End Embargo on Iraq?

Great Debates
1

In this thread ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=51351 ) Collounsbury and myself started getting into it over sanctions being lifted on Iraq. Given that the thread linked above is about an entirely different subject I thought I’d start a new thread here to explore the issue further.

Embargos in general seem to be of dubious use. I personally can’t think of a time where an embargo or ‘sanctions’ in general have caused a government the US has a problem with to fold or give in. Usually the government in power (read the head honchos) continue to live large and let the crap fall on the general populace. Theoretically the general populace should get sick of this and rise up to overthrow their government. Unfortunately the governments we tend to throw sanctions at are usually some form of police state and the populace has little if no chance of successfully overthrowing their government and usually manage to get themselves killed if they try.

This is, of course, exactly what we see in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is still in power and the general population of Iraq is taking it on the chin with the sanctions. Saddam Hussein clearly does not care one bit for the suffering of his people. Indeed, he is frequently the cause of their suffering.

So, in this regard, sanctions are worthless. Some would say less than worthless as the sanctions hurt the people you don’t want hurt while not achieving any goals the sanctions were intended for in the first place.

On the flip side you have the US government along with its coalition partners lay down the law to Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War. Basically a list of sanctions that would be imposed on Iraq till Iraq and/or Saddam Hussein met a laundry list of requirements to have them lifted. Far from trying to meet any part of the list Saddam Hussein perpetually tried to subvert the terms of the agreement.

Now, ten years down the road, most of the coalition partners wish to back out and lift sanctions on Iraq. The reasons given are that sanctions are unsuccessful, hurting innocent civilians and beginning to piss off other Arab countries. This makes for good political sound bites but as is often the case the reasons are more simple if less compelling. There is business to be done in Iraq and money to be made.

The question is: Is this a compelling enough reason to lift sanctions? Has Saddam Hussein been sufficiently chastised to leave be? Has Saddam Hussein’s military been sufficiently weakened to pose no further threat to his neighbors and the world at large?

Frankly, I don’t think so. I believe that Saddam, given a chance, will do all in his power to rebuild militarily and, if possible, get back at the west which humiliated him. Unfortunately, there is evidence for some of this:

So, it seems, sanctions against Iraq are acting as a bulwark against Russia seeking to reassert its influence. In addition to Iraq the article linked above describes serious efforts to arm Iran and India to make, “a de facto geopolitical alliance of Russia, Iran and India… to oppose the U.S. influence in the region.” (quote from same source linked above)

FWIW (and correct me if I’m wrong) the UN cannot lift sanctions on Iraq without the approval of the US regardless of what former coalition partners may wish. It might be a good idea for the US to listen to its friends (France and Germany chief among them wishing to ease or lift sanctions) but the US is not compelled to do so if it so chooses.

We have short term tactical considerations here and long term strategic ones to consider. In the other thread that prompted this one it was suggested that the US policy towards Iraq amounts to “adolescent emotional reasons”. In short, the US is deciding to be recalcitrant about the whole thing in the face of obvious considerations that indicate the US should lay off if it was being truly rational.

I think that answer is too glib and that there are many reasons and factors to be considered that make an easy answer impossible.

Any thoughts?

2

If I remember correctly, haven’t the last two heads of the UN Mission in Iraq called for an end to the sanctions for humanitarian reasons, just before quitting the mission? Not military guys, career UN officials, one from Ireland and one from Germany I think. I will look for a cite.

As you say, yourself:

Does anyone have any background on where this theory of sanctions comes from? Have they ever worked, anywhere, ever to achieve foreign policy goals?

I think people might argue that sanctions worked in Yugoslavia, of course, as part of a wider strategy that also happened to include frequent airstrikes. :rollleyes:

See, that seems to be the crux of it. How many people will suffer and die for no purpose?

The idea of forcing a country into economic disaster in order to achieve foreign policy goals “peacefully” seems very wrong to me.

A stable, prosperous country has more chance of becoming free and remaining peaceful than one that has been starved into submission by foreign powers. We are recreating a humiliated post-WWI Germany here, ensuring that a few generations of Iraquis hate the U.S. passionately, and unnecessarily alienating our allies in the region over what seems, after 10 years, to be a pissing contest.

