> Chuck, get fisked
Who coined this annyoing term? It's a right-wing meme, no?
> on this blog devoted to WC,
>http://www.pirateballerina.com/index.php
Where we learn that Churchill wrong was on how many Iraqis sanctions killed. The Bolsheviks at Foreign Affairs say the following:
>Foreign Affairs - May/June 1999
>
>Sanctions of mass destruction
>John Mueller; Karl Mueller
>
[...]
>The destructive potential of economic sanctions can be seen most
>clearly, albeit in an extreme form, in Iraq. That country seems to
>have been peculiarly vulnerable because so much of its economy was
>dependent on the export of oil, because the effects of sanctions
>have been enhanced by the destruction of much Iraqi infrastructure
>during the Gulf War, and because the country's political leadership
>sometimes seems more interested in maximizing the nation's suffering
>for propaganda purposes than in relieving it.
>
>No one knows with any precision how many Iraqi civilians have died
>as a result, but various agencies of the United Nations, which
>oversees the sanctions, have estimated that they have contributed to
>hundreds of thousands of deaths. By 1998 Iraqi infant mortality had
>reportedly risen from the pre-Gulf War rate of 3.7 percent to 12
>percent. Inadequate food and medical supplies, as well as breakdowns
>in sewage and sanitation systems and in the electrical power systems
>needed to run them, reportedly cause an increase of 40,000 deaths
>annually of children under the age of 5 and of 50,000 deaths
>annually of older Iraqis.
>
>The importation of some desperately needed materials has been
>delayed or denied because of concerns that they might contribute to
>Iraq's WMD programs. Supplies of syringes were held up for half a
>year because of fears they might be used in creating anthrax spores.
>Chlorine, an important water disinfectant, has not been allowed into
>the country because it might be diverted into making chlorine gas, a
>chemical weapon developed for use in World War I but then abandoned
>when more effective ones became available. Medical diagnostic
>techniques that use radioactive particles, once common in Iraq, are
>banned under the sanctions, and plastic bags needed for blood
>transfusions are restricted. The sanctioners have been wary
>throughout about allowing the importation of fertilizers and
>insecticides, fearing their use for WMD production, and as a result
>disease-carrying pests that might have been controlled have
>proliferated. Although humanitarian exceptions to some of the
>restrictions have been available all along, Iraq has been slow to
>take advantage of them and they have been plagued by administrative
>chaos and organizational delays; as a result they have been
>inadequate to the scope of the problem.
>
>Some casualty estimates have been questioned because they rely on
>Iraqi reports, and the government of Iraq clearly exaggerates its
>losses in hopes that sanctions will be removed. On the other hand,
>it is likely that estimates are low in some areas. In particular,
>many infant deaths may go unreported because ailing babies are not
>taken to hospitals now clearly incapable of saving them. The United
>Nations also suspects that many deaths go unreported so that
>survivors can collect an additional food ration. And some studies
>have been based on data gathered by foreign researchers in Baghdad
>and then extrapolated to the rest of the country, a process that may
>understate the national toll, since Baghdad is generally in better
>shape than other areas.
>
>These statistics are often lamented by the sanctioning governments
>but not usually denied. Instead it is pointed out that the sanctions
>have been designed not to cause pain for its own sake but rather to
>accomplish several desirable objectives. One is to keep Saddam
>Hussein from developing terrible weapons with which he can once
>again threaten his neighbors. Another is to remove him from office.
>
>Unsurprisingly, Saddam has not cooperated in allowing the sanctions
>to have these effects, regardless of the human cost. Unlike many
>dictators, Saddam cannot flee to a haven elsewhere: the only place
>he is reasonably safe is in control in Iraq. He has clung
>tenaciously to power, crushing all opposition, and has sought to
>rebuild his military capabilities, including, it appears, his
>chemical and biological arsenals.
>
>And he has been wary of infringements on Iraqi sovereignty,
>including the presence of arms inspectors and other outsiders whose
>activities might undermine his weapons programs or even his
>survival. In an important sense, therefore, the costs of the
>sanctions are being caused by Saddam's policies rather than the
>sanctioners, an argument the latter often make in their own defense.
>If the Iraqi dictator would only do as they demand, they argue, the
>sanctions would be removed. Yet the sanctioners are effectively
>asking Saddam to commit suicide or at least put his life in greater
>danger, an outcome they know is unlikely. In the end, therefore, the
>effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people Saddam's hostages-are
>both his fault and a predictable consequence of the sanctions policy.
>
>LET THEIR PEOPLE GO
>
>How DO the human costs of the Iraqi sanctions compare with those of
>weapons of mass destruction? The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
>Nagasaki together killed more than 100,000 people, and a high
>estimate suggests that some 80,000 died from chemical weapons in
>World War I. If one adds the deaths from later uses of chemical
>weapons in war or warlike situations (excluding the deaths of
>noncombatants in the Nazi gas chambers), as well as deaths caused by
>the intentional or accidental use of biological weapons and
>ballistic missiles, the resulting total comes to well under 400,000.
>If the U.N. estimates of the human damage in Iraq are even roughly
>correct, therefore, it would appear that-in a so far futile effort
>to remove Saddam from power and a somewhat more successful effort to
>constrain him militarily-economic sanctions may well have been a
>necessary cause of the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been
>slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout
>history.
>
>It is interesting that this loss of human life has failed to make a
>great impression in the United States.
[...]
>JOHN MUELLER is Professor of Political Science at the University of
>Rochester. KARL MUELLER is Assistant Professor of Comparative
>Military Studies at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at
>Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The opinions expressed herein are
>their personal views.