More Examples: Holocaust, 1945 | Civil Rights Movement | Vietnam | Kurds as Gas Victims | Iraqi Prisoner Abuse | New Era

Pearl Harbor - December 7, 1941 - U.S.S. Arizona

World Trade Center, New York - September 11, 2001

Kurds say Iraq's attacks serve as a warning
As Bush considers toppling Saddam Hussein, victims of Hussein's 'gassing' tell of his tactics.
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor | May 13, 2002

HALABJA, NORTHERN IRAQ - As American military planners consider ways to bring down Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Kurds warn that the Iraqi leader will likely respond to any such attack by deploying weapons of mass destruction – as he has done in the past.

The memory of every Iraqi Kurd is seared with vivid images of Baghdad's 1988 genocide against its own ethnic Kurds when troops loyal to the Iraqi strongman were under orders to kill every Kurdish male in northern Iraq between the ages of 18 and 55. During the Anfal campaign, rights groups say more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.

Some 5,000 Kurds died during the gassing of Halabja alone. The photograph of a man shielding an infant with his body – both killed by gas – has become an icon of Kurdish suffering and of Iraqi war crimes.

The Kurds – armed opponents of the Baghdad regime for decades – could play a key role in US plans, and therefore be singled out again for retribution by Mr. Hussein. But Kurds say not only they are at risk: Anyone taking on Hussein's armies, as far away as Israel, could be targeted.
"There is no hesitation of the regime to use such weapons against any country, anywhere, against any army," says Fouad Baban, head of the Halabja Medical Institute. "[Saddam Hussein] doesn't keep weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent – but to use them."

Washington's plans

President Bush has made clear he wants to topple the regime. The Pentagon is considering military options – possibly timed to begin early next year – that would overthrow Hussein with a heavy US air campaign and a ground invasion.

Kurds in northern Iraq say that would serve justice for the man who has harmed them for decades. The New York-based group Human Rights Watch, after a three-year investigation of 18 tons of captured Iraqi documents, forensic examination of several mass graves, and hundreds of eyewitness accounts, concludes of the 1988 campaign: "The Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide."

And survivors do have stories to tell that add up to war crimes.

Abdulsalam Khalil-Mohamed says he was one of six men who survived a mass shooting during the 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Koreme. After they witnessed the gassing of a nearby village – the helicopters dropping chemical munitions, survivors say – they were surrounded by Iraqi troops. The 33 men were separated, Mr. Khalil-Mohamed recalls. Amid a chorus of wailing, Khalil-Mohamed's brother handed over his two-year-old son to his wife. Shortly after the women and children were marched away, he recalls, the men were forced into a crude line.

One Iraqi lieutenant called Mohamed told them to move closer together. "They told us: 'Don't be afraid. Soon you will be back with your families,' " Khalil-Mohamed says.

But then the soldiers opened fire. "The one next to me was shot in the head and fell on me," he recalls. Lying wounded amid the carnage, he was then shot in the back, as Iraqi soldiers moved in to finish the job. His brother was dead. But Khalil-Mohamed survived – and learned a lesson that he says the US should heed.

"If the US is going to attack Saddam Hussein, and if Saddam has a chance to attack the Kurds with chemical or other weapons, he will not hesitate," the gray-mustachioed survivor says.

Any such reaction will be a key calculation by American military planners, as they weigh the risks of attempting to overthrow Hussein. While targeting Israel with Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War, it is widely believed that Iraq did not use nonconventional warheads, because of explicit warnings of a possible US or Israeli nuclear response.

Today, Iraq's exact chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities remain unknown, since United Nations weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998. While they made broad progress up to that point, few dispute that Iraq's programs and expertise were among the most sophisticated in the Middle East.

Iraq has sought to upgrade all its weapons programs in the intervening years, and has most recently installed a top-notch Chinese air defense system.
In recent weeks, Iraq reportedly rushed air defense assets into US and British-patrolled "no-fly zones" in the north and south of the country.
History with Hussein

Minority Kurds for decades have been considered "saboteurs" and "traitors," and fought Baghdad wherever possible. "No one knows Saddam Hussein like the Kurds," says Jawhar Namiq, a Kurdish leader. "We said Saddam was a dictator, a murderer, and we paid a very big price for that."

The Anfal campaign

Then came the Anfal campaign and the gassing of Halabja on March 16, 1988. Western and Kurdish health officials say that the fallout continues, in the form of increased rates of birth defects, cancers, respiratory problems, and infertility.

"That was the only time that I felt the Kurdish people could perish," says Sami Abdurahman, a senior leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, one of two rival Kurdish groups who rule northern Iraq, which is protected by US air patrols. "This will never go from the memory of the Kurdish people, and of course it says everything about this regime."