Per your security concerns, re Russia - If I ran the world, this cold war mentality about spheres of influence would not exist, but I don’t. I’d hate to see another decade or two of us fighting our supposed battles with the Russians through Iran and Iraq.

Unfortunately, the U.S. isn’t going to end the sanctions without some face-saving way to do it, and security concerns about Russia don’t exactly help.

Collounsbury, Jeff, how do we get out of this one?

3

And another thing: By causing great harm to the citizens, sanctions give the government in power the opprotunity to portray us as the bad guys and itself as the good guys for trying to convince us to lift the sanctions.

4

There is one case where it might be argued that economic sanctions and embargos, without use of military force, changed a nation’s policy. That would be South Africa. It took more than 30 years, but the white populace did eventually elect F.W. de Klerk, which arguably got the whole ball rolling to freeing Mandela and ending the apartheid system. It is at least possible that the economic effects of the sanctions motivated the white voters to elect de Klerk, and/or that concern over the sanctions’ effects motivated him to start reforms.

But even if South Africa is a genuine example of sanctions working, that case is hardly applicable to a dictatorship like Iraq. Saddam Hussein is not vulnerable to the same pressures that de Klerk was.

5

The effect of sanctions on the civilian population in Iraq also must be weighed against the effect on people in neighboring states (who’ve been spared Saddam’s warmongering over the past decade due to his having been weakened by sanctions). If Saddam had been powerful enough to launch another Iraq-Iran-style conflict, how many civilian and military deaths would there have been?

At least the sanctions bought the world an extended period free of Saddam’s aggression.

6

Jackmannii, was it the sanctions or the periodic U.S. airstrikes that kept Saddam’s aggression in check?

7

I think the ‘face-saving’ way for the US to lift sanctions speaks to Collounsbury’s assertion of adolescent behavior from the US regarding this policy. Much the same as the US policy is towards Cuba and our refusal to end sanctions there after decades. The US has so demonized Saddam (and Castro) that it can’t back away easily without some concessions (regardless if such concessions are reasonable).

However, given the wider geopolitical reality (of Russia wishing to rearm Saddam), the picture gets muddier and the ‘correct’ decision becomes less apparent.

A return to the cold war days of fighting via proxy through Iran, Iraq and other third-world countries is not a welcome thought. It may be argued that it’s a really lousy thing to cause others to suffer (in this case the Iraqi populace) so Russia and the US can continue a pissing match but this has usually been done to avoid a larger, potentially world-ending, conflict if Russia and the US fought directly.

Unfortunately simply backing away has its own peril. While Russia may claim it has a right to be active on the world stage it seems as if that activity more often than not will conflict with US interests. Russia’s main exportable commodity right now is weapons. A destabilized world is in Russia’s interest as that makes for good arms sales. Iran is in Russia’s pocket, Iraq will certainly side with Russia, India looks as if it’s cozying up to them all in an effort to a stated goal of “opposing US influence in the region.”

So what’s the big deal about that? Does the US have to dominate everywhere it goes? Maybe not but that region is of obvious vital need to the US as well as most of the industrialized world because of the oil it possesses. WARS have started over this (Japan attacking Pearl Harbor to stop US embargos of oil ring a bell?). This is the stuff a third world-war is made of. That may be alarmist and extreme but I think the chance is there. Current sanctions against Iraq seem to be keeping that possibility remote for now and while it may be lousy for the Iraqis as a whole it may be the lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately I have no answer on how to get out of this one. At least no way that is without its own peril. Perhaps Collounsbury can help (Kimstu also usually has something good to say on these sorts of things). Hopefully they’ll both come across this and have something to say.

8

Lift the embargo.

  1. It is ineffective, in that the only really worthy target is the Saddam regime itself, his subjects are thereby his victims, and, by extension, our victims. We are Americans, we must not tolerate our power afflicting the helpless and miserable.

  2. By a perverse human instinct, outside pressure actually bonds the populace to Saddam, much like the British reaction to German bombing. The people are cut off, opening the embargo will allow a wider trickle of information. (Perhaps even a few copies of the “South Park” movie will be smuggled in. Which would take a lot of guts. More than I got.)

