Morality in Iraq, Then and Now – in the Washington Post on August 27, 2006
In Hoagland’s opinion piece “Morality in Iraq, Then and Now” he simultaneously makes the claim that the US officials engaged in a “cover-up of Hussein’s Anfal campaign” and that the “Washington [Reagan-Bush administration] even made sure Iraq [Saddam’s government] was invited to a prestigious international conference on chemical weapons in 1988.
So, which is it? Did they engage in a cover-up or engage in promotion of Saddam’s genocide? I think the fact that US made gun ships were used in the Anfal campaign is a big clue. Plus, the solitary veto from the UN Security Council condemning Saddam for these actions – which came from the United States - might give us a clue as to what was really happening at the time.
Interestingly, Hoagland thinks that the current US war in Iraq is coming perilously close to being immoral. Imagine, the same group of people who invite Saddam’s government to a chemical weapons convention and vetoed a UN resolution condemning Saddam for his chemical attacks on the Kurds MIGHT be coming close to being immoral! Who would have thunk!
We have a Secretary of Defense who claimed, “stuff happens” when Iraqi civil society was totally falling apart and chaos was the law of the land. We had General Franks who said “we don’t do body counts” when Iraqi civilians were dying by the thousands.
And Hoagland thinks that maybe, possibly, they might be close to being immoral. I would say Hoagland has a broader definition of “immoral” than most people I know, including myself. It was abundantly clear to me before the first US troops entered Iraq that these Washington folks did not care what happened to Iraqi people now or then. I would think the comments by Rumsfeld and Franks and the lack of response from Bush would have made that clear to even the slowest among us.
I find it hard to imagine any “military occupation” against a nation that did not attack or even threaten us would ever change things for the better, but Mr. Hoagland seems to think such a thing is possible. Here’s hoping that such “military intervention” (better know to most of us as WAR) comes to improve Mr. Hoagland and the Washington Post someday soon. After all, we can’t thank our corporate media enough for the mess we are currently in, so it is the least our possibly immoral government can do for them.