Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Saddam Was Telling Truth in Missing Gulf War Pilot
WASHINGTON -- Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, this time. The United States just didn't believe him.
In this July 28, 2009 photo provided Friday, Aug. 7, 2009 by the Navy Visual News Service, Marines from Task Force Personnel Recovery of the Multi-National Force-West conduct recovery efforts at the crash site of Navy Capt. Michael 'Scott' Speicher. Capt. Speicher's F/A-18 was shot down Jan. 17, 1991, over Anbar province, Iraq.
(AP Photo/Navy Visual News Service, U.S. Marine Corps, File) So it took the most powerful military in the world 18 years to find the remains of the only U.S. Navy pilot shot down in an aerial battle in the 1991 Gulf War.
Michael "Scott" Speicher's bones lay 18 inches deep in Iraqi sand, more or less right where a group of Iraqis had led an American search team in 1995.
The search for Speicher was frustrated by two wars, mysteriously switched remains, Iraqi duplicity and a final tip from a young nomad in Anbar province.
U.S. officials often were blinded by the same myopia that tainted prewar intelligence -- the American conviction that Hussein's government lied about everything. As it turned out, the Iraqis lied, but sometimes they told the truth.
For more than a decade, speculation swirled that the 33-year-old Speicher, a lieutenant commander when he went missing, had been captured alive. That was disproved by the team that found and confirmed his remains.
"He wasn't captured or tortured," said Thomas Brown, chief of the Intelligence Community POW/MIA analytic cell at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Brown, who worked on Speicher's case for 15 years, described to The Associated Press in an exclusive interview how the threads leading to the pilot got so tangled.
Speicher was shot down by an Iraqi MiG 100 miles west of Baghdad on Jan. 17, 1991, the first day of the war to drive Saddam's invading forces from Kuwait. Then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney announced the pilot's death as the first casualty of the war, but no search and rescue effort was launched.
When the war ended that March, the U.S. demanded the return of Speicher's remains. But because of a data glitch, the U.S. erroneously pinpointed his crash site south of Baghdad.
The Iraqis were puzzled. They knew an F-18 had been shot down west of the capital. But they followed the botched U.S. coordinates and searched for Speicher's plane in the south, finding nothing.
The search was soon complicated by the Iraqi discovery of a different crash site -- of a downed Air Force A-10 fighter. The Iraqis brought the unidentified American A-10 pilot's remains to a Basrah hospital for safekeeping, labeling them "Mickel" for a clumsy translation of what might have been the pilot's belt buckle manufactured by McDonnell Douglas.
Just before those remains were to be handed over to the U.S., Shiites rebelling against Saddam seized the hospital, forcing Iraqi officials to make a hasty gamble.
If they didn't turn over the pilot's remains, they would be in violation of the U.N. resolution ending the war, and the war would not be officially over. So the Iraqis instead handed over to American authorities a 4-pound piece of another cadaver and said it belonged to "Mickel."
U.S. officials already had accounted for the dead A-10 pilot, so the unidentified remains stumped them. Were they Speicher's?
By May 1991, DNA tests ruled that out. Iraq was being duplicitous, but the U.S. couldn't figure out what was behind the switch.
Rumors from Hussein's inner circle about the "Mickel" remains began to morph into whispering that the Iraqis held a live American pilot. The rumors were picked up by U.S. intelligence.
Two years later, in 1993, Speicher's crash site was found by a party of Qatari falcon hunters. Brown believes the Iraqis already had identified the crash site but failed to come forward out of fear they would be accused of covering it up. So instead, the Iraqis led the Qatari hunters to the site, Brown said, so they would "stumble" on the wreckage.
The hunters gave the U.S. Embassy in Qatar a piece of a plane containing a serial number that matched Speicher's F-18.
U.S. military officials began planning an operation to retrieve Speicher's remains. The plan was dropped in 1995 when the Red Cross secured permission from Iraq for a humanitarian search team to excavate the crash site.
Shepherded by Iraqi officials, the search team was led by a local Bedouin boy to Speicher's half-buried flight suit. Nearby were expended flares, part of an ejection seat and pieces of a life raft. But the searchers found no remains. They left suspicious, convinced that they had been set up even though Brown now says Saddam's government was telling the truth about the site.
In January 2001, President Bill Clinton changed Speicher's status from killed in action to missing, echoing U.S. belief he could be alive. An intelligence assessment said Speicher probably had survived the crash and Iraq was either holding him prisoner or hiding his remains.
In the summer of 2002, as the Bush administration prepared to invade Iraq, new intelligence intercepts suggested Speicher was being moved between dozens of secret sites inside Iraq.
