Containment of Saddam KILLS - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-18-2003, 05:48 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Containment of Saddam KILLS

Deadlier Than War

By Walter Russell Mead

Washington Post, March 12, 2003


Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative -- a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of his box.

They are wrong.

Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.

In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.

The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.

Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.

Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis.

Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further U.S. foreign policy goals.

Wrong.

The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.

But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.

The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment.

Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.

Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.

The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.

The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.

But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.

This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.

So that is our cost.

And what have we bought?

We've bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people, disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more dangerous for the American people.

We've bought the continuing presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, causing a profound religious offense to a billion Muslims around the world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and political leaders toward ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism.

What we can't buy is protection from Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage any inspections and sanctions regime.

Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy. Containment can be tweaked -- made a little less murderous, a little less dangerous, a little less futile -- but the basic equations don't change. Containing Hussein delivers civilians into the hands of a murderous psychopath, destabilizes the whole Middle East and foments anti-American terror -- with no end in sight.

This is disaster, not policy.

It is time for a change.
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 06:53 PM   #2
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Love it. This article is great. Dead on.

Why people never look towards this info is beyond me. They think no war is the answer but sometimes war can be the only answer.


Thanks Dread for, yet again, posting a informative article!
__________________

bonoman is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 07:08 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
I wish the President or Blair or someone would get up on the PULPIT and preach something like this!
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 07:15 PM   #4
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Ya this is what i am thinking. They are/were focusing to much on the WMD element when they should have used a series of different claims. I do agree with going into Iraw but the way Bush has handled it is disapointing. He could and should have used more then one argusment. The way he has killed many of his own people should have been focused on more and this would have been good to know.
bonoman is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 07:30 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 10:20 AM
excellent article. and so true.
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 03-19-2003, 06:22 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 21,032
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Interesting indeed, it seems the world thought that the povered Iraqui people would get rid of Saddam due to sanctions.

Mr Blix is said to bring in a detailed programme of work for inspectors in the UN today, lasting no more than a month or two. Unfortunately they won't be given the chance to pursue that.

As for Bin Laden: he started out as a part of the mujaheed forces in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet union. Nobody minded him back then, nobody minded Saddam - Iraq was given intelligence info on Iran to fight them.
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-19-2003, 08:25 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Interesting indeed, it seems the world thought that the povered Iraqui people would get rid of Saddam due to sanctions.
Saddam would have been gone a long time ago had containment been enforced.

Here is one example:

Iraq has managed to skim money from the oil sales that go through the UN System. Starting in 2000, Iraq began demanding a surcharge of 20 to 70 cents on each barrel sold. The buyers were forced to pay this surcharge to Iraqi bank accounts outside the oil-for-food program. To sweaten the deal , the Iraqi government began significantly underpricing its oil-enough to both compensate the buyer for the surcharge and still keep the price per barrel 35 to 65 cents below market rate to give companies the incentive to violate sanctions by violating the surcharge. (POLLACK PG 215)


Now lets think about this. The money from the oil sales is supposed to go into an account to buy food for the people of IRAQ. Instead Saddam has made a bundle while it is estimated that because of this abuse of the program the Iraqi people have lost $2 Billion that should have been used to buy food and humanitarian relief.

What two nations on the securioty council benefit from buying Iraqi oil the most? FRANCE and RUSSIA.

So, looking at the fact that they continue to deal with this BASTARD they have contributed to more deaths of the Iraqi people than the pending war is projected too.

It sickens me that this has been allowed to continue. It sickens me that they say this is an unjust war, when clearly they are participating in Saddam's killing of his own people. Another example of the PRICE of peace.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2003, 09:25 AM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Another thing....

It is hard to overthrow when you are impoverished. Why have so many starved? The regime is in charge of food distribution, not the UN. Iraq insisted on this, so instead of humanitarian relief getting to where it is needed, because the UN did not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to him, they allow him to distribute the food.

