Human catastrophe looms in Iraq; the time for action is now

national | miscellaneous | news report Friday January 17, 2003 12:20 by Tristan Ewins tristane at bigpond dot net dot au

Human catastrophe looms in Iraq; the time for action is now - background on the last Gulf War, the probable consequences of any new war, and the interest that drive the Bush White House.

Human catastrophe looms in Iraq; the time for action is now

By Tristan Ewins
Online Journal Contributing Editor

January 16, 2003—At the time of writing, Iraq totters upon the precipice of war and human catastrophe. A report on the probable consequences of war, released in Britain by Medact—the British affiliate of 'International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,' has predicted dire consequences for the Iraqi people in the event of any conflict aimed at the overthrow of the Iraqi government.

According to Medact, between 48,000 and 260,000 casualties are expected in the event of war, while "additional deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000." (FinalCall.com News)

Elaborating further on the probable effects of war in Iraq, Medact concludes that such a conflict could result in wide-ranging consequences including, "civil war, famine and epidemics, millions of refugees and displaced people, catastrophic effects on children's health and development, economic collapse including failure of agriculture and manufacturing, and a requirement for long-term peacekeeping." (Medact)

Such a prognosis should hardly come as a surprise, in light of the enormous human suffering already confirmed in the aftermath of the first US-Iraqi Gulf War.

While the impending war would no doubt far exceed the 1991 conflict in its ferocity and brutality, it is instructive, before continuing, to recall the human cost of the 1991 conflict.

The Last Gulf War: Remembering the Horror and Counting the Cost

According to Medact, drawing upon UN and other sources, Iraqi military deaths during the first US-Iraqi Gulf War ranged somewhere between 50,000 and 120,000. Civilian deaths are estimated at somewhere between 3,000 and 15,000.

Furthermore, according to Medact's figures, an estimated 300,000 Iraqis were wounded during the initial conflict, many of which were later to die. Others were merely consigned to a tortuous life of pain and misery: deafened, missing limbs, paralysed—bearing emotional trauma that will never, ever heal.

Although the Pentagon would doubtless prefer us to forget, Iraqi survivors will live with the horror of the war for the rest of their lives. Hundreds of Iraqi conscripts—perhaps more—were literally buried alive during the US-led assault on their positions. One can only imagine the horror for these barely trained, terrified young men, near-deaf from weeks of constant bombardment, nerves shattered beyond repair, as combat earth movers outflanked their positions, proceeding to literally bury them alive, choking and suffocating horribly in the desert sand. Others, perhaps, were simply cleaved through. (U.S. Defends Burying Iraqi Troops Alive)

Then there are the stories of those who survived the final US air assault on retreating Iraqi armoured columns, bombed even after the declaration of a cease-fire. Blithely disregarding Geneva Convention provisions regarding "denial of quarter" tens of thousands of vehicles were destroyed by US jets during the Iraqi retreat from Kuwait. The spectacle is easily imaginable: Iraqi soldiers scrambling from their tanks, having been taken completely by surprise, watching in horror as their countrymen were literally incinerated along the roadside, leaving nothing but charred flesh, and brittle, blackened husks. Approximately 1,000 Iraqis died in this phase of the conflict.

The example of the Amarijah bomb shelter shelter in Baghdad, which was destroyed in a direct hit on Feburary 13, 1991, is also instructive of the cost of war. The shelter collapsed under the force of the blast, killing perhaps as many as 1000: men, women and children. (Politics-Iraq: Clinton On The Fast Track To Middle East Instability?)

While US officials initially denied this shocking calamity, eventually it became evident just how costly intelligence failures of the sort involved can be. Such failures would almost certainly be repeated in the event of another Gulf War.

Hundreds were buried amidst the rubble: charred bodies—bloody and broken,torn limb from limb—images so atrocious that the bulk was censored and never seen by Western eyes. In the aftermath of this horror—an Iraqi doctor cried: "Do you call this justice? Who dares to say that 'we don't hit civilians?'" Meanwhile a grief-wracked woman howled at reporters: "For what? For oil, you would do this?" (The Pounding of Iraq)

If anything, the aftermath of the war was even more atrocious than the war itself.

