GET OUT NOW!

The Real Reasons To Bring Our Troops Home From Iraq

by David Lincoln

The time has come for the unvarnished truth about Iraq with no spin and no Bushit. The hard
facts are undeniable and the only question is whether the American people are ready to face
reality. The story of Iraq will not have a happy ending and it is time to cut our losses and run.
While many may find this approach abhorrent, the alternatives are far worse for the following
reasons:

1. We should not allow another soldier or civilian to die for political expediency.

It is likely that no matter who wins the US election in November, many of our troops in
Iraq will be home within six-months to a year because there is little that anyone can accomplish
there. It is also likely that some troops will remain in Iraq for years to come if our present
policies continue. Unfortunately, it appears that neither political party has any incentive to bring
our soldiers home before the presidential election.

Republicans remember all too well the election defeat of George Bush Senior in 1992,
less than two years after the success of Desert Storm. The American people quickly forgot about
Bush as Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year.” Polls showed they voted instead on the basis of
the dismal state of the economy. Republicans are not likely to make the same mistake again. Of
course, they transferred some authority to Iraq in July and they will toy with the idea of getting
our soldiers home by November, but that will be another empty campaign promise. The threat of
anarchy and a potential revolution to kick out American companies will force Bush and company
to try to secure the election before trying to withdraw any significant number of troops. The
Bush/Cheney Team is likely to find reasons to keep enough troops to guard the oil fields
indefinitely. This strategy is doomed to failure, since it will only lead to more sabotage and more
killings. The longer troops are in Iraq the more difficult it will be to remove them.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are in danger of appearing that they want the war to
continue rather than relinquish their most potent campaign issue. They will have to fight hard not
to look like they are against the withdrawal of troops as the election looms. Some will surely
suggest that they want to drag out the war so they don’t have to defend their own domestic
policies.

2. Iraqis will never forget what we have done to them and their country.

Many have argued that we destroyed the country and we have an obligation to restore it.
The simple truth is that some things cannot be fixed. We are like a clumsy giant trying to put an
egg back in its shell after we have stomped on it with our heavy boots. The notion that we can
instill democracy into the birthplace of civilization at the end of a gun barrel is pure arrogance.
You cannot sew the seeds of democracy in a land that is drenched in blood and irrigated with oil.

During the first Gulf War, we killed as many as 200,000 Iraqi’s including thousands of
civilians after the war. The Allied tally was reportedly 148 fatalities in combat and an additional
289 service members who died in accidents during the war; during Operation Desert Shield, the
build-up to the military phase of the conflict; and in various military operations in the Gulf since
the war. More than 60,000 Iraqis were taken prisoner. The Iraqi victims are the sons and fathers
and family members of the people whose hearts and minds we are trying to win over a decade
later. We cannot win this propaganda war and we cannot assuage the hatred Iraqi’s feel for
America. We cannot make friends by bombing cities and bulldozing houses.

Consider for a moment the unbridled hatred and fear that the unprovoked attack and
murder of perhaps 3000 Americans has brought to our country after 9/11/01. Now multiply that
by more than 50 times. Add to that decade-old hatred possibly 10,000 civilian fatalities and
another 10,000 to 25,000 Iraqi military casualties in the current war in which we have lost more
than 1000 soldiers. It is easy to see why they will never view Americans as liberators.

Furthermore, we have deliberately bombed Iraq into the Stone Age. Without
provocation, we have reduced parts of Baghdad to piles of rubble and left much of the population
without water and power. Who can blame the Iraqis for hating an occupying army with orders to
protect the oil fields at all costs while allowing their priceless historical treasures to be vandalized
and looted? You cannot hold a country together which has been ripped to shreds. Only an
immediate exit of all American troops will allow the Iraqis to begin to put the pieces back
together. No matter what we do now Iraq will be in chaos for decades.

3. The environment of Iraq is dangerous and unhealthy for our troops

The First Gulf War should have taught us that the more time Americans spend on the ground in
Iraq the greater is the threat to their health. In the years after that war, 40,000 veterans from the
United States have reported symptoms they have related to their service in the gulf. These include
chronic headache, nausea, anxiety, depression, joint pain, reproductive dysfunction, and others."

Even more alarming is the fact that they appear to be passing these illnesses on to their families.
According to a survey of 10,051 ill veterans performed by Operation Desert Shield / Desert
Storm Association, 51% of spouses and 22% of children were found to be ill. A US government
survey of 21,000 veterans has also shown that those who served in the Gulf were two to three
times more likely to report birth defects in their children.

