Ten Reasons Why Many Gulf War Veterans Oppose Re-Invading Iraq

AlterNet ^ | 9/9/2002 | Anonymous

[ArcLight]

With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq. Our opinions should be solicited and heard before troops deploy for battle, not after they have returned wounded, ill or in body bags.

[ArcLight]

The author is a Gulf War combat veteran.

[piasa]

So is my brother, but he said we should take out Iraq in 9/11 if we were seriously interested in dealing with terrorism.

[Arkinsaw]

Better not ever go to war....somebody might get hurt. The enemy might not fight where we want them to. We might have to pay medical bills for soldiers. Better to roll our ass over and play dead. Easier that way.

[WarSlut]

The author is a Gulf War combat veteran.

So was McVeigh.

[rdb3]

The author is a Gulf War combat veteran.

I, too, am a Desert Storm vet, and I disagree with these reasons.

Finish the job we were prevented from completing in '91.

[pabianice]

Yes. "Anonymous combat veteran" always carries a lot of weight. [/sarcasm]

[tet68]

I read the article, I personally don't believe a combat veteran wrote it.
The syntax and lexicon would indicate a anti-war leftist.
Certainly not anyone with an understanding of current military action.

[IronJack]

These sound oddly like the excuses the Left is always citing for avoiding war with Iraq. This author reminds me of the Viet Nam era vets who mustered out and then hit the streets to protest the war. Like that rolling piece of cow flop in Born on the Fourth of July.

As I recall, my father went to war with the Japanese carrying a whole lot less protection than today's soldier has. And he didn't worry much about chipping a fingernail or getting his boots dirty. He and a couple million other men went off to do an ugly job because it needed to be done. I suspect that today's soldiers are cut from similar cloth.

It's sad that this veteran has let himself become a useful tool for the "Hate America" Left.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Why is this brave soldier(?) anonymous?

[Pikachu_Dad]

So what is word on this General? It looks like he has some people who dislike him. Check out this web site.

http://www.militarycorruption.com/barry.htm

[Rockiesrider]

You pussy! I did 13 months in Vietnam as a Marine grunt You were in combat for 8 days. What makes you think your 8 days of knowledge is worth diddly squat? Your just gutless or looking for attention. Tell us oh sage one, what do you know that should make us pause before taking a truely evil man like Hussain out before he nukes some US city or Israel and starts a blood bath the likes we not seen since WWII? Come on son tell us.

[robert0122]

The author is a Gulf War combat veteran. That's all well and good, and I appreciate his service to our country. But why does that imply he has any special knowledge or understanding of the complex international relations involved here? He would certainly be qualified to offer opinions about combat situations comparable to the ones he was in, but there's no reason to think that he is somehow endowed with superior knowledge and understanding of the many other issues he raises.

[rintense]

My bro is also a Gulf War vet. Wanted Saddam dead then. Wants him dead now.

[eastforker]

Hard to tell when your name is anonymous.

[Pikachu_Dad]

This article was posted on 'AlterNet.org'. They have a 'Who We Are' page. This is what it says:

AlterNet.org is a project of the Independent Media Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening and supporting independent and alternative journalism.

First launched in 1998, AlterNet's online magazine provides a mix of news, opinion and investigative journalism on subjects ranging from the environment, the drug war, technology and cultural trends to policy debate, sexual politics and health issues. The AlterNet article database includes more than 7,000 stories from over 200 sources.

Staff Bios

Don Hazen is Executive Director of the Independent Media Institute and Executive Editor of AlterNet. The former publisher of Mother Jones magazine, he has edited several books, including, most recently, After 9/11: Solutions for a Saner World. Don conceived of and organized the two Media & Democracy Congresses that took place in San Francisco and New York City in 1997 and 1998, and has managed political campaigns in New York City for Ruth Messinger and David Dinkins. He holds an MA in counseling from the University of Massachusetts and a BA in politics from Princeton University.

Octavia Morgan is the Deputy Director of the Independent Media Institute. She has more than twelve years of experience in social change organizations, including five years serving as the development director for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and one year consulting with nonprofits in Zimbabwe. Octavia is committed to creating nonprofit work cultures and infrastructures that support and sustain staff and prevent burnout within the social justice movement. She holds a BA in Religious Studies from Brown University.

Derek M. Powazek is the Director of Online Projects for the Independent Media Institute. Derek is the author of Design for Community. He graduated from UC Santa Cruz in 1995 with a BA in Photojournalism and has been developing websites ever since. A writer, designer, and technologist, Derek is passionate about the web's ability to connect real people in virtual places.

Tai Moses is Managing Editor of AlterNet. She has served as editor of the alt weekly Metro Santa Cruz and as arts and culture editor of Coast Weekly. She was an associate editor at the nonprofit Children's Express, was on the staff of Esquire magazine and has been an advisor to the PEN prison writing program. Tai has been widely published in the alternative press. Her essay "Before and After: Sept. 11," appears in AlterNet's book, After 9/11: Solutions for a Saner World.

