'US provided chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein' - retired military officer

Voice of Russia (VoR)

A retired US military officer Karen Kwiatkowski in an interview to VoR reveals interesting facts about American international policy and its relations with the Middle East - in particular, the information that the US provided chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Twelve years ago America initiated its global war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks. Looking back over these years, how far has America got in the struggle against the terrorist groups? And what did they manage to achieve?

First, we need to clarify. The United States was allied with the Taliban in Afghanistan up until August and September, early September of 2001. Secretary of State Colin Powell has just been in Kabul, he granted a monetary award to the Taliban government in recognition of their success in almost eliminating the opium trade after 6 years of trying.

In mid 2001, in the middle of that year, Taliban oil dignitaries will be unattained and used in Texas, as agreements on Afghanistan oil pipeline were being pursued, beyond that US intelligence and military relations with al-Qaeda's leader Bin Laden and others had been developed since the unset of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980s.

So, we go a way back with all these groups that today we understand to be terrorist groups. It isn't that the United States is in work with terrorist groups, with al-Qaeda. And what makes Obama's attacks in Libya and potential attacks in Syria so interesting – we are, as in the 1980s, fighting, in some respects, on the side of Muslim fundamentalist rebel groups, just as we were fighting with the Taliban 30 years ago against the Soviet Union.

I would not define our struggle as one against terrorist groups per se. However, we did have goals of retribution against the same al-Qaeda or other fundamentalist groups who bombed the World Trade Centers in 1993, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and in Yemen in 2000, and, of course, the attack on the World Trade Center buildings in New York City and the Pentagon on this day 12 years ago.

So, part of the agenda was retaliation. And giving the cost in treasure and life on both sides, we have retaliated most aggressively. A part of it was and remains a continuation of the Carter doctrine of maintaining oil flows for our allies in the Middle East, supporting the petrol dollars and supporting the regional and political objectives of the governments of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE.

So, have we achieved those objectives? Yes, we have maintained so far the petrol dollar. We have supported the governments of Israel, Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf states. And we have weakened and nearly destroyed the institutions in the stated enemies of these friendly governments, so far, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and now, potentially, Syria.

I see. Very interesting facts you've brought to light. And, what do you think, actually, went wrong? You are saying that the US did actually achieve some of the objectives, and basically, they are cooperating, you said, with the Taliban. What went wrong in that relationship?

Well, part of what went wrong, from the American prospective, is that the agendas that we pursued both in the '80s and the '90s and today haven't been honestly shared with the people of the United States. So, for the US government, the agenda is stabilizing our friends' governments and destabilizing their enemies in the Middle East. So, we've done it. But for Americans, the story line is framed in a war against terrorism, which, of course, for us, for the average person in the United States was thinking about 9/11 today.

We are looking at those images, we are frightened of those terrorist groups that brought that terrible act to our shores, so, we are upset about that, and for selling the Carter doctrine basically in it maturation, the mature Carter doctrine today, we used terrorism to sell that to the American people.

So, it looks like we are not achieving, it looks like America isn't achieving its goal, and I would argue that we are doing some bad things, but from the government's prospective, from Washington DC's prospective, in fact, we have achieved a great many of our goals.

It's not so much fighting terrorism as it is maintaining a status quo power structure in the Middle East, and that's what kind of we've been doing, but that has been well explained to the American people, so, you know, we say: "Hey, we're not winning the war on terror, we have a lot more... you know, there's a lot more terror, there's a lot more, you know, lack of stability and violence and hatred."

You're right.

We say we're not winning the war on terror. In fact, the goals of the United States very much have been pursued successfully for a long time. Now, I do think that time is gonna change, I think we're coming to a crucial point in this, but... That's how I see it.

Right. Now, if not fighting terrorism, then what does the US need to do to at least keep it from proliferating and to avoid terror attacks at least on its own native soil or against its citizens?

We should have a good defense in our own country against terrorist-type attacks or activities of agencies or people that might want to harm us. But in fact, we had that even before 9/11, and we have a robust FBI, it had information, it failed to act on it, we have a very robust CIA that had information, that failed to act on it, so we were protected about as good as you could be to really reduce terror.

The United States has got to change its policy such that we're not the target of anger, frustration, hatred rage in a sense of terrible injustice. That's what we've been doing, the way we've pursued our interests in the Middle East, particularly, the way we have pursued those interests has basically painted a target on the shoulders and the chest of every American, really.

And it is an unfortunate thing, because most Americans don't side with... you know, the objective that the policy-makers in Washington are pursuing. They think that we're fighting terror, they don't understand why we are loosing. But, in fact, you know, we've created more terror, because we are perceived as being extremely hypocritical in the application of justice, so-called justice, in the Middle East.

And, certainly, Syria has been a real stage to show that hypocrisy. And we were upset that chemical weapons were used and, well, we should be. But in fact when our friends use chemical weapons, and we can list the names of those friends, it's Israel, Iraq and Saddam Hussein one time, when our friends used chemical weapons, we said nothing.

In fact, we used, you know, chemical weapons ourselves, what's classified internationally as chemical weapons, ourself in the Middle East from our military. So, very much hypocrisy comes through in. That makes people angry.

And, you know, we use a heavy hand, we have this massive military, these massive air forces, very powerful navy, and we exercise this power in such a way that makes people feel angry and helpless and victims of a great injustice, and, of course, that's what breeds terrorism, that's what pins the target on the chests of Americans.