During the first US-Iraq Gulf War, roads, bridges, communications, electricity supplies, water and sewerage systems, weapons factories, health care facilities, administrative centres and warehouses were targeted in a bombing campaign which sought to utterly destroy the infrastructure which held Iraqi society together. As such, the campaign was not limited to merely military targets. This was no surgical campaign; it was total war. Following the conflict, as a consequence of the bombing and the ensuing sanctions, Iraq's GDP—standing in 1989 at $68 billion—fell precipitously to only $245 million. Malnutrition, meanwhile, reached epidemic proportions.

According to Medact, "Primary health care and preventative activities ceased—there was no antenatal care and immunization programmes were temporarily reduced leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases."

This appalling situation was worsened by the utter degradation of Iraq's water supply—once again, a consequence of bombing and sanctions. Thomas Nagy has revealed how the Pentagon foresaw the ultimate results of bombing and sanctions upon the Iraqi water supply, with the ultimate consequence of rampant disease. Indeed, he has uncovered a Pentagon document outlining probable developments in fine detail. The document in question: "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," foresees how, "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease." (The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply)

Specifically, Pentagon documents projected the onset of diseases including cholera, hepatitis, typhoid, acute respiratory illnesses and acute diarrhea.

Nagy has also uncovered further declassified Pentagon documenting forecasting how, "Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

While matters have improved since the introduction of the UN 'Oil for Food' programme, David Hifiker, writing for Znet (Biological Warfare, Dec 23,2002), laments how even today, "500,000 tons of raw sewage are dumped into the waterways of Iraq every day. " Hilfiker goes on to argue how, according to UNICEF, 40 percent of Iraq's "drinking water" is contaminated.

To get this in the proper perspective, it is worth noting that, before the war, the figure was 7 percent. (The terrible impact of sanctions on Iraq: An interview with journalist Felicity Arbuthnot)

Meanwhile, also according to UNICEF, under-five mortality has almost tripled since the first US-Iraqi Gulf War to 133 in every ,1000, while infant mortality in Iraq has more than doubled to the figure of 105/1000 live births. In total, between 300,000 and 500,000 Iraqi children have died unnecessarily since the war. (The Unreported Consequences of Sanctions on Iraq) Such figures do not even begin to consider the devastating effects of disease and malnutrition upon Iraq's adult population.

Probable Course of a New Gulf War

Medact has carefully considered the probable course of another US-Iraqi Gulf War, forecasting that any US invasion will involve "sustained and devastating" aerial bombardment of "military facilities and infrastructure," the intital seizure of the north, and the oil rich south, and finally, "rapid deployment forces backed by air attacks to take Baghdad."

While Medact concludes that the bulk of the Iraqi army are ill-equipped and in bad morale, it projects that Republican Guard troops would be deployed to defend Baghdad, exposing the city to "devastating aerial attack." Medact's report even anticipates a possible scenario whereby Saddam may deliberately allow US forces into Baghdad, with the intent of forcing close urban combat, and inflicting maximum causalities. In the event of high intensity urban combat, it is likely that there will be a media blackout on the true extent of US casualties, and of the utter carnage to combatants and civilians unfolding in Baghdad. Military control of the media will, as in the last Gulf War, most certainly be tight, seeking to deny any propaganda opportunities for Hussein. Having learned its lesson from Vietnam, the Pentagon will strive to ensure that coverage of a new war will be characterized by the same surreal video game atmosphere as last time, the true horror of the conflict obscured behind sanitized rhetoric and lofty jargon.

The possibility of heavy fighting and significant casualties in the southeastern city of Basra, ought also not be ruled out.

One alternative not considered in the Medact report is that of a protracted siege of Baghdad. In such an instance the destruction of basic infrastructure, and the infliction of untold suffering upon the Iraqi people could well comprise a core element of any strategy to bring the regime to heel. This option, which may now be under consideration by the Pentagon, would aim to precipitate an Iraqi collapse without the need for costly urban combat, including house-to-house fighting.

Siege warfare inevitably involves enormous suffering to civilians, as attested to by the sufferings of Parisians during the 1871 Civil War, whereby the Paris Commune was crushed—a conflict in which the citizens of Paris faced such desperate hunger that they were driven the scour the sewers and drains for rats.

