All photos by Ryan McGinley.
It seems World War III is about to go down. America has randomly chosen Iraq as the center of terrorism even though weapons inspectors and embargos left Iraq broke and powerless years ago. They claim the reason is that Iraq is capable of eventually having deadly arms, but they ignore the fact that every other anti-Western country is equally capable. Opponents to the invasion claim annihilating such helpless people for no good reason is going to set the entire Arab world into an anti-American rage that will be more like the apocalypse than simply another Desert Storm. A few ballsy proponents admit they don’t care if Iraq has arms. They believe Saudi Arabia and Iraq are our only possible enemies and, because Islam is encroaching on the West at an unprecedented rate, we have to nip it in the bud no matter how unjust it seems (the exact same rationale Dr. Zaius had in Planet of the Apes when he knowingly blew up the cave of pro-man evidence so that ape culture could remain unthreatened).
Though both are valid arguments, Congress isn’t interested in a rational debate. They want revenge now and the only questions they’re asking is “when?” and “how?”
The UN imposed severe economic sanctions on Iraq when it invaded Kuwait back in August 1999 and now, twelve years and over half a million deaths later, both the sanctions and a notoriously brutal regime remain in place. While sanctions have been deplored by heads of state, non-governmental organizations, and the Pope, America continues to insist that, in the words of former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, despite the human toll, “the price is worth it.”
When the Gulf War ended, the Security Council sent in weapons inspectors to destroy or document the destruction of Iraq’s arsenal. Once disarmament could be proven, sanctions would be lifted. Despite a successful inspection, America is not satisfied and the punishment remains. Under sanctions, the Iraqis are forced to live without running water, sewage treatment plants, or electricity, all of which were destroyed in the Gulf War. The money and equipment necessary to rebuild are limited by the sanctions committee. Meanwhile, a black market of cheap oil exports and local trading keeps the leaders afloat. The suffering people have become a handy political weapon, used by both the Americans and the Iraqis. Each blames the other for the ever-rising rates of malnutrition and poverty.
Iraq’s oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia, are the key to the strategic importance of controlling the fate of Iraq, and both Washington and Baghdad know it. While the reasons for animosity between the two countries are complicated, the legendary untapped oil reserves in Iraq are clearly more than a minor consideration in the creation of American policy. Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as secretary of state during the Gulf War, recommended regime change in the section of his energy bill devoted to foreign oil expansion.
Saddam uses the promise of access to the massive reservoirs of untapped oil to gain political sway with key members of the Security Council, such as Russia, France, and China, and trades cheap oil with his neighbors, like Jordan, to secure regional allies.
The boiling point is near, with America’s war on terror offering a handy pretext to enacting its long-held plan of regime change. A number of problems could foil the American plot, however. Times are tense, Palestine is burning, Afghan civilians are dying and, as far as most Middle Easterners are concerned, America’s plans seem to be more about killing their people than fighting terror. The timing for another American invasion could be disastrous. Unlike Operation Desert Storm, Iraq’s wrongdoing is limited to the growing power of Saddam Hussein, who according to most is considered to be a volatile, dangerous man and a threat to his people, the region, and the US.
The controversy over weapons inspection, the heart of the conflict between the two countries, remains shaky ground. The US considers the Iraqi expulsion of the inspectors in 1998 proof that the Iraqi’s had something to hide yet, paradoxically, it recently managed to surreptitiously destroy the talks between the UN and Iraq in Vienna on renewing inspections by leaking the unfinished pentagon plans for an invasion of Iraq on the last day of meetings.
As Iraq’s rumored arsenal is considered rationale for an American invasion, VICE decided to get the dirt on Iraq’s possible threat from people who know both sides of the fence. We spoke to the two leading experts on the topic. You may recognize former weapons inspector Scott Ritter and the Iraqi permanent ambassador to the UN, Mohammed Aldhouri, from heated CNN debates. Somehow these two very different men have found they share the same unusual conclusions.
WEAPONS INSPECTOR SCOTT RITTER
Scott Ritter’s résumé includes serving as a Marine officer during the Gulf War, as a weapons inspector in the Soviet Union, and as the “alpha dog” weapons inspector for UNSCOM for seven years in Iraq. He has spent more time examining the human face behind enemy lines than most and has learned about the real cost of war. Called alternately “the only honest man to talk to about Iraq,” and “an unrepentant liar,” somewhere under all the controversy is a thoughtful Republican guy who wants to believe his country can do the right thing. In the past four years since his resignation from UNSCOM and “because of the manipulation by the government of the United States in the process of weapons inspection” (Congressional Testimony 5/2000), he went from vilifying Saddam to using his experience as an insider to critique the propaganda of warmongering. He spoke to VICE in Washington DC, and later over the telephone.
