With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq. Our opinions should be solicited and heard before troops deploy for battle, not after they have returned wounded, ill or in body bags.
My husband, the veteran (82nd Airborne) said that we waited too long to get into WWII. It would be the same mistake, or worse, he says, if we wait too long again. Attack Iraq and save Americans! He also reminded me that this is an all volunteer army today (different from WWII, Korea and Vietnam).
Agreed, the first Gulf War wasn't as ugly as Viet Nam, but it wasn't a total turkey shoot either. I lost 3 friends there (shot down), another one shot down and taken POW, and one ground-pounder buddy who lost a leg below the knee. Thank God I was luckier than they were. I know you Viet Nam guys had it a hell of a lot worse than we did. My hat will always be off to you. No war is clean. However, the current situation still justifies action irregardless of the potential losses. The cost of inaction will be much greater than the losses we will have through inaction. EMP + tactical nukes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/butler.html
An Interview with Richard Butler
Richard Butler is the former chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) that was set up to find and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction at the end of the Gulf War. He warns that Saddam Hussein is "addicted" to weapons of mass destruction and that biological weapons are his weapon of choice, but he argues that the U.S. should not go after Saddam until it has proof of his involvement in the Sept. 11 or anthrax attacks. He was interviewed in mid-October 2001.
Q: Give me a sense of Saddam's biological warfare history, his orientation, goal, how much he amassed, etc.
A: It's really simple. When I was in Iraq after a little while, I formed this view. It's kind of a theory, but actually very practical. The degree of resistance that Saddam showed to our inspection and arms control was a direct sign of the importance he attached to a given weapon. So when he said, "You can't go there," that means they really wanted to keep that stuff.
The degree of resistance that the Iraqis showed to our investigation of their biological weapons program exceeded all other deceptions and resistances. So I had to conclude that, for Saddam, biological weapons were his weapons of choice. He seems to be really attached to the idea of killing people with germs, because they tried so hard to keep us away from their biology program. What did they have? Everything. Anthrax, plague, botulinum, gangrene, camelpox. Would you believe there's a thing in Iraq called camelpox? I mean, everything. Quantities and qualities, [we're] not absolutely sure, because they threw us out three years ago and we don't know what they now have.
Anthrax, however, [is the] leading biological agent, leading candidate, because of its nature. We know that Saddam loaded this into shells, bombs, and missile warheads. I had in my own hand pieces of a destroyed missile warhead that we swabbed and it had anthrax residue in it. It was a serious program.
Q: My assumption is that, by using DNA, we can find out whether anthrax that's happening here is anthrax that came from Iraq. Do we have [that evidence]?
A: No. Unfortunately, not readily. ... We have to find out exactly what anthrax was used in these letters in the United States -- crude or sophisticated, and so on -- which would then lead to how it was made, which would then lead to who might have made it. So we funnel down; we narrow the field of candidates for who may have done this.
I suspect that one of the candidates will be Iraq, and, indeed, by the time this goes to air, that may have been proven. Because what is at issue here is crude or weapons-grade anthrax, and Iraq worked quite hard on making weapons-grade anthrax. It meant know-how, it meant investing millions of dollars in special equipment, which they did. Did we bring back samples? No, not particularly. Did we know what they were doing? Not absolutely. But I want to make this point to you: What we knew would have been an underestimate, not an overestimate, because they took such strenuous measures to prevent us from knowing the truth. What we saw was tens of thousands of gallons, serious stuff. Whether that was all of it or not, I don't know.
Q: Tens of thousands of...
A: ... Gallons or liters. Quite frankly, I can't remember at this particular moment, but very substantial quantities of anthrax, substantial quantities. Now, question that our figures, if anything, would have been low, not high. How else could I interpret the degree of resistance that was shown to our investigation of the biological weapons thing?
Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy, took me aside once, just once, in private, and said, "Of course we made biological weapons. Of course." One hour prior to that, in a public room, he was saying, "We never did that," but privately he said, "Of course we did." And he went on to say why. He said [it was] to use on the Persians and the Jews. ...
Beyond that, there is no doubt that, if you look at the amount of growth media -- the means of making this stuff that Iraq imported -- the figures they gave us, the figures we had to work with on how much anthrax and so on were clearly underestimates.
Q: This growth media is the jet fuel of anthrax?
A: Well, something like that. This stuff exists in every hospital in the United States. If you have some pathology that needs to be investigated, they take a swab or a piece of skin or whatever from you to see if you've got a disease, or cancer, or whatever. Typically the tissue is grown in a growth medium. Look, it's quite simple. It's a little bit of gel, a little bit of yeast, that gives food to these cells, that grows them so the scientist can see if you're well or unwell. But in hospitals, you use a smidgen of it, a fingernail. You use a tiny bit to do that.
These people in Iraq imported tons of it. We begged them, we said, "Why did you do that? Why do you need all that stuff? To grow what?" We knew quite well it was to grow their biological weapons cultures. It's pathetic, but in the end they said, "The order clerk made an error, he put an extra zero on the error and we got 50 tons instead of five," or something like that. That's the nonsense that we were subjected to.
Q: In the period after 1998, Iraq defenses would say they were done. They couldn't do it. We'd blown up the facilities. There was no ability for them to have done anything with this material. Do you believe that?