During any siege of Baghdad, the destruction of electricity supplies and water purification facilities could once again ensure a descent into terror, starvation and disease. While massive Iraqi civilian casualties would prove inevitable in the face of urban combat and US attempts to dislodge, through aerial bombardment, fortified Iraqi positions, a protracted siege would certainly be no humane alternative. Possibly, facing pressure at home in the event of a protracted standoff, US forces would feel compelled to move on Baghdad in the final instance regardless, further magnifying the suffering and terror of ordinary Iraqis.

There is, of course, no question that the USwould ultimately win any new Gulf War. The toll of human suffering, however, would be immense, while the US and its allies would inevitably pay a much greater price for victory than in 1991. For those on the ground on Baghdad, however, this would be no mere exercise in statistics. Mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, brothers, sisters would face horror we can barely conceive enduring. Behind the video game presentation unfolding on CNN, doctored and sanitized for popular consumption, will lay stories of human misery: families rent asunder, mothers weeping for their lost sons, sons weeping for their lost mothers.

Assuming close urban combat and stiff resistance from the Republican Guard, combined US and British casualties could also number in the thousands. A new Gulf War would be a desperate conflict: a final do or die battle for Saddam Hussein. And, if by any chance Saddam has managed to secret away any remaining weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the final human cost could be worse than many have even been willing to contemplate.

International support for US-led war waning

As the world anticipates the impending report from UN weapons inspectors due on January 27, many are coming to the conclusion that Washington is simply going through the motions, and has long since resolved to disregard any findings unffavourable to the cause of war. As recently as 1998, UNSCOM arms inspectors certified that Iraq had been 90–95 percent disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. (Edwards & Cromwell, Znet, 8/1/2003) And yet by late 2002, key Bush security adviser, Dr Richard Perle insisted that "a clean bill of health" would not deter the planned US offensive, with evidence from even one witness being considered 'causa belli' for war. (Whitehall Editor, Mirror, 20 November 2002)

Even in the absence of such a trigger, however, it appears that the Bush administration is taking no risks, moving to discredit UN inspectors ahead of the fateful date. As Robert Fisk, a journalist writing for the UK Independent, has indicated (Znet, Dec 4, 2002), one inspector has been accused of "links with pornography," while another has been reminded of his prior sacking as head of a nuclear safety agency

Constant pressure in Britain, however, inside and outside the governing Labour Party, is beginning to bear fruit, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair backing away from the prospect of immediate war. A senior government source has been quoted as stating, "The Prime Minister has made it clear that, unless there is a smoking gun, the inspectors have to be given time to keep searching." (The Daily Telegraph and National Post, Jan 9, 2003)

Blair himself has suggested that any final decision on the prospect of war may need to be delayed several months, perhaps until autumn.

Doubts are also beginning to arise in Australia, where the opposition Labor Party is increasingly uneasy at the Conservative Howard administration's unnatural fervor for war. General Peter Gration, head of the Australian Defence Force during the last Gulf War, has come out openly against war as anything but an absolute last resort. (Melbourne Age, January 2 2003)

According to Gration, should Australia support the war, "it will be the first time in our history that we have taken part in unprovoked offensive military action against another country."

According to Gration, US national security policy "has moved from containment and deterrence to an open-ended doctrine of the right to pre-emptive strike if the US perceives a threat developing to its global supremacy."

Concluding, Gration stated, "If we go to war without UN endorsement, our actions as signatories of the UN Charter would, in effect, be illegal. And, not least, we should be aware of the humanitarian disaster that would probably be precipitated in Iraq, as its much weakened public health system collapsed in the face of invasion."

In short, the US Administration faces possible isolation in its push for immediate war without any additional Security Council resolution

.

The interests that drive Bush: We must stop this war!

There can be no mistaking. The impending war is not about human rights. It is not about "liberating" the Iraqi people. It has nothing to do with the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, whom the US administration supported regardless, so long as it was in keeping with US strategic and geopolitical objectives in the region. First and foremost, a new war in the Gulf will be a war for oil and geopolitical strategic advantage. In the year 2000, US oil consumption neared 20 million barrels a day, 12.6 percent of which was imported from the Persian Gulf.

