Down the Memory Hole of the Iran-Iraq War
In a story noticed by Connie Brod this morning on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” reporter Christopher Marquis reported that the Reagan administration was somehow weak on weapons of mass destruction in the mid-1980s, according to newly uncovered documents:
“During that war, the United States secretly provided Iraq with combat planning assistance, even after Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons was widely known…The disclosures round out a picture of American outreach to the Iraqi government, even as the United States professed to be neutral in the eight-year war, and suggests a private nonchalance toward Mr. Hussein's use of chemicals in warfare. Mr. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have cited Iraq's use of poisonous gas as a main reason for ousting Mr. Hussein.”
<font size=4>
This might sound shocking, a tilt toward the evil Saddam and “private nonchalance” about WMDs. But Marquis doesn’t create the entire context of mid-1980s foreign policy, which would include the New York Times. On October 20, 1987, the Times editorialized: “Iran’s strategy is to divide its opponents through fear. A united front led by the United States and centered on the containment of Iran is the proper response.” In other words, the Times favored supporting Iraq’s cause even after it became aware of American support (reported in the Times by Bernard Gwertzmann on December 16, 1986) and international alarm about Iraq’s use of chemical weapons.
But there’s more in the editorial: “So why should the United States get embroiled in a savage war between two lawless regimes? Because containing Iran is in the interest of the U.S., the Gulf States, Europe, and Japan. All look to America for leadership. If Iraq suddenly crumples, as is possible, it will be even harder to defend the oil-rich region against a victorious Iran.” The editorial even suggested the White House “needs to enlist Congressional and public support” for this policy.
Marquis makes no attempt to divine the political ideology of his source: “The documents, which were released as part of a declassification project by the National Security Archive, and are available on the Web at www.nsarchive.org, provide details of the instructions given to Mr. Rumsfeld on his second trip to Iraq in four months.” The Archive was founded to secure government documents to build a case against Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy, with its first burst of activity and publicity centered on the Iran-Contra affair. Even now, its list of reports doesn’t suggest much interest in unearthing anything embarrassing that the Clinton administration did (notice how many reports end in 1991).
<font size=3>
gwu.edu
<font size=4>
As part of its pattern of omission, the Times doesn’t note that the Archive also promoted a collection of Iraq documents in February in an effort to create publicity against going to war. Or, that the New York Times Company Foundation has donated at least $10,000 to this liberal outfit.
<font size=3>
mrc.org
To read the Marquis story in full, see here.
nytimes.com |