A: No. ... First, all of the evidence of their behavior showed that Saddam was very interested in biological weapons. They created the factories for it; they got the growth media and the seed stock. They did it.
Secondly, when at the end of the Gulf War the international community made a law which said Iraq must be divested of these things or sanctions will remain, Saddam had the clearest possible choice. He could remove sanctions on 22 million ordinary Iraqi people and alleviate and improve their standard of life, or he could retain his weapons of mass destruction. What did he do? The latter. He said, "Damn the ordinary people, I want my weapons."
For five years, he refused to accept the oil-for-food arrangement, where his oil could be sold to produce food for the people. For several years, he refused and hindered our inspections. What can one make of this? This is a man who wants weapons of mass destruction, even at the cost of ordinary Iraqi people. And that's what he did.
Now, go further into what I was saying earlier. The degree of resistance in the nuclear, chemical and biological area varied. But the highest degree of resistance was in the biological area, which leads me to conclude that this [is] Saddam's favorite toy: killing people with germs. They lied to us comprehensively about their program, and it was very hard for us to get a handle on it, to know its exact size and quality. In the end I think we did, up to a point, but let me say this: The last offer I made them before they threw us out was, "Give me the biological weapons. I'll forget about the manufacturing capability." This was unique. I tried to turn it on its head, I said, "Let's go top down. Give me the biological weapons that you've actually made, and I'll worry later about the manufacturing capability. Just give me the sharp end of the stick, the weapons."
Tariq Aziz briefly said to me, "That's an interesting proposal," but in a matter of weeks later, he just said, "You're out of here. No way." Because, in a sense, I was right. In a sense, it would have exposed all of the lies about never having weaponized biology, which, of course, they had.
Q: Does it surprise you that there is a bipartisan movement in Washington to go after Saddam?
A: No, it doesn't surprise me. ...
Q: Why are you not surprised?
A: Because they're right. ... Saddam and his addiction to weapons of mass destruction -- why do I use that word? I use that word really carefully. I've thought about this very deeply. Not attachment, but addiction -- a compulsive behavior, a deep belief that somehow these weapons will open up the world or make him the leader of the world, the new Nebuchadnezzar from biblical times, whatever. Believe me, they're right; Washington is right. This man and his addiction to weapons of mass destruction is actually a very serious problem.
Secondly, if one wants to get to the bottom of the whole business of there being an Arab and Muslim world on the one hand, but within that are fanatic terrorists on the other hand. ... We have to disconnect the two. Saddam's role in that is important. As long as he is there, posturing to be a leader of the slighted Arab peoples against the West and so on, that's a very serious problem.
The third thing is the specific possibility that he's actually given aid to Al Qaeda, that he's actually given anthrax or aid or whatever. So there are three good reasons to be concerned about him.
Which one would I choose? It's actually the middle one. It is the one that says Arab and Muslim people are deeply misled by people like Saddam Hussein, deeply misled. His offer to them [is] that by following him in some pan-Arab movement towards a better world against the West, against the Israelis or what Aziz calls the Jews, will somehow save everyone, make everyone's life better. It's very seductive, and it's very wrong.
The fundamental problem that many people in the Arab and Muslim world face is their standard of living and that their governments do little about it. That's not our fault, but that's a problem they face. Saddam suggesting to people, "Lift your gaze from that, follow me into some great Arab crusade," is both wrong but very dangerous to us. I would argue that, as long as a man like that exists in that part of the world, we've got a problem.
explanation...i'm with you! just posted the article in its entirety. why are people at fr just posting excerpts(except for wp/lat)? redirect service is time consuming\tedious.. i'm gung ho on this...
As a Gulf War veteran myself, I see this article as complete BS. I, along with my entire battalion, sat in Bradleys a day after the cease fire and followed orders not to fire on the remaining Iraqi armor that was retreating from Kuwait. I don't think there was a single man in my company who didn't vehemently express the opinion that we should kill them all and let God sort them out. Not only that, but most of us wanted to go the remaining 60 miles into Baghdad and finish the damn job, even though we knew a lot more GI's would die. On top of that, I don't know which highway of death he heard about, but the one we saw (highway 8) was blown up long before the ground war, not after (although I admit I didn't see it until after).The dead vehicles were a military convoy hit during the month-long bombing campaign.
If this guy really is a Gulf War vet, and I have serious doubts, then he is at best a serious REMF and probably watched the combat on TV from his hotel in Riyadh.
It really bugs the hell out of me when left wing freaks try to project their cowardice on the most patriotic of our citizens.
Anyone have an inkling that this anonymous Gulf War vet may not be an American?
I don't mind paying the medical bills of any vet wounded in combat. Our treatment of vets with the Gulf War illness is dispicable! Come to think of it our treatment of all vets is sickening. Presidents and Congress simply use our troops and bitch about any POW's that got left behind, trying to ignore them. Remember Viet Nam, remember Korea, remember WWII, remember WWI?
Don't forget that there are a lot on the rightside of the aisle who are cautious about an Iraq attack and think that this may not be in the US best interest.
This "Anonymous" is yellow. I'm a Desert Storm vet and No one that was there wanted the war to end until Hussain was taken down. Yea we knew the problems but we were already there and very willing to get it done. We were pissed when the word came down that the war was over. Because the job had not been completed and we knew it would only be a matter of time before we returned.