"Gulf War Syndrome" is a label that has frequently been used to describe the unexplained and
widely ranging debilitating symptoms suffered by U.S. and Allied soldiers who served in the
Persian Gulf in 1990-1991. These symptoms are without a single diagnosis or a definite cause,
but they closely resemble those seen in hospitals in southern Iraq and Kuwait. These illnesses
have contributed to the 221,000 veterans on medical disability and another 51,000 seeking that
status from the Veterans Administration as of May 2002. Possible causes include:

Depleted Uranium (DU)

During the first Gulf War in 1991, weapons containing depleted Uranium were used for the first
time in combat. It was incorporated into tank armor, missile and aircraft counterweights and
navigational devices, and in tank, anti-aircraft and anti-personnel artillery. In the first Gulf War,
nearly one million DU rounds were used to knock out Iraqi tanks and personnel vehicles. Eleven
years later, DU shell holes in the vehicles along the "Highway of Death" were 1,000 times more
radioactive than background radiation.
Shortly after the bombing stopped in Iraq War Round II, it was estimated that four times more
depleted uranium was used than in the first Gulf War. In May 2003, a reporter for the Christian
Science Monitor found significant levels of radioactive contamination from the US battle for
Baghdad. He estimated that about 75 tons of DU was left in Iraq. There are fears that because the
military relied more heavily on DU munitions in the second Iraq war than in the first, postwar
casualties may be even greater.

DU, or Uranium-238, is a byproduct of making nuclear reactor fuel. It is denser and more
penetrating than lead, burns as it flies, and breaks up and vaporizes on impact – which makes it
very deadly for armor-piercing shells. Each round fired by a tank shoots one ten-pound uranium
dart that, in addition to destroying targets, scatters into burning fragments and creates a cloud of
uranium particles as small as one micron. Particles that small can enter lung tissue and remain
embedded so DU is ingested when soldiers or civilians come into contact with these toxic
substances. Some DU munitions have been found to contain traces of Plutonium, which is the
most toxic substance we know of.

Symptoms of being affected by DU include achy joints, dizziness, developing rashes and memory
loss. According to Paul Sullivan, President of the National Gulf War Resource Center, the residue
from DU weapons settles in the bone, the lungs, kidneys and testicles. The most infamous
example of the effects of DU is that it can be passed from the mother to the child and often causes
abnormalities and other birth defects. In the past decade, there has been a notable increase in
children’s cancer rates reported in Iraqi hospitals and a considerable unexplained jump in the
number of deformed babies. DU could well be a contributing factor and it may only be a matter
of time before we see more problems diagnosed in the families of Iraq war veterans.

Other contributing causes to Gulf War Syndrome include:

• Exposure to at least three vaccines intended as protection against nerve and
biological warfare agents

Recently Iraq war soldiers from Britain were complaining of Gulf War
Syndrome symptoms. Four soldiers who were given vaccinations before
the Iraq war are threatening to sue the Ministry of Defense after
developing symptoms they claim are similar to those of Gulf War
Syndrome. The 45,000 British forces serving in Iraq were given a range
of vaccinations to protect against chemical and biological attack.
American troops were also vaccinated against chemical and biological
warfare.
• Smoke and chemical pollutants released by fires.

During the recent war, only 7 Iraqi oil wells were set on fire, out of
around 1,500 total wells. However, smoke from hundreds of oil fires set
in 1991 blanketed the country at that time and even now hydrocarbon
residues are still present in the air and soil.

• Leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease transmitted by the bite of many species

of sand fly indigenous to the region. Non-indigenous people who enter an
infected area are known to be more seriously affected by this parasite than the
inhabitants.
 • Pesticides and insecticides were used extensively throughout the country
to protect against pestilence. Many are suspected carcinogens and mutagens.
Non-lethal exposure to pesticides can result in memory loss, and nerve agents are
chemically related to pesticides.

• Destruction by allies of Iraqi weapons resulting in widespread

distribution of these toxins in the environment.

A report to Congress on Gulf War Syndrome found substantial evidence

supporting claims that U.S. servicemen and women were exposed to low-
level chemical warfare agents and possibly biological toxins from a
variety of possible sources. Little is known about the long-term
consequences of exposure to low levels of nerve gas, although most are
known to have cumulative toxic effects. Even less is known about
complications which might arise from exposure to combined agents and
combined agent weapons.

• Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD)

The evidence suggests that a wave of combat-fatigued soldiers—as many as 20

percent of the 130,000 troops in the field—not seen since the aftermath of the
Vietnam War is about to come crashing onto American shores. A total of 19
soldiers serving in the Iraq campaign committed suicide in 2003, a number that
officials acknowledge is “above average.”

“There’s very good likelihood of a lot more Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD),” than the military saw after the 1991 Gulf War, says Dr. Brett Litz,
associate director of the National Center for PTSD. The reasons are apparent.
The Iraq occupation is an extended guerrilla war, without a front or rear.
Countless civilians have been killed and maimed. “There’s a larger sense of
horror from the use of overwhelming force and seeing civilians suffer,” Litz says.
“That can leave an enduring mark on men and women.” Add to that the mission’s
large number of citizen-soldiers in the Army Reserve and National Guard, who
are returning to curious communities who can’t relate to their experiences.

