Ten reasons why many Gulf War veterans
oppose re-invading Iraq

By An Anonymous Gulf War Veteran

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. In early September, 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. This article was originally published on Friday, September 13, 2002 on wwwCommonDreams.org. Common Dreams is a non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Sanchez and Perry stand for exactly
the same thing, except. . .

By Henri D. Kahn

Sanchez is an honest man. He is a millionaire by fate and circumstance. What's wrong with that?
Perry is an honest man. He is Governor by fate and circumstance. Anything bad here? Sanchez wants the teacher vote. He favors higher income for educators, better education, more schools to make 22 or 24 students per classroom a reality for all school districts.
Perry wants the teacher vote. He wants the same and is no different than his opponent in this aspect of the quest to earn his place as Governor.
Sanchez is not a scion of business. He has not built any business, but he has been intelligent enough to delegate authority and responsibility to capable executives.
Perry is not an elected Governor. He is an appointed politician who has been smart enough to go with the flow to keep from rocking the boat.
Sanchez is a good family man. He does not have the reputation of being a lothario.
Perry is not known to have illicit relationships with women.
These two men have the same good intentions for Texans, consequently they try to discredit each other on a different plane.
Sanchez says Perry is being "bought" by business interests that contribute heavily to his campaign war chest.
Perry says Sanchez' past business activities smacked of money laundering for Mexican drug lords.
Neither accusation is based on actual proof.
Texans are also interested in Sanchez and Perry's detailed plan of action on other issues that have an impact on their lives.
I would like to hear each candidate's views and resolution on business development, taxation, healthcare, welfare communicated to the public via newspaper, television, and radio. Enough of this baby kissing, group endorsements, and insurance company bashings.
All of this being the case, read this:
The Governor of Texas is a person first, with all of the inherent primitive territorial characteristics of a homo sapiens.
Sanchez is a Laredoan by birth and ancestry; Laredo is his home turf.
Consequently, unless Sanchez says or does something between today and Election Day that rubs you the wrong way, remember, "a vote for Sanchez is a vote for Laredo."

CUELLAR, BONILLA, ZAFFIRINI
Cuellar is a Laredo resident with a documented record of doing excellent work for his constituency during his tenure in the Texas legislature.
Bonilla, his wife, and children are San Antonians. When it comes to a standoff between the well being of Laredo and a decision favorable to San Antonio, I'll bet you my bottom dollar Bonilla will opt for San Antonio.
Senator Judith Zaffirini is carrying the Bonilla banner against Cuellar. She apparently has some axe to grind with Henry Cuellar.
Laredo needs to know why Senator Zaffirini is campaigning for Bonilla, against our own Henry Cuellar.
Laredo has been as good to her as she has been for Laredo. So what happened, Senator?

Finally: What gives us the right to around telling the world that their leaders require our approval to govern? How presumptuous, how imperialistic!
We already have our finger in a number of pies all over the world. We are giving money to virtually every country in both hemispheres. It seems Mr. Bush and his cronies want to control the world, aka, "It's our way or the highway."
The USA is locked in a worsening deficit position due to the policies of the current administration. Mr. Bush is employing the political camouflage of getting us to focus on an alleged threat from a Middle Eastern country based on circumstantial evidence. This is an obvious effort to divert our attention from his pitiful handling of our country's economy.
Never forget it's the young rank and file that takes the fatal hit in hot wars, not the politicians sipping wine over lobster truffle canapés and petit fours on the Washington, D.C., cocktail whirl.
If you disagree with any decision that the current administration may perpetrate on you, don't just sit in your easy chair in front of the TV and beer burp or cutesy-pie your life away.
Take the time to write to Representative Henry Bonilla (for now), Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Phil Gramm (for now).
Here's hoping and praying that the October 2002 edition of LareDOS does not hit the streets with "USA ARMED FORCES ATTACK IRAQ!"

(Henri D. Kahn is the writer of the LareDOS column Seguro Que Si. This piece was submitted as the column for September, but we have chosen to run it as an op-ed.)