This is the system he set up:

As a result of the rationing system and later the food-for-oil system, both of which placed distribution of essential supplies in the regime's hands, Bagdahd now has far greater control over the lives of it's citizens than it ever had before. The ration cards introduced in response to imposition the sanctions are now vital to the livelihood of the vast majority of Iraqis, as the rations provide roughly three quartersof their monthly calories. The regime has been quick to use this power to stregnthen its grip over the people...."As one refugee with a family still in Iraq observed, 'The need to have a ration card is a form of pressure on families to do what the governement wants-for example, to go on a demonstration or to vote.' The need to produce a ration card, along with other documents, to gain access to services is an additional form of pressure." Ration cards need to be approved by the local Ba'th Party official and can be denied for a whole variety of reasons-such as having a deserter or a refugee in the family. The internal security services routinely deprive people of ration cards as a means of punishement (POLLACK The Threatening Storm p 135-136).

Maybe this explains why so many in Iraq are too scared to do anything. If a relative deserts the army you lose 3/4 of your calories. WOW!!!!! The cards are controlled by the political party.

LET FREEDOM RING!!!!!!!
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2003, 02:16 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 21,032
Local Time: 04:20 PM
So why did UN not make sure Iraqui people get the benefits of money gained from selling oil? Why did they leave it to a regime like that?
(there were starving people in Romania, yet they overthrew Causesceau, and in Serbia, yet they overthrew Milosevic - as well as many communist countries - yet the sistem fell apart)

I think that others should not be blamed for how Saddam used the money.
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-19-2003, 02:33 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
You miss the point U2Girl. He circumvented the system that the UN set up to help the people. Instead of charging what the oil was worth, he lowered the price thereby cutting the amount of money going into the food for oil program. At the same time he increased the TAX, giving him more money.

The UN Security Council was helpless to act...because if they did....GUESS WHO WOULD VETO!!!!!

The US made attempts at fixing things through the UN to repair containment. GUESS WHO WOULD VETO!!!!!!


Shameful!!!!! The OIL that FRANCE and RUSSIA has benfitted from has cost more than the number of people lost in the entire Gulf War. THink about it 12 Gulf Wars of people killed so that certain nations on the Security Council can benefit.


France and others have blocked attempts to fix containment and they have blocked attempts to fix it militarily, not for peace. The fact is in this case, WAR and the removal of this regime will save lives.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-19-2003, 02:44 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 21,032
Local Time: 04:20 PM
So the "oil for food" UN programme didn't have some sort of assurance that the price of oil can not be changed by Sadddam?

Aren't the OPEC countries the ones that decide the cost of oil?
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-19-2003, 02:49 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:20 AM
OPEC can only try to prevent any one member nation from undercutting the rest through lower prices.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-19-2003, 03:52 PM   #13
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 03:20 PM
A well-thought, generally accurate and exceedingly well-written article. I don't agree with it, but I know an intelligent discussion when I see one. World leaders should take note.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 05:45 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
What about it do you disagree with Anthony?
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 05:54 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Dread,

I know ken pollack wrote THE BOOK on Saddam.

and you and others have referred to it.

I did hear that he opposed going in without UN support, interesting?
deep is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 05:57 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Not exactly true. He said it would be better with UN support. I wish STING were posting these days. He knows the book inside and out. In my opinion having scoured the pages of this book for more hours than my wife appreciates, the current coalition does not meet the standards that Pollack felt we needed. Specifically, he felt we could do it without the UN with enough support of the Gulf Countries.

It adds to my belief that Powell, who I love, and Bush have failed diplomatically.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 06:02 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
One more comment....I wish he did not title it The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq

It is his conclusion, but he presents five scenarious total for the situation. The beginning also provides an excellent history of Iraq and Saddam as well.

It is a good read.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 06:53 PM   #18
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Though I will not refute its facts or its figures, I do not agree with it as a rationale for war.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 09:48 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
No Containing Iraq

By Rachel Bronson

Newsday, March 13, 2003


Members of the United Nations Security Council, as well as war opponents across the globe, are arguing that the containment of Iraq can work or be made to work. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has stated categorically that "the method we have chosen works."

This was echoed in a recent Foreign Policy article in which professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that "both logic and historical evidence suggest a policy of vigilant containment would work." Recently, Newsday, The Washington Post and others have run similar pieces. While containment may once have been a viable alternative, it is not one now. Today, containment is an unsustainable and morally bankrupt policy.

