George H.W. Bush's 'Kinder, Gentler' Legacy

By Reginald Johnson

  It’s stunning the way so many in the media and political leaders on both the left and right keep heaping praise on former President George H. W. Bush.  I hear the words “kind” and “decent” and “honorable” to describe him.  People also fondly recall Bush’s promise as he started his presidency that America would be a “kinder, gentler nation” going forward.

  Maybe the first President Bush was a kind and decent man to some, including family, friends and staff.

  But people in other countries, like Panama or Iraq, surely have a different view.  Both those nations suffered terribly at the hands of the American military, during unwarranted and brutal invasions ordered by Bush. Incredible violence was unleashed through aerial bombings and ground attacks.  Tens of thousands of people died and infrastructure was leveled. And war crimes were committed.

   One event that I will never forget was what happened at the end of the Persian Gulf War, or Gulf War I, in February of 1991. That conflict began when Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in retaliation for Iraq’s attack on Kuwait, following a dispute between the two countries over oil rights in a border area.  Iraqi forces were quickly overwhelmed by the massive deployment of nearly 1 million US and allied troops, and a relentless bombing campaign.

   The war virtually over, Iraqi troops and civilians were withdrawing on two highways out of Kuwait, in compliance with a UN resolution. The retreating troops posed no threat.  But President Bush and his commanders had decided they would give Iraq no quarter.  What unfolded was one of the greatest war crimes in history.

   First, American attack jets bombed the columns at the front and back, leaving the middle of the convoys boxed in and unable to move. US planes then carpet bombed everything they saw. The bombardment left a horrifying carnage.

   “On the inland highway to Basra is mile after mile of burned, smashed, shattered vehicles of every description --- tanks, armored cars, trucks, autos, fire trucks ,” said the story in Time magazine on March 18, 1991.
  An L.A. Times account on March 11 read: "On the 60 miles of the coastal highway, Iraqi military units sit in gruesome repose, scorched skeletons of vehicles and men alike, black and awful under the sun.”
 Joyce Chediac, a Lebanese-American jounalist who reported on the Gulf War, testified in 1991 about what she saw before a New York commission studying war crimes : "While 450 people survived the inland road bombing to surrender, this was not the case with the 60 miles of the coastal road. There, for 60 miles, every vehicle was strafed or bombed, every windshield is shattered, every tank is burned, every truck is riddled with shell fragments. No survivors are known or likely. The cabs of trucks were bombed so much that they were pushed into the ground and it’s impossible to see if they contain drivers or not. Windshields were melted away and huge tanks were reduced to shrapnel.

    "This one-sided carnage, this racist mass murder of Arab people, occurred while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater had promised that the US and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait. This is surely one of the most heinous war crimes in contemporary history," said Chediac, whose testimony was repeated in a 2016 article in Global Research called "Twenty-Five Years Ago: The 1991 Iraq Gulf War, America Bombs the 'Highway of Death'. "

The "Highway of Death" in Iraq in February of 1991. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians retreating from Kuwait were mercilessly bombed by American forces at the end of Gulf War I. (Photo-Wikipedia)

     Chediac added, “The massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva conventions of 1949, Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat.”

   While there is dispute about how many people lost their lives in the air attacks, Chediac believes that tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed.

    Shortly after the massacre, the war formally came to an end. George H.W. Bush had his victory and his political ratings soared.  America showed who was boss in the Middle East and US oil interests were protected from any unwanted interference by Iraq.

   As Neil Young wrote in his song "Keep on Rockin' in the Free World," America had a "kinder, gentler machine gun hand."

Rush to Judgment in Syria

 By Reginald Johnson

  Once again there are claims that the Syrian government launched an attack against its own people, using chemical weapons.

  And once again the United States is threatening to punish Syria, even though there has been no independent verification proving that an attack took place and identifying who was responsible.

  Aid workers and opposition leaders charged on Saturday that Syrian aircraft dropped barrel bombs over the town of Douma, near Damascus, releasing a chemical gas which left people suffocating and eventually dying. Press reports indicated that dozens of people may have died.

  Media outlets such as the New York Times and CNN said there had been no outside confirmation that the attack took place and that the Syrian military was responsible.

  Officials of both the government of Syria and Russia, which is helping Syrian forces in their battle against opposition groups during a seven-year civil war, have denied responsibility for the bombing.

  Despite the lack of firm evidence as to who was culpable, President Donald Trump and members of Congress wasted no time in naming Syria, Russia and Iran as the guilty parties.

