Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How George H.W. Bush Helped Saddam Hussein Prevent an Iraqi Uprising

By Barry Lando, AlterNet. Posted March 30, 2007.


This devastating passage from Barry Lando's book on the history of American and British imperial lies about Iraq exposes the efforts that the first Bush president made to keep Hussein in power after the first Gulf War.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Barry Lando

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The following is an adapted excerpt from "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" (Other Press) by Barry Lando.

Though Saddam Hussein has been dispatched, the trial of his confederates continues in Baghdad. In the next few months, the Special Iraqi Tribunal will be hearing evidence against almost a hundred of Saddam's former officials, charged with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Shiites following the abortive uprising or Intifada of 1991.

Because of the way the Tribunal has been run, it's highly unlikely there'll be any mention of U.S. complicity with that slaughter. In fact, President George H. W. Bush was very much involved.

It was he who in February 1991, as American forces were driving Saddam's troops out of Kuwait, called for the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow the dictator. That message was repeatedly broadcast across Iraq. It was also contained in millions of leaflets dropped by the U.S. Air Force. Eager to end decades of repression, the Shiites arose. Their revolt spread like wildfire; in the north, the Kurds also rose up. Key Iraqi army units joined in. It looked as if Saddam's days were over.

But then George H. W. Bush blew the whistle. Things had got out of hand. What Bush had wanted was not a messy popular uprising but a neat military coup -- another strongman more amenable to Western interests. The White House feared that turmoil would give the Iranians increased influence, upset the Turks, wreak havoc throughout the region.

But the Bush administration didn't just turn its back; it actually aided Saddam to suppress the Intifada.

The Uprising Smashed

When Saddam's brutal counter-attack against the rebellions began, the order was given to American troops already deep inside Iraq and armed to the teeth not to assist the rebellion in any way -- though everyone knew that they were condemning the Intifada to an awful defeat. Thanks to their high-flying reconnaissance planes, U.S. commanders would observe the brutal process as it occurred.

At the time, Rocky Gonzalez was a Special Forces warrant officer serving with U.S. troops in southern Iraq. Because he spoke Arabic, he was detached to serve with the Third Brigade of the 101st Infantry when the ground war began. There were about 140 men in his unit, which was stationed at Al Khadir on the Euphrates, just a few kilometers from Kerbala and Najaf.

Rocky was one of the few Americans who could actually communicate with the Iraqis. When the Intifada erupted, the Americans prompted the rebels to raid the local prison in Kerbala and free the Kuwaitis who were being held there. "We didn't think there was going to be a lot of bloodshed," said Gonzalez, "but they executed the guards in the prison." Prior to the uprising, the rebels had also been feeding intelligence to the Americans on what Saddam's local supporters were up to.

From their base, Rocky and his units watched as Saddam's forces launched their counterattack against the rebel-held city. Thousands of people fled toward the American lines, said Gonzalez. "All of a sudden, as far as the eye could see on Highway Five, there was just a long line of vehicles, dump trucks, tractors -- any vehicle they could get -- coming to us in streams."

"The rebels wanted aid, they wanted medical treatment, and some of the individuals wanted us to give them weapons and ammunition so they could go and fight. One of the refugees was waving a leaflet that had been dropped by U.S. planes over Iraq. Those leaflets told them to rise up against the regime and free themselves."

"They weren't asking us to fight. They felt they could do that themselves. Basically they were just saying 'we rose up like you asked us, now give us some weapons and arms to fight.'"

The American forces had huge stocks of weapons they had captured from the Iraqis. But they were ordered to blow them up rather than turn them over to the rebels. "It was gut-wrenching to me," said Gonzalez. "Here we were sitting on the Euphrates River and we were ordered to stop. As a human being, I wanted to help, but as a solider I had my orders."

Ironically, according to a former U.S. diplomat, some of the arms that were not destroyed by American forces were collected by the CIA and shipped to anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan, who at the time were being clandestinely backed by the U.S.

A Shiite survivor of the uprising later said he had seen other American forces at the river town of Nassiriya destroy a huge cache of weapons that the rebels desperately needed. "They blew up an enormous stock of arms," he said. "If we had been able to get hold of them, the course of history would have been changed in favor of the uprising, because Saddam had nothing left at that moment."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, hussein, suppression

Barry Lando is the author of "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" (Other Press).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush 41 is like first son Dub-ya -- a coward who lied about his military service to get elected.
Posted by: HughScott on Mar 30, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For my 2004 nonfiction book, "George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT" -- because first sons often emulate their fathers, good and bad -- I investigated the WWII combat record of Shrub's daddy in regards to his controversial Chichi Jima bombing mission.

