February
28, 2006
John --
I've just met with a friend and ended up telling him about our
exchange. He was interested and enthusiastic. Do I have your OK to
share
publicly what you've written? If you
prefer I will not include
your
name. Of course you have my permission
to do the same; you can
use my
full name if you want. Bert
February
28, 2006
No
problem. My life is an open book.
John
March
1, 2006
John,
I am
glad we are in agreement on this major point about our ongoing
war on
Iraq from 1991: The bombing of Iraq's civilian infrastructure
and the
imposition of economic sanctions -- done (as our Pentagon
planners
have said) to coerce Saddam Hussein and/or the Iraqi people
-- and
done deliberately, knowing it would cause harm and/or death to
civilians
-- is terrorism.
You
wrote, "terrorism is a useful tool in war. ... In war there is no
substitute
for victory." Then you continued,
but "to what level of
terrorism
do our morals and conscience allow us to go?"
You
posed the question, so I need to ask you: How do you answer it?
What
level of civilian deaths -- especially of children -- do our
morals
and conscience allow? And before I
respond to how many
children
did die and why, I would also like you to think about two
related
points.
First
point: Once it's acceptable to practice any terror or torture
(on the
grounds of necessity and/or practicality) how can one 'draw
the
line' and decide where to stop. In
practise, once torture or
terror
begins, it will naturally tend to grow in intensity and spread
to more
victims.
Back in
1990 I sent away for all of Amnesty International's reports on
Saddam
Hussein (including the years after Donald Rumsfeld's 1983
visit,
done so we could sell him anthrax and give other aid). It's
not
pretty reading. But one of the worst
forms of torture and of
terrorism
that his regime practised was threatening and bringing harm
to
babies and children to coerce their parents.
It was enough just to
withhold
safe drinking water and food from babies and small children
(kept
in adjoining, separate jail cells) to bring parents to agree to
what
was wanted.
I say
to you, if that sounds morally beyond what we'd allow our
conscience
to accept, we did something very
similar by bombing water
works,
sewage plants and particularly electrical plants, hoping that
it
would have this same effect on the parents through love for their
babies.
The
second point I'd ask is this: Once we say "there's no substitute
for
winning in war" the question becomes, Why only in war? We honor
the
saying of Vince Lombardi, "Winning isn't the most important thing,
it's
the only thing." (He's said he
regrets ever saying it, but
that's
not what is remembered in our country.)
So if anything goes to
win in
war, Why not in business? Why not in
politics? If violating
the law
to win in war is OK, why not everywhere?
Aren't we teaching a
lesson
here to ourselves? And is it really the
lesson we want to be
teaching?
Now on
to your questions about the basis for the 500,000 deaths of
Iraqi
children I cite.
I
looked at the 2002 Matt Welch article on sanctions you referred me
to. He writes positively about Richard Garfield,
the professor from
Columbia.
He is often cited -- as in the Economist magazine -- as a
fair
and impartial expert on the number of deaths due to sanctions.
In 2002
I helped coordinate a WPSR delegation to Iraq and Richard
Garfield
joined our delegation.
On the
way out of the country, on the long bus ride to Amman, we had a
discussion
with everyone in our delegation about what we'd seen and
learned. I asked Richard Garfield his estimate of the
excess
children's
deaths that had occurred since the Gulf War in Iraq. He
said
his low estimate was 400,000. I asked
for a high estimate, but
he did
not offer one.
I asked
what were the legitimate studies that support his estimates.
With
the exception of the "substantial reduction" issue (raised by
Matt
Welch) of what to use as a baseline to compute excess deaths,
Richard
Garfield considers the UNICEF study solid and valid.
In
response to US claims that lower mortality rates in the North
proved
that Saddam was at fault for deaths in the South-Central
regions
-- as quoted in a NY Times article -- he wrote a letter to the
NY
Times explaining the many objective reasons for this. Some are
exactly
what Carol Bellamy mentions in the Welch article. The NY
Times
did not print his explanation.
Yes,
there is no doubt that over 12 years not all deaths were due only
to the
effect of the sanctions -- coupled with the bombed civilian
infrastructure
(which is so often not mentioned). But
how many deaths
did
actually occur and how many were caused by these two factors?