Before the 2003 invasion, "we were positive we were getting him back," said Buddy Harris, a Speicher friend who later married the pilot's widow. "We were getting ready to go over and meet with him. We had the whole family prepped, with psychologists ready to help."
At least three different times, based on U.S. government information, Speicher's relatives thought they were getting him back, Harris said.
Brown believes the Iraqi government was trying to convince President George W. Bush that Speicher was still alive to protect Saddam from being targeted when the invasion came.
If that was the motivation, it backfired. Bush used Speicher's case as more evidence that Saddam had to be ousted. After Bush cited Speicher in his September 2002 speech at the United Nations, the rumors of Speicher's movements abruptly stopped, Brown said.
After the U.S. invasion, intelligence analysts searching for Speicher entered the Hakmiya jail in central Baghdad and dug up the grounds. They found remains, but none that matched Speicher's DNA.
They did find a jail cell wall that appeared to be marked with the initials "M.S.S." -- and wondered if they had been scratched by the missing pilot.
The Army dismantled the wall section and sent it back to the U.S. for testing. That same summer a soldier discovered similar initials and what appeared to be a date-- 9-15-94 -- scratched into an I-beam in a parking garage in Tikrit. The FBI cut down the beam and sent it to the Smithsonian Institution for testing.
But the markings turned out to be more false leads. The museum determined the Tikrit initials were made with a special ink reserved for Iraqi religious groups -- and an American prisoner would not likely have had access to such sacred ink. While other "M.S.S." markings were found all over Iraq, the analysts were never able to tie them to Speicher.
The searchers continued to press every lead. For six years, soldiers and Marines deployed in Anbar were told to ask people there if they had heard anything about the missing American pilot.
The instructions finally paid off last July. A sheik told Marines of a Bedouin who remembered a burial 20 years earlier. The sheik couldn't recall the exact location, but it was enough for the Marines. They returned to the old site that had frustrated the Red Cross searchers and with 100 men, bulldozers and back hoes, they turned over four football fields worth of desert, 4 feet deep.
The earth yielded another piece of a pilot's flight suit and a jaw bone. The teeth matched the missing pilot's dental records. Michael Scott Speicher, who reached the rank of captain because he kept receiving promotions while his status was unknown, had been there all along, Brown said.
The U.S. now says the case is closed, but Speicher's family, from outside Jacksonville, Fla., is still unconvinced that he died in the crash.
Buddy Harris says the ending is too neat, meant to whitewash the Pentagon's failure to launch a search and rescue mission in 1991.
"Too many people want to tie it into a nice little bow here," Harris says. "Their motive wasn't Scott Speicher, it was to get this thing done."



10 Comments so far
Show AllThis is an important story, illustrating a practice by our military to create or enhance events for propaganda value. Pat Tillman has gotten the most attention lately for the cold-blooded exploitation of his friendly fire death, and shortly before the Jessica Lynch theatrical production of a "rescue". Even with the Fort Hood shooting a female officer was credited with heroism in wounding the shooter, where actually another officer shot him. (And this isn't to take anything away from that woman officer who was wounded herself). It was myth-making, and it is not new.
H. Bruce Franklin wrote about the Viet Nam war POW/MIA propaganda campaign launched by the Nixon administration in his book "M.I.A. or Myth-making in America" They too changed missing presumed dead pilots into "missing", creating an irrefutable propaganda against the Hanoi regime and a rallying point for the war. Those flags have become cultural icons. You can see more on his book here.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/%7Ehbf/Books/MIA.html
>>Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, this time. The United States just didn't believe him.
THIS time?
It seems to me that more often then not, when it came to telling the truth, Saddam Hussein was more truthful then the president of the United States of America.
If I wish to be truthful, then I have to agree with you; and I do.
However, you, like many people, misuse the word 'then', regularly using it when you should be using the word 'than'. Iow, "It seems to me that more often [than] not, ..." is correct, while "... then not, ..." is incorrect. I'd prefer to do xyz, rather than abc, but then you might prefer the opposite; for another example. They're not synomymous terms. They look very much alike, but both have their specific or distinct usage.
Saddam Hussein, right before the Bush invasion, offered to let US military troops enter Iraq and search anywhere for WMDs, Bush laughed in his face...Also when Saddam was going to invade Kuwait because of a boundary dispute, our ambassador to Iraq told him that the US would stay out of it. Then when he invaded, Operation Desert Storm was launched...There are many other instances when things happened that the American people were not told about...I urge everyone who reads this to first get the facts before making judgments about who is right or wrong.
