Let’s take a brief look at how the sanctions came into being and then elaborate on the deceitful methods used to keep them in place.

On August 3, 1990, the U.S. pushed a sanctions resolution through the U.N. After the cease-fire of the Gulf War, they were kept under certain conditions.

Iraq could not have the sanctions lifted until it destroyed certain designated weapons, called weapons of mass destruction (WMD). At the time, two assessments were in place in the U.S.: (1) Iraq would never destroy all the WMD and if it tried, it would take years (2) Under such strict observation, the people of Iraq would rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein within six months.

Saddam’s tenure surprised the U.S. administration, so, after about a year, the stated objective was to keep the embargo in place in perpetuity. Then Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, said, "The embargo will stay in place until there is not one Ba’ath Socialist left in Iraq." Few people picked up on Christopher’s comment at the time, but it was concise and accurate.

By the end of 1992, Iraq began to say, "We’ve destroyed all the weapons. Lift the embargo." The U.S. spread so many lies about Iraq that no one, even those of the so-called "left" or the peace community, believed Baghdad. This demonizing was the most powerful weapon the U.S. had in its arsenal. It kept much of the U.S. public mute over the sanctions.

Combine the lies with the silence of the media about the devastating effects of the sanctions, and you have a scenario in which genocide was occurring and few even knew, and even fewer cared.

Much of the propaganda portrayed the embargo as benign. It was in place to keep Saddam Hussein from importing illegal weapons. The people bought into this fairy tale. People who should have known better.
For instance, Iraq’s water supply was destroyed during the Gulf War. Raw sewage was flowing through the streets. The country needed chlorine to purify its water, yet it was unable to import it because the U.S. designated chlorine as a "dual-use" item; one that had legitimate civilian properties as well as those that could be used to make WMD.

By 1995, Iraqis were dying at a fast rate because of the severity of the embargo. About 750,000 people had already died because of the effects of lack of food, medicine or other items that were not allowed to be imported. The number increased every few seconds.

Most people in the U.S. had no idea of what was going on in Iraq. The country was fighting to stay afloat and every sector of society was negatively impacted because of the embargo.

In 1995, it was impossible to get anyone in the U.S. mobilized to condemn the embargo. The peace groups were dormant.

In San Diego, a few people did go the extra step. I and a few colleagues called for several demonstrations to make the people aware of what was happening in Iraq. We had a core of about two dozen Iraqi-Americans and the same number of non-Arab U.S. citizens.

I called the peace groups. Some feigned ignorance, while others outright said, "We won’t touch that." They had been co-opted by the U.S. propaganda: propaganda that they would always criticize only before missiles began flying.

One nationally-known activist who fought the Cuba embargo told me, "I won’t work on the Iraqi embargo because of the way they treat women in that country." I was aghast at her lack of knowledge. When I explained that Iraq was a secular country and that women were held in a higher place than other Arab countries, she did not believe me. She answered, "Well, they still all wear veils." My remark to her is unsuitable for print.

Another pro-Cuba activist said that the Iraqi embargo was not as devastating as the one on Cuba because Iraq could import medicine, where Cuba could not. When I explained that the Cuban embargo was only from goods whose origins were in the U.S. and that Cuba could import from any other country, but that Iraq’s embargo was universal, she said she was unaware of those facts and thanked me. The following night, she gave a speech in which she made her original assessment to me: Iraq’s embargo was not as severe as that placed on Cuba.

If the peace people and the pro-Cuba people had such attitudes, how could the "average" U.S. citizen be enlightened?

The old statement "a picture is worth a thousand words" is relevant in this case. I will explain the background behind the photo at the beginning of this article.

In 1995, then President Bill Clinton traveled to Coronado (a seaside resort bordering San Diego) to visit a friend. The news people were all over the place.

We decided to hold a demonstration in front of the house where Clinton was staying. And, we marched down the street with an Iraqi flag. As you can see, the group was between two news vans. Not one news person had the creative instinct to ask, "What are you doing here?" Remember, in 1995, marching down a U.S. street with an Iraqi flag was not exactly in vogue.

