Rumaila: scene of horrendous murder of thousands of Iraqis in March 1991
February 25, 2007
Many people have seen the barbaric photos of the "Highway of Death" in Kuwait after the U.S. bombed a miles-long convoy
of thousands of vehicles attempting to leave Kuwait and return to Iraq. Shortly before, the U.S. administration said it would
not attack retreating Iraqi soldiers, but it reneged on its promise and killed thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers as well
as civilians of many nationalities.
A cease-fire agreement was reached a few days later. Everybody thought the killing spree was over.
But, the killing of defenseless soldiers and civilians did not end with the cease-fire. On the morning of March 2 (two
days after the cease-fire was announced), a convoy of Iraqi vehicles was reported moving through the demarcation point of
allied operations on Highway 8 about 50 kilometers west of Basra.
According to a pool reporter from the UPI, a platoon of the 24th Infantry Division reported that the "massive
Iraqi convoy … had just shot a couple of rockets at it." The Washington Post added that the convoy of 700 wheeled
vehicles and 300 armored vehicles "opened fire in an effort to clear a path toward a causeway across the Euphrates.
Lt. Chuck Ware, the battalion commander, received permission to return fire and the battalion received backup from Army
artillery and 20 U.S. Cobra and Apache helicopters.
The ensuing fighting was one-sided and several thousand Iraqis (civilian and military) were killed in two hours. There
were few Iraqi survivors.
According to a Washington Post report on March 18, 1991:
U.S. tanks were shooting Iraqi tanks off heavy equipment trailers trying to haul them to safety. Bradley fighting vehicles
shattered truck after truck with 25mm cannon fire as Iraqi civilians and soldiers alike ran into the surrounding marshes.
Lt. Col. Ware said, "They shot first, we won big." Another U.S. officer stated, "We really waxed them."
This massacre took place after the cease-fire had been announced. It was thought, at the time, that the convoy was not
aware of its position; therefore it ran into the U.S. Army personnel. All the equipment was being transported on trucks —
it was not in position to use in battle — so the U.S. forces had nothing to fear in terms of casualties. Some Iraqi
soldiers were lying down on the vehicles and sleeping or obtaining a suntan.
When the post-cease-fire massacre occurred, the U.S. news agencies mentioned a "skirmish" between Iraqi and U.S. troops
and said there were no U.S. casualties. They did not mention the slaughter.
The information given made it appear that the unlucky Iraqis had taken a wrong turn somewhere and happened to run into
a trigger-happy group of soldiers. These facts, in themselves, led to a shameful massacre that could be construed as an unfortunate
incident in the "fog of war." The truth, however, is much more diabolical.
In May 2000, The New Yorker published an article by Seymour Hersh called "Overwhelming Force." Hersh spent years
tracking down some of the participants in the slaughter, which was given the moniker the "Battle of Rumaila."
Instead of a wayward convoy of Iraqis who had the bad luck to shoot at U.S. forces, Hersh paints a picture of U.S. General
Barry McCaffrey intentionally giving wrong location information to his superiors so he could concoct a battle with the hapless
Iraqis who, in reality, were exactly where they were supposed to be according to the "safe" routes of return designated by
the U.S.
According to the article:
McCaffrey’s insistence that the Iraqis attacked first was disputed in interviews for this article by some of his
subordinates in the wartime headquarters of the 24th Division, and also by soldiers and officers who were at the
scene on March 2nd. The accounts of these men, taken together, suggest that McCaffrey’s offensive, two days
into a cease-fire, was not so much a counterattack provoked by enemy fire as a systematic destruction of Iraqis who were generally
fulfilling the requirements of retreat; most of the Iraqi tanks traveled from the battlefield with their cannons reversed
and secured, in a position known as travel-lock. According to these witnesses, the 24th faced little determined
Iraqi resistance at any point during the war or its aftermath; they also said that other senior officers exaggerated the extent
of Iraqi resistance throughout the war.