VICE: What did you get out of your experience in Russia?
Scott Ritter: Every time we tried to go in and talk about disarming the Russians and how effective arms controls were, The Washington Times had a nice front-page story about how the Soviets were cheating, and they would leak top secret information, etc. It was done for political purposes, just as everything that is happening now is leading towards war. Look at the cover of The Washington Post: CIA has a long-standing covert plan in place to destabilize Saddam Hussein for the purpose of preparation for a massive military agenda.
The American public is held hostage by the media and by those who influence the media in regards to Iraq. The main vehicle of this demonization process is the fear factor surrounding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
You admitted that in testimony before Congress in 2000.
A lot of the blame for the perceptions that exist in this crowd and around the United States today can be laid at my doorstep. When I sat before Congress in 1998, Iraq had not complied with its obligations to disarm in accordance with the mandate of the Security Council.
That reminds me about what you wrote in New Republic (reading from the article): “Since his defeat in the Gulf War, Saddam has built up eight years’ worth of resentment and frustration that can only be released through renewed efforts at territorial expansion through armed aggression and blackmail, both economic and military. Even today Iraq is not disarmed.” Elsewhere you wrote that “Iraq is literally getting away with murder. If that means the United States has to hike up its pants, roll up its sleeves, and get in there and start swinging then by God get it done. Because you’re going to have to do it later and the price you pay now is going to pale in comparison with the price you have to pay down the road: American lives, Iraqi lives, disruption of the economy of the entire system.”
The main problem now is: How do we de-demonize a demon upon the basis of fact, not fiction? When I sat before Congress in 1998, when those statements were written, Iraq had not complied with its obligations to disarm in accord with the mandate of the Security Council. But that’s not the problem facing us today. The reality is, when you look from a qualitative standpoint they have no weapons of mass destruction.
What do they have?
By summer of 1995 we started to get comfortable with the totality of our understanding of the weapons of mass destruction program. We didn’t have 100% confirmation about everything but we were able to ascertain that 90% had been accounted for, which means that you have eliminated their ability to produce weapons, that they don’t have any weapons left, and what remains are vestiges of past programs which in their totality mean nothing. So we have fundamentally disarmed Iraq.
Iraq does not possess the weapons of mass destruction that are poised to strike at America and its allies. If you believe that then you’ve been betrayed by the American media — ten years of effective media meant to demonize Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq.
So why is war so imminent?
Basically, after 9/11, the Bush admin got a blank check to wage war against terror and no one has challenged their definition of Iraq as a state that supports terror. If left unchallenged, the Bush administration does not need to go to Congress for permission. Congress gave its unwitting permission by passing emergency appropriations funding for the defense department to reload the precision weaponry expended in Afghanistan, and a very expensive accelerated program to get all these munitions to the military by September or October so that war can be waged this fall. This is the reality.
For all the rhetoric President Bush has put forward about insisting that Iraq allow weapons inspectors back in, understand that the return of weapons inspectors is actually poison for American policy objectives vis-à-vis Iraq. It’s never been about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it’s always been about the elimination of Saddam Hussein. The last thing we want is the light shined on the reality of the status of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.
Will America assassinate him?
It’s not that easy. Iraq has one of the most brutal and sophisticated security apparatuses in modern history. You don’t just get rid of Saddam Hussein. He’s a tough character. We tried, we failed.
What do you think of America’s assassination strategy as it stands right now?
Proponents of military action seem to think that the Iraqis will fold immediately and the Iraqi people will be waving flags to welcome the soldiers, as if it would be no problem to place a pro-Western government in place, leading the people down the path to democracy. Any expert on the ground will tell them that’s not going to work. The various Iraqi coalitions — the ones that are supposed to work with the American soldiers — are telling the Americans to stay the hell away, that there will be a fight even if we go in lightly. In that situation we’ll be stalled because the people of Iraq will fight. If we don’t have an immediate success then we will find ourselves awash in a sea of Anti-American sentiment and attacks. Even regimes with so-called “pro-American” governments, such as Saudi Arabia, could fall to others and then we’d have a real problem on our hands. Then we could face more terrorist attacks. It’s sheer lunacy. It’s utter chaos, no matter how you look at it.
THE IRAQI AMBASSADOR
Iraq’s permanent ambassador to the UN, Mohammed Aldhouri, spoke to VICE from the Iraqi mission in New York City. While VICE tried to start the conversation on a diplomatic note, the ambassador, who represents a leader threatened with assassination and a country under threat of extermination by sanctions, wanted to get down to the brass tacks of the current situation.
VICE: What do you think America’s motives are in Iraq?
