signs of compassion in dealing with political adversaries in his land, 
was executed!  Is there a moral here somewhere?  If so, it was not lost to 
Saddam Hussein!     From 1920 to 1979 (the date of Saddam Hussein's 
ascendance to power) there numbered, in all, thirteen coups d'etat in 
Iraq.  Saddam had promised that, "With our party methods there is no chance 
for anyone who disagrees with us to jump on a few tanks and overthrow the 
government." It must be admitted that Saddam Hussein made good on that 
promise.  Over one half million soldiers, battalions of tanks, and more 
explosive air power than all of that used in WWII, still hadn't 
accomplished the overthrow of Hussein!

     Of course, the price for this "stability" was high.  Although Hussein 
did much to industrialize and modernize the country, a genuine reign of 
terror ensued.  Any and all conceivable opposition to Hussein, or the Baath 
Party, was marked for annihilation.  Communists, Jews, Trade Unionists, 
political dissidents, even rivals to Saddam Hussein within the Baath Party 
were tortured, exiled, murdered, publicly or privately executed, and, at 
times, slaughtered  en mass.  It may also be noted, that according to more 
than one former C.I.A. operative's testimony, the C.I.A. was  active and 
involved during some of these "indiscretions".

     Now, the sixty-four billion dollar question!  Was it really necessary?  
Would Saddam Hussein, long ago, have gone the way of all others without 
this insidiously draconian system to protect him?  Sadly, there seems every 
reason to believe that he had little choice -swimming in the sea that he 
was in. Hussein had to face the legacy of history in Iraq.  He had to 
contend with the threat posed by the Kurdish Independence Movement's 
resistance. Even the communists wanted their piece of the pie.  There was 
the impending threat of takeover by the Shiites in the South, aided and 
abetted by the Ayatollah Khomeini.  The ensuing war with Iran.  Then, the 
"economic warfare" emanating from Kuwait.  And, above all, the constant 
threat posed by foreign agents representing powers anxious to keep Mideast 
countries disunited, and in disarray, so as to assure that no oil monopoly 
might eventually arise in the Gulf Area.

     Yes, indeed, Saddam Hussein runs a police state!  And that's 
deplorable!  There seems little doubt about that.  Yet, we, here in 
America, sit back, basking in affluence, cheering our victory over tyranny, 
but never bothering to really ask why!  Why is every little Arab country 
over there a "police state"?  We sit atop a mountain of riches, much of it 
gained at the expense of Third World countries, extolling the virtues of 
democracy.  Though, few here even bother to take part in the political 
system.  Most don't vote; and of those who do, only a few trouble 
themselves to become informed about the issues, or the candidates.  As Sen.
Cranston recently bemoaned, while attempting to justify his complicity 
(accepting contributions for political favors) in the Savings and Loan 
Scandal, "They all do it!"  Translation: Money, not issues wins elections 
in America.

     Interesting question: answer honestly now - if we had all the problems 
of Iraq, even with all our money, could we afford democracy?  It's 
difficult to find a Third-World country with political freedom of any kind 
-especially if that land contains resources coveted by industrialized 
countries.  And, is it not quite hypocritical of us to do our best to 
uphold and maintain the feudal regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, while, 
at the same time, decrying the lack of democracy in Iraq?  Taking an 
objective view of the world, one might be forced to the conclusion that 
political freedom and democracy are the result of affluence, more than 
anything else.  Or conversely, one might say that it's probably less 
difficult for a poverty-striken country in the Mideast to pass through the
eye of a needle, than it is for that country to obtain political freedoms.  
Of course, it's difficult to view some of these oil-rich countries as 
poverty-stricken.  But, such is the actual case for the vast majority of 
their inhabitants when the available wealth goes to the few, or into 
defending that country's political regime.

     Heinous and deplorable as police states are : there is no sure cure 
for them.  But the best chance to overcome, or avoid them, lies in 
prosperity, more equitable distribution of wealth, and the reduction of 
anger and resentment within the populace; and, above all, the absence of 
threats and interference from outside powers.  The latter became evident, 
even in America, when the president suddenly decried the threat of a 
"Hitler" in a far away land called Iraq.  Note how readily police state 
signals arose!  Dissent was suddenly sinful.  Cries of traitor could be 
heard!  The F.B.I. was menacingly omnipresent for people of brownish skin.