The slaughter may have been forgotten and never discussed if not for an anonymous letter sent to the Pentagon that accused
McCaffrey of a series of war crimes. The letter stated that McCaffrey’s division began the March 2nd assault
without Iraqi provocation and it included information that could have come only from an insider. An investigation ensued,
but, eventually, McCaffrey was exonerated.
Despite the prospect of an investigation, McCaffrey openly bragged about his unit’s performance in Desert Storm.
He told another general’s battalion that the 24th Division had carried out:
"absolutely one of the most astounding goddamned operations ever seen in the history of military science … We were
not fighting the Danish Armed Forces up here. There were a half million of those assholes that were extremely well-armed and
equipped."
McCaffrey moved his forces and did not inform all the senior officers who needed to know. The retreating Iraqis had been
assured of safe passage, but they were to run into McCaffrey’s division.
Some participants of the battle say that Iraq did not fire the first shot. Others maintain the Iraqis shot first, but only
once. Authorities differed on the time between the supposed Iraqi shot and the beginning of the U.S. actions. Some say it
was about 40 minutes, while others say the time lapse was close to two hours. Either way, it was evident that if Iraq did
fire a shot, there was no follow-up or change of formation for the convoy. It still went forward with its equipment not in
place for battle. If there was imminent danger, it is very curious that the U.S. unit waited from 40 minutes to two hours
to respond.
Soon, a call came asking for every available unit to come to rescue the U.S. troops. Sergeant Stuart Hirstein and his team
rushed to the site. When Hirstein arrived, he said there was no attack and no imminent threat from retreating Iraqi tanks.
According to Hirstein:
Some of the tanks were in travel formation, and their guns were not in any engaged position. The Iraqi crew members were
sitting on the outside of their vehicles, catching rays. Nobody was on the machine guns.
Despite the intelligence that stated the Iraqis were no threat, and the doubts of other officers about an Iraqi attack,
McCaffrey still wanted to go to battle. There were more discussions and Captain Bell, who had been involved with the discussions
before the U.S. "counterattack," believed that McCaffrey moved his brigades to the east of the original cease-fire line to
provoke the Iraqis. He added that there is a huge difference between a round or two fired in panic and McCaffrey’s determination
that the Iraqis were "attacking us." He added, that "is pure fabrication."
Hersh described the beginning of the hostilities that wiped out thousands of lives:
The division log placed the time of McCaffrey’s first known battle order at five minutes after nine o’clock.
According to Log Item 74. McCaffrey directed that the causeway "be targeted," thus blocking the basic escape route for the
retreating forces. The division’s Apache helicopters were to "engage from south with intent of terminating engagement."
Within moments, the assault was all-out. One company reported that it had engaged a force of between a hundred and two hundred
Iraqi "dismounts." By ten o’clock, division headquarters had begun receiving reports of extensive damage to the Iraqi
forces. Once group of Apache helicopters reported in mid-morning, "Enemy not firing back, they are jumping in ditches to hide."
Forty minutes later, according to another log item, McCaffrey ordered artillery to be "used in conjunction with personnel
sweep to 'pound these guys’ and end the engagement."
The 24th Division continued pounding the Iraqi column throughout the morning, until every vehicle moving toward
the causeway — tank, truck, or automobile — was destroyed
McCaffrey was triumphant at battle’s end. "He was smiling like a proud father," John Brasfield told me …
… A couple of evenings later, Pierson was driving toward the causeway. "It must have been a nightmare along this
road as the Apaches dispensed death from five kilometers away, one vehicle at a time. I stopped as a familiar smell wafted
through the air … It was the smell of a cookout on a warm summer day, the smell of seared steak."
After the battle, a captured Iraqi tank commander asked again and again, "Why are you killing us. All we were doing was
going home. Why are you killing us?"
Shortly before his troops flew back to Fort Stewart in the U.S., McCaffrey told them he had never been:
"more proud of American soldiers in my entire life as watching your attack on 2 March … It’s fascinating to
watch what’s happening in our country. God, it’s the damnedest thing I ever saw in my life. It’s probably
the single most unifying event that has happened in America since World War II … The upshot will be that, just like
Vietnam had the tragic effect on our country for years, this one has brought back a new way of looking at ourselves."