The
most independent and least disputed study is not mentioned in Matt
Welch's
column at all. That is the September
1992 New England Journal
of
Medicine estimate of 46,900 excess deaths of Iraqi children during
the
first eight months of 1991. The full
article is available at
www.concernforiraq.org/infrastructure
-- along with this, from an
editorial
in that same journal:
The
destruction of the country's power plants had brought its entire
system
of water purification and distribution to a halt, leading to
epidemics
of cholera, typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis, particularly
among
children. Mortality rates doubled or tripled among children
admitted
to hospitals in Baghdad and Basra. Cases of marasmus appeared
for the
first time in decades. The team observed "suffering of tragic
proportions....
[with children] dying of preventable diseases and
starvation."
Although the allied bombing had caused few civilian
casualties,
the destruction of the infrastructure resulted in
devastating
long-term effects on health.
I see
no point in arguing whether the exact number of excess Iraqi
children's
deaths is 400,000 or 800,000. Also
there no question in my
mind
that during this first year after the Gulf War, the massive
suffering
and dying was most directly caused by no electricity, no
safe
water, no sewage processing, and sanctions which cut off the
means
for Iraq to buy food and medicines.
Even if
Saddam Hussein could have done better, especially later on,
that
does not diminish our responsibility as the party which
deliberately
created this situation in the first place.
(My "thought
experiment"
example of a FEMA which could have done better was not to
say
they are guilty of terrorism, but rather that the people who
planned
terrorism are not exonerated.)
Finally,
a last piece of evidence, what I hold to be the real
oil-for-food
scandal. Please look at
concernforiraq.org/oilforfood.
For us
to limit Iraq to a total of $0.51 per person per day over the
6 years
of that program -- and remember that this was not humanitarian
aid, it
was Iraq's own resources -- is a scandal and is evidence of
our
willingness to allow these deaths to happen.
The
past few days have taken a terrible toll of lives in Iraq. The
death
toll runs between 100 to 200 civilian deaths a day. If you take
the
46,900 deaths cited in The New England Journal over 8 months,
you'll
see it comes to 195 deaths a day. All
of them infants,
toddlers
and children under five years of age.
That went on for, not
a week,
but months and months.
Now, if
you go back to my op-ed you'll see that I included these
sentences:
[The UNICEF report stated] "Even if not all suffering in
Iraq
can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the
Iraqi
people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence
of the
prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the
effects
of war."
And I
continued, "Here is the most credible children's organization in
the world
telling us that war and U.N./U.S. economic sanctions had
contributed
to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children."
Based
on all I've written above, I consider that's a fair statement .
But
this issue is so clouded in lack of information and misinformation
it
takes an great amount of explaining and citations to cover what
needs
to be said. I thank you for sticking
with it. Let me know what
you
think.
Bert
John,
I am glad we are in
agreement on this major point about our ongoing
war on Iraq from 1991: The
bombing of Iraq's civilian infrastructure
and the imposition of
economic sanctions -- done (as our Pentagon
planners have said) to
coerce Saddam Hussein and/or the Iraqi people
-- and done deliberately,
knowing it would cause harm and/or death to
civilians -- is terrorism.
You have read something into my emails that I have not intended to say or imply. I consider electrical power plants to be strategic targets because of their strong tie to defense systems. With regards to economic sanctions, I believe I stated that I thought the UN would have a reasonable understanding of their impact on the civilian population of Iraq.
You wrote, "terrorism
is a useful tool in war. ... In war there is no
substitute for
victory." Then you continued, but
"to what level of
terrorism do our morals and
conscience allow us to go?"
You posed the question, so I
need to ask you: How do you answer it?
What level of civilian
deaths -- especially of children -- do our
morals and conscience
allow? And before I respond to how many
children did die and why, I
would also like you to think about two
related points.
First point: Once it's
acceptable to practice any terror or torture
(on the grounds of necessity
and/or practicality) how can one 'draw
the line' and decide where
to stop. In practise, once torture or
terror begins, it will
naturally tend to grow in intensity and spread
to more victims.
That wasn’t the overall experience in WW II. The Germans bombed London and other Allied cities, and we retaliated by bombing their cities. In both cases, this could be considered terrorism, but I don’t know of the Allies intensifying their actions to other types of terrorism.