  3. Good timing: everyone else is getting sick of “the Americans”. It would be a very good time to surrender a worthless concession and proclaim ourselves swayed by our allies opinion. Maybe no one believes it, but it will still afford our allies great “face”, coin of the realm, geopolitic wise. Everybody already knows we have the Big Stick, we can afford to speak softly.

  4. Arms: a valid case exists for suspicions that the Saddam regime will move quickly to obtain sophisticated weapons material openly. That is a definite drawback. On the other hand, if you can’t stop people from smuggling drugs or gold, how can you stop them smuggling microchips? If Saddam wants to buy uranium or, God forbid, plutonium, no embargo is going to stop him. To properly calculate that risk, we have to consider the likelihood that they are capable of making a “military” bomb. Any dork with sufficient plutonium can make a really badass bang. But do they have the in depth sophistication to create a weapon that they can successfully deliver to somebody else? I think not. At least not sufficient threat to contradict all of the above.

Therefore, I throw the full weight of my support behind ending the embargo.

9

Hoo.

Let me clarify a bit. I’m not necessarily for ending sanctions. I’m for a rational analysis of what sanctions are acheiving.

Let’s see, I can think, off the top of my head only one or two cases where sanctions worked, more or less. South Africa, ending Apartheid. Perhaps the Libyan sanctions.

In the first case, there was internal suppor for the sanctions. The anti-racist opposition largely was behind the position, ‘we’ll take the hurt’ in order to put pressure on the regime. Since the sanctions were almost universally supported outside SA they were relatively effective, and certainly had a great deal of moral weight. That plus internal pressure helped bring about De Klerks ultimate decision. So, sanctions seem useful as a possible accessory to helping change, but there has to be other things going on, including internal support and perhaps a relatively open political culture (e.g. Yugoslavia, which was never a police state in the proper sense of the term, Milo depended on some veneer of elected legitimacy).

In the case of Libya its unclear why Qaddafi changed his mind re the Lockerbie suspects. He’s so fucking mercurial its really hard to say if sanctions worked or not.

Now, on Iraq, I was just reading some stats from the UN reflecting a doubling in infant mortality in Iraq since 1990. That’s a heavy moral price to pay. I submit that we need to have some good rational for continuing the sanctions as presently structured to justify this. I don’t see it.

Now, as for ending sanctions, and Russia. Well, I don’t see keeping Russian arms sales out of Iraq a good reason to keep up the entire sanctions regime. I suspect that most of our allies, European and Arab, also don’t see this is as particularly convincing. It could look like us (USA) seeking to monopolize the arms business in the region through particularly bankrupt means. Not implying this is the case, I reject the idea, but others I think could make the case convincingly.

*Aside re sanctions helping neighbors. They have imposed some real burdens on the non-Gulf State neighbors such as Jordan and Egypt who have paid a heavy price in lost commercial relations with Iraq, lost income from guest workers in Iraqi industries etc. Both these US allies now are less than happy with the current sanctions regime, although they also have an interest in Saddam not gettting strong again. You can note the change in the official press, which reported favorably a humanitarian flight of Egyptian film stars to Baghdad. Of course the opposition press has been violently against the sanctions all along. Even the Gulf States have lost their enthusiasm. If Saddam were less of an idiot he could have broken the coalition at the last Arab summit. But his people managed to offend a sympathetic audience. Anyways, with the Gulfies and the Egyptians both becoming openly anti-santions, this is a clear sign the costs of the sanctions are beginning to outweigh the benefits.

Further, as Elucidator noted, there is often a “circle the wagons” type response common to human psychology. I’ve done a lot of work overseas (as you know) and I find it happening to me. Foreigners criticize a policy or whatnot in terms I don’t like, I at least get an urge rise to the defense even if I personaly am opposed. Frankly, the current sanctions give Saddam the perfect alibi.

I suspect that only a lightened sanctions regime, such as banning international arms sales to Iraq is really supportable at this stage. Sure, it will be subverted and it will be leaky. However, insofar as probably a good case can be made to everyone invovled that such an embargo would be good all aroun, I think it would work well enough.

