Merchants of death

THE words of CIA director, Michael Hayden, in an interview with the NBC television network are ominously reminiscent of the dark days of 2003 when one heard the drumbeat of war incessantly emanating from the White House, Pentagon and 10 Downing Street.

At that time, it was claimed that Iraq presented ‘a clear and present danger’ to the US and the ‘civilised world’ and had to be dealt with immediately.

Hayden has used the exact words now by saying that the situation in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda has established a safe haven, presents a ‘clear and present danger’ to the West, and that if there was another terrorist attack against the Americans it would most certainly originate from that region.

The reason that such language — and the barely disguised threats within it — is worrying for Pakistanis is that this kind of rhetoric preceded the invasion and conquest of Iraq in 2003 despite the fact that it was based on concoctions, lies and distortions. The American CIA and the British MI6, with generous help from the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz in the US and Alistair Campbell in Britain, crafted a series of lies to convince the public in the US and Britain that Iraq needed to be attacked as it possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq’s vehement denial in its weapons report was rejected outright by hawkish leaders as they prepared for the colonisation of the oil-rich country. The voices of millions of people on the streets of London, New York, Washington, Rome, Paris, Berlin and other parts of the world protesting against the impending terror attack fell on deaf ears. On March 20, 2003, the world saw the initiation of one of the biggest disasters in world history and a major humanitarian catastrophe in the cradle of civilisation.

When the world’s most powerful ‘democracies’ were launching Operation Enduring Freedom (a tragically ironic name given the genocide in Iraq) they chose to ignore the voices of the international weapons inspectors and experts who tried to warn them against such adventurism. The UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix who led Unmovic, and the IAEA director Mohammad ElBaradei, repeatedly advised caution in interpreting the outlandish claims made by the CIA and MI6.

Tony Blair frightened Britons into acquiescence by claiming that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon and attack London in 45 minutes! The Americans provided ‘credible evidence’ that Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger! Both these claims were proved wrong with strong suspicions that they were deliberately fabricated for dramatic effect.

An embarrassed Colin Powell presented unconvincing satellite pictures to the UN Security Council to bring Russia, France and other sceptics on board. The shadowy figure of the then CIA director George Tenet sitting right behind him seemed like a back-up in case the world body remained incredulous.

In the aftermath of the apocalyptic tragedy, every nook and corner of Iraq was searched for the elusive WMD and no smoking gun emerged. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), a joint venture of the CIA and the department of defence, was tasked under David Kay to search for the weapons which had escaped the UN inspectors. After six months, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on Oct 3, 2003. The team found evidence of ‘WMD-related programme activities’ but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

On Jan 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq.

“I don’t think they existed,” commented Kay. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War, and I don’t think there was a large-scale production programme in the nineties.” In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticised the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying, “It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.”

Kay’s successor was the former UN weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were ‘close to nil’. On Sept 30, 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report on Iraq’s WMD programmes. Among its key findings: Saddam ended his nuclear programme in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the programme, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons programme progressively decayed after 1991.

In March 2004, Hans Blix and El Baradei reported that the US had ignored evidence against the existence of WMD in Iraq and the basis of the war was unjustified. In 2004, Blix published a book Disarming Iraq in which he gave his account of the events and inspections before the coalition began its invasion. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found.

Bush and Blair, and their cronies, Aznar of Spain and Howard of Australia, also tried to argue that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda and had been involved in the events of 9/11. No evidence for these claims was found. All the different reasons given for the illegal attack on Iraq were found to be contrary to the truth. The last, and most ridiculous, excuse for the invasion was ‘spreading freedom and democracy’ in Iraq. How cruel this joke was is only too obvious from the subsequent descent of Iraq into chaos and near-disintegration. Over a million Iraqis are dead but the murderous orgy continues.

There is a dire lesson here for Pakistanis and their newly-elected civilian government. There is no reason to believe that the claims of Michael Hayden are any more truthful than those of the earlier CIA operatives. One is reminded of George Orwell’s 1984 in which the ministry of truth was established to manufacture and spread lies. What is of imminent concern is the reason for the claims made by Hayden. Is it in preparation for war or strikes as in the case of Iraq? Is it to browbeat a nascent democratic government in Pakistan into submission?

The elected government has the people’s power behind it. It has the capacity to resist arm-twisting by the US unlike the previous dispensation which lacked legitimacy. The path of dialogue and engagement that has been chosen by our representatives may be eminently more fruitful and humane than the kill-all ideology of the neocons. Resist we must, and resist we will, if we are to avoid an Iraq-like fate.
By Dr Rubina Saigol