Olentzero, Your one sentence response is less than enlightening. I just want to know if you really think it possible that the Iraqi people could reasonably get rid of Saddam on their own.
Yes, I do. The only reason Saddam Hussein is such a powerful dictator is because the US helped him get that way. First with the military aid, now with the sanctions - a double-barreled gun if ever there was one. Firstly, it prevents much-needed food and medical supplies from getting in, even with the “food-for-oil” program. Thus the population is slowly getting starved into exctinction. Secondly, they allow Saddam to appear as their protector against the US and the UN. He’s standing up to the US, which certainly wasn’t popular in the area to begin with, so now it looks like he’s the one that can protect the Iraqi people.
It’s obvious that the population of a country that isn’t being completely ground to dust under the heel of international sanctions can throw off unpopular and hated leaders, or retain popular ones. Like Chavez in Argentina, as an example of the latter. Like all the rulers of the old Eastern Bloc countries. Like, oh, I don’t know, the colonial subjects of a British monarch, as examples of the former.
By taking any and all measures to assert its sole right to determine the leaders of another country according to its own economic and political interests, the US is completely denying a voice to the Iraqi people - and their ability to excercise their voices - in the determination of their own domestic affairs.
Olentzero,
I am not questioning America’s role in Saddam’s current status as dictator. Most sources agree that America provided Iraq with military intelligence, resources and equipment during the Iraq-Iran war. The question is not whether Iraqi citizens could have thrown off an unpopular leader prior to being supported by the American government but whether they can still realistically do so without assistance given Saddam’s current military might. How Saddam got so powerful is irrelevant to that question.
According to this cite Saddam has been exporting food and other supplies since the Gulf War. This cite corroborates that for food. This cite gives details on the oil for food program. Among the salient points are:
If lack of food and other supplies are a primary factor in preventing the Iraqi people from overthrowing Saddam it appears that the scarcity is being caused primarily by Saddam and not the sanctions.
Examples of populations which have thrown off unpopular rule do not necessarily indicate it is always possible or realistic. Presumably the rule of Pol Pot was unpopular with large segments of the population. Why weren’t the millions of dissatisfied Cambodians able to successfully resist Pol Pot’s regime on their own? You’ll need to provide me with some strong evidence to convince me that dissatisfied Iraqis could realistically, if they so desired, remove Saddam from power.
Grim
[nitpick]
Um, no, they’re not. Most are designed to be launched into the atmosphere at tremendous velocity and as a result are exposed to bone jarring vibration and “G” forces, not to mention temperature extremes involved with traveling through the atmosphere. I’m not suggesting Iraq does or does not possess such a weapon, just that if they did, transporting them around for years is well within design tolerances, therefore not a valid point for dismissing the tactical value of such a weapon. [/nitpick]
Please continue…
But your whole cite argues otherwise. In the North, where the sanctions have been relieved somewhat by the oil-for-food program, things are better (though I would certainly love to see some hard data on whether it’s “better than before the war”). In the south, where the sanctions aren’t relieved at all, things are worse. It doesn’t matter how much Saddam may be skimming off the top for his own personal use, the fact remains that import of much-needed food and medical supplies have been drastically curtailed. Even if Saddam weren’t taking anything, the sanctions still would have this effect.
Let’s look at some hypothetical numbers. Say Saddam Hussein was taking 10% of all total imports for himself. Using the best year before the sanctions as a benchmark of 100%, the Iraqi population was therefore getting 90% of the imports. Now the sanctions are slapped on, reducing the flow of imports to a total of 10% of that benchmark. Saddam’s still skimming 10% off the top, which means that, though the Iraqi population gets 90% of the total imports, it’s only 10% of what they were getting before the sanctions were imposed. Can you not see that it’s not what Saddam takes, it’s what is being kept out of the country that’s starving them? Blame Saddam’s invasion of Iraq as the catalyst for the sanctions if you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was the decision of the US and the UN to drastically reduce the flow of food and medical goods into Iraq that’s causing the widespread starvation and disease.