That point was driven home before the Gulf War, when Hussein's right-hand man Izzat Ibrahim Duri traveled to the north to issue this warning: "If you have forgotten Halabja, I would like to remind you that we are ready to repeat that operation."

Expecting just that when a 1991 Kurdish uprising failed, 1.5 million Kurds left everything behind and fled northern Iraq. Today, those who crossed the border say it was the legacy of this town that drove their flight.

Halabja was targeted the day after Iranian forces occupied the town, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Kurdish rebels had fought with Iran, against Baghdad troops.

Qassem Hussein Mohamed, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi military intelligence, says he was on a hilltop overlooking Halabja that spring day in 1988.
Recently captured and interviewed in a Kurdish prison, Mr. Mohamed says he overheard two senior Iraqi military leaders give the order over a radio three times: "Gas. Gas. Gas."

That didn't surprise Mohamed. He says Iraqi troops had orders to kill Kurdish men from the all-powerful Iraqi governor of the north at the time – Ali Hassan al-Majid, the cousin of Hussein who is infamously known to Kurds as "Ali Chemical." Doctors were used to help determine men's ages – and therefore, who would live or die.

"They said many times they have different kinds of chemicals," says Mohamed, of the Halabja attack. "They gave the order for all Iraqi troops to wear a mask and [chemical] gear for 12 hours.

Survivors stories

The case of Halabja is full of the same emotive human tremors that emerge when survivors speak of the destruction of Koreme village. Tears flow when Younis Sharif Mohamed tells of hiding in his basement with 13 other members of his family.

The regular shelling lasted for several hours. "Then something new happened," Mr. Mohamed says. "The sound of the bombs was different – a flat, damp-sounding pop ... pop. We noticed a darkening of the sun, and then three special smells like apple, onion, and cucumber. After a moment, people began to scream."

Mohamed was out of the basement first, with his mother close behind. But he soon collapsed. When he came to, his eyes were in extreme pain. Ten other family members lay dead where they fell.

"I called out their names, but nobody answered me," Mohamed says. He realized it was pointless taking the bodies of his family to the local mosque for burial, since there was no one left alive who could bury them. He says he expects Hussein to unleash the same, fearsome destruction in any new war.
"Nothing has changed: It is the same regime, and the same power," Mohamed says. "Even if they don't do anything, Baghdad only has to say: 'We will go back to Kurdistan,' and the people will flee."

Copyright 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

Iraq War:Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners

Long after they are forgotten in the American news media, they will be endlessly repeated elsewhere as visuals suggesting Islamic humiliation and American hypocrisy. See also: CNN (May 1, 2004) Arabs repulsed, furious over prison photos | For extracts from the official prison investigation. For torture out of sight and "implicatory denials" See also: Seymore Hersch, in The New Yorker, May 10, 17 2004. Commentators quickly saw the potential international implications and domestic political consequences of these images

While some Americans (Rush Limbaugh et al) might dismiss this tormenting of prisoners simply as "harmless" pranks -- in the roughhouse spirit and vulgarity of "Animal House," "Fear Factor," or "Jackass" movies -- and not serious enough to be treated as "atrocity pictures" with the genuine atrocities of war, genocide, and terrorist attacks, these images will have a profoundly serious effect on the Islamic world. Most analysts agreed that the results damaging American credibility were gravely serious, especially in the Muslim world where the deliberate humiliations and sexual sadism reinforced the views of religious conservatives that America was a decadent society. Commenting upon the pictures showing female American soldiers taunting naked Iraqi prisoners, Barbara Ehrenreich, for example, wrote:

"If you were doing PR for Al Queda, you couldn't have staged a better picture to galvanize misogynist fundamentalists around the world. Here, in these photos from Abu Ghraib, you have everything that the Islamic fundamentalists believe characterize Western culture, all nicely arranged in one hideous image -- imperial arrogance, sexual depracity... and gender equality."

Bush expresses 'deep disgust' at prison photos
Father of soldier: 'There's two sides to the story'

(CNN) April 30, 2004 -- In the face of international outrage, President Bush said Friday that he was disgusted by photographs that apparently show American soldiers abusing detainees at a prison outside Baghdad.

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated," Bush said. "Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America."

The photographs, which were first broadcast Wednesday on CBS' "60 Minutes II" in the United States, were shown Friday by Arab television networks.

CNN has not verified the authenticity of the images.

"I didn't like it one bit," Bush added during an appearance in the White House Rose Garden with visiting Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The U.S. military said six U.S. soldiers have been charged with abusing inmates at Abu Ghurayb prison, which was infamous under Saddam Hussein's reign.

Ivan Frederick, the father of a military policeman involved in the case, Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, 37, told a CNN affiliate that his son is "worried, and I'm sure he's scared."

