It is axiomatic to any serious discussion of the war in Iraq, which has now officially lapsed over into being a formalized military occupation, that the killing has never really stopped since the “first” Gulf War ended on the “Highway of Death” in 1991. Twelve years of sanctions did to Iraq what twelve prior years of war with Iran and the United States could not: break its back as a factor in the Arab world. It was always understood as the recent war approached that the key question was not could the opposition be defeated, but how badly would they need to be stomped before they quit. Now, over a month after our Leader declared from the deck of an instrument of liberation that combat was officially over, some people still don't believe him. People like Saddam Hussein.
Had the reigning mullahs of Iran not refrained from delivering the bloodbath that seemed so likely as the 23rd anniversary of their revolution loomed last July 9, the American media consumer might have been spared the spectacle of international buck-passing associated with the great “yellowcake” affair of 2003. Some would say that the American people were duped into this war based on information that was not only false, but widely hyped as false in advance of its use; but I would propose that the American people simply do not care what their government does anymore, within reason.
It made perfect sense that Iraq, after eating so much depleted uranium in 1991, would be hungry for the enriched kind, especially as events beyond their control “conspired” to make “regime change” an increasingly savory option for a President who would probably shoot Saddam himself if given the chance. After all, a European TV producer bought the working detonator of a nuclear bomb for $10, 000 last year, and Osama bin Laden allegedly told people in late 2001 that he could buy so-called “suitcase nukes” in Western China for $20 million each; so why wouldn't Hussein be hunting for yellowcake? It has been made Cristal-clear that even pacifists like Putin of Russia must come with sufficient strength to secure their interests, so a master killer like Saddam, too, would know the score. And Niger has no use for enriched uranium because they have neither gas centrifuges nor electricity to power them!
Readers of this publication who recall my recent characterization of the Iraq war as “a trap” may soon be seeing my point. It is, however, not yet clear exactly who the mark is on this subject. As William Burroughs once said, “If you can't spot the mark in the room, then you're the mark.” This dynamic has already played itself out at more than one meeting in and around Washington and London, as neo-conservatives and neo-liberals eye each other nervously, all the while wondering which side the President will take once the full truth is known. Which it isn't, yet.
George Tenet has taken responsibility for the dissemination of information that the CIA had distanced itself from as early as last September. It strikes me that Tenet is acting from a position of relative strength, as “regime change” was typically a function of the CIA, prior to 9/11. By making an unnecessary mea culpa, Tenet has removed “yellowcake” from Bush's feet (as a fraud he was cognizant of perpetrating) while enhancing his authority to uncover the real source of the fake documents, among other things.
Perhaps this notable intelligence lapse was deliberate, a booby-trap set into the buildup to a war that Mr. Bush needed little convincing of. Which isn't to say his motives are impure; rather, that he knows the truth about Saddam, WMD, Al Qaeda, counterfeit dollars, the botched move on Kassim in 1961 and related subjects that us common folk can only speculate on. The “Coalition of the Willing” was founded on a deal of some sort, and maybe “yellowcake” exists to keep certain parties in line; now, as the specter of Treason looms and people rethink their summer travel plans, the Coalition's breakup could be messier and more expensive than a California divorce. Good!
As our fellow citizens die daily in the desert sun, it's nothing short of disgraceful that the Democratic Party has chosen to engage the question of “Why?” only when it's too late to do anything about it. Their timing, in my view, is far more suspicious than any 16 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, and the implications of such profound and obvious cowardice will be felt well beyond the Persian Gulf region. A trap, indeed.
July 17, 2003
Shelton Hull [send him mail] is a columnist and writer based in Jacksonville, Florida. His work has appeared in FolioWeekly, Counterpunch, Ink19 and Section 8 Magazine.
