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

--