McCaffrey weathered the storm and received his fourth star in 1994. In 1996, he retired from the Army and was appointed
by the Clinton administration as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, more commonly known as the U.S.
Drug Czar.
His tenure at the position was did not lack controversy. Many covert missions were conducted in Latin America, including
violent deaths, all in the name of protecting the youth of the U.S. McCaffrey re-wrote the laws of science and physics about
the properties of drugs. Marijuana became a deadly drug that killed millions. In fact, no one has ever overdosed on marijuana
in the history of the world.
A scandal arose when many anti-drug messages began appearing on TV stations as "public service" announcements. In fact,
they were paid advertisements (paid for by the U.S. government) and did not carry a disclaimer stating the origin of the ads.
The actions were eventually declared illegal.
Hersh’s article received much pre-publicity in 2000. Many people were contemplating the piece. Then, a couple of
days before The New Yorker was to appear on the stands with the article, a press conference was called to address the
issue. A Clinton spokesman took to the podium and criticized the article. He called it "old wine in a new bottle." In the
space of about five minutes, an article that should have been read by the American public was dismissed as rubbish by the
Clinton administration. The White House also called on Colin Powell, who had not read the article, for help. According to
Powell, the article was:
an attempt at character assassination of a solider named Barry McCaffrey who served his nation proudly and did everything
he could to protect the Gis entrusted to his care.
The statement of Major General John LeMoyne, was even more preposterous than that of Powell. He denied the incident occurred:
Nobody was killed. None, zero. Soldiers--the Iraqi soldiers were never shot at, ever, at that point. None of us, hundreds
and hundreds of us ever saw a body. None of us.
The curious aspect of this denigration is that the article had not yet appeared. Normally, an administration tears apart
something in the press after it is published. This fact alone should have piqued the interest of the public. However,
the opposite occurred. Within a couple of days of its publishing, no one spoke of the article again. It became a non-issue.
The entire article is a must-read for anyone who wants to know the truth about how the U.S. military conducted itself in
Desert Storm. Not all the personnel were as bloodthirsty as McCaffrey, and Hersh interviewed many participants who opposed
the decision to slaughter thousands of Iraqis who could not fight back. It is available online at many websites. Punch in
the name of the article (Overwhelming Force) on a search engine and you will be able to find the entire piece.
The problem with McCaffrey and his ilk is that many of today’s U.S. citizens consider such actions as heroic. A couple
of decades ago, a Barry McCaffrey would have been considered an embarrassment to the integrity of the U.S. Army. Gradually,
successive administrations have experimented with escalation of violence that has resulted in the acceptance of abhorrent
actions as normal. We have seen the execution and aftermath of the March 2003 invasion produce myriad instances of inhumane
actions. Unfortunately, McCaffrey’s zeal has become analogous to being a true American patriot.
Marlin Fitzwater’s statement that retreating Iraqi troops would not be attacked was an outright lie, yet neither
he nor the administration paid a price for the deceit. Up to 100,000 retreating Iraqis were slaughtered after he made
the statement to the world. Among the retreating Iraqi soldiers were civilian men, women and children of various nationalities.
Their deaths were, according to various U.S. military officers, the "spoils of war."
After leaving his position as Drug Czar, McCaffrey became a popular guest on many talk shows. Two months prior to the illegal
March 2003 invasion of Iraq, he gave his assessment of the situation by telling MSNBC News that Iraq possessed "thousands
of gallons of mustard agents, serin, nerve agent VX still in Iraq."
On March 25, 2003, a few days after the beginning of hostilities, McCaffrey gave his views of how to conduct the war: "You
got to go in there and bust their chops badly, and let the speed and momentum and violence overwhelm them."
Barry McCaffrey seems to be addicted to violence, killing and deceit. He was performed wonderfully in those areas. In other
words, he is a true American hero to the establishment.
Today, instead of being in prison serving a sentence for fraud, war crimes and crimes against humanity (for his ordering
the attack in Rumaila as well as his shenanigans as U.S. Drug Czar), he is a well sought-after personality on the U.S. speaking
circuit.
|