Nothing But Politics

[Amaunet]

The following history makes it clear that we have given our blessing to the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of Kurds. Certainly as the Kurds must hate Saddam they also must bear an animosity toward us for turning our back as they were systematically slaughtered.

What is puzzling is why did the Kurds organize their own intelligence network and for months had been trying to uncover Saddam’s whereabouts and then turn the information leading to the deposed dictator’s arrest over to the United States who had watched with a very restrained view the genocide in Iraq of the Kurdish people?

In my opinion a deal may have been struck; the deployment of Turkish troops, having a long history of suppression of the Kurds including those in Iraq, to Iraq would be stopped if the Kurds agreed to search for or find Saddam. The arrangement could also include an autonomous or separatist type region for the Kurds.

I submit that the Kurds might have been threatened with Turkish troops unless they uncovered the whereabouts of Saddam. Bush was giving the Kurds time to come up with Hussein or he would deploy the Turkish soldiers. -Am


It was a unique experience to hear the news of Saddam's capture while in the company of Iraqis, Kurds, Iranians and other Arabs. One of the Kurdish representatives burst into the conference room in tears and demanded an immediate halt to the discussions. "Saddam Hussein has been captured," he said, adding they had received word from Kurdistan, before the television reports. The delegate also claimed that most of the information leading to the deposed dictator's arrest had come from the Kurds, who had organized their own intelligence network and for months had been trying to uncover Saddam's tracks.

http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=87219&list=/home.php&


History
From 1973-75, the United States, Iran, and Israel supported a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq. Documents examined by the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence "clearly show that the President, Dr. Kissinger and the [Shah] hoped that our clients [the Kurds] would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap [Iraqi] resourcesY. This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise." Then, in 1975, the Shah and Saddam Hussein of Iraq signed an agreement giving Iran territorial concessions in return for Iran's closing its border to Kurdish guerrillas. Teheran and Washington promptly cut off their aid to the Kurds and, while Iraq massacred the rebels, the United States refused them asylum. Kissinger justified this U.S. policy in closed testimony: "covert action should not be confused with missionary work." (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 [Pike Report] in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976, pp. 85, 87n465, 88n471. The Pike Report attributes the last quote only to a "senior official"; William Safire, Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333, identifies the official as Kissinger.)]

March 28, 1988 -- Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja, killing estimated 5,000 civilians.

[From Iraq's first use of chemical weapons in 1983, the U.S. took a very restrained view. When the evidence of Iraqi use of these weapons could no longer be denied, the U.S. issued a mild condemnation, but made clear that this would have no effect on commercial or diplomatic relations between the United States and Iraq. Iran asked the Security Council to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use, but the U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to try to prevent a resolution from coming to a vote, or else to abstain. An Iraqi official told the U.S. that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution and did not want any specific country identified as responsible for chemical weapons use. On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. (Battle.)

At the same time that the U.S. government had knowledge of that the Iraqi military was using chemical weapons, it was providing intelligence and planning assistance to the Iraqi armed forces. (Patrick Tyler, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq In War Despite Use Of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p. 1.)

When Iraq used chemical weapons in March 1988 against Halabja, there was no condemnation from Washington. (Dilip Hiro, " which at least 50,000 and possibly 100,000," The Observer, September 1, 2002, p. 17.) "In September 1988, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 16 in favor of economic sanctions against Iraq, but the White House succeeded in having the Senate water down the proposal. In exchange for Export-Import Bank credits, Iraq merely had to promise not to use chemical weapons again, with agricultural credits exempted even from this limited requirement." (Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," p. 261.)]

Aug. 2, 1990 -- Invades Kuwait.

[The chronology omits one of Saddam Hussein's most egregious atrocities, his Anfal campaign against the Kurds from 1987-89, in which at least 50,000 and possibly 100,000 Kurds were systematically slaughtered. (Middle East Watch, Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds, New York: Human Rights Watch, 1993.)

The response of the new Bush administration was to increase Iraq's commodity credits from half a billion to a billion dollars, making it the second largest user of the credit program in the world. As late as April 1990, the administration was opposing sanctions against Iraq ("They would hurt U.S. exporters and worsen our trade deficit," said the State Department). (Guy Gugliotta, Charles R. Babcock, and Benjamin Weiser, "At War, Iraq Courted U.S. Into Economic Embrace," Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1990, p. A1.) The administration also blocked efforts to cut back high-tech exports to Iraq with obvious military applications. (Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas, "Bush insisted on aiding Iraq until war's onset," Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 23, 1992, p. 17.) And the United States was providing intelligence data to Iraq until three months before the invasion. (Murray Waas, Douglas Frantz, "U.S. shared intelligence with Iraq until 3 months before invasion of Kuwait," Houston Chronicle, March 10, 1992, p. A6.)]

http://www.outlookindia.com/specialfeaturem.asp?fodname=20031216&fname=saddam&sid=1

Reference

The Turkish parliament voted last week to send the troops, a move gratefully seized on by the US and British governments, who have had little success in obtaining troops from other countries for duties in Iraq. But the Iraqi governing council voted by 24 to 0 against the move. The vote took place around October 10, 2003.

The extent of the dilemma facing the US and British governments was underlined yesterday when the Iraqi Kurdish leader, Masoud Barzani, threatened to resign from the Iraq governing council if the Turkish troops arrive.

Turkey has a long history of suppression of the Kurds, including those in Iraq. Mr Barzani told Asharq al-Awsat newspaper: "The intervention of Turkish troops in Iraq will have dire consequences.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1064851,00.html

Asked whether Washington totally ruled out a deployment of Turkish troops, he said: "Not forever - things may change".
"Circumstances may permit this at some point. But for the moment, it appears it's not going forward," he added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3250933.stm
Friday, 7 November, 2003,
.