The

September 2, 1998
Issue 

By John Pilger

It doesn't matter whether or not President Clinton fired his missiles in order to distract attention from his troubles with Monica Lewinsky. He would have done it, anyway.

We have been through this many times before, with the lies echoed predictably from London and Canberra and by too many of those of us paid to keep the public record straight.

"Evil" is the word they use about the terrorists. It was Ronald Reagan's and Margaret Thatcher's word, and George Bush's and John Major's, and is now Bill Clinton's and Tony Blair's word.

In 1986, there was the "evil" Colonel Qadhafi, whose country President Reagan bombed from bases in Britain, killing mostly women and children, including Qadhafi's 16-month-old daughter.

In 1990, there was the "evil" General Noriega, said to be a dangerous drug trafficker, whose capture by US Marines required a full-scale invasion of his country and the death by bombing of at least 2000 Panamanians, mainly the poorest of the poor in their barrios.

Noriega and drugs had precious little to do with it. President Bush had been director of the CIA when Noriega was their man; and drugs have long been a CIA currency. The aim was to put Panama, its canal and its US base under direct US sovereignty, managed by other Noriegas.

In the same year, there was, as Bush put it, "the truly evil" Saddam Hussein, another one of his and Reagan's old pals, whose regional adventures they had armed and backed (along with Thatcher, who sent most of her cabinet to Baghdad as supplicants or arms salesmen).

Saddam's use of US and British weapons in his attack on the "evil" mullahs in Iran in 1980 was perfectly acceptable; a million people died in that "forgotten" war, and the US and British arms industries never looked back.

Alas, Saddam, the nominal victor, then attacked the wrong country, Kuwait, which is an Anglo-US oil protectorate. He was clearly unreliable. Punishing him cost as many as a quarter of a million Iraqi lives — ordinary Iraqis who died during and immediately after a period of carnage whose true scale was never appreciated outside the Middle East.

This old-fashioned colonial massacre was known as the Gulf War. The dead included thousands of Kurdish and Shi'a people who were Saddam's bitter opponents and whom Bush had called upon to rise up against their oppressor.

Long after it was over, New York Newsday revealed that three brigades of the US 1st Mechanised Infantry Division had used snow ploughs mounted on tanks to bury alive Iraqi conscripts in more than 100 kilometres of trenches. A brigade commander, Colonel Anthony Moreno, said, "For all I know, we could have killed thousands". These were mostly soldiers on the verge of surrender or in retreat; others were hunted down by US helicopter gunships whose bored crews described "shooting fish in a barrel".

The following year, Bush attacked Somalia in what was called a "humanitarian intervention". He was in the midst of his re-election campaign. Bush said the marines were doing "God's work ... saving thousands of innocents".

Like his moralising over the Gulf War, this was generally accepted by the western media, with honourable exceptions. US television crews were waiting as the marines landed in a beautiful African pre-dawn: "prime time" at home. From the Somalian side there was perpetual darkness: "chaos" and "tribalism" and "warlords".

When the US warlords had completed their adventure in Somalia and taken the media home with them, the story died, as we say. According to CIA estimates, the marines had left between 7000 and 10,000 Somalis dead. This was not news.

Soon after he was elected in 1992, Clinton attacked Baghdad with 23 cruise missiles, said to be aimed at an "intelligence complex". Seven missed their target and destroyed a residential area, killing, once again, mostly women and children. Interviewed on his way to church, Clinton said, "I feel quite good about this, and I think the American people feel quite good about it".

The pretext for the attack was an Iraqi "plot" to kill George Bush on a visit to Kuwait. That story is now widely regarded as fake.

Two years ago, Clinton attacked Iraq again, this time insisting that he was "defending" Kurds against Hussein. Once again, military technology dominated the news, celebrated with maps and missiles looking sleek against the dawn light; Australian TV used Pentagon footage.

The Tomahawk missiles were said to have struck only "radar sites" and "strategic control centres". Addressing the US people, Clinton invoked the paramount rule of the old west: "When you abuse your own people ... you must pay the price". Once again, an untold number of civilians — television unpeople, I call them — paid the price.

Earlier this year, Clinton very nearly attacked again. Virtually the same footage appeared on television: missiles ready; top gun pilots ready; Brian Henderson ready; John Howard and Alexander Downer ready. President ready to address the US people, the word "evil" on his lips. What stopped him?

Like spontaneous combustion, public opinion all over the world raised its voice. The television cameras had also shown glimpses of Iraq's silent holocaust, the consequences of the imposition of "economic sanctions" by the US and Britain (under the usual UN flag of convenience).

Blair said he wept for the children who were killed in Omagh, Ireland, by a terrorist act; but he is silent on the children who die in Iraq as a result of one of the most enduring terrorist acts of the late 20th century. According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation and the World Health Organisation, more than half a million children have died as a direct result of sanctions. Other sources put the figure at more than a million.

There is no reliable count of the casualties of Clinton's latest attack, on Sudan and Afghanistan. Rescuers have found limbs in the rubble and people have terrible burns. They are all, of course unpeople.

What is certain is an unerring pattern of ruthless, lawless terrorism, infinitely greater than that of any Islamic and Irish group. It is time to recognise the truth about this rampant power, and to speak out.

[Abridged from an article that first appeared in the Melbourne Age.]

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.