Can you elaborate a bit on American use of chemical weapons?

Well, we used depleted uranium to harden the tips of our various missiles. And when that explodes and becomes polarized in powder, turns into powder, it contaminates the soil and the water for decades, and it's cancer-causing, and we have plenty of documentations of the problems, when we live and breathe in environment that is contaminated with depleted uranium.

We've used white phosphors, we have stood by and even provided the white phosphors, for the Israelis against the Palestinians. Well, most Americans are not really aware of this or not thinking about this, it's certainly not reported in American news, it certainly sends the message that there are two sets of law in the Middle East – one for the United States and one for Arabs and others that live in the region.

So, yeah, we've done it. It's old news how we took sides in the Iraq-Iran war, we actually aided both sides, but we did provide chemical weapons and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein as he was fighting in that long war with Iran. And we did this, it's been well publicized.

So, yeah, we do this. In fact, we are not signatories to some of these chemical weapon non-proliferation things, and this is not a chemical weapon per se, but cluster bombs.

We will not swear off cluster bombs, we use cluster bombs, and, of course, they have terrible impact on non-combatants, they are dangerous for many, many years even after we've launched them.

So, we'd really don't have a light to stand on in terms of the terrible weapons that are used. War is ugly, and we are responsible in this country for prosecuting some of this war. So, I think that we can't get away from it, that in fact is a mare.

Karen, Mr. Kerry is speaking... addressing the House Committee and speaking about the chemical attack in Syria, spoke of the fact that if military intervention was not decided upon by the US, it would basically be a threat to US security to leave the situation alone in Syria. Do you agree that it actually could be a threat to the US security - the chemical weapons that were allegedly used in Syria?

Sure, it doesn't make sense to me in any logical way that what goes on in the Syrian civil war to the extent of what has been going on sometime, even to the extent that we're backing the rebels and we are somewhat involved, and had been for a couple of years, in the Syrian civil war, but even with that, it makes no sense that the United States proper, or US interests per se in general, would be threatened by that.

I don't know what information he has, now, I would wonder... he could just be saying that, you know, obviously, just lying, to tell a story to promote the agenda of the administration, but he may have information, I mean, we are working with rebels against Assad's government. And some of those rebels, in fact, a number of those rebels, are connected with al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda, you know, as the world knows, is a terrorist group, and it has a history of blowing up American property and killing Americans. And we are on the side of those guys in this. So, perhaps, if we withdraw our support from them, they will be angry enough to retaliate against the United States. Maybe, that is what Kerry is talking about.

But certainly, what is going on in Syria... you know, if Assad falls, if Assad succeed in civil war, that should have no affect on the safety or the pursuit of American business. So, I don't understand what Kerry is talking about. He may know something I don't know.

OK, Karen, Britons in The Guardian have published a previously undisclosed document leaked by US whistleblower Edward Snowden. And it reveals that the NSA routinely shared agent data with Israel without even removing information that has to do with US citizens. The NSA insists that the shared intelligence complies really with all the rules related to privacy. Could you comment on that, and is the document really in line with legal norms on privacy?

Haven't seen the document. It makes a lot of sense. I don't think there's so much data being collected by the National Security Agency, it's been done technologically, it's not human intelligence, it's technical intelligence, we've got back to all the major hobs, the NSA is soaking in all of this information, and they are doing word search to see what it can find.

I don't think any of that data is being handled in any careful way, so it's not been carefully handled, it's certainly not, it's most likely not been legally handled. And we do have in this country a very close sharing relationship with Israel, the government of Israel, with intelligence agencies, with Mossad and with other intelligence organizations of Israel, and, in addition to that, Israel is engaged in active espionage against the United States, so Israel is very interested in getting this information.

So, it doesn't surprise me that we'd be sharing it with them, that we'd be doing that relatively casually, we've a long relationship, and this is part of something that we really need to look more closely at this country. It wouldn't surprise me. Laws are being broken every day in this country, particularly the constitution, particularly the 4th amendment. In fact, many people say: "Our 4th amendment's right to be secured, our persons, our papers and our information, it's gone, it's dead already." I hope that's not true.

Right. Karen, I just have to ask you just one last question, we're really out of time... What do you see as the next thing in the scenario on Syria? What do you see as America's next move?

Well, what I'm hoping is that America, or at least the political side of this country, matches up with the domestic voice in this country, and backs away from threats of war. I would like to see it back away from supporting one side or the other in the civil war in Syria. And we'd like to see more transparency and how they've got to the decisions that they did. That's what I'd like to see.

I think what's going to happen is we are going to see a slowdown, we've got domestic budget issues to deal with now in this country, and I think this will take central stage in the Congress and that they will push back and step away, and let the international community deal with transparency in Syria, we will be concerned about more domestic problems.

And again, finances are a huge thing. Americans are really tired of paying, paying and paying for these wars in the Middle East that send back injured men and women, and we don't understand what we're doing, we don't understand why we are not so-called winning, 'cause we are not winning. And Americans are getting tired of that.

So, I think and I very much hope that you'll see our attentions, the attentions of Washington DC, the attentions of President Obama pull back and focus a little more domestically over the next several months. I certainly hope that happens.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Article published here: Voice of Russia. Collage: Wikipedia
URL: http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2013/09/12/us-provided-chemical-and-biological