The intricate web of lies fielded by the U.S. to hide the real reasons for its 1991 attack on Iraq has been further exposed (see Spring and Summer 1991 FEs for earlier disclosures). Realizing that the American people would not support a war to protect Persian Gulf oil profits, President Bush contrived a hobgoblin, depicting Saddam Hussein with a nuclear bomb. He presented this as an imminent threat and the reason why the war had to be prosecuted immediately rather than waiting for slower-acting sanctions. Now we find hidden away in the pages of the May 20, 1992 New York Times was the information that an international gathering of nuclear weapons designers had concluded, after looking at all the available evidence, that Iraq was 3 to 5 years away from developing a bomb and may even have faced insurmountable obstacles.

Another Big Lie proffered by the media was that two well-equipped armies of equal size faced each other across a line in the sand and our brave soldiers prevailed in a heroic war. This lie came unraveled when a U.S. House Armed Services Committee reported on April 24, 1992 that the Iraqi army was less than half the size of the U.S.-led coalition which, in fact, enjoyed an overwhelming 5 to 1 advantage at the start of the ground war on February 23, 1991.

The brave imperial forces of the United Nations (mostly U.S. troops) totaling 540,000 while the House panel estimated Saddam’s hapless troop strength at a paltry 183,000. Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel, wasn’t it?