13 March 2003

A REPORT FROM THE HIGH MORAL GROUND I came across this material after seeing images of stillborn deformed Iraqi babies in a programme on the History Channel about the Gulf War.   During the 12 years following the Gulf War information concerning the effects of depleted uranium both on American servicemen & Iraqis emerged from time to time.  Appalling though those revelations were a combination of Gulf War fatigue amongst the public, lack of consistent media interest & the interposition of other, more immediate Middle Eastern news drew attention away.  Now, with a second conflict possibly only days away, the horror depicted below is about to be re-enacted.  The hideous irony of it all is inescapable: the Americans are about to deploy de facto weapons of mass destruction, not only against the enemy but against their own troops too.  Anyone reluctantly wavering in their opposition to war in Iraq because of an abhorrence of Saddam Hussein's savage regime & the conviction that anything is better than that it should prevail must now consider the alternative.  In the wake of Saddam's butchery power will be brokered by a Western democracy that is prepared to poison its own troops in the pursuit of efficiency, practicality & 'a valuable combat capability'.  Truly the lunatics really have taken over the asylum… GULF WAR LEGACY by Thomas P. Healy Maj. Doug Rokke is "hot." No, he's not sweating. Nor is his physique the object of admiration. He's "hot" because his body is contaminated by uranium-specifically, "depleted uranium" (DU), which was widely used in munitions during the Gulf War as well as in Bosnia. DU is also expected to be deployed in the event of military action in Iraq. "I was excreting over 1,200 micrograms a day and [the U.S. Army] never even told me for two and a half years," Rokke says. According to Army regulations, any uranium excretion over 250 micrograms a day warrants immediate medical care. Rokke is a Vietnam and Gulf War combat veteran who has specialized in hazardous materials and emergency medicine for more than 20 years. During Operation Desert Storm, he was part of a team that established decontamination procedures and facilities for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Later, he was given the mandate to clean up depleted uranium contamination in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. But the exposure came at great cost. DU-or more specifically, the radioactive isotope uranium 238-is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process used to create reactor fuel and bombs. It was first used in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. In the Gulf War, Rokke says, it was widely used for its effectiveness in penetrating armor and strengthening armor against penetration. Since then, more than 100,000 Gulf War veterans have reported unexplained illness, in a phenomenon sometimes known as Gulf War Syndrome. DU is a highly toxic heavy metal, and some studies have linked exposure to increased rates of cancer and birth defects. "We have willfully spread it all over the place," Rokke says. "We've refused to clean up the mess; we've refused to provide medical care; not only to the American 'friendly fire' casualties who survived, but also to the DU cleanup teams; and we've refused to supply medical care to all the thousands and thousands of other people, including women and children-which makes it an indiscriminate weapon." Indiscriminate weapons are banned by international law. The United Nations has issued several calls for a ban on DU, which the United States has rejected. "When you leave all the contamination there," Rokke says of the Gulf War, "people are going to continue to get sick from just the uranium munitions alone-much less all of the millions of rounds of [unused] uranium 238 that we just left there." Scientific studies on DU downplay hazards, and the military denies it has any harmful effects at all. In 1999, the Department of Defense hired the Rand Corporation to review the existing medical literature surrounding the effects of DU. Though it said more studies were needed, Rand reported that U.S. troops were unlikely to suffer ill effects from exposure to DU during their Gulf War tours. But Rokke is convinced the Army is aware of the dangers of DU exposure. A March, 1991 memo from New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory notes "concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment." The memo warns that without support for DU, "we stand to lose a valuable combat capability." In 1992, Rokke co-authored a "theater cleanup plan" outlining the hazards of DU and making recommendations for remediation of the estimated 315 tons of DU fired during the Gulf War. "The plan went up through the military chain of command and was given to the Secretary of State and sent over to the emirate of Kuwait," he says. He's still waiting for the cleanup to start. "It's just not been done." "The army knows it's a problem, and they just don't care," Rokke says. "They're going to use DU. You have to understand that. The purpose is to kill. When you go to war, you use the best weapon you have, and you will not ever give it up." Based in part on the DU assessment reports Rokke and his team filed after the Gulf War, the Defense Department released a directive on August 14, 1993, to: "1. Provide adequate training for personnel who may come in contact with depleted uranium equipment. 2. Complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during the Persian Gulf War. 3 Develop a plan for DU contaminated equipment recovery during future operations." Rokke says none of this has been done either. He just wishes the military would acknowledge the consequences of its actions. He's in good company. Both the Military Toxics Project and the National Gulf War Resource Center are calling for the United States to exercise leadership and ban DU. International concerns are also growing, since England, China and 12 other nations have arsenals of depleted uranium. A 17-member international team of scientists working with the U.N. Environmental Program is currently examining the effects of DU in Bosnia. The commission is expected to issue a report in March. For the past decade, Rokke has taken his message, both independently and as an Army officer, to veterans' groups, peace organizations and even Capitol Hill. His message is blunt: "I learned that real effective cleanup of this stuff is impossible. We need to ban DU." (from IN THESE TIMES) EXTRACT FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH DR. HELEN CALDICOTT Robyn Williams: OK, so in war zones in the Gulf there are these remnants of uranium. Helen Caldicott: They used 300 to 800 tons of it, Robyn. Robyn Williams: But this is not generally known. Helen Caldicott: No, it was a nuclear war. Robyn Williams: Why isn't it generally known? Helen Caldicott: Well, it's known in Europe. The European Parliament and the Danish Parliament, the Italian Parliament were fit to kill because their soldiers are getting leukaemia in high numbers than normal, their peace keepers. I was asked to write a piece for the New York Times about this: I did it, and they sent it back and said, we are unable to publish this - as if someone is preventing them. Yeah, probably the Pentagon. So I sent it to USA Today: they said, too technical. It wasn't technical at all. The LA Times, they wouldn't publish it. There is a total blackout on this event in the US media, a total cover up.       10:22:39 PM    comment [] In that now familiar congealed, speaking-through-chewing gum syntax of his, Donald Rumsfeld was actually saying to poor old hagridden Tony Blair, "Shit or get off the pot". And unless Tony & his gang slip off their jackets & roll up their sleeves right now, Dubya & his gang are going to clean up the playground on their own. So why is the UK involved?  