How is that supposed to justify the US’ claim that it has the right to decide what leader another country should have?
Come on guys - It is not like the US cough i mean UN will ever bomb a civilian city !!
And you AntiWar people are crazy ! The US cough UN would never bomb Bagdad.
These new missile descriminate you know … when they explode that only hurt “eveil doers” and “weapons on mass destruction”
War is TeH fun !
Nicholas Kristoff on interviewing Iraqis:
"…After scores of interviews with ordinary people from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south, I’ve reached two conclusions:
-
Iraqis dislike and distrust Saddam Hussein, particularly outside the Sunni heartland, and many Iraqis will be delighted to see him gone.
-
Iraqis hate the United States government even more than they hate Saddam, and they are even more distrustful of America’s intentions than Saddam’s…"
No further comment is offered.
Olentzero
Regarding:
Let me reiterate this particular part of my previous post:
Note that the program exists in both the north as well as the central and southern parts of Iraq. In other words it isn’t the fact that sanctions have been loosened in the north (as far as I can see they haven’t), rather it’s the fact that the program is being administered by the UN in the north. Same sanctions, different program administrators.
It doesn’t nor did I say that it does. However, you gave examples of countries and/or situations where the populace successfully resisted an unpopular rule and then implied that this was another such situation. It may be but my point is that you’ll need to provide me with something more substantial then the fact that other people have done it in the past to show me that it’s reasonable in this case.
Grim
So the denial of food and medical supplies to a country’s population is acceptable if the United Nations administers it? Sorry, I don’t agree.
Oppression naturally leads to resistance. It’s a feature of human society. To be successful, resistance needs to be organized - which is impossible if the population is dying of starvation and easily preventable medical conditions.
To me, you are justifying US intervention in Iraq (with or without UN approval and participation) with the goal of a “regime change” by saying that a popular uprising is impracticable. Unless you propose other alternatives, the situation is reduced to an ‘eother/or’ situation. “Either the Iraqi population overthrows Saddam, or the US does it for them.”
Olentzero
What are you talking about? The UN is administering the food for oil program in the north where it appears to be successful. According to one of the cites I’ve already listed child mortality rates in the north are lower then they were before the war. If Saddam would allow the UN to administer the oil-for-food program across the central and southern portions of the country presumably the same benefits would be realized. Implying that the food-for-oil program is in fact denying food and medical supplies is a pretty gross distortion of the facts.
Sure. Resistance is pretty difficult if the population is lacking basic subsistence level food and supplies. However ensuring that they do have the necessary food and supplies doesn’t automatically mean the populace can realistically remove Saddam. You’ll still need to show me that a dissatisfied (reasonably well fed) Iraqi citizenry will have the means to remove an entrenched dictator who has extensive military equipment and personnel.
In this thread I haven’t taken a stance on US intervention. Please don’t assume that I hold any particular position until I’ve stated it. I got involved in this thread because you made (what seemed to me) a pretty strong statement about the capabilities and disposition of the Iraqi people without any real evidence. Namely their ability and willingness to remove Saddam from power. Personally I think there are multiple ways the situation could develop though only a few are really likely IMO.
Grim
OK, I found the press release from the UNICEF site which says:
But note that the under-5 mortality rate in Northern Iraq started falling in 1994, before the “oil-for-food” program was put into effect. In southern and central Iraq, however,
So what was northern Iraq getting in 1994 that the rest of the country wasn’t, if the sanctions were the same?
The Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq’s Guide to Sanctions says:
Unicef, in August 1999, stated:
Several other reports quoted on that site assert that northern Iraq was getting more per person under “oil-for-food” aid, and some of that in the form of cash, while the people of southern Iraq were only getting commodities.
So, essentially, Iraqi Kurdistan was already getting help from other humanitarian agencies, while it is apparently easier to smuggle things into Iraq from the north. These factors predated the “oil-for-food” program and therefore the reduction in infant mortality rate, among other quality-of-life indicators, cannot be attributed solely to direct UN administration of the program.