By 1990 US dependence on Arab oil had risen to 30 percent, while Gulf oil alone provided for 7 percent of US domestic needs.

While U.S. oil production is set to fall some 12 percent over the next 20 years, as less substantial oil reserves dry up, "the Cheney report projects that Persian Gulf producers alone will supply 54–67 percent of world oil exports in 2020." (Post-Saddam Iraq: Linchpin of a New Oil Order) Hence the desperation of the Bush administration in seeking to drill for oil in the as yet pristine regions of Alaska.

Iraq sits upon the second largest known oil reserves in the world. It is situated ideally in the centre of the Middle East, sharing borders with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. Any long term US military occupation of Iraq would place the US perfectly to exert its hegemonic power throughout the region, thus keeping a tight rein on Saudi Arabia, and perhaps serving as a base from which to threaten Iran. Ralf Ellis has even raised the not entirely improbable possibility that a US occupied Iraq may serve as the base from which future US administrations could bring OPEC to heel. (Arabs Beware; the Trojan Horse Is In Your Midst)

US occupation of Iraq would, of course, be immediately followed by the resumption of Iraqi oil exports, increasing supply, and falling oil prices—as the Bush administration desires. Furthermore, any reconstruction effort, paid for by Iraqi petro-dollars, would inevitably give preference to US firms. Some are even projecting that the costs of occupation may be paid for directly by Iraqi petro-dollars (Push to Use Oil Money to Pay for US Occupation)

It is simply not acceptable that as many as 260,000 human beings may have their lives extinguished for the sake of oil, with countless others facing mental and physical trauma of the sort that no price could be placed upon it.

We have already considered the form such trauma has taken in the past, and what form it will likely take in the future should war proceed.

The US does, indeed, have real strategic interests in the region. And yet, as ethical human beings, we cannot condone this scale of slaughter, regardless of the economic cost. Furthermore, unless we are in the business of rehabilitating blatant imperialism, we cannot deny the Iraqis their right to control their own natural resources. For the US, growing vulnerability as a consequence of oil-dependence must be countered by programmes prioritisng improved public transport, alternative sources of energy, energy efficient technology and more fuel efficient car design.

At present, Saddam Hussein is showing every indication that he is willing to maintain co-operation with UNMOVIC. (The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) So long as Hussein continues upon this course, there is little chance that the UN Security Council will approve a new resolution giving the green light to a US war of conquest upon Iraq. While individual UNMOVIC members—of undisclosed allegiance—may attempt to provide the much desired trigger for war, it is clear that, as a whole, UNMOVIC cannot deny the present co-operation of the Iraqi regime.

If Bush acts, he will act in growing isolation, facing increasing misgivings even from his closest allies in Britain and Australia—many of whose citizens are wary of a war of aggression, waged against all established international law.

In Australia, Britain and the US itself, the lives of tens of thousands rest in our hands. If this war can be stopped, it can only be stopped by the resistance of ordinary citizens, repelled and stirred into action by the cynical and brutal real-politik of their governments. Mass rallies, blockades, occupations, media campaigns are among the tools at our disposal, and the stakes are high.

Not only is it right that we fight to prevent this war: it is our duty—for ultimately we are responsible for the governments we elect. This is one thing that distinguishes our democracies—imperfect as they are—from the long-suffering people of Iraq: who have no option of voting out their brutal leader. For their sake, and for the sake of our own young men and women—who may die in the struggle for oil—we must make the political cost of renewed war on Iraq unbearable. Their lives are in our hands.

Tristan Ewins resides in Melbourne, Australia, and is a writer, long time member of the 'Socialist Left' grouping of the Australian Labor Party, and former member of the Victorian ALP's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

He moderates the Australian 'broadleft network' egroup.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Ewins011603/ewins011603.html

nb: feel free to respond to this article here - OR in the Online Journal letters section.

This article will also be published in Shout! Monthly - a Canadian based international affairs e-journal - in Febuary. Shout Monthly is eagerly accepting correspondence from left of centre readers for its letters section - on current articles - or those articles in its archives.

If you wish to send a 'pre-emptive response' to this article, Shout! Monthly would be interested also.

Shout Monthly URL:

http://www.shoutmonthly.com/January-03/index.html