The evening news showed Clinton walking on the beach with his friend. Not one word of a bunch of Arabs and other U.S. citizens with signs condemning the embargo, all the time flying the Iraqi flag.

The absence of any news about the embargo was a powerful weapon. However, the silence and ignorance of the peace crowd was just as powerful. Their lack of participation on the subject of Iraq was tantamount to them placing a bullseye on Baghdad on a map of Iraq and stating, "Aim here!" To me, they are no better than those who were the architects of the embargo. Without their gutless acquiescence, the embargo may have been lifted. It is great to see hundreds of thousands of people protesting imminent U.S. military action, but these same people disappear when it is time to play hardball.

Lest the Democrats forget history and blame the genocide of Iraqis solely on the Republicans, let me bring up Operation Desert Fox. In December 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a four-day barrage of missiles and bombs on Iraq. The U.N. inspectors were pulled from the country prior to the fireworks, contrary to the revisionist history that Saddam ordered them out.

At the end of the attacks, Clinton declared victory. He said that U.S. missiles had destroyed WMD in Iraq. Today, we know that Iraq did not possess one gram of unauthorized substances, so all the missiles and bombs destroyed the civilian infrastructure. How many people complained about that? Few.

And, by the way, the house of Saddam Hussein’s daughter was completely demolished in the actions. Maybe Clinton thought Iraq had all the massive amounts of WMD hidden there. Fortunately, no one was in the house when it was bombed.

Many Iraqis were killed in the four-day constant bombardment. Knowing the facts we know today, the actions were nothing short of first-degree murder. How many people call it that? Instead, we saw the smiling faces of politicians claiming victory.

Once the oil-for-food program was introduced, Iraq was able to purchase some items, but not many. Billions of dollars Iraq had earned were tied up by the U.S. Orders were placed "on hold" for years.

The mechanics for Iraq to purchase goods seemed fair enough. A 15-member panel would scrutinize and either okay or negate Iraq’s requests. However, only one member had to say no, and the order was scrapped.

During the oil-for-food years, hundreds of orders were negated by the U.S. in which the other 14 members agreed to the sale. Only once did another country stop an order, and that was Britain. The U.S. stopped everything from toilet paper to pencils from going to Iraq.

Before I discuss the most preposterous negation of an order, let me mention facts that preceded it. For years before 1993, Iraq had not one case of hoof-and-mouth disease with its cattle population. Then, the U.N. ordered Iraq to destroy the factory that manufactured the vaccine for cattle. Begrudgingly, Iraq did so.

By 1996, the country was experiencing an epidemic of hoof-and-mouth disease. The population had little meat. Every day, the situation escalated.

In 1998, Bill Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be fired at Afghanistan and Sudan. He went on TV and said that he was targeting militant Muslims who had been behind "terrorist" incidents in the blowing up of U.S. embassies.

The target in Sudan was a pharmaceutical factory. The administration said it had proof that it was making chemical weapons for Islamic terrorists.

In fact, the factory was working on a 100,000-liter order of hoof-and-mouth vaccine for Iraq. The order had been okayed by the U.N. This would have helped immensely in bringing back the cattle population of Iraq.

Behind the scenes, the plant owner has been paid by the U.S. for damage in the attack. The U.S. knew fully well that no chemical weapons were being manufactured, but that they could keep Iraq starving by hitting the factory.

Desperate for cattle, the Iraqis ordered 15 live bulls from France to assist in increasing its stock. The U.S. negated the order, calling live bulls "dual-use" items. On January 4, 2000, Saeed Hasan, the Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. wrote a letter of complaint to the organization. He stated:

Some things never change. The above letter was written over six years ago, under another U.S. administration, yet the last two sentences apply with accuracy the exact stance the U.S. has today toward the people and nations of the world.

In the case of Iraq, as spelled out in the letter, the writer said that the U.S. had contempt for the lives of the Iraqi people. Six years later, and under vastly different circumstances, that statement still rings with precision.

I’m sure we will see the masses of anti-war demonstrators again appear if the U.S. is on the eve of war against Iran. However, we will also again see the vanishing of these people as soon as the first bombs drop. In essence, they are some of the greatest allies of the deadly U.S. foreign policy that is solidly in place, regardless of what political party occupies the White House.