Lakshmi Chaudhry is Senior Editor of AlterNet. Previously a staff writer at Wired News, she has written for various publications including Mother Jones, The Village Voice, Bitch, and Ms Magazine. She holds a BA in Political Science from Mount Holyoke College and has a master's degree in International Relations from Syracuse University.

Omar J. Pahati is the Associate Editor of AlterNet. He holds a BA from the School of Cinema-Television at the University of Southern California.

Michelle Chihara is a Staff Writer and Editor at AlterNet. Her work has appeared in a variety of newspapers and Web sites, including Fox.com, the Boston Globe and the Houston Chronicle. She once edited the technology section of Tripod, Inc. Previously, she worked as a staff writer for the New Haven Advocate and the Boston Phoenix. She comes to AlterNet via Brazil, where she spent a year living in Rio de Janeiro. She holds a BA in English Literature from Yale University

Twilight Greenaway is Editor of WireTap. She has written for the Media Alliance Media File, Hues (Hear Us Emerging Sisters) and Healthshop.com. Previously, she edited and produced health zines for youth. Twilight graduated from Antioch College with a combined degree in literature and journalism.

Genevieve Roja is an Associate Editor of AlterNet. Previously a staff writer for the weekly Metro Silicon Valley, she is also a contributor to To-Do List magazine. Genevieve holds a BA in print journalism from Santa Clara University.

Akilah Monifa is a Consulting Editor and Contributing Writer of AlterNet. At IMI, she serves as the SPIN Project's Media Trainer and Public Relations Strategist. An independent journalist, Akilah contributes regularly to the Progressive Media Project, Pacific News Service and Arise Magazine, where she is the features editor. She is a former lawyer and law professor.

[Vincent 567]

Ten Reasons Why Many Gulf War Veterans Oppose Re-Invading Iraq

By Anonymous, AlterNet
September 9, 2002

With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq. Our opinions should be solicited and heard before troops deploy for battle, not after they have returned wounded, ill or in body bags.


Another invasion of Iraq in 2002 will be very different from the invasion of 1991. The war's mission has changed in the intervening years, from removing Iraq from Kuwait to removing the entire Iraqi government and military establishment from power. Because the goal of the U.S. military has changed, the Iraqi army may retreat to the cities, where they may face better odds than in the desert.


During the open desert tank battles of '91, U.S. tanks out-classed and out-fought obsolete Iraqi tanks, and U.S. infantry captured tens of thousands of poorly supplied Iraqi soldiers operating without command and control from Baghdad. But in the urban warfare scenario of 2002, pitched infantry skirmishes and ambushes in cities may present a more level battlefield for Iraqi troops fighting in their hometowns. The Iraqi military can be expected to fight for each block within each city with the most ruthless means available. When faced with the impending overrun of their nation, the Iraqi military didn't hesitate to use chemical weapons against Iran.


Because of these significant differences, here are 10 reasons why, as a Gulf War combat veteran, I oppose a second Gulf War as a costly and preventable mistake.


1. U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents -- if Iraq is capable of using them. The gas masks, detection alarms and protection suits don't work, according to internal Department of Defense documents uncovered during investigations by the U.S. General Accounting Office. This leaves U.S. troops highly vulnerable to chemical and biological attack. U.S. chemical and biological warfare agent casualties in 2002 could be significantly higher than in 1991. Only a few months ago, the Pentagon sent out a press release stating 140,000 U.S. soldiers were exposed to low-levels chemical agents near Khamisiyah, Iraq during the Gulf War. While these soldiers appeared to return home healthy, many tens of thousands face long-term disabling medical problems that are difficult to treat.


2. Scientific evidence shows that even low-level chemical exposures are dangerous. According to a recent National Academy of Sciences report (Gulf War and Health, September 2000), low-levels of chemical warfare agents cause long-term medical problems. This conclusion is based on research resulting from the sarin attack in Japan in 1995.


3. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to the product label insert made by BioPort in Michigan, the sole producer, the experimental anthrax vaccine has caused several deaths. The National Academy of Sciences this year concluded there are some risks to the hotly debated vaccine.


4. The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic. Scientific research funded by the military and released two years ago links exposure to depleted uranium (DU) ammunition with cancer in rats. Solid depleted uranium bullets, ranging in size from 25mm to 120mm, are used by U.S. tanks, helicopters and planes to attack enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Gulf War battlefield is already littered with more than 300 tons of radioactive dust and shrapnel from the 1991 Gulf War. Another war will only increase the radioactive and toxic contamination among U.S. soldiers. As of today, U.S. troops are not fully trained about the hazards of depleted uranium contamination, even though Congress enacted a law in 1998 requiring extensive training, especially for medical personnel.


5. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory pills given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to testimony before Congress (Rand Corporation, 1999), the experimental pyridostigmine bromide (PB) anti-chemical warfare agent pills "can't be ruled out" as linked to Gulf War illness. During the war, soldiers were told to take one pill every eight hours. After the chemical alarms sounded, some soldiers, out of legitimate fear for their lives, took more than the prescribed amount. To date, the long-term consequences of PB pills remain largely unknown.