Saddam "offered to let US military troops enter Iraq and search anywhere for WMDs", or are you talking about the UN weapons inspectors, who did enter Iraq and were allowed, by the Iraqi government, to search any- and every-where they wanted? Perhaps he also offered this for U.S. troops, but anyone saying he did should provide a supporting link or two. You're the first person I've seen saying this in seven years of reading; although I might have read an article or two stating this back in 2002 or 2003 and just forgot about it, because it's basically never repeated, not even by many respectable writers and reporters.
In any case, even if Saddam hadn't made this offer for U.S. military troops to conduct inspections, he nevertheless greatly did for UN weapons inspectors and they [are] the ones who should be conducting these inspections anyway. U.S. military troops doing it would be a very generous offer from Saddam Hussein, but the U.S. ever demanding this would just be another act of HEGEMONY, which is a criminal and unconstitutional way to act.
Anyway, some supporting links would be useful. Otherwise, we can simply accept to think that you really mean UN weapons inspectors. While we might be wrong about this choice, it really wouldn't matter, for, again, this is for the UN inspectors to do.
What a convoluted mess.
Once they found him, it didn't take long to kill him. He knew too much.
"What a convoluted mess" is right. What is this---"Saving Private Ryan"?
How many millions of dollars and man-hours were devoted to finding the jawbone of a dead man?
Of course, historically, the real question not answered is why there was no search party sent out immediately after his plane was downed---probably by the last MiG to down an American plane (and as Cheney announced, the first U.S. casualty of that war...). At that time their coordinates should have been accurate.
Very interesting story with holes still in it.
-30-
"blinded by myopia"? I think not! US officials' minds were made up. They were determined to proceed with their plans for war and for the execution of one who had been their man, essentially, no matter what evidence presented itself. Even if Speicher had reappeared, alive and well, another pretext for war would have been found. Remember that ridiculous "super-cannon" story?
And how creative of Speicher to die in little scattered pieces all over Anbar. Wonder who was behind that?
genierae - Saddam didn't invade Kuwait because of a boundary dispute. The Kuwaitis were drilling horizontally into Iraqi oil pools. For years. And, as is pretty clear by now, with the knowledge of the US; count on it. Those noble Kuwaitis likely offered a better deal for their stolen oil. The US and Kuwait were in cahoots on that, never forgave Saddam for winning.
Seems to me, some readers are saying that this article reports that this U.S. soldier who went MIA was a pretext for the first U.S. war on Iraq and if this is the case, then the war was NOT for this reason. The real or at least main, strongest reason used by the GHW Bush administration was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which readers are right to say that the GHW Bush admin. basically invited Saddam to do or order his forces to do so that the prepared and massive U.S. military forces nearby in Saudi Arabi could then POUNCE in superpower fashion on the Iraqi forces.
And it was, literally planned or not, while I think it was planned, the first or among the first steps for achieving "regime change" in Iraq. I've read that the extremely criminal economic sanctions, which rather did constitute act of war, I'll add, were part of this U.S. "program" for achieving "regime change" in Iraq, and I believe this to be highly credible, for there is no other logical reason for those wholly, supremely criminal sanctions.
Anyway, there was a border dispute with Kuwait and you actually refer to one kind. You state that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was because Kuwait was stealing from Iraq's oil reserves using "horizontal" drilling; although it wasn't really horizontal, for it was "slanted", which, iow, is diagonal. (If you place a board in a slanted position, then it's neither horizontal nor vertical; it's placed in a diagonal angle. However, the actual term used for the technique developed in Alberta, Canada, is "slanted" drilling, not "diagonal", and Kuwait evidently was really doing this.)
In so doing, the Kuwaiti operation was traversing the border and illegally so, since this was not authorized by Iraq's government. It's just that this didn't require that anyonee cross the border, physically; like with the use of motor vehicles. The drilling crossed the border. Otherwise, Kuwait wouldn't have been stealing oil from Iraq with the use of drilling or any other technique; unless Kuwait had unauthorized (by the Iraqi government) ground operations for taking Iraq's oil, which Kuwait wouldn't have tried to do; at least out of fear of being caught in the act and paying dearly for this thievery.
I've also read that Saddam's government was also bitter over the separation of Kuwait from Iraq that was forced by or with the British, for until the British did this, Kuwait had been part of Iraq. In what I read, though, this wasn't the reason for the Iraqi invasion of or into Kuwait; the theft of Iraq's oil was. And I guess we can add the U.S. "hopes" for gradually achieving "regime change" in Iraq; getting Saddam out of the way. The latter might only have been speculation on the part of the writer of the article that I read, but if it was, then it's very good speculation and there's a good chance that the writer's right. However, Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil and the GHW Bush admin. definitely wanted to pounce on Iraq's forces and, therefore, government.
The US always wars for RACKET; always.