"Unfortunately, too often our standards for evaluating social movements pivot around whether or not they 'succeeded' in realizing their visions rather than on the merits or power of the visions themselves. By such a measure, virtually every radical movement failed because the basic power structure relations they sought to change remain pretty much intact. And yet it is precisely these alternative visions and dreams that inspire new generations to continue to struggle for change."
--Robin Kelley "Freedom Dreams"
"War on the Environment"
Many people associate warfare with the immediate loss of life that occurs as a consequence. What is more often overlooked is the long-term damage to our ecological infrastructure that results from war and preparations for war. The destruction of an enemy�s natural resource base (e.g., agricultural and forest land, access to clean water) has been a tactic of conquering militaries since at least ancient Rome. Yet just as modern military technology has allowed for increased efficiency with regards to killing the enemy, it has also elevated the achievable degree of environmental destruction to levels unseen in human history.
While the official death tolls of the U.S.�s most extensive military campaigns in recent decades�Vietnam and the Gulf War�have long been tallied and filed away, researchers are still uncovering what the long-term effects of those conflicts will be on the civilian populations that were affected. The environmental destruction and resulting human health effects that come about through modern warfare should not be viewed as unintentional �collateral damage,� but recognized for what they are�deliberate attacks on the civilian populace with the intention of crippling the ability of �the enemy� to fight back, as well as increasing their post-war dependence upon the conflict�s victors. Such ecological genocide occurs as a direct result of:
Weapons of Mass Destruction
The bombing campaign carried out against Iraq was the heaviest aerial bombardment ever enacted against another country in history. During the 45-day campaign, twice as many highly destructive bombs were dropped than during all of WWII�all this destruction inflicted upon a nation of 20,000,000 people and not much larger in size than the state of California. Only one modern, high-powered bomb is capable of generating temperatures of approximately 3,000 degrees Celsius�enough heat and explosive capacity to destroy all life in the immediate area of impact, as well as the lower layers of soil, which can take hundreds to thousands of years to regenerate.
The Gulf War also marks the first large-scale use of what are known as �depleted uranium (DU) weapons.� The �depleted� aspect of depleted uranium derives from the fact that the uranium used in these weapons is a toxic by-product of nuclear weapons and nuclear power generation. This waste must generally be stored at great expense to its producers, hence the irony of turning it into a weapon that is then dispersed into the environment of our �enemies.� Because of the high density of uranium, this metallic element is prized for its penetration power. DU is especially useful in ammunitions whose purpose is to break through steel armor. What is especially impressive about DU weapons from the weapons-makers� perspective is that they combust upon impact, thereby causing targets to ignite (and consequently spewing the remaining radioactive particles into the air). It is estimated that up to 300 tons of DU were left behind on the battlefields of Iraq and Kuwait, primarily in the form of a radioactive, difficult-to-retrieve dust. The primary concern with this dust is that it has made its way into the ground water and food chain and that it has been inhaled by Iraqi civilians, resulting in enormous potential for lung cancer, bone cancer, and kidney disease. It is also important to note that the US has not only continued to use DU weapons in other conflicts, but has also allowed US-based weapons manufacturers to market these weapons of mass destruction to �ally� nations such as Britain, Thailand, Taiwan, Bahrain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Korea, Turkey, and Kuwait. In response to the extreme dangers of these weapons, a broad array of organizations, including conservative veteran�s organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, have called on the US to discontinue, or at least reconsider, its production, use, and sale of DU weapons.
Targeting Civilians
A military campaign as intense and destructive as the US�s attack on Iraq could not possibly be confined to military targets. Indeed, it appears that the US had little intention of doing so from the outset. Targets for US bombs included not only significant civilian infrastructure, such as power plants, croplands and irrigation floodgates (which had prevented vast incursions of seawater from infiltrating agricultural land), suburban neighborhoods, water sanitation facilities, and hospitals; but also Iraq�s industrial infrastructure, including fertilizer and non-military chemical plants, mines, and oil rigs and refineries. While Saddam Hussein�s orders to his soldiers to destroy Kuwaiti oil wells should certainly be defined as a crime against humanity and the Earth, the allied forces also hold significant responsibility for similar destruction to Iraq�s oil production infrastructure. All told, it is estimated that up to 11 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf (compared to 230,000 barrels released in the Exxon Valdez spill), along with the direct combustion of 67 million tons of oil (it also seems fair to note that approximately 20 million gallons of oil/day were consumed by the war effort during the 45-day campaign).
