Mass graves revive memories of U.S. 'betrayal' - Post-9/11 Era

Mass graves revive memories of U.S. 'betrayal'

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: nowar

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...d=1052251607156
Mass graves revive memories of U.S. 'betrayal'
Role U.S. played in 1991 massacre of Shiia may haunt Iraq's American rulers


BY OLIVIA WARD
STAFF REPORTER

In the sweltering, dust-blown outskirts of the central Iraqi town of Hilla, scenes of chaotic horror have been taking place, beamed around the world by television cameras.

The discovery of the remains of up to 15,000 Iraqis in mass graves has prompted international revulsion, as well as uncontainable grief and despair among Iraqis clawing through piles of bones that once were their relatives.

In Washington, the discovery of what appears to be ruthless executions of Shiites who rebelled against Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War has been greeted with pious expressions of outrage and shock. This, say members of President George W. Bush's administration, is blatant evidence of the bestial nature of Saddam's regime, and why it had to be removed by force.

Few people, of course, doubted the depths to which Saddam would sink in maintaining his iron grip on Iraq. And reports of the 1991 uprisings and their terrible toll are an undisputed part of the recent history of the region.

What seems to have been forgotten, however Ñ if only in the West Ñ is the role that the United States played in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis who rose up, in spite of what they knew to be overwhelming danger, to overthrow the hated dictator.

Among Iraq's Shiia majority it is burnt into the collective memory in a way that will come back to haunt Iraq's new American rulers long into the future.

"Our betrayal by the United States will never be forgotten," says an Iraqi physicist jailed and tortured by Saddam. "People remember how they were urged to rise up against Saddam, and how the Americans then turned their backs. They even helped Saddam massacre the Shiia."

The extent to which Washington deserves such devastating criticism is unclear. But it was obvious that at the end of the Gulf War, the U.S. was caught in a diplomatic bind that made overthrowing Saddam an unattractive option.

It partly resulted from the American forces' massive attack on retreating Iraqi troops making their way back from the disastrous invasion of Kuwait.

The fierce and concentrated air assault on the soldiers, who were driving across open desert between Kuwait City, Basra and Um Qasr, was described at the time as "shooting fish in a barrel."

In less than 48 hours, tens of thousands died, their blood running in rivulets through which traumatized American ground troops soon found themselves wading. The Basra road retreat was symbolized by a photograph of charred Iraqi bodies slumped over the side of a partly incinerated tank.

In a chilling mirror image of Hilla today, the bodies were bulldozed into pits in the sand, from where the families of the dead were never to recover them or identify what was left of the corpses. Few of those who survived to limp home to their families have recovered from the scene.

The deaths appalled the international community, but not President George Bush senior. He and his military viewed them as part of a "total victory" over Saddam and his forces of evil, who had perpetrated heinous crimes in Kuwait. But at the same time, Bush realized that the Gulf War "coalition" cobbled together by threats and promises from Washington could not hold if Baghdad were now invaded.

Unlike his son, Bush had no September 11 to point to, no implied threat of "international menace" to convince his allies that Saddam must at all costs be overthrown. A decade ago, the idea of national sovereignty was still paramount, and few countries dared to infringe upon it.

What is clear is that Bush wanted Iraqis themselves to finish the job of ridding the country of Saddam.

"We all want Saddam removed, and I hope the Iraqi people do something towards that," he said, in one of many calls to arms issued by the president and his administration.

They were the words the long-repressed Shiia were waiting for. And it was easy for them to believe that the Americans would be behind them as they put their lives on the line.

Anger against the Iraqi dictator overflowed first in Basra, with demonstrations that gathered force and spread. By the time they moved north to Nasiriya, thousands were openly chanting "down with Saddam." Slogans were drowned out by shooting: in less than a week in March, 1991, Basra, Nasiriya, Najaf, Karbala, Amara, Kut and Hilla were in rebel hands.

Here, the story becomes hazy with the fog of war.

Bush and his officials suddenly awoke to find that they had fought a bloody and expensive conflict only to position a new "menace" to take over Iraq. Their earlier strategy of "leaving it to Iraqis" Ñ if any strategy existed Ñ evaporated overnight.

A few years earlier, when the Iran-Iraq war broke out, America had spent little time choosing sides. The radical Islamic regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini was the common enemy. Now, as Washington saw it, the threat of Shiite extremism had returned, but writ large. The spectre of an Iranian-Iraqi Islamic republic loomed.

