inside the glass house

Torture and chemical weapons: Saddam’s legacy returns under US occupation
NEW YORK--- The US war on Iraq, which started as a political tragedy, is turning out to be a virtual farce.

The Bush administration justified the invasion on several grounds, including the need to overturn the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein, his ill-treatment and torture of perceived enemies, and his use of chemical weapons against his own people.

But the two strongest arguments for the war-- the possible links between Saddam Hussein and the terror attacks on the US, and Iraq's huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction-- have been proved dead wrong. Both never existed.

And now, the very reasons for going to war is repeating itself in a Saddam-less Iraq, turning the tragedy into a farce.The revelations about how US military forces tortured, ill-treated and humiliated Iraqi prisoners of war in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison last year are reminiscent of the ousted Saddam regime.

As American forces took over the prison-- once used by Saddam Hussein to torture his enemies-- the only change apparently was a sign which read: "Under new Management."

Last week the US was "horrified" to discover that its Shiite allies were no better: they were secretly running an underground detention centre in Baghdad where Sunni prisoners had been tortured right under the nose of a US-run military administration in Baghdad.

An accidental discovery of the prison, during a US-led search for insurgents, has triggered protests from international human rights organisations.

The Interior Ministry has admitted that "instruments of torture" had been found in the prison where 173 mostly malnourished prisoners had also been starved, beaten and subjected to electric shocks.The Shiite-led government, currently in power with the blessings of the Bush administration, seems to be as proficient in torturing prisoners as did Saddam Hussein in his own inimitable style.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni political group, has demanded an international investigation to punish all those who were involved in running the secret torture chamber.

An equally distressting -- and perhaps ironic-- piece of news last week was the story detailing the use of chemical agents by US military forces during its offensive to root out insurgents in Falluja last year.
If the use of chemical agents by Saddam Hussein was reprehensible-- and rightly so-- why should it be justified when deployed by US military forces?.
According to one wire service report, the US Department of Defence not only admitted to the use of "incendiary white phosphorus munitions" in Falluja but defended their use as "legal."

Army Lt.Col. Barry Venable was quoted as saying that these weapons were used against "insurgents", not against "civilians." But how does a chemical agent distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys?
Not surprisingly, the Italian state television network ran a report which said that chemical agents had been used against men, women and children who were "burned to the bone."

The US army has denied the allegations but maintained that phosphorus weapons are not outlawed or banned despite a 1983 UN convention which prohibits the use of incendiary weapons. The US has signed but not ratified the convention.

As President Bush's popularity keeps declining in recent polls hitting the lowest-ever for an American president, his administration is in trouble over domestic politics, including the slow response to the Katrina hurricane disaster and charges of ethical violations by political aides.
The biggest single blow last week came from an influential Congressman from the ruling Republican party-- John Murtha of Pennsylvania-- who called for the withdrawal of the 153,000 American troops from Iraq within the next six months.

A former soldier who served in the Vietnam war, Murtha had voted for the Iraq war when it came up before the House of Representatives. "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them," he said, "it is time to bring them home."

As American casualties continue to mount in Iraq, there is visible erosion of support for the war both among Americans and among US politicians.
Murtha's call for a withdrawal evoked a strong response from Vice President Dick Cheney. Murtha had served his time in war but Cheney avoided serving in the military by getting five deferments.

Asked about Cheney's attack, Murtha said rather sarcastically: "I like guys who've never been there (at war) that criticise us who've been there. I like that. I also like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Back to Columns