Copyright: http://www.iviews.com
Published Wednesday February 02, 2000
By Ali Asadullah
Scott Ritter is indeed a controversial figure. A former
U.S. Marine Captain who fought in the Gulf War, Ritter
led the UNSCOM disarmament team in Iraq for seven
years. During that time Iraq accused him of spying for
the United States and Israel. He resigned his post in
August of 1998, citing the U.N. Security Council’s
inability to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq.
Since that time, Ritter has spoken out against the
economic sanctions that have crippled Iraq and
ravaged its population. With more conservative political
leanings, Ritter is sometimes at odds with more liberal
elements of the anti-sanctions movement. He is no
less opposed to the sanctions program; but has a
uniquely conservative view on the methodology to
resolve the crisis in Iraq.
Ritter spoke with iviews.com on Jan 31 with reference
to his willingness to dialogue with presidential
candidates on the issue of the sanctions. What follows
are excerpts from that conversation.
The problem of the left
Ritter: One of the problems is that the issue of
economic sanctions in Iraq has been embraced by, I
would say, the fringe left of the United States. It’s not a
mainstream issue, unfortunately. It should be. When I
speak out, almost everywhere I speak to mainstream
audiences, when you confront them with the fact that 5
to 6 thousand kids are dying every month as a result of
economic sanctions they’re shocked. This is a reality
that the mainstream American public chooses to
ignore.
Because the issue has been embraced by the left --
including radical elements of the left -- it’s lost a little
bit of its political credibility. For the most part, when
you talk about economic sanctions, and you’re
confronted by Voices in the Wilderness – I forget some
of the other ones I’ve talked with – these are
well-meaning people but it’s very easy for mainstream
politicians to brush them off because these people
have no constituency, and for the most part because of
their radical beliefs. All of what they say is wrong,
factually; or heavily slanted with a political ideology
that most of Americans don’t find attractive.
The problem of politics
Ritter: We’re dealing with a situation now where
politicians do not want to take on this issue -- because
the facts are irreconcilable. What America’s doing with
Iraq today is criminal. It’s a violation of international
law; it’s about as anti-American as I can think of
anything that we’re doing. And yet Saddam Hussein
has been demonized by the American media, by
American politicians. And it’s political suicide right now
for a politician to do anything other than stand on a
podium and give an anti-Saddam speech. And it’s very
difficult … they don’t want to be wasting their limited
airtime with the American public trying to discuss the
intricacies of Iraq, the Middle East policy, etc. They
want to simplify the situation; and the best way to
simplify it right now for a politician is to go with the old
adage that Saddam Hussein is evil and that we will
continue to oppose him. And right now one of the main
vehicles for opposing Saddam is the continuation of
containment through economic sanctions.
And that’s why no one will listen. I can’t get the New
York Times to publish an op-ed piece that talks about
this in the context of the presidential elections
because they say it doesn’t matter if what you’re
saying is right. What matters is that no one else
believes it should be a presidential issue.
…If any journalist or anybody in any of the campaigns
desires to talk about Iraq and would like to understand
my perspective and some of the reasons why I believe
the way I do, I’d be more than happy to talk to them.
The problem is, when Iraq’s sexy I get a lot of media
attention; when Iraq’s not sexy, I get zero media
attention. That’s the reality of the way the media does
business. It has nothing to do with the substance of
the issue or even the fact that almost everything I’ve
said about Iraq, every prediction I’ve made, has come
true. Every fact I’ve said has held under close scrutiny.
The media doesn’t care about that. You’ve got your
window where the public is paying attention and they’ll
put me up with someone who has zero credibility on
the subject and give them equal airtime. So I’ve been
challenging the American public and the media and the
political mainstream for over a year now to think
responsibly about Iraq. It’s just not happening. It’s very
frustrating. And if there’s anything I can do to continue
the education process, I’d be more than happy to do it.
Both liberals and conservatives have it wrong
Ritter: There’s very few people who are in opposition to
the sanctions who have served in the military. So when
you get, for instance – I think it’s Voices of
Reconciliation is one of these groups – I had a long
discussion with them. I gave them a large interview. I
told them right up front [that] when they address the
issue of economic sanctions and then they liken what
the United States is doing to Auschwitz, I said,
"You’ve lost everybody at that point." It’s about as
grossly an irresponsible statement as I can imagine.
This isn’t Auschwitz, this isn’t genocide, this isn’t the
Nazi regime attempting to eradicate the Jewish race off
the face of the earth. This is horrible policy that’s
resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead kids. But
there’s a big difference between the two. And that’s
why I talk about levels of irresponsibility.
I also believe that these people haven’t a clue about
the reality of the regime of Saddam Hussein. I hold that
for conservative too. I think that the people who are
advising George W. Bush … are giving as misguided
policy on Iraq to presidential candidate George W.
Bush as one can imagine. Yet they’re to the far right.
So both sides of the spectrum have it totally wrong
when it comes to Iraq. One side tends to … view the
regime as some sort of nice little genteel Middle East
nation. The other one demonizes it to the point of …
making it the Middle East equivalent of Adolph Hitler.
No one looks at the reality of Iraq within the context of
the modern Middle East, and what the alternatives to
Saddam Hussein would be, why this isn’t an issue of
Saddam Hussein but this is an issue of Iraq, etc. And
until people introduce all those levels of complexity to
their argument, their basic stance is full of holes and
will be shot down.
On Ramsey Clark
Ritter: I wouldn’t be in touch with Ramsey Clark … I
fought in the Gulf War. I was in that war, I know what
went on during that war, and we’re not war criminals.
I’m not a war criminal. And none of the people I served
with are war criminals. And yet he’s accusing the
United States of committing war crimes because A-10
aircraft fired depleted uranium shells at Iraqi tanks.