Back in 1990 I sent away for
all of Amnesty International's reports on
Saddam Hussein (including
the years after Donald Rumsfeld's 1983
visit, done so we could sell
him anthrax and give other aid). It's
not pretty reading. But one of the worst forms of torture and of
terrorism that his regime
practised was threatening and bringing harm
to babies and children to
coerce their parents. It was enough
just to
withhold safe drinking water
and food from babies and small children
(kept in adjoining, separate
jail cells) to bring parents to agree to
what was wanted.
I’ve read some stories about Rumsfeld’s dealings with Iraq (one link that you suggested), and I’ve read reports about what support we gave to both Iraq and Iran. I am very skeptical about the story of the US selling anthrax technology to Saddam, and over the years, I have become very skeptical about stories put out by Amnesty International. I have heard numerous horror stories about life under Saddam, plus seeing videos of people being thrown off of rooftops. Pretty hard to dispute that.
I say to you, if that sounds
morally beyond what we'd allow our
conscience to accept, we
did something very similar by bombing
water
works, sewage plants and
particularly electrical plants, hoping that
it would have this same
effect on the parents through love for their
babies.
I love the news and usually have something on throughout the day, unless I’m reading the newspaper. I consider myself fairly well informed on the war in Iraq, but I’m certainly not an expert. I have never heard of US forces deliberately attacking Iraqi sewage plants or waterworks. I have seen reports about our repair work on waterworks, but the terrorists keep blowing them up. As I stated above, I consider electrical power plants to be strategic targets.
The second point I'd ask is
this: Once we say "there's no substitute
for winning in war" the
question becomes, Why only in war? We
honor
the saying of Vince
Lombardi, "Winning isn't the most important thing,
it's the only
thing." (He's said he regrets ever
saying it, but
that's not what is
remembered in our country.) So if
anything goes to
win in war, Why not in
business? Why not in politics? If violating
the law to win in war is OK,
why not everywhere? Aren't we teaching
a
lesson here to
ourselves? And is it really the lesson
we want to be
teaching?
I am not in favor of the “anything goes” philosophy to win a war, and it certainly doesn’t apply to business or politics [although some politicians (and others) seem to have no limits in undermining the war effort just to make life difficult for the Bush Administration]. In war, we have people putting their life on the line –– some things are worth dieing for. The average person doesn’t take business or politics that seriously, but some do at the 5th or 6th sigma level and higher.
Now on to your questions
about the basis for the 500,000 deaths of
Iraqi children I cite.
I looked at the 2002 Matt
Welch article on sanctions you referred me
to. He writes positively about Richard Garfield,
the professor from
Columbia. He is often cited
-- as in the Economist magazine -- as a
fair and impartial expert on
the number of deaths due to sanctions.
In 2002 I helped coordinate
a WPSR delegation to Iraq and Richard
Garfield joined our
delegation.
On the way out of the
country, on the long bus ride to Amman, we had a
discussion with everyone in
our delegation about what we'd seen and
learned. I asked Richard Garfield his estimate of the
excess
children's deaths that had
occurred since the Gulf War in Iraq. He
said his low estimate was
400,000. I asked for a high estimate,
but
he did not offer one.
With the UN rejecting the 500K figure, I’m still skeptical about any large number. Not saying you’re wrong, but . . .
I asked what were the
legitimate studies that support his estimates.
With the exception of the
"substantial reduction" issue (raised by
Matt Welch) of what to use
as a baseline to compute excess deaths,
Richard Garfield considers
the UNICEF study solid and valid.
In response to US claims
that lower mortality rates in the North
proved that Saddam was at
fault for deaths in the South-Central
regions -- as quoted in a NY
Times article -- he wrote a letter to the
NY Times explaining the many
objective reasons for this. Some are
exactly what Carol Bellamy
mentions in the Welch article. The NY
Times did not print his
explanation.
Yes, there is no doubt that
over 12 years not all deaths were due only
to the effect of the
sanctions -- coupled with the bombed civilian
infrastructure (which is so
often not mentioned). But how many
deaths
did actually occur and how
many were caused by these two factors?
The most independent and
least disputed study is not mentioned in Matt
Welch's column at all. That is the September 1992 New England
Journal
of Medicine estimate of
46,900 excess deaths of Iraqi children during
the first eight months of
1991. The full article is available at
www.concernforiraq.org/infrastructure
-- along with this, from an
editorial in that same
journal:
Read it. A clear documentation that war is hell. I got the impression that the intent was to force Saddam to the bargaining table.
