June 24, 2006
Most
countries have one or two days a year that indicate a tragedy for the
nation. In the U.S., December 7, 1941, the day the Japanese attacked
Peal Harbor, has been labeled a "day of infamy." September 11, 2001 has
surpassed December 7 as a rallying cry for U.S. solidarity.
Iraq,
a county much smaller than the U.S., and never as large a player on the
international scene, can claim several days of infamy: January 17,
1991; February 14, 1991; March 20, 2003; and April 9, 2003, among
others. But, one date that gains little international attention is
imbedded in the hearts and minds of all Iraqis: June 26, 1993.
On
that date, the U.S. military, under the command of Bill Clinton,
ordered 23 Tomahawk guided missiles to demolish the headquarters of the
Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence services, in central Baghdad. Twenty
of the missiles hit the agency complex, while "only" three missed their
targets.
A jubilant Clinton took to the airwaves and proclaimed victory. He was happy that only three missed their
targets. One could think he was addressing the public about the score of a sporting event.
One of the three that missed destroyed the home of Layla al-Attar, killing her and her husband, and blinding
her daughter.
Layla
al-Attar was the director of the Iraqi National Art Museum and a
leading Arab artist who was revered in Iraqi much the same as Norman
Rockwell was in the U.S. In addition, she was a spokesperson for the
inner world of women, peace and resistance against U.S. hegemony. One
could argue that she was the part of the impetus of the current
resistance in Iraq. That is the reason she was killed.
When news broke of al-Attar’s death, Iraq mourned. A special person who transcended political ideology
and represented all of humankind had been assassinated.
During
the Gulf War, her home was virtually destroyed by U.S. missiles. Two
years later, the home had just been rebuilt and this time the "errant"
missile finished the job that its cousin had only partially performed
in earlier years.
Although
never proven, it is quite easy to give credence to the theory that
Layla al-Attar was the target of a missile, and not merely "collateral
damage" from a misguided projectile. Every Iraqi believes this
scenario, but shortly after her execution, the rest of the world forgot.
Outside
the Arab world, Layla al-Attar was just beginning to be noticed.
European art galleries were starting to highlight her work. However, in
the U.S., she was little known. Therefore, little outrage was heard
when she was killed.
What
about the reason behind the attack? Clinton stated that information was
in-hand that showed Iraqi operatives were behind an assassination
attempt on former President George Bush in April of 1993 wile he was to
attend a ceremony praising him in Kuwait. He added that Saddam Hussein
ordered the attempt on Bush’s life. At the last minute, those who were
to carry out the attack were apprehended and Clinton now had to teach
the Iraqis a lesson. How dare they try to kill the former president of
the U.S.
To
this day, this big lie still persists. The truth points in other
directions, however. Those apprehended were merely drug and alcohol
smugglers. In the aftermath of the June 26 missile attack, one-by-one
they were released from Kuwaiti jails. But, the U.S. media did not
think this information was newsworthy. It was not as exciting as
assassination plots and missile attacks.
On Nov. 1, 1993, the New Yorker
published an article by Seymour Hersh titled "A Case Not Closed." In
it, Hersh went into detail about the entire event and basically showed
there was no validity whatsoever to Clinton’s claim.
Why
then did Clinton order this attack? At the time, he was being
criticized for being "weak" on Iraq and other invisible threats against
the U.S. by Republicans and many pro-war Democrats. Clinton had to earn
respect. What better target than Iraq, a defenseless country that was
isolated because of U.S. lies?
According to Hersh:
Three
of the million-dollar missiles missed their targets and landed on
nearby homes, killing eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of
Iraqi’s most gifted artists. The death toll was considered acceptable
by the White House. Clinton administration officials acknowledged that
they had been "lucky," as one national security aide put it, in that
only three of the computer-guided missiles went off course.
Thus,
on a Saturday in June, the President and his advisers could not resist
proving their toughness in the international arena. If they had truly
had full confidence in what they were telling the press and the public
about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in a plot to kill George Bush, they
would have almost certainly ordered a far fiercer response than they
did. As it was, confronted with evidence too weak to be conclusive but,
in their view, perhaps not weak enough to be dismissed, they chose to
fire missiles at night at an intelligence center in the middle of a
large and populous city.
Hersh
was quite right in his assessment of picking on the weak. U.S. citizens
take pride in the fact that their society scorns bullies who pick on
defenseless adversaries. However, they contradict their own philosophy
by cheering on the murdering of foreign civilians who are the weakest
prey of all.
I
know that a couple of days from now, most Iraqis will be mourning the
assassination of Layla al-Attar that occurred 12 years ago. And, on
that day, those resistance fighters who are at work will remember her
as well. Her legacy is why they are fighting today. I wonder if Bill
Clinton, as he leaves his church of choice this Sunday, Bible in hand
and being photographed by the press, will remember Layla al-Attar.