Nexus - 0405 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

CHEMICAL ATTACK OR COCK-UP? Faced with mounting evidence of chemical weapons exposure by coalition troops, both the British and US governments belated- ly acknowledge that chemical weapons dumps were bombed, or otherwise destroyed, by coalition forces. They even acknowledge that the resulting plume of toxic material, blown by the wind, is likely to have exposed many thousands of coalition troops to these deadly agents. In other words, it was an unforeseen accident. This admission is known in intelligence parlance as a "limited hangout"—a technique designed to show that they are now telling the truth. They are not. Pat Eddington, a former CIA intelligence analyst, in his book, Gassed in the Gulf, scathingly uncovers the institutionalised dis- honesty within the CIA and the DoD over Gulf War Syndrome (GWS).* Reasonably, he argues that based on the increasing num- ber of vets prepared to speak of their experiences, it is clear beyond all doubt that coalition forces came under a series of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons attacks.’ Like Admiral Nelson placing a telescope over his blind eye, then exclaiming he can "see no ships", the Mandarins in Whitehall and Washington are wilfully blind to what they don't care to acknowledge. Yet, the evidence is overwhelming. Ray Bristow had served 20 years with the Territorial Army. When not involved with his TA duties, Bristow was an operating theatre technician at his local hospital. He was mobilised on 27 December 1990, promoted to a Warrant Officer, and sent to the 32 Field Hospital located at Wadi al Batin, just a few kilometres away from the town of Hafar al Batin.* On 19 January 1991 he and other personnel watched as a Scud missile roared overhea and exploded in an airburst. He could clearly see a cloud of vapour discharge from the Scud. The NBC alarms (known as NAIADS), scattered around the base, wailed loudly, alerting the troops of "NBC Condition Black". "We were Scudded," Bristow said, and the specialised equipment detected the presence of chemical agents.° Also present at Wadi al Batin that evening was former Sergeant Shaun Rusling. Previously with 23 Para Regiment's 5 Airborne Field Ambulance, Rusling was an experienced Special Forces medic. His duties were to attend to the sick and wounded o Britain's One Armoured Brigade. This soon grew to encompass caring for other coalition forces and Iraqi casualties, too. He watched the Scud explosion and saw the cloud of vapour bloom overhead. He also believes the unit came under artillery attack with rounds containing chemical weapons.” Numerous boxes of 155-mm chemical ammunition were secret- ly recovered by coalition troops in the Kuwait Theatre of Operations (KTO) during the ground war and subsequent mop- ping-up operations. Made in the USA, they had been supplied to Iraq via Jordan. Nor were Scud and artillery bombardments isolated incidents. Terry Walker was a Corporal with the Royal Army Ordnance Corp and detached to a "Forward Repair Group" of an armoured workshop. He was present at Al Jubayl when two Scuds exploded above them.* No prior warning was sounded. This, he recalls, was "the worst morning with two almighty explosions above the Port". Immediately chemical detectors madly sounded "NBC Condition Black", and this was "followed by sheer panic with hundreds of guys running for cover". Walker hid among the rocks of the Port "for about four five hours". Later, "an officer came along saying we've been hit with chemical agents". The next day he and the other personnel on the base were told the cloud vapour was nothing more than aircraft fuel leaking from a damaged plane—an explanation he and the others disbelieve. Aviation fuel does not trigger the NAIAD detectors. Today, Walker suffers from a number of illnesses and strongly believes there has been a massive cover-up. "My wife is ill and my little girl is ill, too," he said during a telephone interview, then added that his "medical notes from the RAF hospital have gone missing". The Al Jubayl attack was also witnessed by Sergeant-Major Paul Grant who commanded a team of Royal Army Ordnance Corp specialists. In the early hours of 19 January 1991, Grant was awoken by a distinctive overhead explosion. He is in no doubt whatsoever that this was an airburst, not a ground explo- sion. NAIADS detectors began sounding "NBC Condition Black". The first explosion was followed by a second airburst explosion. Around the base loudspeakers warned, "This is not a drill!" His story corroborates those of other vets I have inter- viewed. However, Scud chemical attacks were not limited to Al Jubayl.’ veto Vv ree we ee ‘haun Rusling. Previously with 23 Para Regiment's 5 Airborne | COALITION COMPLICITY ‘ield Ambulance, Rusling was an experienced Special Forces Yet despite this testimony, these and other vets continue to be aedic. His duties were to attend to the sick and wounded of treated with official contempt. As recently as January 1997, the sritain's One Armoured Brigade. This soon grew to encompass Countess of Mar posed a parliamentary question in the House of aring for other coalition forces and Iraqi casualties, too. He Lords which asked if the MoD had any "documentary evidence of vatched the Scud explosion and saw the cloud of vapour bloom chemical warfare" in the Gulf conflict—a curious question which ‘verhead. He also believes the unit came under artillery attack was limited only to chemical attack. Questions regarding the use vith rounds containing chemical weapons.” of biological weapons remain unutterable. In his reply, the Earl Howe stated that research con- OH, DERR, ducted by the MoD "does not THIS MUST BE me indicate any confirmed use of _- EVOLYING END oF chemical warfare agents during Cr THE serch. J the conflict"—which is an even C. 3 ~~ L more curious answer. Who, conceivably, could Sa eee _ confirm the use of chemical nm TA TR oe weapons other than those “sO trained soldiers present during _o™ a chemical attack? Likewise, the tens of thousands of "detec- Se tions" triggered by chemical agent detectors throughout the conflict are simply categorised as "alleged detections" which were "uncorroborated at the time". Again, a careful and deceitful choice of words.'™!' Le ON 14 = NEXUS AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 1997