This will not be easy to read, especially if you've projected evil out of your own heart, into some cave in Afghanistan or a spider hole in Iraq, and reduced the age-old question it inspires to this one: How can we bomb it off the face of the earth?
Before the damage we inflict grows greater, before history's judgment gets worse, before we contaminate the whole world - even before we vote in the next election - we must stop what we're doing. We must stop now.
It's time to listen for a moment not to defense analysts briefing officers, pols or pundits, but to people like Jooma Khan, a grandfather who lives in a village in Laghman Province, in northeastern Afghanistan, who is quoted above. Surely he deserves 30 seconds of our undivided attention. "When I saw my deformed grandson," he told an interviewer in March of 2003, "I realized that my hopes of the future have vanished for good. (This is) different from the hopelessness of the Russian barbarism, even though at that time I lost my older son Shafiqullah. This time, however, I know we are part of the invisible genocide brought on us by America, a silent death from which I know we will not escape."
We're waging war-plus in Afghanistan and Iraq - in effect, nuclear war, with our widespread use of depleted-uranium-tipped shells and missiles. This is no secret. DU, with its extraordinary penetrating power and explode-on-impact capability, helps assure our military dominance everywhere we go. But people like Jooma Khan and his grandson reap its toxic legacy.
So, of course, do our own troops.
Kahn's words are only a sliver of the damning testimony contained in the documents of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, a Japanese citizens' initiative that recently concluded its two-year inquiry into the first phase of the Bush Administration's war on terror. But they say everything that we cannot hear. If we could hear Jooma Khan, and others who are sounding the alarm about DU, such as former Livermore Labs geologist Leuren Moret, who testified at the tribunal, there would not be mere thousands of people in the streets of American cities demanding that we stop the war, but hundreds of thousands, or millions - the sort of numbers that turn out in other parts of the world. The use of DU weaponry is not the extent of our criminal irresponsibility in Afghanistan and Iraq, which led to the tribunal's guilty verdict against George Bush on charges of war crimes, but it's the most chilling. (You can check out the full report at, among other places, www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm )
As Moret testified, depleted uranium turns into a infinitesimally fine dust after it explodes; individual particles are smaller than a virus or bacteria. And, "It is estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment."
And DU dust is everywhere. A minimum of 500 or 600 tons now litter Afghanistan, and several times that amount are spread across Iraq. In terms of global atmospheric pollution, we've already released the equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs, Moret said. The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse. DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe or touch it; the substance also alters one's genetic code.
Thus, birth defects are way up in Afghanistan since the invasion: children "born with no eyes, no limbs, tumors protruding from their mouths ...deformed genitalia," according to the tribunal report. This ghastly toll on the unborn - on the future - has led investigators to coin the term "silent genocide" to describe the effects of this horrific weapon.
The Pentagon's response to such charges is denial, denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.
But blame is beside the point. Surely even those who still await "conclusive proof" that DU is the cause, or a factor, in the mystery illnesses and birth defects emanating from the war zones, can see the logic in halting its use now.
Global terrorism? Listen to Jooma Khan. Then look in the mirror.
- - -
Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. Tribune Media Services, Inc.
© 2004 Tribune Media Services
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
NOT TRUE
28.03.2004 10:14
- application/pdf 246K
DU is used for 'tank busting'. How many tanks did the Taliban have? DU munitions are employed on relativelyt short range tactical aircraft. These were not based in Afghanistan.
DU does not have the effects described. I attach 2 PDF files for anyone interested. You will note that these are fully referenced and peer reviewed.
sceptic
Use of DU on "superhardened targets"
28.03.2004 12:25
Dr. Assaf Durakovic (a retired U.S. Army Colonel) of the Uranium Medical Research Center has verified extremely high uranium excretion rates in Afghanistan refugees:
http://www.umrc.net/Abstract_HPS_SanDiego2003.asp
http://www.umrc.net/Abstract_EANM_Amsterdam2003.asp
http://www.umrc.net/AfghanistanOEF.asp
http://www.umrc.net/umrcResearch.asp
http://www.umrc.net/umrcResearch2.asp
http://www.umrc.net/papersAndAbstracts.asp
Like many peer-reviewed scientific articles, these are mostly available online only by subscription, but you can read the full articles in many good university & medical libraries.
By the way there's only one PDF posted on that last comment: I'd be interested to see the second one.
Ian
missing pdf
28.03.2004 12:51
- application/pdf 162K
Only one snag, Ian - your references state specifically that the uranium in the refugees is NOT depleted uranium.
sceptic
DU and NDU
28.03.2004 14:50
http://www.umrc.net/
Ian
uranium
28.03.2004 16:03
To re-iterate my original point, the journalist writing the article is either ignorant, or a fool, or a liar, or most likely, inventing material with an attempt to smear.
sceptic
Certainty
28.03.2004 18:26
What else could have caused the levels of uranium observed in the Afghanis by Dr. Durakovic?
Isn't it logical to think that the military might be lying about not having used uranium weapons, especially as military uranium poisoning court cases are still sub judice as we write this?
Ian
urnaium
28.03.2004 19:31
1. because the evidence is that it is not DU.
2. DU weapons are used against tanks by tactical aircraft.
(i) the Taliban didn't use tanks;
(ii) there were no tactical aircraft based in Afghanistan
"What else could have caused the levels of uranium observed in the Afghanis by Dr. Durakovic?"
Who knows. Uranium is the 48th most abundant element in the Earth's surface.
"Isn't it logical to think that the military might be lying about not having used uranium weapons, especially as military uranium poisoning court cases are still sub judice as we write this?"
Logical? Logical it is not. It is at the best an untested hypothesis. The use of DU in Iraq and the Balkans is not disputed. Why might it be here?
sceptic
Uranium in Guided Missiles
28.03.2004 19:57
http://abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/programs/s593117.htm
http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/du2012.htm
Hermes
DU
28.03.2004 20:31
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/pdf/dumyths.pdf
It is very critical of claims made by anti-DU activists, but also by pro-DU folk
It all boils down to people actually having to make a study into the effects of DU on civilian populations, rather than simple speculation. I'm sure both sides will read into it whatever they like...
Hermes
Re: uranium
28.03.2004 23:05
Yet I have shown evidence that NDU was used. Your response to this is "because the evidence is that it is not DU." Well no, it's not: the evidence is that it's NDU. Therefore it appears that uranium was used by the Americans in Afghanistan.
You go on to answer my question "What else could have caused the levels of uranium observed in the Afghanis by Dr. Durakovic?" with:
"Who knows. Uranium is the 48th most abundant element in the Earth's surface."
Since you cannot answer why the UMRC's studies show anomalous levels of uranium in refugees from the US bombings, your assertion that uranium was not used is unconvincing. My hypothesis about the US military possibly needing to hide evidence during a potentially expensive and embarrassing lawsuit is therefore no less valid than your assertion to the contrary.
Here is an article by Professor Marc Herold on the use of uranium munitions, for tank-busting, bunker-busting and cave-busting, by the US military. The references cited at the end of the article are also useful.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/uranium.htm
In your first comment, you wrote that "DU munitions are employed on relatively short range tactical aircraft. These were not based in Afghanistan."
This appears to be contradicted by Herold's article. Can you please explain which aircraft you're talking about, so we can compare evidence? Many thanks,
Ian