Let’s turn back the clock a bit, though, and have a look through some documents dating from 1991, published by the Defense Intelligence Agency and released only in the last couple of years. I got this info from an article by Thomas Nagy off The Progressive’s website.
–From “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities”, 22 Jan 1991
Iraq needs outside support to purify its water. They’ll have to go around the sanctions to get them, and if they can’t, well - no drinking water.
Not a pretty picture, eh? Well, here’s the nasty surprise:
They knew bombing the water purification infrastructure would completely cut off Iraq from their supplies of potable water. They knew Iraq would need to import chlorine in order to even hope to provide potable water to its population. And yet they placed sanctions on the importation of chlorine under the “dual use” clause (forbidding the importation of goods that have dual military/civilian uses) where it remains today! The “oil-for-food” program doesn’t cover things like that.
I won’t even go into the predictions and assessments on the increased incidence of preventable diseases directly attributable to the bombing of Iraq in Desert Storm, but Nagy’s article goes quite in-depth into that. He even provides instructions to dig up the original documents online, if you’re so inclined.
So, on to one more aspect. Is the “oil-for-food” program giving people enough food? Or would it, if Saddam weren’t skimming off the top?
According to the UN Office of Humanitarian Concerns in Iraq in an article here (yes, the International Socialist Review again!),
as of 30 Sept 1999. Given the fact that Iraq’s infrastructure was bombed literally into oblivion during Desert Storm, that’s pretty impressive.
Hans von Sponeck, one of the two directors of this program who resigned in protest over its failings, asserts that
And the rampant inflation that’s plagued the country for years hasn’t helped any.
Both von Sponeck and Dennis Halliday, his predecessor in the program who also resigned, have repeatedly asserted that it is not withholding of goods by the Iraqi government that is the problem. Most of the delays in distributing goods allowed in are the result of some parts being held up in shipment - like hypodermic needles - while other parts - like syringe bodies - are already in Iraq awaiting distribution.
I’ll leave it here for now, but I certainly think I have a strong case for arguing that the “oil-for-food” program, even if it were administrated by the UN across Iraq, isn’t enough to provide for the Iraqi population or rebuild the country’s shattered infrastructure. The sanctions must be lifted - that’s the only viable solution.
Olentzero
I’m going to touch on a few points here that we’ve been discussing but please bear in mind that they aren’t really the focus of my point.
Agreed. However, I don’t think oil-for-food was intended to be a panacea for Iraq’s ills nor did I state it as such. Yes, there is a food and infrastructure problem in Iraq. Oil-for-food is designed to mitigate and minimize some of those issues. When administered (training local authorities and monitoring programmes certainly falls under administration IMO) by the UN it appears the program works more effectively. Per your own cite:
While oil-for-food is not a long term solution to Iraq’s woes Saddam has prevented the expansion of UN involvement in this regard. His obstruction of the oil-for-food program, exporting of food and supplies, and his questionable expenditures have all played a part in the worsening of the situation.
Regarding this earlier statement of mine:
It would probably be more accurate to say “If lack of food and other supplies are a primary factor in preventing the Iraqi people from overthrowing Saddam it appears that the scarcity is being caused primarily by actions of Saddam and then was exacerbated by the sanctions.”
Saddam’s involvement in the Iran-Iraq war consumed nearly the entire gross domestic product of Iraq for the 1980’s per this cite 1. His subsequent invasion of Kuwait thrust Iraq into another war even more damaging (both in terms of military capability and infrastructure) then the first.
This cite 2 lists UN resolutions regarding Iraq. Note that sanctions were being gradually lifted (in the form of allowing greater and greater amounts of petroleum exports). Then in 1997:
Then in 1998 weapons inspectors are ejected from Iraq.
Yes, sanctions are hurting Iraq but IMO pinning the infrastructure problems entirely on the U.S. (or UN) belies the fact that Iraq, under Saddam’s direction, has been involved in 2 damaging wars in 2 decades and then has not complied with UN resolutions which undoubtedly would have speeded the removal of sanctions. Even were sanctions lifted foreign investment would likely be minimal due to Iraq’s hefty debt and poor status as a debtor (per cite 1):
Regarding your statement:
I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that. As I stated before, and this is my main point, ensuring that the Iraq citizenry have the necessary food and supplies doesn’t automatically mean they can realistically remove Saddam. You’ll still need to show me that a dissatisfied (reasonably well fed) Iraqi citizenry will have the means to remove an entrenched dictator who has extensive military equipment and personnel.