Chip Frederick, with the 800th Military Police Brigade based at Cresaptown, Maryland, was relieved of his duties in mid-January, his father said.

"When he left [the prison] he said there was some 900 prisoners," up from 400 when he arrived, the father said. "He said in an e-mail he had 70 Iraqis who he was trying to train to be security guards at the prison, and the language barrier made it hard to communicate with them.

"There's two sides to the story. The military has one and we have another," the father said. "We are a close-knit family, we always have been, and we are determined to do whatever it takes to get this situation straightened out. He's a perfect son."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan described the acts depicted in the photos as "despicable."

"We cannot tolerate it, and the military is taking strong action against those responsible," McClellan said.

He said the president had known about the images for a while but declined to offer further details.

When asked about a potential worldwide backlash over the pictures, McClellan said, "It does not represent what we stand for, and I think the military has made it very clear that they are going to pursue -- to the fullest extent of the law -- these individuals."

In Iraq, a military official of the U.S.-led coalition also said the photos disgusted him.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the coalition's deputy chief of operations, said that he was "appalled that fellow soldiers who wear the same uniforms as us would do this."

"They crossed the line and violated every tenet we teach in the Army about dignity and respect," he said, adding that he was expressing his personal opinion and not speaking on the coalition's behalf.

CBS said it has dozens of pictures purportedly showing a range of abuses.

Some of the images published on one London, England-based newspaper's Web site show naked, hooded prisoners. In one, a male and a female soldier smile as they pose with prisoners.

One picture shows what is apparently an Iraqi prisoner standing on a box with his head covered and wires attached to his hands.
Kimmitt said he has met with representatives of Iraq's newspapers to discuss how to report the story. Iraq does not publish newspapers on Friday, the Muslim holy day.

But some Baghdad residents who saw the images Friday said the photographs angered them.

An investigation began in January after a soldier reported the alleged abuse to superiors, Kimmitt said this week.
Kimmitt declined to disclose the charges or other details, but he said military authorities take any such reports seriously.

"We are committed to treating all persons under coalition custody with dignity, respect and humanity," he said.
"Coalition personnel are expected to act appropriately, humanely and in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions."

Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, majority whip in the House, was asked about the photos on CNN. "More than anything else, we don't want this to reflect on the tens of thousands of troops that are doing a great job every day doing what they're supposed to be doing," he said.

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said of the impact, "It's not the coalition that's going to be hated, it will be the United States of America."

In February, senior military officials said 17 troops, including a battalion commander, a company commander and 12 military police assigned to guard prisoners, had been relieved of duty until an investigation could be completed.

U.S. allies denounce photos
.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's human rights envoy to Iraq said Friday that she was shocked by the images, while the editor of a London-based Arabic-language newspaper predicted Muslims would be furious.

Ann Clwyd, Blair's envoy and a lawmaker from the ruling Labor Party, voiced her condemnation. "I think they are absolutely terrible. I am shocked," she told British radio.

However, Clwyd said there was no comparison with how prisoners were treated under Saddam Hussein.

"A small number of cases, horrible though they are -- you cannot compare that with the tens of thousands of people Saddam Hussein was responsible for executing and torturing," she said.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Friday that he was "appalled" by the images but praised the U.S. military for investigating.

British military expert Col. Bob Stewart said the pictures would inflame an already volatile situation in the Arab world.
Stewart, NATO's former commander in Bosnia, told ITN that the images were "the best recruiting sergeant that al Qaeda and those people that want to fight against British soldiers, American soldiers and the rest of coalition could ever want."

Photos also were splashed across many of Britain's newspapers.

"We are losing their hearts and minds" was the headline in the Daily Mail's main editorial comment.

The Daily Mirror added: "When it comes to winning hearts and minds the U.S. Army hasn't got a clue. Many of its actions seem calculated to make enemies of Iraqis and drive them into the arms of extremists. The photos of prisoners being tortured ... are the most unforgivable acts yet."

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper in London, said he agreed. "It is absolutely shocking. I think this is the end of the story, the straw that broke the camel's back, for America," he told the UK Press Association.

"People will be extremely angry. ... Sexual abuse is the worst thing in that part of the world. It is shocking to all Muslims. America has lost the battle completely. I believe there will be more attacks."

Who are these amoral, wicked and inhumane mean girls and boys, for whom violence and comedy are inextricably linked and for whom hip, ironic detachment is apparently the most salient of all American values?"

Domestic Political Consequences
Political commentators quickly saw the potential domestic political consequences of the scandal.

For Bush, the Prison Abuse Scandal Brings His Political War Home
WASHINGTON OUTLOOK by Ronald Brownstein | Los Angeles Times |May 10, 2004

By now, the presidency must look like a Rubik's Cube to George W. Bush. Last year, when Americans thrilled to statues of Saddam Hussein tumbling in Baghdad, the economy was stalled. Now that the economy is finally moving into gear, Americans are growing increasingly restive over events in Iraq.

