By Norm Dixon
While the world's capitalist media have been dominated by the massive US-directed NATO air war against Serbia, Washington's other terrorist war has been all but expunged from the airwaves and newspaper columns. Throughout the Balkans war, US and British war planes have continued to launch daily air raids against Iraq, killing dozens of civilians. Meanwhile, onerous sanctions have also continued to cause the deaths of thousands of children and old people while the US government stymies moves to have them lifted.
The US maintains that its daily attacks are acts of "self-defence" in response to "provocations" — such as Iraqi military aircraft crossing into the "no-fly" zones that have been unilaterally declared by Washington in the north and south of the country, the firing of anti-aircraft weapons at US and British warplanes that patrol Iraq's airspace, or directing radar at intruding Western warplanes.
"We will continue to target Iraq's air-attack network as long as it continues to threaten our planes", stated US defence secretary William Cohen during a tour of US allies in the Middle East in March. The threat posed by Iraq's antiquated air force and ramshackle air defence systems can be gauged by the fact that not one US or British warplane has been damaged — let alone shot down — in the more than 6100 attacks undertaken since the four-day air bombardment that ended on December 17.
Among the "targets" hit have been water and electricity facilities, residential neighbourhoods and farms. Several dozen civilians have been killed, including on April 17 (four dead), April 27 (four dead), April 30 (killing a family of seven), May 9 (four dead) and May 13 (12 dead, including two children).
US officials callously stated that any civilian deaths or injuries from the bombings were "Saddam's responsibility". Referring to a May 3 attack on a "defence site" in a residential area that killed two civilians and wounded 12, US Defense Department spokesperson Kenneth Bacon coldly stated: "The missiles were fired in self-defence. I don't think we know at this stage what was hit."
The US ruling class is in the midst of a heated debate over how to overthrow the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and what should replace it. The Clinton administration and the Pentagon favour a narrow "regime change" which would involve the overthrow or assassination of Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi military and his replacement by a pro-West strong man.
The aim of the daily US bombing raids is to provoke dissatisfaction within Iraq's military elite and provide dissident military units with havens beneath the northern and southern no-fly zones. Washington hopes that the harsh sanctions will arouse social unrest upon which an alternative military dictator could win some popular support for a coup.
The alternative policy — supported by the Republican majority in the US Congress and former Reagan administration officials — calls for Washington to aggressively back exiled Iraqi opposition groups with arms, training and political support. Under this scenario, the no-fly zones would be extended to "no-drive" zones enforced by US firepower. Within these, an alternative government would be proclaimed and be recognised by the US.
This option, while still out of favour in Washington, is gathering greater support as sections of the ruling class grow impatient as Hussein hangs on.
Under pressure from the Republicans, Clinton signed the Republican-sponsored Iraq Liberation Act late last year. This set aside US$97 million to be directed to the myriad of discredited and squabbling "opposition" groups mainly based in London, although groups with some real potential based in Tehran and Iraqi Kurdistan (northern Iraq) were also to benefit.
Washington's preferred policy was plainly stated by the commander of US forces in the Persian Gulf region, General Anthony Zinni, on January 28. Speaking before the US Senate Armed Services Committee, Zinni said: "I don't see an opposition group that has the viability to overthrow Saddam at this point ...
"Saddam should go, there's not a doubt in my mind. But it is possible to create a situation that could be worse ... I've seen the effect of regime changes that didn't quite come about the way we would have liked ... The last thing we need is another rogue state. The last thing we need is a disintegrated, fragmented Iraq because the effects on the region would be far greater, in my mind, than a contained Saddam."
The only opposition groups with real military clout are the Iran-backed Shi'ite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) in the south and two conservative Kurdish groups in the north.
Iraq's Arab neighbours fear a regime based on the SCIRI because such a government could win the support of Iraq's majority Shi'ite population as well as forging friendly relations with its backers in Iran. They prefer Baghdad remaining in the hands of the Iraqi military, which is dominated by members of the minority Sunni Muslim sect.
Likewise, Turkey is against an autonomous Kurdish enclave in Iraq — regardless of how cravenly pro-imperialist its leaders would be — for fear that it will encourage Turkey's oppressed Kurdish population to break away.
Zinni's opposition to a "disintegrated, fragmented Iraq" indicates that the US shares these concerns, although it is not averse to making use of opposition groups in the short term to weaken Baghdad and perhaps link up with a military coup should that take place.
Zinni repeated the dominant position on March 14: "We ought to work with them [all groups opposed to the Iraq government] and bring them together. I think we need to be careful about any military aspects to that ... We do not want to see the territorial integrity of Iraq broken apart or changed in any way. It is an important country with a proud heritage, and it is important for the region that it stays together."
Despite identifying a number of groups eligible for funds under the Iraq Liberation Act, Washington has yet to release any. In March, Senator Joseph Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said there were no groups that could "get a bang for the buck" and that the "most fertile ground" for destabilising Hussein remained the Iraqi military.
In May, US secretary of state Madeleine Albright said the flow of funds would begin "later this year" but would go only for "non-lethal" items like computers and offices in the US, London and the Middle East.
This is in spite of persistent reports of mass unrest, armed actions by SCIRI fighters and large-scale government repression in the southern city of Basra since the assassination of Iraq's supreme Shi'ite religious leader on February 19.
The SCIRI has said it did not ask to be nominated as a group eligible for US aid and would refuse it if is offered. Bayan Jabr, SCIRI representative in Syria, told Reuters on June 17 that SCIRI would not attend any Washington-sponsored opposition meetings unless the US clarified its post-Saddam plans.
"They are working to topple [Saddam] through a military coup or through killing [him]. They want to finish Saddam but they want the regime to continue", Jabr said. He said Washington wants groups like SCIRI as "decorations" in an anti-Saddam alliance. "We can't trust them", Jabr declared.
In 1991, an uprising by the Shi'ite south was crushed by Baghdad after the US, having seemingly encouraged the rebellion, refused to offer any support. Then, as now, Washington feared a successful popular uprising against Hussein more than his continued rule.