Using Big George's own words, official Navy records, living eyewitness testimony and my aviation expertise (16,700 pilot hours), I showed that on September 2, 1944, Lt. j.g. Bush, an Avenger torpedo bomber aircraft commander, panicked and bailed out on his two-man flight crew after being hit by Japanese ground fire, causing tail gunner Ted White and radio operator John Delaney to die in the pilotless plane crash at sea.

Because panic can be forgiven in aviation if admitted, it’s what Big George did later that brings shame to himself and the fabled Bush dynasty.

Instead of confessing his failure, he:

1. Embellished the ill-fated mission to win the Distinguished Flying Cross.
2. Failed to obtain similar medals of valor for Delaney and White.
3. Rode the exaggerated war story to the White House.
4. Obliterated the memory of his dead “comrades” by not mentioning their names in his many books and biographies.
5. Defamed Chester Mierzejewski, highly decorated WWII Navy veteran and honorable Avenger tail gunner who saw Bush bail out and told the truth about the Chichi Jima mission during the 1988 presidential campaign.

When PHONY FIGHTER PILOT went into print in September 2004, it made me the only aviator, journalist, whatever, to publish a detailed investigation of Bush 41's combat record since WWII.

I am also the first person to interview Chester Mierzejewski since 1988, when he blew the whistle on Big George's bogus war story before the November election.

One more shameful fact. In June 2004, while researching Big George's Presidential Library at my alma mater, Texas A&M, I found NO record in the archives for John Delaney and Ted White. To Bush 41, obviously, they were political embarrassments, not war heroes.

To learn more about Bush 41’s cowardly combat mission, visit my website PhonyFighterPilot.com.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, ex-USAF pilot, registered Republican, Goldwater conservative, RABID neocon-hater (like Barry) and also the editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush Family Military Service Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Bush Family Military Service Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Bush Family Military Service Posted by: blitzmesser
» Bush rescue.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Bush rescue.. Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Bush rescue.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Bush rescue.. Posted by: leafsong1
Unsurprising
Posted by: Fade on Mar 30, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Bush wanted to keep a dictator in power over Iraq?
Imagine that. There will be another one soon, when we leave. The Iraqi people aren't ready for a Democracy. When they are, they will create one of their own. It's time for us to get our troops out. We have done what we came to do, ostensibly. We have removed any fear of militaristic threat to America from the nation of Iraq. "Defeat" is a simplistic ideal. We pull out now. Quit wasting money and lives and let the Iraqi Civil War go forward. Most likely, the U.S. government will clandestinely support whoever they want to win, and we will have another Saddam-like ally who will sell us oil and provide a modicum of buffer towards Iran.

Why Defeat doesn't matter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Grand Chessboard
Posted by: daw13 on Mar 30, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or The (New) Great Game in the Middle East is revealed to an unsurprised U.S. public. Set 'em up, play 'em off against one another, after all they're not real people like us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Guy Might Want to Check His Facts
Posted by: mangell on Mar 30, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Ironically, according to a former U.S. diplomat, some of the arms that were not destroyed by American forces were collected by the CIA and shipped to anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan, who at the time were being clandestinely backed by the U.S."

The Russians left Afghanistan in 1988. So how could weapons seized in 1991 been of any aid to the mujahadeen?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The facts check out Posted by: lessbread
» No, they don't Posted by: Boomerang
» Yes they do Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Yes they do Posted by: yellow
Helicopter gunships
Posted by: lessbread on Mar 30, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For reasons unknown, Bush 41 had Schwarzkopf negotiate the cease fire that ended the First Gulf War. His counterparts at the negotiating table were his Iraqi opposites. They told Schwarzkopf that they needed to continue flying their helicopters because their bridges had all been destroyed. He believed them and let them keep their helicopters which they promptly used to put down the Shiite-Kurdish rebellion. Despite this success, Saddam later blamed the generals that worked this out for the entire defeat of the war. In this way he was able to turn defeat into victory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Embolden...
Posted by: fallout1 on Mar 30, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So.......didn't this "embolden the enemy" ? What's your response Hannity? Moron.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ridiculous conclusions
Posted by: Boomerang on Mar 30, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So because we obeyed the UN mandate to remove Saddam from Kuwait, we're somehow responsible for Saddam brutalizing his own people? What kind of twisted logic is that? The US, both domestically and internationally, had absolutely no support to go knock down Saddam Hussein. It was a non-starter. We encouraged the Iraqis to rise up, that's true, but we never said we were going to go help them.

As for the chemical weapons bit, that's totally specious. We told Saddam that if he used chemical weapons against the US that he would face "massive retaliation." Saddam gassing his own people wasn't taking a risk at all. All he had to do was make sure he didn't hit US troops with chemical weapons. It's an irrelevant point, much like this entire excerpt.