Well enough meaning, while he would certainly be able to get hold of enough material to keep his key units supplied, it would be hard to bring in the numbers of heavy weapons needed to become a regional power once more. And if he did, we’ve got an excuse ready made to whack him.

This would tie into Elucidator’s third point, which is an excellent one. One which seems to escape many Americans. Playing a subtle game usually works better in the long run than being the playground bully who always wants to win. My way or the highway thinking loses you friends in both the short and long run.

All in all, its clear that the benefits of the current sanctions regime have largely faded. I think Elucidator is on the money that we should propose some modifications at the very least.

10

This issue and Cuba are way to complicated for me. I am just not informed enough. So my opinion is based solely on what seems right to me. I do hope this thread progresses so I might learn something about this subject. But…

I can see no reason why we should lift sanctions on Iraq or Cuba. I have no qualms at all about the suffering of innocent people in these countries. Their suffering is due to the regimes that control them. Even if the US does decide to deal with these people we will not be dealing with the suffering millions, we will be kow-towing to their tolaterian leaders. We don’t even know that if the trickle down effect will do a thing good for these people. Their leaders are not terribly concerned with their welfare ,sanctions or not. They are only concerned with their own power. I personally think that we kiss to much Middle Eastern ass anyway. Why are we so dependent on their oil? That isn’t really the last deposit left on the planet is it? I thought there was evidence that it wasn’t. I know I am probably an idiot that knows nothing about this, if so enlighten me. Lets face it, they might have the oil but we have the food. Neither can exist without the other. I am tired of hearing about peace keeping negotiations in that area of the world. Why haven’t we done something contructive to become independent of this mess? Isn’t there evidence that we can? Then we don’t have to deal with any of them if we don’t want to, I wouldn’t. Stupid huh?

Needs2know

11

Good answers all everyone. I’m not so sure the wider geopolitical realities of Russia trying to assert dominance over the Middle East can be treated so lightly. The notion of a limited sanctions scheme along the lines of limiting arms sales only seems doomed to failure as the following quote indicates:

It looks as if all Russia really wants is hard cash. If it can get that Russia seems willing to sell weapons to most anyone regardless of agreements prohibiting such sales (and including agreements they themselves have signed). I imagine even Russia, as a government, will not sell chemical/biological/nuclear weapons but who can say for certain?

I submit the above as food for thought only. There are a lot of angles to this and I’m not nearly expert enough to explore all of the ramifications of this. The other reasons given for ending sanctions are compelling so I’ll really ask only one more thing.

Exactly what form do you believe future sanctions should take? It has already been suggested that weapons sales be prohibited (even if it would be leaky). Does the US still enforce a ‘no-fly zone’ above the 36[sup]th[/sup] parallel? Is there anything else, sanction wise, that should remain in place?

12

Needs2know:

I think there is legitimate concern for how much easing sanctions really would help the Iraqi populace. Not that we’ve been much help but lifting sanctions would allow Saddam to really go to town on the Kurds in the north and most anyone else Saddam doesn’t like in his country. Frankly, I suspect that easing sanctions will help Jordan, Egypt, Russia, France, Germany and a few other countries far more than it will help Joe Iraqi.

Why are we (the US) so dependent on their oil?

Well, to this I’d say the US only has itself to blame. Can anyone say Sports Utility Vehicle? Americans seem to have a short memory and forget the oil crisis of the 70’s.

The oil crisis did teach Arab countries a lesson however. Say what you will about those countries and their attitudes towards the US but the fact remains that they are businessmen much as businessmen anywhere else in the world. They want to see profits grow and have little in the way of religious fervor or other issues that they will let get in the way of that. Following the oil crisis of the 70’s Americans got energy conscious and started buying smaller, more efficient cars as well as implementing other energy saving measures. OPEC could, if they trusted each other enough, force oil prices through the roof but they will not do that. If they go too far Americans will take a short term hit but will again turn to alternate energy sources and more efficient cars. Eventually this erodes desire for oil and hurts OPEC in the long run. Basically, OPEC wants to keep prices just high enough to maximize profits without making Americans or other industrialized countries squeal in pain.