Saddam, meanwhile, was ready to take action against the growing rebellions, which were swollen by Kurdish dissidents in the north.

With severely reduced ground troops, and forbidden to use aircraft in his own air space, Saddam sent his general, Sultan Hashim Ahmad, with an important question for American commander Norman Schwarzkopf: could Iraqi helicopters still fly Ñ even armed ones?

On the record, Schwarzkopf replied in the affirmative, saying that he would "instruct our air force not to shoot at any helicopters that are flying over the territory of Iraq where we are not located."

For the Shiia, and thousands of hapless Kurds, the rest is history - one of the blackest chapters of their already tortured past. Many are convinced that Schwartzkopf went much further than na•ve acquiescence, and America actively encouraged the massacre perpetrated by the dictator Washington cultivated for so long,

The fact that the American troops, assisted by the French, admittedly dug trenches to slow down the rebels from pursuing Iraqi government soldiers, and gave safe passage through American lines to Republican Guard units on their way to crushing the rebellion, is all the proof of collusion that many Shiia need.

Not surprisingly, some believe that Saddam has now made a covert deal with his former allies, and is living happily ever after in an obscure, luxurious villa obtained by George Bush junior.

There is little joy for the relatives of the dead in Hilla.

"Around us was a scene of utter chaos and horror," said an experienced Human Rights Watch emergency official, Peter Bouckaert. "Since early morning, a backhoe had been digging up the earth, often uncovering dozens of corpses in a single scoop...occasionally a piercing scream would rise above the crowd as a body was identified by relatives."

The abysmal scene, Bouckaert noted, was watched by American marines "standing on a nearby hill taking snapshots."

What was running through the minds of the desperate relatives as they glanced at those uniforms ranged above them, the broiling sun glinting from state-of-the-art weapons?

Soon enough, the answer will be evident.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: ickle

quote:
[i]
The abysmal scene, Bouckaert noted, was watched by American marines "standing on a nearby hill taking snapshots."

What was running through the minds of the desperate relatives as they glanced at those uniforms ranged above them, the broiling sun glinting from state-of-the-art weapons?

Soon enough, the answer will be evident. [/B]



Are you putting this forward as an example of objective reporting?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: fred hooper

Nowar

You are just plain out ridiculous. Stop pretending you speak for Iraqis and they're all happy this kind of thing has ended. Its the end of a sad episode finished by those who owed them a debt which is now paid in full.

The head of the INC was standing there before these graves and asking where were the leaders of France and Germany with their shovels? All because they tried to block this from ending.

The Iraqis have moved on and are looking to the future. Keep on reading into the past and getting nowhere like a little backwards joke.

Fred Hooper

Reply To this Message

Posted by: nowar

Again I'm not talking for the Iraqi, they are free to do it ....


quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34762-2003Mar26¬Found=true
Shiite groups inside and outside the U.S.-endorsed opposition have said they would not ask their followers inside Iraq to rise up. The Shiites, Iraq's majority Muslim strain, are still aggrieved over then-President George H. W. Bush's encouragement of an uprising in 1991 and his subsequent refusal to support it.





now, just some questions: did Bush father and his friends asked the Shia to fight Saddam at the end of GW I ?
Did Bush father and his friends helped them in this fight ?
What has been the result of the Shia uprising ?


It doesn't suit to what you thought about US gov ?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: nowar

you want more: http://www.google.be/search?hl=fr&i...he+Google&meta=

Reply To this Message

Posted by: fred hooper

Its history and some of them are probably pissed off for what happened in 1991. But as I said, its a historical mistake and they're moving on. So should you and its not going to solve anything today to keep pointing fingers simply because you dislike America over a past action which has been repaid today.

Its all over and look to the future. The majority of Iraq is happy for what the coalition did during the war to dispose the regime but now they're after their own goverment and want occupying forces out when practicle ASAP. No problems with that and it will happen in good time which was the plan from the start anyway.

When Iraq has its own gov and is relatively stable then everyone will leave them be.

Fred Hooper

Reply To this Message

Posted by: nowar

fred,


it's never over, human nature as you said in another post.
Do not forget History, never forget. Forgive, yes, but never forget it.

what I always said: I'm waiting a proof of the US gov change in their foreign policy, that's all and I'm not the only one waiting that proof.

quote:
....they're after their own goverment and want occupying forces out when practicle ASAP. No problems with that and it will happen in good time which was the plan from the start anyway.

it's not starting well: Iraqi interim government idea has been put in the trash, 4 big US military base will be planted ad vitam eternam .......
Reply To this Message

Posted by: fred hooper

Of course you don't forget, you forgive like everyone did with the Nazis and Japs in WW2 for example. Great world power freedom loving nation today.