This is a series of ridiculous conclusions based on very shady inferences. The CIA shipped weapons from Iraq to Afghanistan to fight Soviets who weren't even there anymore? What? That just makes no sense. And neither does implying that it's somehow America's fault that Saddam brutalized his own people. We pushed him out of Kuwait, just like we said we would.

Making the sort of argument that we should have intervened to stop the massacre sounds an awful lot like the sorts of arguments we were hearing in 2003 about this round of conflict in Iraq. The place was a powder keg in 1991, it was a powder keg in 2003, and anyone who knew anything knew that going in there was stupid. There was no imminent threat from Iraq. If anything, we should have put hard pressure on Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: idiculous conclusions Posted by: leafsong1
Bush swinging from a rope
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 30, 2007 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe someday we'll all see Bush swinging from a rope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HughScott Posted by: veggiegrrrl
CIA-Saudi-Pakistani-Taliban networks and Afghani drug money...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 30, 2007 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The networks set up by the CIA and the Pakistani ISI to funnel Saudi funds and American weapons to the mujihedeen continued to exist in various forms after the collapse of the Soviet Union. These networks were apparently taken over by various groups, like Al Queda, and were also used by Pakistan's nuclear scientist in his 'Islamic bomb' project.

Why would the US want a Saudi-friendly regime in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union collapsed? Central Asian oil, duh. Geostrategic imperative: control the world's oil. That's how Bush and Cheney and the State Department and their finacial and oil industry cronies think.

Of course, someone has to pay for the weapons, and the only source of cash in Afghanistan is heroin production.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Family Tradition
Posted by: Sparks56 on Mar 30, 2007 7:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prescott Bush was father to George H.W. Bush and grandfather to Dubya. He made a lot of money doing business with Nazi Germany. A lot of people did that but only Prescott continued after the Nazi invasions of western Europe. He was made to halt by the US Congress.
The Bush family are sociopaths. It's genetic. George H.W. showed that when he bailed out of his torpedo plane in WW II and left his crew to crash, and then never mentioned their names again. Turning a cold shoulder to the gassing of Iraqis is in character. Dubya's complete lack of any social/moral connection is apparent in his phoney war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands. His reaction, or lack of reaction, to Hurricane Katrina is another example. Whole human beings just don't do that. (Given Barbara Bush's comments on the people in the New Orleans Superdome, you can see that Dubya gets it from both sides of his family.)
Had the Bush family arisen on the other side of the tracks, they would be a notorious crime family. As it is, their poisonous tentacles reach around the world through corporations like the Carlyle Group.
The Bush Family is a human pestilance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Motivation
Posted by: yellow on Mar 31, 2007 12:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat and Andrew Cockburn wrote an excellent book which was published before the US invasion and indeed before 9/11 in which they give a concise but full explaination for the curious US response. The explaination is worth quoting, "The war in the Gulf was not a war for change but a conservative war to maintain the status quo." If the US had helped the Iraqi people rise up than the real threat would be a people armed, liberating themselves on their own terms, and taking direct control of their own political future. If this occured the US could not have come in later, more opportune point in the conflict to overthrow Saddam while setting up a puppet government that would serve an array of US corporate interests instead of those of the Iraqi people. This is the real lesson. Don't just win the war, win the peace.

The canard about the Shi'ites being a fifth column for Iranian influence doesn't wash. Iran was far less of a problem in 1991 than they are today despite the crushing of the Shi'ite rebellion in the South. Fearing the risings possible effect of the Shi'ite rising on the low lying oil and water rich area of Iran on the east bank of the Shatte al-Arab waterway (the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates that empties into the Persian Gulf), the Iranians sealed the border to prevent any contact between Iraq and Iran. The Kurds in the North rose as well. Saddam only controlled four provinces of the Sunni Center but this would not hold as most of the Sunnis would turn against Saddam as well and in 1991 there was no communal conflict between the Shi'ites and Sunnis. That would be left for the US to foment later after the success of the 2003 invasion and defeat of Saddam in order to foster national disunity and maintain control of a deliberately fractured country.

Winning the Peace!! If anything proves that the real motivation of the US imperialists was not the promotion of security, democracy, and human rights by ridding the region of an odious dictator the peculiar response of the Bush I administration and US military to the ill fated Shi'ite uprising in the spring of 1991. It was a horrible betrayal. It only showed our true imperialist designs on a country that we would ultimately subject to far more torment than did Saddam. And all for greed and hegemony. We are now paying the price. History may well judge us harshly!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How George HW Bush Helped Saddam Hussein Prevent an Iraqi Uprising
Posted by: pfm on Apr 2, 2007 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SURPRISE .... SURPRISE .... SURPRISE ....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]