That’s horribly irresponsible. I don’t want to be
associated with this man. That’s the kind of thing I’m
talking about. He may have a point when it comes to
economic sanctions but he hasn’t a clue of what’s
involved in modern warfare and why we targeted certain
targets. He doesn’t know the intelligence information
that went in behind it. And so when he offers the kind
of gross condemnation that he sets forth, it’s
unwarranted.
On continued trips back to Iraq
Ritter: There’s two issues here. One, you’re dealing
with the concept of civil disobedience; and it has a
grand and glorious history in the United States.
Everything that we did with the civil rights movement
was a civil disobedience. And when you have a gross
injustice, civil disobedience has a great role. The
problem is, it was easy to convince people when you
saw a picture of a white sheriff beating up a black girl
that this was wrong. But because we’ve demonized
Saddam Husse,in to such an extent and we’ve
personalized this conflict around Saddam Hussein, it’s
very hard to convince the mainstream American that
this act of civil disobedience – and again, I have
nothing but the highest respect for the people in
Voices in the Wilderness who go to Iraq. I think they’re
brave. I think they’re courageous. I think they’re
courageous both in terms of physical courage and also
moral courage. Now does that mean I’m going to get
on the next bus and go to Iraq? No. Not because I’m a
coward. But when I’ve done my assessment of the
situation. And I’ve told them this -- they have been
painted as reactionaries. And therefore no one will
respect the act that they took. Same thing with
Ramsey Clark. No one’s going to sit there and say this
was a brilliant act of civil disobedience done by a brave
and courageous person. He’s grossly irresponsible in
some of the things he says. And Voices in the
Wilderness have some things that have painted them
in that corner.
What needs to be done
Ritter: What will be required is for a mainstream
American group to not only go to Iraq but to directly
challenge – this has to become a political issue. That’s
something I’ve said all along. The reason why I say this
… [is because] one of the things that has hamstrung
our ability to formulate effective policy in Iraq isn’t just
ignorance at the highest levels of the American
government or the American political body. The fact
that we’ve passed something called the Iraq Liberation
Act – this is public law which mandates that the United
States provide $100 million worth of funds for the sole
purpose of overthrowing the regime of Saddam
Hussein.
People have to understand that we have passed a law
that supercedes, in terms of the American system,
Security Council resolutions. So it’s hypocritical for
anybody in this administration to be talking about arms
control, to be talking about anything that relates to a
Security Council resolution or a Security Council
mandate because United States law dictates the
overthrow of Saddam Hussein. And this has to sink
into people’s heads. Now the only way we’re going to
solve the issue of Iraq is to overturn that law and that
has to be done through political action. We have to get
enough congressmen and senators to understand that
the law is not only illegal in terms of international law,
but it’s wrong and it’s not going to work. It only hurts
the United States, it only hurts the people of the
Middle East, it only hurts Iraq. If we can get that law
overturned, I think you’ll see almost an immediate
change in policy.
Conyers/Bonior Letter
Ritter: Again, the problem is the sponsors. If I call up
somebody on Senator Helms’ staff and mention that
letter, they’re not going to even bother reading the body
of the letter. They’re just going to immediately say,
"Those left-wing radicals."
I like the letter … It’s a good letter. It’s something I
wish the media would pick up on. And I wish that it
would get grass roots support from the American
public to put pressure on the representatives who didn’t
sign that letter because we need to de-link the two
(economic and military sanctions). But it’s bigger than
de-linking. You can’t treat things in a vacuum. The
de-linking of economic and military sanctions is
meaningless as long as the United States continues to
pursue a policy of overthrowing the regime of Saddam
Hussein. You have to deal with this issue on a
comprehensive level. And the letter doesn’t do that.
That’s why I think it’s just a drop in the pond and it will
ultimately have zero impact because it tries to
oversimplify the problem by picking a single issue and
saying, "If we do this everything will be OK," and that’s
not true. If we do that everything won’t be OK.
Facing hypocrisy
Ritter: Take a look at some of the statements coming
out of the U.S., government. We passed [a U.N.]
resolution in December -- and of course we had the
abstentions -- it’s a binding resolution. And one of the
things it calls for is the U.N. to pass a plan for
improving the flow of humanitarian goods. Secretary
General Kofi Annan has submitted this plan. The
United States has come and said, "We’re going to veto
it." That’s garbage. What it is, is that the U.S. doesn’t
want a massive alleviation of the humanitarian situation
in Iraq because that basically starts the crumbling
process for the entire system of economic sanctions.
So again, it’s pure hypocrisy being run out of the State
Department and the National Security Council. But the
American people don’t care because it’s oversimplified
by politicians. For instance, Senator McCain, who I
have nothing but the highest respect for – I’ll vote for
him – but here’s a man who talks about "rogue nation
rollback." Well I’d like to hear how he’s going to roll
Iraq back. That’s a fascinating concept Senator, but
let’s talk about the realities. Are you going to put
American ground troops in Iraq? I don’t think so. Are
you going to increase the number of sorties flown? To
what extent? What’s your targeting plan? What are
you going to target? Why are you going to target? Is
Iraq a rogue nation? We’ve a got a lot of problems
here.
Compare and contrast Iraq with a country like North
Korea. Right now, we’re entertaining a North Korean
delegation to talk about their ballistic missile activity.
Why can we deal diplomatically with North Korea and
not with Iraq? There’s just a lot of inconsistencies with
the way we pursue foreign policy. And a lot of it boils
down to internal domestic politics. Because we’ve
demonized Saddam Hussein, it’s politically
unacceptable for anybody to go out and embrace a
diplomatic solution for fear of being called an appeaser.