In this setting, troops have been exposed not only to sandstorms, which degrade the lungs, but to
oil fires and waste created by the use of uranium projectiles in tanks, aircraft, machine guns and
missiles. Troops may be exposed to even greater risk because they are fighting on land polluted
with chemical, biological and radioactive weapon residue from the first Gulf War and its
aftermath. The longer this occupation continues the more soldiers will be exposed to these
deadly conditions and the more their families will be asked to sacrifice.

4. Oil and Economics started this war and they are the only things keeping it going.

Whether we like it or not, Iraq could well become the world’s second largest oil exporter in the
next 20 years. Already Iraq is believed to possess more than 10% of the world’s proven oil
reserves (over 110 billion barrels). According to the Dept of Energy estimates, undiscovered oil
fields and new technologies could more than double those reserves. Estimates of Iraq's oil
reserves and resources vary widely, however, given that only 10% or so of the country has been
explored, so Iraq could someday rival Saudi Arabia in remaining reserves.
Three foreign countries (Russia, China and France) have the most invested in Iraqi oil fields and
each had contracts worth several billion dollars. As a result of the war, the status of these
contracts is now uncertain. In May 2003, Philip Carroll, former head of Royal Dutch/Shell in the
United States, and now head of an advisory board for the oil sector stated that contracts signed
under the previous regime would be assessed to determine whether "they were made in the best
interests of the Iraqi people." This, of course, actually means terms favorable to the US and the
UK. Let us not forget that American and British firms were virtually excluded from oil contracts
for more than a decade.

Low production costs in Iraq make these reserves some of the most valuable on the planet. How
much they are worth depends entirely on the level of production and the projected oil price. No
one can accurately predict oil prices in the years to come, but it is obvious that oil prices have
been climbing pretty steadily since the bombing stopped and they are likely to go much higher.
The Global Policy Forum has estimated that even at a 50% recovery rate the oil could be worth
over $3 trillion. Spread over 50 years and assuming a 50/50 split with Iraq, the company profit
would be nearly $30 billion per year. That is 2/3 of the total profits earned by the 5 biggest oil
companies in 2001. It is not surprising then that think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have
been heavily subsidized by the major oil companies. Also, natural gas reserves could add billions
of dollars more in profits. Is it any wonder that the Bush Administration’s Energy Plan was
developed behind closed doors and that they refuse to say which companies were present or what
topics were discussed?

Clearly, the US and British oil companies expect governments to protect their financial interests
in Iraq for the long term. They also expect the US to defend the dollar at all costs and prevent
Iraq from selling their oil for Eurodollars as they did in 2000. Since the Iraqi’s are well aware of
the value of their oil and gas they will not give up their oil futures without a fight. The
Bush/Cheney policy essentially places US troops at risk for decades to come to insure that US
based multi-national companies make the profits and not Russian or French companies. The
American consumer may not benefit from such patriotic sacrifices since the Multi-national
companies will be in a position to control production output and influence prices to maximize
their own profit margins.

Meanwhile, it will be the American taxpayer who picks up the bill for restoring Iraq’s oil
infrastructure. Halliburton has already been given contracts worth $7.5 billion to support the
military and rebuild the infrastructure. All of these contracts are non-competitive and cost-plus
meaning that Halliburton works off of a fixed profit no matter what the operational costs. We are
in effect privatizing our army at taxpayer expense while removing the risks from corporate profits
and also removing all incentives to minimize costs.

In one of the cruelest ironies of this or any war, Halliburton recruiters now entice soldiers who
have been discharged or are about to be discharged with promises of huge salaries and benefits so
they can return to Iraq as employees and do the things which the Army used to do like mail,
cooking, logistics etc. Halliburton already has over 15,000 workers in Iraq and neighboring
Kuwait, a workforce greater than the 10,000 troops deployed by Britain. Many of these jobs are
in combat areas and include high-risk activities like security guard. If these “employees” are
killed, (several Halliburton staff have already lost their lives) insurance premiums go up and
taxpayers pay more for the same services. The more it costs to do a job the more profit
Halliburton makes. This explains why their website refers to armed conflicts as “opportunities”
and why withdrawal for Halliburton would be a financial disaster. Should we allow a Vice
President who makes $1 million in deferred compensation from Halliburton (no one knows how
much in stock options) to decide when our troops should come home?

The bottom line is that you cannot build democracy on top of such concentrated wealth. It would
be like playing king of the hill on a mountain of cash. As soon as one religious faction gains
control the others will topple it. This endeavor has been doomed from the start. Bush’s father
knew this and that is why America did not conquer Baghdad at the end of the First Iraq War.

The only thing that has changed since then is that the tragedy of 9/11 provided the smoke screen
for this Bush administration to do whatever it wanted to replace our dwindling oil reserves. The
harsh reality is that if Iraq didn’t have any oil we would never have gone to war with them and
we would probably be fighting in Saudi Arabia now. Under these circumstances we cannot
afford to leave our soldiers in Iraq for another day, but Bush and his oil company contributors
will argue to leave some of our troops in Iraq indefinitely.

David Lincoln
October 5, 2004

705 Heights
Gloucester, MA 01930
(978) 281-0117

davelinc@aol.com