We'll see what happens and Iraq will have its country. Wait and see.

FH

Reply To this Message

Posted by: nowar

quote:
Originally posted by fred hooper
Great world power freedom loving nation today.


FH


human nature .... History is an eternal renewal ..... human nature ....
Reply To this Message

Posted by: ickle

nowar:

Honest question:

What would have been your response if the US has sent troops into Iraq in 1991?

You know that if we'd gone into Southern Iraq to protect the Shia that we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad to get Saddam as the moment we pulled out, he'd be back sluaghtering them again.

What would your reaction have been?

The US is exceeding the scope if the UN mandate to get Iraq out of Kuwait?

The US was attacking a sovereign nation?

The US was acting unilaterally?

You would have opposed that action at that time as vehemently as you're protesting it now.

I've seen numerous posts on this board (don't know if you have posted this opinion or not) claiming that it's the Iraqi citizens who must overthrow their own government.

You can't have it both ways.

GB I prompted the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, beleiving that Saddam had been weakened enough (militarily and governmentally) that the Iraqi people had an opportunity to oust his regime. It is easy to judge this in hindsight but I think most people were hoping the Shia could and would inititiate a successful rebellion.

I wish we had taken out Saddam in 1991. We'd have incurred the same, if not worse, sentiment from anti-US people as we are now - and you know it. But the people of Iraq would have been freed a lot sooner. But, as the saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Curley Joe

quote:
Originally posted by ickle
nowar:

Honest question:

What would have been your response if the US has sent troops into Iraq in 1991?

You know that if we'd gone into Southern Iraq to protect the Shia that we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad to get Saddam as the moment we pulled out, he'd be back sluaghtering them again.

What would your reaction have been?

The US is exceeding the scope if the UN mandate to get Iraq out of Kuwait?

The US was attacking a sovereign nation?

The US was acting unilaterally?

You would have opposed that action at that time as vehemently as you're protesting it now.

I've seen numerous posts on this board (don't know if you have posted this opinion or not) claiming that it's the Iraqi citizens who must overthrow their own government.

You can't have it both ways.

GB I prompted the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, beleiving that Saddam had been weakened enough (militarily and governmentally) that the Iraqi people had an opportunity to oust his regime. It is easy to judge this in hindsight but I think most people were hoping the Shia could and would inititiate a successful rebellion.

I wish we had taken out Saddam in 1991. We'd have incurred the same, if not worse, sentiment from anti-US people as we are now - and you know it. But the people of Iraq would have been freed a lot sooner. But, as the saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20.


But nowar thinks he can have it both ways, ickle. Because his agenda is but of a single purpose: belittling the U.S. whenever possible. He doesn't give a s--t for the Iraqi people and the benefits of the regime change as long as the U.S. can be made to look bad at each and every step of the way.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mtliveingtree

your very theactrical and amuseing nowar but your still blind and nieve. You take a bad situation and make it worse with your mixed up veiws and comments. Half wich doesnt have any value or commom sense. So you say let the killings continue? Who is the real blind one here. Just A THANKYOU WILL DO.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mtliveingtree

your very theactrical and amuseing nowar but your still blind and nieve. You take a bad situation and make it worse with your mixed up veiws and comments. Half wich doesnt have any value or commom sense. So you say let the killings continue? Who is the real blind one here. Just A THANKYOU WILL DO.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: nowar

quote:
Originally posted by ickle
nowar:

Honest question:

What would have been your response if the US has sent troops into Iraq in 1991?

I would have agreed ..... I've always asked why they didn't killed Saddam at that time, but I didn't knew about the UN resolution which was giving no right to the coalition to continue the war after Saddam removal from Kuweit. But it was a completely different situation. Saddam invaded Kuweit .....

quote:
You know that if we'd gone into Southern Iraq to protect the Shia that we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad to get Saddam as the moment we pulled out, he'd be back sluaghtering them again.


So Bush father made a big mistake by encouraging Shia ..... but he had a good reason to help them and did not took the occasion. Sad.

....

Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Post-9/11 Era Forum: Mass graves revive memories of U.S. 'betrayal'

Forum Forum Forum