Presumably it was apparent to Blair from the start that in purely tactical terms our forces are supernumary; that the United States possesses armour enough to drive the few Iraqi troops that might resist the immediate onslaught back to Baghdad.  What is the deal here?  Buddy backing up buddy?  Belt & suspenders?  Hubris?  Or maybe Tony wants to emulate even further his unacknowledged but clearly manifest eminence grise, Maggie Thatcher?  She had the Falklands; maybe Tony would like a piece of the Middle East. One thing is certain: for better or worse, practical involvement in what is about to be unleashed will immortalise him. Here's the UK Daily Mirror take on the Rumsfeld brush-off.  US: WE DON'T NEED YOU TONY Mar 12 2003 Blair staring at disaster as UN refuses to back war.. and Bush says he may attack without him By James Hardy, Political Editor   TONY Blair was reeling last night after US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it could wage war on Iraq without Britain. Rumsfeld spoke out as the PM was told he could be toppled as Labour leader if he takes the nation into conflict without UN backing. Forty of his MPs are calling for him to go - to make way for someone who will "stand up to President Bush". Rumsfeld's dramatic declaration was seen as America's first acknowledgment of Mr Blair's political troubles at home. It could even offer a possible "out-clause" for Britain - which if accepted by Mr Blair - would be a humiliating retreat for him. Recognising the role of Parliament here, US "hawk" Rumsfeld said: "Their situation is distinctive to their country. They have a government that deals with a parliament." Mr Rumsfeld suggested "walkaround" options, in which the UK could perform non-combat tasks such as holding oilfields and aid work. However, his remarks at a Pentagon news conference, were also being interpreted as a sign that Mr Bush's patience was running out - and Mr Blair should not get side-tracked by his pursuit of UN backing. The Security Council now seems certain to reject later this week the US-British second resolution triggering war if Saddam does not disarm by next Monday, March 17. At home, Labour party chiefs fear the PM's opponents will try to force an emergency conference to hold him to account for flouting the will of the world community. Mr Blair looked haggard yesterday at No.10 talks with key ministers. His critics believe the 122-strong rebellion against the Government two weeks ago will be dwarfed if Britain backs US go-it-alone action. They plan to harness unions and constituencies to fight the leadership. The Socialist Campaign Group, speaking for 40 MPs, said Mr Blair's "reckless ambition" could tear apart the world order. In a statement, the group said: "It is time for the Prime Minister to consider his position in the interests not just of the country and his party but in the interests of maintaining the framework of world order. "This is now more serious than one individual. This has gone beyond the career of Tony Blair. "If the Prime Minister is not prepared to stand up to George Bush and call for a peaceful resolution to this crisis, he must make way for those who will. "Blair is not the issue. The future of the UN is." Led by MP John McDonnell, the group is a left-wing mouthpiece, but its statement underlines wide back-bench anger. Failure to win a Security Council majority or a decision to ignore a French or Russian veto would plunge Mr Blair into his gravest crisis. Even moderate MPs are questioning him. Lancaster's Hilton Dawson called on him to quit as he defended rebel Clare Short. "If the Prime Minister really wants to be in this position, then frankly he, quite as much as the excellent Clare Short, should also consider his position," said Mr Dawson. Tam Dalyell, Father of the House, said pressure for a special conference could be overwhelming. "I don't think it is possible to exaggerate the degree of concern about the illegality of what is proposed," he said. Labour chairman John Reid said the national executive would throw out a call for a conference. America has 225,000 troops in the Gulf,with many more on the way. Britain's full complement would be about 40,000. Mr Rumsfeld, hinting at a British drop-out, said: "To the extent that they are able to participate - in the event that the president decides to use force - that would obviously be welcomed. "To the extent they are not, there are walk arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it." Asked specifically whether the US would go to war without its "closest ally", he added: "That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume." Downing Street responded by stressing Britain's continuing involvement in military planning. "This has not changed anything," a spokesman said. "We are still working to get a second resolution. We are not at the stage of war yet." Labour MP Graham Allen said: "The cat is out of the bag. They can do it without us and have given Tony Blair the chance to get out of the hole if he wishes." Mr Rumsfeld later clarified his comments by referring to the "importance" to the UK of obtaining a second resolution. He said: "In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the UK." Six "swing" nations on the 15-member Security Council - led by Cameroon - suggested a new 45-day deadline for disarmament. This would be linked to benchmarks for Iraqi compliance. The US called this a "non-starter". Britain is thought to be willing to grant a few extra days - but not beyond March. Canada urged a three-week ultimatum. Junior defence minister Lewis Moonie said in Kuwait: "War is damned near inevitable unless Saddam changes his mind." Mr Blair rounded on France, saying only "bad people" would profit from a Europe-US split. He said use of a veto whatever the circumstances would tell Saddam: "You are off the hook." The White House said: "The president thinks there is a little room for a little more diplomacy but not much time." Iraqi UN envoy Mohammed Aldouri last night pledged full co-operation with inspectors. He asked UN nations to prevent "imminent catastrophe". 12:16:24 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Dick Jones. Last update: 31/03/2003; 22:46:07.