     Judging from our recent actions in the Gulf, Americans are not too 
interested in attacking the real roots of despotism.  Our policy has 
generally been simply to replace an unfriendly despot with a more 
cooperative one.  We appear to act only when we sense that our economic 
interests are involved, with the result of maintaining or increasing the 
festering resentment, upon which the police state and all it's accompanying 
horrors, feeds. 

UNPROVOKED ATTACKS ON INNOCENT NEIGHBORS:

     During the early eighties, following the overthrow of the Shah of Iran,
Iran's new strongman, the Ayatollah Khomeini, was apparently fomenting a 
fundamentalist Muslim revolution in Iraq.  Several assassination attempts
on Hussein, and his deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, were attributed to 
sources within Iran.  Khomeini's forces were appealing to the Shiite 
majority in Iraq to revolt against the secular government of Saddam Hussein. 
There were riots in Shiite areas in Iraq, and insurrection was threatening!  
The specter of a united Iranian-Iraqi fundamentalist Muslim power in the 
Gulf loomed.

     The U.S. was concerned.  Other Gulf States, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, 
were alarmed!  With apparent U.S. encouragement, Kuwaiti and Saudi leaders 
promised aid to Saddam Hussein to help him stop Iran before it could 
overrun the Gulf States.  Large "loans" were received from other Gulf 
States by Iraq for this purpose.  Hussein maintained that they were given 
with the understanding that the loans were not expected to be repaid.  Iraq 
probably could not have prevailed in the war against Iran without the 
"loans" from Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and U.S. aid. However, with Iran a 
threat no more, but Iraq's economy devastated after the war, her erstwhile 
friends, the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, wanted their money!

     After having sacrificed several hundred thousand Iraqi lives and a 
hundred billion dollars to defeat Iran for their mutual benefit, Saddam 
began to sense a lack of gratitude in his "friends".  Hussein pressured 
Kuwait to forgive the loan.  Kuwait pressured back.  At the behest of 
Western Powers, Kuwait lowered oil prices to the point of making economic 
recovery impossible for Iraq.  Hussein complained that Kuwait was waging 
economic warfare ,which, in effect, was actually killing Iraqis.  "Iraqis 
on whom this deliberate injustice has been inflicted, believe firmly in 
defending their rights, and in self-defence.  Better to be deprived of life 
than the means of making a living.  If words fail to provide us with 
protection, then deeds are badly needed to restore rights to those whose 
rights have been usurped."

     Another unresolved complaint by Iraq was that Kuwait was stealing 
billions of dollars of oil from Iraq's oil fields through the use of slant 
drilling. It was also alleged that Kuwait had seriously encroached on 
Iraq's southern border, taking over hundreds of square miles, while Iraq 
was busily involved in the war with Iran.

     Above it all, however, rests the fact, indelibly clear in the Iraqi 
mind, that Kuwait and its royal family was being used by the Western Powers 
to siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from the Middle East where they 
were sorely needed.  Profits from the oil were being invested in banks and 
industries of faraway foreign countries. (Countries that could actually use 
those very profits to influence and control politics in Mid-East countries)
The Al-Sabah, royal family of Kuwait, is believed to have invested around 
three hundred billion dollars in countries around the world, rather than in 
the local area, where people are poor, and capital is needed!

     Thus, there seems good reason to believe that the attacks on Iran and 
Kuwait could not be called entirely unprovoked, to say the least.  It 
appears that in both cases the security of Iraq's regime, and possibly Iraq 
itself, was seriously threatened.

     Then, of course, there is the matter of the Scud attacks on Israel 
during the Gulf War.   Israel calls these attacks entirely  unprovoked. 
It's doubtful that many Israelis will ever be convinced otherwise. 
Nevertheless, Israel's denial of involvement smacks somewhat of a lawyer's 
argument, favoring technicalities over realities.  It's well known that 
Israel desisted from participation in the actual fighting only for 
strategic reasons.  There's little doubt that Israel was standing by, ready 
to become engaged, if needed.  It took some heavy persuasion by U.S. 
officials to restrain Israel from participating in the onslaught from the 
start, even though it was apparent that Israel's active participation could 
only be counterproductive, having the effect of broadening the resistance 
within the Arab World to the "coalition".