Grim
Tsar Nicholas II had an army at his command. Louis XVI had an entire army at his command. So did Charles I and George III of England. Yet three of them lost their lives, and one of them a serious chunk of territory, to uprisings against them. The key wasn’t outfighting those armies (with the exception of the American Revolution) but convincing the soldiers of those armies not to fire on the people in revolt, to disobey their officers when commanded to do so, and to turn their guns in the other direction. I seriously doubt the whole Iraqi army is so programmed to unquestioningly obey Saddam Hussein that no appeals from the Iraqi people could move them. It may take some time, like it did in France and England and Russia, but it has happened there and can happen in Iraq. A successful popular uprising is far more likely to occur than Bush installing a truly democratic government in Baghdad.
Olentzero
That still doesn’t answer my question. What about Spartacus? The October Revolution in Vienna? The Bohemian Rebellion? All attempts to throw off undesired rule. All failed. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
What is it about the Iraqi people that would reasonably convince me that they are capable of removing Saddam?
Just saying it can happen isn’t anywhere near concrete enough. I need details. You’ll need to show that the Iraq people have the willingness (i.e. that a large enough portion of the people are dissatisfied enough with Saddam to resort to large scale organized force), the skill, and the appropriate military supplies and equipment. All without outside aid.
Grim
Well, it looks like you’re going to have to remain unsatisfied. I’ve stated why I’m certain an ultimately successful uprising could take place in Iraq in the absence of sanctions and foreign military intervention. Historical examples abound of an oppressed majority taking on the numerically inferior but tactically superior forces of the oppressing state and winning. For me, that’s a sufficient base for belief that it can happen in Iraq.
You, on the other hand, insist that such an uprising is impossible or doomed to failure at best. Whether or not you’ve explicitly stated your position on the situation here in the thread, your argument justifies the continuation of the sanctions and the military intervention. If you don’t, then choose arguments better suited to your position. Otherwise, I’m pretty much done here.
Bolding mine…
You seem to have been implying all along that an insurrection would succeed, sooner or later. Now you’re saying that a successful uprising “could” take place and that that’s a sufficient base for the belief that it “can” happen. Of course a successful uprising “could” take place and that it “can” happen. But is it likely? Is it probable? If your answer is yes then there must be a better reason than “Historical examples abound”. In any historical example you wish to look at a reasonable person should be able to examine it and come up with evidence as to why the uprising succeeded. Perhaps it was because (hypothetically speaking):
A. The current ruler didn’t have the support of the church and/or other political entities
B. The ruler was a poor student of military matters
C. The rebels had a better understanding of the terrain on which the battles were fought
D. The rebels weapons proved more effective then the ruler anticipated
Or any number of other factors. Obviously some rebellions have been a success and other have not. Stating that doesn’t explain what factors contributed to the rebellion’s success or failure. It certainly doesn’t enlighten us as to whether a potential Iraqi rebellion is likely to succeed since you haven’t indicated what characteristics you think Iraq has that would contribute to a successful rebellion (other than a sizeable dissatisfied populace).
I wouldn’t say doomed to failure. I’d say improbable. Definitely not to be counted upon.
I only entered this particular part of the discussion at your statement-as-if-it-were-fact that the Iraqi people could simply remove Saddam from power if they so desired. It was up to you to back that statement up not me to justify sanctions and military intervention. The topic of sanctions and military intervention has been pretty much done to death IMO on other threads and I really don’t feel like hashing out all the arguments here. My position in general is that sanctions should remain until Saddam shapes up (unlikely) and that military action should be conducted with UN involvement. The US, at this time and under these circumstances, would be unwise to act unilaterally.
Yeah. Me too.
Grim