This apparently deliberate campaign to cripple Iraq�s ability to quickly recover from its losses have contributed significantly to the one million plus deaths that have occurred there in the 10 years following the Gulf War. Without access to clean water, an adequate agricultural infrastructure, much-needed medical supplies, or the ability to purchase new equipment and supplies (due to prohibitions on selling its economic mainstay--oil), civilians have been subject to a degree of hunger, disease, and poverty unheard of in pre-Gulf War Iraq. The question must be asked, if one nation destroys another nation�s access to clean water�resulting in mass proliferation of waterborne diseases�then prohibits that nation from repairing its water purification technologies, how does this differ from biological warfare? Similarly, if a predominantly white, affluent nation uses warfare as a means of dispersing highly toxic waste that would be too costly to treat or store on domestic soil into the air, water, and food chain of a poorer, darker nation, isn�t that environmental racism?
This tally of ecological devastation does not even begin to include the as-of-yet undetermined health effects of the toxic releases resulting from the bombing of Iraq�s chemical and biological weapons facilities. One such weapons depot located at Khamisiyah contained hundreds of chemical weapons filled with lethal toxins such as sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gases. The Pentagon now estimates that as many as 100,000 US soldiers were exposed to the vapor plume that resulted from its destruction.
More than just Iraq
A report by the Department of Veterans Affairs notes that as of May �02, VA officials have processed 183,249 claims from Gulf War vets for medical care, compensation, and pension. The VA has determined that for 159,238 of these veterans their injuries and illnesses are service-connected, caused by Gulf War exposures and injuries. Congressional hearings have been held on the mysterious and debilitating �Gulf War Syndrome� experienced by many US veterans, yet the jury still seems to be out as to whether these extensive illnesses and deaths are being caused by exposure to DU munitions, exploded chemical weapons, drugs forced on soldiers by the military to �protect� them from exposure, or a combination of all these factors. The Nation magazine launched an extensive investigation that revealed that hundreds and potentially thousands of veterans were unwittingly exposed to potentially hazardous levels of depleted uranium as a result of the Gulf War.
Additionally, we cannot ignore the environmental toll that preparing for war takes on the United States as well. The Dept. of Defense, a government organization charged with upholding US national security, is on record as one of the most polluting institutions in the world. Along with its pseudo-military counterpart, the Dept. of Energy (which is responsible for managing the US nuclear stockpile), these institutions are responsible for tens of thousands of toxic hotspots in the US and elsewhere around the globe, the massive release of toxics such as mercury, trichloroethylene, and ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, and consumption of inordinate amounts of resources such as oil, paper, and precious metals. During the last several years, the military has generated more toxics annually than the five top chemical companies combined. Additionally, the polluting tendencies of these institutions have been shown to disproportionately affect low-income and people of color, the same segment of the population that is actively recruited to fight and die in US military adventures abroad.
Gulf War II?
Now, as our President works round the clock to convince the world community of the necessity of attacking Iraq again, as his administration draws up plans for a �regime change� (which according to White House officials translates into the installation of an American-led military government), we should be sure that we are aware of the full costs of such an action. Not only in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars that an invasion would cost the US economy, but also the toll that such warfare would take on the Earth, the civilian populace of Iraq, and on the US citizens who would be directly affected�either through active participation in the war or as collateral damage via the production, storage, and testing of weapons of mass destruction in communities throughout the nation. Are there other, more sane options available to us that will safeguard the Earth and its inhabitants from weapons of mass destruction? Does the US have the right to act outside of established international channels for conflict resolution in the name of a false sense of �national security?� How does our own continued production and stockpile of weapons of mass destruction contribute to their proliferation throughout the rest of the world? And are there not equally real and immediate threats that affect the lives of Americans everyday�such as poverty, racism, and environmental deterioration�that we should be devoting our national resources to? There�s an old saying, �when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.� It�s time that we take the hammers away from the irresponsible decision-makers who would plunge our nation into yet another dangerous, destructive war, against our best interests and against even the will of many Americans. And it�s time that we realized that a nation that deems weapons of mass destruction, ecological genocide, and attacks on civilians an appropriate means of accomplishing its ends is a nation that will never find peace.
Further Reading