There are other oil sources available in the world but the majority of easily available oil still sits in the Middle East. It is simply too expensive to find and drill for oil in some places of the world rather than simply buying from the Middle East. Prosecuting difficult oil sources is another thing one would see if OPEC raised prices unreasonably since it would now be profitable to go to all the trouble of getting that oil. This would dilute OPEC’s semi-monopoly and is also something they would not like to see.

13

Hey, sanctions work well…just look at Cuba to see how well that 40 year embargo has worked!..oops :wink:

I also think that we should end the embargo on Iraq. These have done absolutely no good against Saddam and most would say that it has helped consolidate his power. All that is happening is that innocent Iraqis are dying by the thousands.

In my honest opinion, the best way to deal with a dictator and to open to the West is with free trade. Look at China…ever since we have normalized trade relations with them, certainly their human rights record has improved…perhaps it needs a little more work, but they’re consistently moving in the right direction. It’s a win-win situation for the both of us…the Chinese economy grows and Chinese workers are given jobs that benefit them, while American companies find productive workers that produce goods at the lowest possible costs; these lower costs are then passed on to the consumer.

Free trade with Iraq would almost certainly benefit both nations as well. The wealth of petroleum that Iraq would then be free to export would lower gasoline and heating oil costs worldwide, and the massive foreign investment in the country would undermine Saddam’s control over his people…much like what happened in China.

As for what sanctions would remain, hopefully the sanctions against the NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) weapons would remain (although I would certainly like to see none of those ever built again anywhere!..pipe dream, I suppose)

14

Just driving by to post these links to previous thoughts along these lines (including my first thread IIRC): Despotic regimes: isolation or engagement? (advertisment: contains posts by DSYoungEsq); Are economic sanctions moral?

15

Thanks for the links picmr.

I had done a search for previous topics like this before starting mine but somehow managed to miss those.

I think the prevailing feeling is that sanctions against Iraq (or most countries) are doomed to failure before they start. In the case of Iraq if the goal is overthrow Saddam Hussein then sanctions are flat-out not doing the job (and in fact may even be aiding his grip on power) and should be abandoned.

I guess what I’ve seen the discussion evolve into now is are there other reasons outside of the sanctions stated goals that argue for the continued maintenance of those sanctions (i.e. mid-east arms control, etc.)? So far the quick answer on this one also seems to be no…at least that the arguments from a geopolitical standpoint still do not override the harm that sanctions are inflicting so they (sanctions) should still be discarded.

I can feel myself leaning in that direction as well but I’m continuing to play Devil’s Advocate because I can’t shake a niggling feeling of ominous consequences down that road (discontinuing sanctions). I’m hoping others will chime in and explore some of this more thoroughly.

16

The purpose of the sanctions are to slow donw the rebulding of Saddams army, and make less likely & more difficult the building of NBC weapons.

Iraq can still sell plenty of oil, and buy plenty of stuff- as long as it is “humanitarian”- which, if simply applied correctly- would stop all that suffering. However, the money is spent on luxeries, palaces for saddam, and stuff he can sell via the black market to get more weapons. In other words- the suffering could end tomorrow, if Saddam wanted it to. Clearly, he does not. Not a single death of even one child is caused by the Embargo- they are caused by Saddams waste & desire to build a big army and more palaces & stuff.

There is absolutely no indication at all that the ending of th embargo would stop the suffering- it would only mean more weapons for saddam. In fact, IMHO, the suffering would increase, as now all the oil $$ is supposed to go for food, medicine, etc- so saddam has to do tricks to get weapons. Without an embargo- there is nothing to stop Saddam from using every nickle to build up his military- and more palaces.

17

There seem to be some logical inconsistencies in support of the current sanctions. Daniel and others argue on one hand there’s no reason to presume lifting sanctions will help the Iraqi people on the other that the sanctions are having some effect.

I believe this is coming from a confusion between state and people. First, objectively speaking one must conclude that there will be some difference for the masses if sanctions are lifted because sanctions have themselves caused the standard of living to plummet, as suggested by a doubling in infant mortality. Quite clearly, sanctions have crippled the economic life of Iraq, which is not all state directed or owned. We can accept this as a given.