 Trump, who only last week said that the United States was interested in withdrawing its forces from Syria, put out a Tweet on Sunday morning, labeling Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as an “animal” and blaming  “Putin’s Russia” and Iran, for supporting him. Trump said that there would be a “big price to pay” because of the incident.

   Trump did not spell out what kind of retaliation the U.S. was thinking about.  But the White House’s Homeland Security advisor Thomas P. Bossert said on ABC’s “This Week” program that a military strike was possible.  “Nothing should be taken off the table,” he said.

  U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, one of the most hawkish members of Congress, said Trump must act to punish Syria. Graham told the “This Week” show on ABC that this was a “defining moment”  for Trump’s presidency. “Assad is at it again,” he said.

  So-called moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, also chimed in, telling a reporter that some kind of “targeted attack” against Syria was needed right now.

  Just a year ago, Trump ordered the U.S. military to fire 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syrian targets in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack carried out by the government in which 100 people reportedly died. Trump's action at that time won bipartisan praise.

   Just as there was little questioning about the veracity of the reports about the chemical attack one year ago, there’s also little skepticism being voiced now about the validity of the claims by anti-government militants and so-called aid workers about barrel bombs being dropped on the population in Douma.

   It seems odd that the Syrian military would want to carry out a chemical attack at this time. The government has been winning the civil war against various insurgent groups, including some that are affiliated with Al-qaeda. Syrian forces had encircled the city of Douma and it was really just a matter of time before the Syrian army would take control of the city.

  What would be gained by Syria carrying out this terrible attack? The government would be risking world condemnation as well as the possibility that the Trump administration would change its mind and decide not to begin the withdrawal of some 2000 American military personnel.

   The question of cui bono, or who benefits? has to be asked in assessing the claims about a chemical attack. Clearly opposition forces will stand to benefit if this attack is linked to the Syrian government and the Americans decide to not only launch a punishing military strike to hurt Assad, but also to reconsider the idea of leaving Syria.

   The possibility that this attack was staged by opposition groups or by some intelligence forces from different countries who are aiding them, cannot be ruled out.

   The United States, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been aiding the forces who are trying to topple the Assad government. The U.S. has had military personnel in Syria for several years now in violation of international law, since America was not attacked by Syria and the U.S. had no UN authorization to introduce forces into that country. The Trump administration has maintained that the primary purpose of American forces in Syria has been to dismantle the ISIS terrorist group. However, it has been clear for years that the U.S. has been aiding opposition forces in order get rid of the pro-Russia and pro-Iranian Assad government.  

    We don’t really know at this time who may have carried out the chemical attack, if indeed there was a bombing. The Russians and the Syrians are actually maintaining that the incident may have been fabricated.

   What is needed here is an international investigation overseen by the United Nations to determine the exact nature of this attack and who in fact carried it out. It is wrong for both the Trump administration, members of Congress, and the press to automatically assume that the Syrian government, the Russians or the Iranians were somehow responsible for this attack, simply based on the claims of very self-interested people in the opposition groups or from the “White Helmet” aid group, whose authenticity has been questioned. At this point we do not have firm evidence to lay the blame on the Syrian government and their allies.

   It would be completely irresponsible for the Trump administration to launch another missile strike against Syria, simply based on the limited information that is now available.

   However, given the power of the pro-war, neocon bloc in Washington, symbolized by people like Sen. Graham, combined with Trump’s shaky political situation due to the Russia-gate investigation, and the fact that Trump won praise from both sides of the aisle after his attack on Syria last year,  it is likely that Trump will decide to launch another military strike against Syria.

   Another factor in the situation is what impact super hawk John Bolton, the extremist former UN ambassador, will have on Trump’s thinking. Bolton was recently appointed as Trump’s national security advisor and his work begins Monday.

 As with the recent claims made by the UK about an alleged poisoning attack by Russia against a former British spy in England, it is critical for the media to challenge government claims. The media cannot just roll over and accept sweeping accusations about the possession of, or use of, chemical weapons by other countries without asking tough questions.  That’s because these claims ---- sometimes erroneous --- are often used as a predicate for military action. Military action means loss of life and sometimes that loss of life can be huge, as we have seen in the Iraq War.

  So the press has a crucial job in challenging government officials. Lives are at stake and ultimately the peace of the world is at stake.

  

  

     

  

 

   

   

 

 

 

  

Media Bias on Syria

                          

 By Reginald Johnson

    Over the past several years, traditional rules of journalistic fairness and objectivity seem to have disappeared on the subject of Syria.

  American reporters and commentators repeatedly present just one side of the conflict --- the American side --- and little else. Syrian leader Bashar al—Assad is portrayed as a demon, carrying out a brutal campaign to retain power in a fight with rebel forces, who are being aided by the United States.