     Israel demonstrated no such hesitance in 1982 when it attacked, and 
destroyed what was believed to be an attempt to produce atomic power, and 
perhaps atomic weapons in Iraq.  Yet, Israel reserves for itself the right 
to possess those same weapons.  The Iraqi's, at that time, must have 
learned something about "unprovoked attacks".

     Regrettable, and tragic, as were the casualties inflicted on Israeli 
citizens in the Scud attacks, amid untold numbers of civilians being 
slaughtered by "coalition" bombing attacks on Bagdad, and elsewhere in 
Iraq, it's not really difficult to understand Iraq's comparatively futile 
attempts at retaliation.  

A MADMAN TOO DANGEROUS TO RULE:  

By simple American standards, and viewing things at the surface, it's easy
to understand the ordinary American's concern over the specter of Saddam
Hussein ruling over a powerful, militarized, oil monopoly in the Mid-East.
Aside from facing the prospect of higher oil prices, and forcing Israel to
come to terms with the Palestinian problem, there looms the more menacing
prospect of a violent man in control of atomic weapons and vast oil
resources threatening the whole world! There's little doubt that this
portends no small risk.

     This paper has attempted to examine the extent to which propaganda 
may have colored American judgement in assessing the actual risk posed by 
Saddam Hussein.  For even with the demise of Saddam Hussein, as we must 
guess, many new Saddams are waiting in the wings, ever-ready to spring 
forth in the volatile Middle East.  

     From what we have seen, Hussein used violent and dangerous methods. 
Yet, as has been pointed out here, he may have had little choice, 
considering the situation he faced.  Hussein has appeared to have remained 
true to his goals from the beginning.  He was a student of Gamal Abdel 
Nasser, who espoused Pan-Arabism as a means of eliminating the colonist 
stranglehold Western Powers seemed to possess over the Arab lands since 
1920.  There appears to be no solid evidence that Saddam Hussein is really 
a madman, insane, or out of touch with reality. Dispassionate, cynical, to 
the point of cruelty, stubborn, single-minded, yet courageous, seem closer 
to the mark in assessing the "Butcher of Bagdad".

     Yes, Saddam Hussein is a risk. Yet, as we all know, life is not 
without risks.  And, the game of life is played by seeking the lesser of 
risks in pursuit of our goals. Sometimes the risk on the other side of the 
coin is more obscured.  The picture we receive from our media, and our 
government must be colored, to some extent, by economic and political 
interests involved, while little is known, and much misunderstood, when it 
comes to events occurring in faraway lands across the sea.  And, the stakes 
may be even greater than we think in the Gulf Crisis.  We have on one side 
of the coin, a Saddam Hussein, in power, and in control, in the Mid-East.  
On the other side rests our continued effort to dominate, and take economic 
advantage of other areas of the world, amidst a growing awareness by those 
people of our presence there, and of what's really going on.  For the 
present, given the apparent choices, America has chosen itself, rather than 
Saddam Hussein, to settle problems in the Mid-East.

     Nevertheless, if we truly want that "New World Order" so desperately 
required for human survival in an emerging Atomic Age, is it not about time 
to let go of the old, traditional pattern of domination and exploitation of 
Third World areas, and allow those peoples to resolve their own problems, 
to control, and to reap the full benefits from the resources located on 
their lands, free from the threat of outside forces? And by so doing, truly 
give democracy a chance!  And, of course, only then, can we escape the 
tangled web of hypocrisy we find ourselves locked into, when we help create 
conditions in the Mid-East lands that are conducive only to the formulation 
of police states; and then go to war on the pretense that we're fighting 
for their freedom!

     Perhaps only then will the world have a fighting chance to escape the 
"unthinkable nuclear holocaust" which looms on the horizon, more and more
nations, including those of the dispossessed Third World, attain the 
technological weapons of mass destruction.  Those "wonderful" weapons which 
today fill American hearts with such pride!  Trite, and redundant as it 
sounds: TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!  America's enemy is not Russia, not Iraq, 
it's Old Father Time, and his gang of Apathy, Avarice, and Ignorance!                                       
      
                            WRITTEN BY                                                               
                          RALPH SHROYER                                                        
                           MAR.20,1991