The destruction of the
country's power plants had brought its entire
system of water purification
and distribution to a halt, leading to
epidemics of cholera,
typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis, particularly
among children. Mortality
rates doubled or tripled among children
admitted to hospitals in
Baghdad and Basra. Cases of marasmus appeared
for the first time in
decades. The team observed "suffering of tragic
proportions.... [with
children] dying of preventable diseases and
starvation." Although the
allied bombing had caused few civilian
casualties, the destruction
of the infrastructure resulted in
devastating long-term
effects on health.
I see no point in arguing
whether the exact number of excess Iraqi
children's deaths is 400,000
or 800,000. Also there no question in
my
mind that during this first
year after the Gulf War, the massive
suffering and dying was most
directly caused by no electricity, no
safe water, no sewage
processing, and sanctions which cut off the
means for Iraq to buy food
and medicines.
UN sanctions did allow Saddam to buy food and medicine.
Even if Saddam Hussein could
have done better, especially later on,
that does not diminish our
responsibility as the party which
deliberately created this
situation in the first place. (My
"thought
experiment" example of
a FEMA which could have done better was not to
say they are guilty of
terrorism, but rather that the people who
planned terrorism are not
exonerated.)
You blame the US
for creating the situation. I blame
Saddam for creating the situation by invading Kuwait –– a war that had popular
support by the Iraqis –– and for not being up front about destroying his
WMDs. I also blame Saddam for not
responding to the crisis in his own country following the US air attacks.
Getting back to
the cause of the deaths, the Matt Welch quotes Garfield as saying:
“Garfield believes that
during the last few years of oil-for-food, most of the blame for poor child
mortality figures can be laid on the government of Iraq.”
Finally, a last piece of
evidence, what I hold to be the real
oil-for-food scandal. Please look at
concernforiraq.org/oilforfood.
I looked at the article, but did not study it in detail. It is surprising to note that Iraq had difficulty in producing enough oil to meet the sanctions limit, but seemed to be able to smuggle oil out of the country for cash.
For us to limit Iraq to a
total of $0.51 per person per day over the
6 years of that program --
and remember that this was not humanitarian
aid, it was Iraq's own resources
-- is a scandal and is evidence of
our willingness to allow
these deaths to happen.
UN sanctions or US sanctions??? It is hard for me to believe that the UN, with their vast experience, didn’t have a fair handle on the expenditures required to sustain the civilian population. The 51 cents per day per person sounds low, but my references are limited.
I have traveled through the upper Nile region of Egypt where the cost of living is quite low. (Like Egypt, the cities of Iraq are primarily located along rivers.) People in Egypt are able to grow much, perhaps all, of their own food, and medical services seem to be very basic.
Considering my
observations in Egypt where people in the out-lying areas seem capable of
getting by with little or no government support, perhaps the 51 cents per day
per person may not be too far off.
The past few days have taken
a terrible toll of lives in Iraq. The
death toll runs between 100
to 200 civilian deaths a day. If you
take
the 46,900 deaths cited in
The New England Journal over 8 months,
you'll see it comes to 195
deaths a day. All of them infants,
toddlers and children under
five years of age. That went on for,
not
a week, but months and
months.
Now, if you go back to my
op-ed you'll see that I included these
sentences: [The UNICEF
report stated] "Even if not all suffering in
Iraq can be imputed to
external factors, especially sanctions, the
Iraqi people would not be
undergoing such deprivations in the absence
of the prolonged measures
imposed by the Security Council and the
effects of war."
And I continued, "Here
is the most credible children's organization in
the world telling us that
war and U.N./U.S. economic sanctions had
contributed to the deaths of
500,000 Iraqi children."
Based on all I've written above,
I consider that's a fair statement .
But this issue is so clouded
in lack of information and misinformation
it takes an great amount of
explaining and citations to cover what
needs to be said. I thank you for sticking with it. Let me know what
you think.
We have both stuck with it, and I appreciate the exchange of views. You have pushed me to learn some things about Iraq, and to see a different viewpoint.
My initial response to your article was to point out that Saddam Hussein, with support from much of the Iraqis populous, was responsible for the death and destruction in Iraq, and that the problems of Iraq were made worse because Saddam chose to focus his resources on other projects. My view on that has not changed. -- JOHN
Bert
--