There’s another side to the victory of Desert Storm

Published 12:00 am Tuesday, January 30, 2001

Last Wednesday a guest editorial ran in the Herald from the New York Post titled "United States learned lessons in Gulf War.

Tuesday, January 30, 2001

Last Wednesday a guest editorial ran in the Herald from the New York Post titled "United States learned lessons in Gulf War."

Email newsletter signup

It was 10 years ago that morning, Iraqi time, that a coalition of armed forces led by American troops launched an air strike against Baghdad.

According to the editorial, "Diplomacy and sanctions had failed to move Saddam from his illegal occupation of a neighboring country, so America and its allies prepared for war."

It then goes on to say that in six weeks it was all over and concludes that not enough was accomplished, and Saddam’s ultimate survival needs attention by the Bush administration.

There is another side to this that I want to mention.

I did not serve in Desert Storm but I did serve in Vietnam.

The day we commenced bombing Baghdad will always stand out in my mind. I remember how awful I felt inside and the long sad walk I took that evening.

I want to talk about the editorial’s words, "that in six weeks it was all over."

Eight words to talk about 30 days of near constant missile attack on Iraq – most specifically Baghdad – 30 days that bitterly wiped out their infrastructure and set them back, way back in time, destroying their power, water, what have you, and the untold number of lives lost and countless wounded in "our victory."

This devastation is still faced there 10 years later and people are still dying as a result, but we don’t like to talk about this. Ships fired weapons and missiles from sea, stealth bombers flew continuous missions proving to the military just how capable it was. Desert Storm was also a perfect opportunity for the military to test its weapon systems.

Perhaps some of you recall photos of the destruction of the convoy attempting to leave Kuwait where melted bodies lay in a strip of rubble along the highway, where no one walked away.

Not long after Desert Storm I found a book by Pierre Salenger entitled "Secret Dossier" that gave another side to all of this.

It’s been almost 10 years since I read the book and would like to read it again, but I lended it and it’s gone.

There, the conversation between Saddam and our ambassador is recorded and, if I remember correctly, she all but assured him that if they (Iraq) would attack Kuwait for taking Iraqi oil, the U.S. would not intervene. According to this account Kuwait was taking oil that led to the war – Kuwait was "stealing" oil from Iraq by some means.

And this, the taking of oil, was being discussed by the Arab nations and they were working on a solution among themselves.

Kuwait was not cooperating – in essence saying, "Up yours."

"And if you do anything the United States will stand behind us."

If I read correctly the United States "pressured Egypt" after Iraq entered Kuwait, to join us on our "go to war bandwagon" that led to Desert Storm.

Benjamin Disraeli said, "Patience is a necessary ingredient of genius." How patient were we? Could this have been settled without the destruction of Desert Storm?

I recall talking to the wife of a soldier and how he talked of an Iraqi woman approaching him with an infant child in her arms ripped open by napalm.

I recommend the book. The library can locate it.

Now, 10 years later, would be a good time to reacquaint oneself to that time, a time we "heralded" as such a great victory. A chance to put Vietnam behind us, perhaps a subtle aspect of the plan.

Jesse Jackson is in the news. His liaison with a staff is not the first of a high official, as we all know, nor will it be the last. If we had a printout of those in public office who had liaisons with staff we might then have something to talk about.

Was it just recently discovered – or was the time right to "disclose it" in an attempt to discredit Jackson because of his insistence in voter discrepancies in Florida, especially among black voters.

When Kennedy’s extra marital stuff was brought up, economist John Kenneth Galbraith explained it by saying, "It is not that JFK was exceptional rather, it is that on him the interest is still centered, and it is from this that the money comes. It is also true that sex is something that even the dimmest commentator can understand, the least literate can write about."

Finally, I find it rather interesting that 77 percent of the leaders for "right to life" are men. I cannot help but wonder if that number would change if men carried babies to full term instead of women, especially if they were unplanned – we haven’t evolved that far yet but who knows.