Now, the oil for food program is not lifting sanctions but rather a state to state program allowing the Iraqi government, such as it is, to sell oil to import certain necessities, which of course does nothing for the non-public or free market sector of the economy. That sector, which might be said to nourish activity not dependant on Saddam Hussein, at least not directly, continues to be strangled. It strikes me as incredibly perverse that the current sanctions regime manages to concentrate more power, relatively speaking, in the hands of the government, while strangling the very sectors of society which we might guess are more independent of Saddam’s regime. Clearly, lifting the sanctions, with the possible replacement with an arms embargo, ** will ** in fact have an effect on the Iraqi populace, as we can presume that normal economic commerce will resume with Iraq’s neighbors, tending to restore living standards towards pre-war levels.

In short, arguing that lifting sanctions will not help the Iraqi people is an argument of raw illogic. Now, that does not mean sanctions necessarily should be lifted. I accept that sometimes one will hurt the innocent in pursuit of larger goals. However, the results should merit the pain.

One must ask the question, what is this actually achieving? What policy goals, other than simple-minded vindictiveness, are being served? Certainly we can not say that a decade, more or less, of sanctions has appreciably strengthened the hand of anti-Saddam forces. Quite the contrary, if anything the opposite. (For reasons suggested here and in the prior messages noted by Elucidator and myself, the old circle the wagons effect or the rally round the flag effect. ) It strikes me that once one drops an emotional analysis of the current sanctions regime and look at actual results, as argued before, the sanctions are rapidly becoming thoroughly counter productive.

Now of course, there is the argument that its not our sanctions but the dictator himself who is hurting innocent people. All well and fine, but there are limits to this. Firstly, if the people in question themselves aren’t buying the argument, you’re still left with the blame which may undermine your actual policy objective, getting rid of the dictator. Secondly, one’s allies must also buy it. This appears to be less and less the case. As some point the moral responsibility does indeed shift in the rest of the world’s eyes. And like it or not, one can not go it alone in the world (or rather it is counter-productive to do so).

One must provide a rational for sanctions. As noted in the prior messages, Saddam not being our friend is not a sufficient rational for most. Nor is his being a threat. There are lots of bad people in the world, rather one needs to ask if the threat merits the measures. Further, Saddam being a future threat is quite vague and ignores the possibility of alternate sanctions also achieving the same goal (preventing Saddam from threatening Gulf oil supplies). It should be noted that the Gulf Arabs don’t buy this. As our entire rational for exerting power in the area revolves around access to their oil, we should reasonably consider their opinion in forming new policy.

(Final note: What butt kissing is being referred to in the Mid East? I haven’t seen any butt kissing, perhaps my definition varies. I’ll note that I don’t define compromise as butt kissing, rather its long-term thinking.)

18

Collunsbury, I’ve given the matter some thought, and I think we’re ignoring an important point.

For Saddam Hussein, this is all a matter of honor. He is holding off the Great American Enemy, showing that it was he who won in '91, showing that he will not be pushed around. To the U.S. this all may be a matter of realpolitik, but to him, it’s a pissing contest. This whole affair is, to him and to his people, completely personal. He must never show that he’s given in, and he must do anything possible to avenge the affront to Iraqi honor that the West bestowed upon him.

So what will happen if the U.S. ends the sanctions? There isn’t really any question about that. Within minutes, Saddam will declare himself victor against the United States, saying that he personally repelled the invaders. Anti-American (and other) terrorism will rise dramatically - the Americans are weak, foolish cowards, no? What’s more, he will be hailed as a hero by other Arab nations, and within a few months he will be the dominant leader in the area, ousting the relatively pro-West Mubarak from that position. The Middle East will become hostile to American interests, bad for American business, and whatever peace processes are still sputtering along will screech to a halt.

So my recommendation - keep the sanctions. Keep them until Saddam Hussein drops dead, and someone without an ax to grind seizes control of his country.