  When terrible things happen in this conflict, such as civilians getting bombed or poisoned, the blame is always laid at the doorstep of the Syrian government. Claims of misdeeds by Assad’s forces are spit out almost word for word from State Department releases. There’s rarely any attempt to seek comment or get the Syrian side of the story.

  In these reports or commentaries, there’s rarely any mention of the fact that the United States has been involved in Syria for five years, first covertly aiding the anti-Assad forces, some of whom are al-Qaeda spinoffs, and now bombing areas held by the terrorist group, ISIS. There’s no mention in the reporting that the American presence is completely illegal under international law, since Syria never attacked the U.S., the United Nations never authorized any intervention, and Syria never gave permission to the Americans to conduct bombing raids against ISIS in its sovereign territory.

  The United States is simply there in Syria, along with its “NATO allies” because it thinks it has the automatic right to be there, and the terrible Mr. Assad and ISIS, must be removed.

  The New York Times on April 29 ran a piece entitled “Divided Syrian City Plunges Back Into War as Hospital Is Destroyed,” which was an example of the one-sided reporting. The story described the carnage that resulted from an air attack on the al-Quds hospital in Aleppo, which resulted in 27 deaths, including children and staff. The article, written by a reporter in Beirut, simply said that “government forces” had carried out the attack, according to “witnesses and health workers.” There was no comment from the government.

  The bombing of a hospital is certainly a terrible crime, and it is in fact a war crime. It may well be true that Assad’s forces are guilty of this horrendous attack. But isn’t it incumbent on the newspaper reporting this information to get a response from the alleged perpetrator? Just because they are likely to deny the claim doesn’t mean you don’t try to get their side.

  The article later said that “groups such as Physicians for Human Rights” maintain that they had tracked “a deliberate targeting of health services by government forces.”

   Now this is a sweeping claim, that the government is deliberately bombing health facilities, committing multiple war crimes. It cries out for additional verification, statements from other named sources, any witnesses or corroboration by an independent journalist who investigated the charges. It also demands a response from the government. But none of that was in the Times’ story.

  Also left out of this article was context. There should have been some background given --- that this is a five-year-old conflict, with rebels aided by the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, attempting to overthrow Assad, and the government, aided by Russia (whose help Assad requested) and Hezbollah and Iran trying to keep Assad in power.

   Another one-sided report came surprisingly in a piece by Chris Hayes of MSNBC, on May 5.  Taking the word of the State Department that the Syrian government was responsible for the al-Quds hospital attack, Hayes blasted the Assad regime for what he said were repeated human rights violations.

   Hayes said the Syrian leader had “engaged in one of the most ghastly campaigns of slaughter and war crimes in this century and there is no just solution or any solution for the horror of Syria that does not hold him accountable.”

  Hayes' statement seemed to mirror the Obama administration's position that there could be no settlement in Syria unless Assad is removed.

   Hayes, like the Times, didn’t provide any response from a Syrian representative and failed to mention that the United States was deeply involved in the Syrian conflict, funneling arms to anti-government forces, and prolonging the war.

The MSNBC commentator noted with disgust that the Syrian government had been responsible for 183,827 deaths since the conflict began, without breaking that number down between combatants and civilians, and without giving a source.

 But a lot of other people have been killed in this conflict, also. According to the UN, about 100,000 government or pro-government fighters have been killed by the U.S.-backed forces, but that fact apparently wasn’t worth mentioning in Hayes’ report. Are members of the government military not people too?

  CNN has often presented a slanted view on foreign affairs, and their Syrian coverage has fit the pattern. The network has consistently aired reports giving a pro-America, rebel perspective, while casting Assad and his allies, like Russia, in a negative light.

  Just last week Wolf Blitzer ran a segment on Russia’s continuing involvement in Syria, months after Russian President Vladimir Putin said his nation was going to withdraw some of its forces. While showing a video captioned “Russia still has a strong military presence in Syria,” a reporter said that “Violence still rages in most of the countryside. Conciliation seems nowhere in sight and neither is an end to Russia's involvement in the conflict.”

   Neither the reporter nor Blitzer bothered to note America’s continuing involvement in Syria --- that U.S. planes have been bombing the Syrian countryside since last fall, that 250 special forces were recently sent to Syria allegedly to fight ISIS, and that U.S. proxies Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been giving weaponry to the anti-Assad forces for years.

  I’m wondering if CNN will ever run a news video with the caption “America still bombing Syria.”

   I don’t think so.