Mohammed Aldhouri: The American policy vis-à-vis Iraq stems from three roots: the oppression of Palestinians, controlling the flow of oil, and the foreign policy of the Iraqi government who dare to defy the power of America. This is all well-known, this is history. Bush has always threatened Iraq.
The problem with America, for Iraq, is that its massive power can’t be fought; yet Iraq refuses to negotiate towards a diplomatic agreement.
Iraq can do nothing against the hegemony of the American forces, if they want to use them. America has a strong and sophisticated army. We are preparing ourselves to face such an eventuality. We will stand with our people to defend ourselves. At the end we are not threatening the US, we are so far away, and we are such a small country, 25 million people, we want peace with the US. We do not want to lose our civilization.
What are you doing to prepare for the attack?
We are crying now, before the UN, before the Security Council, before the Arab nation, voicing our concerns and telling them there is a real danger coming from the United States. They need to demonstrate solidarity. We should have the Arab people behind us.
The Bush administration tries to put us at the same level of the terrorists. We have no links to any terrorist groups. Now they say we have weapons of mass destruction. I can’t imagine how we can develop these weapons of mass destruction when we are a people under siege. UNSCOM and the Iraqi government destroyed all the weapons we had before.
I recently spoke to Scott Ritter. He said pretty much the same thing. I understand you still consider him a spy.
Yes I do, but he is also one of the toughest inspectors there is. He knows very well what is going on in Iraq with his long and dangerous experience.
So what went wrong with the inspections?
The first thing to know, these inspectors were spying for America and Israel to give information to the American Pentagon and Israel. This was the most important reason we would not let them in, not because we have anything to hide. In principle we have no objection to letting them in, so we fear nothing. There is an official statement from the president that we have no weapons.
I challenged Tony Blair to come to send any team, any group, media, scientists, to come to Baghdad for proof, and he declined to answer. I put the same thing to the American government — challenging them to tell the UN what they find. But they rejected our challenge, because they know there is nothing there.
Why does America want to punish Iraq so badly?
There is a terrorist act committed in the US and they widen this problem to include other countries — faraway countries — because they need revenge. Why does the US have to put this failure on the shoulder of the Iraqi people? This is unjust. Morally, Americans will pay the price. Our blood will be shed.
Can’t the UN provide some insight and support?
The UN is very well controlled by the US — a country with the biggest power in the world, trying to control the whole world, the economy, the culture, everything. What can a small country like Iraq do against that? Each and every one of the countries in the UN knows the kind of pressure used by the United States, but they can’t tell it openly; they live in fear. It is very easy for the American government to put pressure on any representative of the UN. There is no UN, really; there is no international law. It is an institution controlled by the US alone.
How do you feel about Bush publicly announcing his support for Saddam’s assassination?
It is insanity. What right does he have? He is not Arabic, not Iraqi, and not Muslim. This is no way of doing politics. Such policies are to be condemned. He has no right to ask for a change in the government or impose his whim. We will not allow that. We are not Afghanistan. He will try, he will fail. He will find a strong people waiting for him. This is a violation of international law, of the UN charter. To bombard people. To impose government. Is this 2002 or the eighteenth century?
I’ve heard you say that you like Americans. It’s the American government you have problems with.
Why must the government of the US push others to hate the American people? I find the American people to be very nice, very peaceful. It is your media and your government. Spreading war is not in the interest of the future.
And do you think you will get support from the Arab world if there is a war?
First, our people, then the other Arab nations, and the third world, they are beside us. They know: today us, tomorrow them.
Can you see why America would hate Saddam?
We were friendly with America for many years. We have strong economic ties. We imported many American products in the ’70s and ’80s.
You imported weapons from America during and after the vicious war between Iran and Iraq and you did it with our consent. We helped build the power of Saddam Hussein.
Now he is considered the enemy number one of the Zionists, of Israel, for defending Palestine. Now he is the enemy of the American people. After the Kuwait problem we became enemy number one. We never attacked America; we have no interest in attacking America. We have our own problems.
Where did the relationship go wrong?
We are the only government ever to say no to America. The government of Iraq is strong, and this is dangerous. How does it look when the only government to say no — to defy America, is threatened? If you deal with others with respect, they will respect you. We know the meaning of dignity. Iraqi people are proud. The first law in the world was the Hammurabi Code, 2,000 years before Jesus Christ. We are proud of this. Why do they want to destroy it? Why do they want to destroy us? Why do they want to destroy all these people, and this civilization? I don’t know. If you are looking to understand why, you must look for the answer with someone else. I am a politician now.
Is Iraq doomed?
I don’t know what to do. We have billions in an escrow account, but we do not have access to that money. We are dying — my people they are dying — but there is no way to get the money, no way to lift sanctions. We must find an escape; we will have to find another way.