19

Wrong- what crippled Iraq was getting their butts kicked- in a war that they started. And, then Saddam crippling his own public by trying to rebuild an even bigger army. The infant mortality rates are caused by Saddam, and Saddam only. he has made a choice, perhaps & likely not a rational choice, but HIS choice to starve his OWN folks so he can have more toy tanks & palaces. The amount of oil being sold for “food”, etc, is HIGHER than it was pre-war, I beleive. I think things would get WORSE for the masses if sanctions were lifted, not better. Saddam would spent ALL the $$ on toy tanks & palaces. The santions are the only thing keeping the “masses” from complete starvation. And, Iraq is a complete dictatorship. Altho not every detail is run by the State, Saddam can if he wants to.

20

Sure Daniel, this has caused a long term decline in infant health? Of course sanctions applied across the board have had * nothing * to do with this. Right, like cities are never abandoned (except, except, except…)

Air strikes against Iraq clearly had a negative effect, in the immediate aftermath. Rebuilding, however, could be expected to occur without sanctions. And of course the overall decline in economic activity in Iraq is directly tied to sanctions.

No, they are not. Quite clearly sanctions crippled the entire Iraqi economy, whether tied to Saddam or not. Like in any situation, at some point the punishement begins to exceed the crime. For you, it obviously has not. For much of the rest of the world, given what we know of world opinion, it has.

No idea myself, not having checked on this, but do you mean in the last six months since the increase in oil prices? Are we talking $ per barrel income or real gross income (adjusted for inflation one hopes)? Give us some citation for context. In any case, you utterly ignore my point that the Iraqi state and the Iraqi economy are not one in the same, although certainly the state sector is a major player.

Given the population would once more be able to engage in relatively free commerce, this seems like a non-factual assertion mostly based on your hatred for Saddam.

I’m sure Iraqi state revenues will go to the larger extent possible to keeping up Saddam’s security forces, but then I proposed not a full lifting of sanctions but an arms embargo. Small and medium arms surely will slip through, truly significant heavy arms however are much more interdictable, especially given Iraqi border situation (they have no friends.).

On Saddam and Honor:

First, I think the “honor” issue is on our side as much as Saddam’s. Rational analysis does not seem terribly welcome actually. What we actually here from American sources is a bunch of chest beating and bad WWII analogies. In fact your analysis strikes me as 100% off base

Now, certainly no matter what Saddam is going to declare victory regardless of what happens. A partial lifting of sanctions will be declared by Saddam to be a victory. Big deal. What counts is how the inevitable partial lifting will occur. Does the USA get out ahead and recapture moral high ground, or do the sanctions slowly crumble as everyone else slowly backs away while we remain in a bellicose, inflexible position? Redefining sanctions to remove the more obvious moral objections (our arguments about Saddam being the source being well-taken but now exhausted for apparently most other countries) while maintaining an effective regime to prevent Iraq from rebuilding a major army capable of projecting force outside of its own borders.

As for terrorism, in fact, as I read local opinion --I mean local mid-east opinion, the sanctions are as much an argument ** for ** attacks against the USA as anything.

First, one has to understand Saddam is not popular as a person/leader among the folks who are presently the real threat in the region --religious extremists. In fact everyone know’s he’s an impious fuck. He’s only popular or rather sympathized as a victim of American Aggression, to use the favored phrase. Without that little hobby horse to ride, he’s not got much punch. Second, to think sanctions actually intimidates these folks is truly mistaken. Any more than some blindly shot off cruise missiles. Rather they validate the whole thing for these guys.

Now, in regards to the pro-Western regimes, your analysis is quite wrong here, imho. Frankly, folks like Mubarek and the Gulf governments are on shakey ground with the sanctions. You will find 0 support on the ground for sanctions. The stunning fall in Iraqi living standards is largely blamed on the big bad USA, so Mubarek and company find tmeselves facing publics who are highly displeased with American sanctions against Iraq. Actually feeds into rising anti-Americanism (along with the Israeli crisis, for right or wrong).

Of course, a retailored sanctiosn regime, one which responds to Egyptian and Gulf critiques of the current one, would strengthen our position. Blind insistance on the current regime is not stregnthening such, quite the contrary.