6. The Iraqi civilian opposition was abandoned by U.S. troops in the first Gulf War. After U.S. troops had liberated Kuwait and conquered southern Iraq at the end of February 1991, former President George H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi opposition, mainly civilians, to rise up against the Iraqi dictatorship in March 1991. However, former President Bush left the rebels twisting in the wind to be ruthlessly killed by the Iraqi army's Republican Guard flying helicopters allowed by the cease-fire arranged by U.S. military and political leaders. U.S. troops in southern Iraq in March 1991 were ordered not to interfere. How can U.S. troops or Iraqi rebels be confident this won't happen again? Long oppressed by the Iraqi military, what will the civilian population do if Iraq is liberated? The American public won't support a long-term occupation and high casualties.


7. Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire (documented in the article, "Overwhelming Force," by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, 2000). Many U.S. soldiers returned home with serious objections about the course and consequences of such actions, including the horrific carnage of the "highway of death," littered with hundreds of destroyed cars, tanks and human remains (see "Prayer at Rumayla" by Gulf War veteran Charles Sheehan-Miles, Xlibris, 2001). Will there be another massacre of Iraqi soldiers? Will Iraqi troops slaughter U.S. soldiers in retaliation, killing U.S. prisoners or retreating U.S. soldiers? And will the press be allowed onto the battlefield to record what really happens?


8. No one has been held accountable for arming Iraq with chemical and biological weapons from 1980 to 1990. A recent news article reported that top aides for former presidents Reagan and Bush armed Iraq with these weapons during Iraq's war against Iran between 1980 and 1988 ("Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002). Some of these former George H.W. Bush aides now work for President George W. Bush. These advisors did nothing to stop the sale of the chemical agents to Iraq, did nothing to stop the use of the agents by Iraq, and did nothing to tell the world about Iraq's crimes, even when the world learned Iraq used poison gas against civilians. These top political aides have remained silent for more than 14 years, and many refused to comment on the recent news reports.


9. U.S. allies in Europe oppose invading Iraq. They have refused to supply soldiers, funding or logistical support. Some of the serious U.S. battlefield casualties from 1991 were sent to U.S. military hospitals in Germany. Where will our casualties be flown to for emergency care if Germany follows through on its policy to remain neutral and not allow the use of German airspace? This contrasts sharply with the more than 30 nations allied with the U.S. during Desert Storm in 1991. Today, the U.S. has no Arab allies. In 1991, the U.S. forgave billions in outstanding loans owed by Egypt to buy its support. Now Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations oppose a second invasion of Iraq. If something goes wrong, where will U.S. troops retreat if Saudi Arabia won't allow U.S. troops within its borders? We must avoid another Gallipoli.


10. The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be able to care for additional casualties because VA can't even take care of current VA patients. Most veterans now wait six months to see a VA doctor, and most veterans wait more than six months to receive a decision on a VA disability claim. Many of those waiting in line are Gulf War veterans, many with unusual illnesses. According to VA, of the nearly 700,000 veterans who served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, more than 300,000 have sought VA healthcare, and more than 200,000 have filed VA disability claims. Two weeks ago, President Bush slashed $275 million from the healthcare budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Although the Iraqi government is a corrupt dictatorship that must eventually be removed, current proposals to remove the government by deploying hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops are deeply flawed. A premature attack against Iraq, especially when the public opposes it, would be a horrible mistake. Since 1990, more than 400 U.S. soldiers have died in the Gulf War theater of operations. Untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, both soldiers and civilians, also died. A second invasion of Iraq for one man is not worth one more life; let's use common sense and avert a second Gulf War.


The author is a Gulf War combat veteran

[rdb3]

I don't know. I'm not familiar with this particular general.

[Cold Heat]

The author is a Gulf War combat veteran.

Kinda like the democrats that call C-pan on the republican line and say they will never vote for another republican.

[soccermom]

Good points -- but I wonder where the author gets his perception on how "many" veterans oppose re-invading Iraq. He concludes that there is no public support for an invasion. Huhhhhh????? Nearly 70% support invading Iraq. Methinks he is projecting his belief on others.

[okie01]

"The author is a Gulf War combat veteran."

The same ten reasons have been cited, in various form, by every opponent of attacking Iraq, left and right -- whether they were Gulf War combat veterans or not. There's nothing new about them, or anything intrinsic to veteran status.

But let's grant that all ten reasons are valid at a certain level. Nonetheless, the real question at hand is: Are these ten reasons sufficiently compelling to forestall taking any action? Especially as the price of inaction may be that Saddam provides WMD to al-Qaeda (or whomever) to attack the U.S.? At a cost which may run into tens of thousands of lives?

The Gulf War combat veteran fails to address this issue, apparently presuming that we have no valid reason to attack Iraq. On this basis, though I'm not a veteran, I feel qualified to question his judgment.