For Bush, the revelations about abuse at Abu Ghraib prison could not have emerged at a worse time. April's turmoil in Iraq — which saw more American soldiers die than in any month since combat began — had already strained the public's confidence in the occupation.

Now, after the bloodiest month, comes the most mortifying: a scandal that looms over both the administration's short-term goal of reversing rising anti-Americanism in Iraq and its long-term hope of encouraging democratization across the Mideast.

The horrors inside the prison have so bruised America's image across Europe and the Arab world that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) probably had a good idea at Friday's Armed Services Committee hearing when he suggested razing the place.

But the controversy over the abuse and the administration's reaction to it does not only threaten Bush abroad. It also presents him with four distinct political challenges at home. Let's look at them, ranked from the least to the most dangerous for the president:

Alienating Congress: The Pentagon's failure to inform Congress about the progress of the investigation into troop misconduct has sharpened long-standing frustrations over the administration's resistance to sharing information on Capitol Hill, even with Republicans.
Some senior GOP lawmakers, such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, openly acknowledge that the administration virtually ignores them. Many Republicans were especially outraged that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld didn't inform them of the impending abuse revelations when he briefed them on the same day CBS broke the story.

These frustrations may create some headaches for Bush, but are unlikely to become a serious threat. Most congressional Republicans long ago hitched their star to Bush; few are eager to risk damaging him with aggressive oversight. Indeed, judging by the windy, unfocused questioning from legislators in both parties at Friday's hearing, the Senate is so out of practice that more oversight might damage its own reputation most.

Avoiding accountability: As a candidate, Bush promised to inaugurate a "responsibility era." But as a chief executive he has been reluctant to hold anyone accountable for failure. He didn't fire CIA Director George J. Tenet or other intelligence officials after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — or the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He's dug in his heels on Rumsfeld now.

Typically, the more outsiders demand that Bush dismiss one of his subordinates, the more he resists. But he faces the growing perception that he has only one firing offense: dissent from his administration's prevailing wisdom.

Bush endured only modest criticism after the departures of in-house skeptics such as Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki. But if the top Pentagon officials all thrive while those below are prosecuted in the abuse case, the White House is likely to face much louder complaints.

Failing to act: The heart of Bush's case for reelection is that he is a strong, decisive leader in the war against terrorism. But the prison scandal could reinforce earlier questions about his management style.

Rumsfeld made clear Friday he never briefed Bush about the full magnitude of the scandal. But Pentagon officials have indicated that Rumsfeld informed Bush at least in broad terms about the problem soon after the secretary learned of it in mid-January. There's no indication Bush pressed further; White House officials say the president felt satisfied the Pentagon was investigating.

The president's reaction was similar when he received the famous intelligence briefing on Osama bin Laden in August 2001: He later said he did not seek to meet afterward with the FBI director because he believed the bureau would contact him if it unearthed information he needed to act upon.

All of this is oddly passive behavior for an executive whose chief selling point is his resolve. Like his direction or not, Bush has excelled at defining a clear course for his administration. But his frustration at the explosion of the prison scandal shows the price of most often choosing not to grapple with the details. He's painfully learning that presidents who want to watch only the forest sometimes smack head-on into the trees.

Losing Iraq: Looming far above all these risks to Bush is the threat that the scandal will weaken America's position in Iraq and strengthen fears at home that our effort there is unraveling.

The last month's grim cascade of casualties softened public support for the war, but did not shatter it because most Americans still believe a democratic, Western-oriented Iraq is in our national interest. As long as we are progressing toward that goal, Americans are probably willing to accept more losses than conventional wisdom assumes.

The greatest danger to the White House is that the scandal, after a month of grueling unrest and violence, will deepen concerns that Iraq is spiraling out of control. The public may be willing to accept a steady stream of casualties as the painful price of success; it will probably have much less tolerance for lives sacrificed to a mission in disarray.

Most Americans accept Bush's insistence that the U.S. will benefit if we can steer Iraq to democracy and stability. But polls show they are no longer sure he knows how to reach that destination. In this confusing and increasingly inhospitable terrain, the photos from Abu Ghraib are likely to leave more Americans wondering whether we are losing our compass altogether.
-------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

MSNBC.COM has the complete text of the initial investigation: U.S. Army Report on Iraq Prisoner Abuse By late August 2004, official Pentagon reports concluded: "The abuse of detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison last year was widespread and went well beyond a small group of low-ranking U.S. military police, involving more than three dozen military intelligence officers, their commanders, CIA agents and private contractors, a Pentagon investigation concluded Wednesday."