Containment has three basic components: inspections, economic sanctions and a robust military presence. Economic sanctions are supposed to compel Saddam Hussein to disarm. Inspectors are intended to confirm that Hussein is indeed disarming, and military force is required to deter Hussein from lashing out at his neighbors while undergoing one of the most comprehensive disarmament regimes in history.

The real problem with containment is that it is not working. Hussein remains committed to re-arming. He builds missiles in excess of proscribed limits, trains his troops to dispense weapons of mass destruction, and has failed to account for a worrisome stock of chemical and biological weapons. Even the 250,000 troops now amassed on his border have not compelled him to offer records on his weapons program. That he doesn't have such records is simply not credible, compelling Hans Blix to quip "mustard gas is not marmalade. You keep track of how much mustard gas you produce."

Meanwhile, economic sanctions are leaking, and leaking badly. Syria illegally imports approximately $3 billion a year in Iraqi oil. Illicit trade between Iraq and its other neighbors has increased over time. The military component is running into trouble as well. During the 1990s, the United States undertook repeated military strikes against Iraq in order to "keep Saddam in his box." Each attack resulted in decreasing international support and further limitations on American action.

Containment also brings with it a host of significant costs. In the Mideast, Washington's force posture is giving succor to radicals who threaten the very existence of friendly states. America's military presence has become a rallying point for extremists and even moderate opponents of local regimes. Osama bin Laden is the most extreme example. This is the most compelling link between Iraq and terrorism, not the one President George W. Bush offers. The perpetuation of American containment policy destabilizes the very countries it aims to protect.

Even more disturbing is containment's human cost. Sanctions were put in place because they were expected to be a short-lived effort to compel disarmament. They have backfired. They have not compelled disarmament but have had a disastrous effect on the Iraqi population. Sanctions-induced food rations are withheld from anyone disloyal to the Iraqi regime. According to a 1999 U.S. State Department report, Iraq uses 40 percent of the oil-for-food money to purchase medicines for primary care, while 60 percent is used for high-cost medical equipment and exotic treatments reserved for elite members of society. The International Committee of the Red Cross reported that the sanctions have destroyed Iraq's health-care industry, which has resulted in "high infant and child mortality, a reported increase in maternal mortality and a decline in life expectancy."

Here in the United States we may take comfort in the platitude that sanctions are not hurting the Iraqi people; Hussein's use of them is. But Washington continues to support a policy that it knows is being used for nefarious ends and is therefore complicit in the suffering of the Iraqi people. America should be actively trying to eliminate sanctions, not "tighten them."

Proponents of containment suggest that the experience of the Cold War can be overlaid on the Mideast, yet fail to acknowledge the differences between then and now. During the Cold War the cornerstone of U.S. containment of the Soviet Union was the placement of American troops and equipment in essentially friendly and stable countries whose governments and populations largely supported its aims. In the Mideast these conditions do not exist. While Iraq is not the Soviet Union, neither is Saudi Arabia West Germany.

Mideastern countries are simply too small and unstable to support the mighty American military presence that is necessary to contain Hussein. Even before the recent build-up, Kuwait provided training areas for the U.S. Army, Saudi Arabia hosted significant air assets, Bahrain housed Central Command's forward naval headquarters, the United Arab Emirates provided important docking facilities, and Qatar and Oman pre-positioned billions of dollars of American equipment. Turkey, Iraq's northern neighbor, made the defense of the northern no-fly zone possible.

Some may argue that Washington could devise a more robust offshore American military presence, or lift sanctions. Unfortunately, containment advocates have not laid out a practical strategic and tactical plan to make an offshore alternative work. Whatever form it could take, though, would require a considerable deployment of assets at a time when America has significantly drawn down its forces around the globe and is having problems fulfilling existing global responsibilities. Lifting sanctions would only provide more resources to Hussein while allowing his weapons program to continue unhindered.

War, of course, brings with it its own strategic problems and moral challenges. As usual, politics is about choosing between bad and worse alternatives. Containment sounds attractive because it doesn't seem to require much sacrifice. The problem is it is costly and it isn't working. The Bush administration is right to replace the policy of containment. Unfortunately, it is pursuing the only realistic alternative.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rachel Bronson is director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 03:29 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:20 AM
Silence is defening....LOL
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×