# Who was responsible for the deaths under UN sanctions on Iraq?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 8, 2003, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862 "2003-05-08T07:53:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/21 "2003-05-09T14:13:39Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tagos \*
> IMHO again, any 6 figure number is too much blood on the hands of sanctions imposers, and by extension, their supporters, which included me originally.
Why? From the beginning the sanction imposers offered the oil-for-food option. Saddam refused to use it until 1997. Once it was put in place, according to Garfield, the deaths effectively ended.
Do the sanction imposers bear any blame for the deaths when Saddam refused to use the method explicitly offered to avoid those deaths?
Sua
\*This argument, of course, assumes that Garfield’s analysis is correct.
---
### Author:  [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/22 "2003-05-09T14:19:30Z")
Ack, one other caveat. Even if oil-for-food started from the get-go, there would still have been additional deaths, as the sanctions lessened the GDP of Iraq, and poverty correlates with higher mortality rates.
Dunno is anyone has, or can, put a number on that hypothetical situation.
Sua
---
### Author:  [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/23 "2003-05-09T14:36:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*
> \*\*Why? From the beginning the sanction imposers offered the oil-for-food option. Saddam refused to use it until 1997. Once it was put in place, according to Garfield, the deaths effectively ended.
>
> Do the sanction imposers bear any blame for the deaths when Saddam refused to use the method explicitly offered to avoid those deaths?
>
> Sua
>
> \*This argument, of course, assumes that Garfield’s analysis is correct. \*\*
Yes, morally they share the blame with Saddam. Whether, given the nature of the Saddam regime, it was an unavoidable price that had to be paid is another question but in the end a lot of people died from sanctions we imposed and continued even when it was becoming clear what the consequences were.
It’s easy to salve our consciences by saying it was all Saddam’s fault but to me that’s too glib. In the end the west designed and maintained a sanctions regime that punished a tyrannised people for the actions of their ruler.
100,000 + dead children cannot be dismissed with a realpolitick shrug. We could have lifted the sanctions for the sake of the Iraqi people.
For whatever reason, good or bad, we did not and so, yes, I think at the end of the day we have to share responsibility even if we believe it was necessary, which I reiterate is another argument.
---
### Author:  [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/24 "2003-05-09T16:02:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tagos \*
> It’s easy to salve our consciences by saying it was all Saddam’s fault but to me that’s too glib. In the end the west designed and maintained a sanctions regime that punished a tyrannised people for the actions of their ruler.
But actually, the west designed and maintained a sanctions regime that would have (as post '97 events attest) fed the Iraqi people. Saddam refused to cooperate with that regime, and, as a consequence, people died.
It’s akin to a prisoner on a hunger strike. If the prisoner dies from malnutrition, is it the warden’s fault? The food was right there for the prisoner to eat.
Sua
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/25 "2003-05-09T16:41:33Z")
Maybe it’s _just_ me, but the writer was way harder on one side of the issue than the other. Anyway, the following struck me as relevant:
> [@](#):
>
> (He recently updated the latter figure to 350,000 through this year.) Of those deaths, he estimated one-quarter were “mainly associated with the Gulf war.” The chief causes, in his view, were “contaminated water, lack of high quality foods, inadequate breast feeding, poor weaning practices, and inadequate supplies in the curative health care system. This was the product of both a lack of some essential goods, and inadequate or inefficient use of existing essential goods.”
I hope we’re not blaming Saddam for improper breast-feeding. He also notes that sanctions like these often lead to reduced purchases of medical goods and the like even when the embargo doesn’t target them specifically. The lack of medical equipment, not just the oil-for-food program, gets a lot of the blame here, and most of the posts I’ve seen don’t address this.
> [@](#):
>
> Ultimately, Garfield argued, sanctions played an undeniably important role. “Even a small number of documentable excess deaths is an expression of a humanitarian disaster, and this number is not small,” he concluded. “[And] _excess deaths should…be seen as the tip of the iceberg among damages to occur among under five-year-olds in Iraq in the 1990s…The humanitarian disaster which has occurred in Iraq far exceeds what may be any reasonable level of acceptable damages according to the principles of discrimination and proportionality used in warfare_…To the degree that economic sanctions complicate access to and utilization of essential goods, sanctions regulations should be modified immediately.”
My emphasis. 350,000 possible deaths is plenty (which is not to downplay the importance of being accurate), and that’s not even the end of it. Damage that will harm many was also done in removing Saddam and after.
---
### Author:  [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/26 "2003-05-09T18:10:01Z")
If Saddam is not to blame, why are the Elite Republican guard well uniformed, healthy, have brand new tanks and anti-GPS devices?
If Saddam is not to blame, why were over a billion US dollars found in the hideout of a Saddam loyalist which may not even be the same billion that was stolen by Saddams son.
How can the regime smuggle in (illegal) dual purpose devices for farming as found by Blix and co, but not make the same effort for cancer equipment and drugs?
If these cancer patients were really an issue and they cant import the medicine and equipment (which they say they are were more than ready to buy) why didnt they just spend the money allocated to buy equipment and drugs to send the patients to a neighboring country that has the facilities?
and what about all those presidential palaces with the marble floors and the gold faucets and crystal chadeliers, not just one but 20 of them all throught Iraq, some constructed after sanctions were imposed. And what about those legendary bunkers? those must be a fortune to build. Those dont even take into account the personal homes of the elite guard and higher ups and their secret hideouts, not to mention Odays “love shack”.
Saddam can freely spend 10 thousand dollars (each) for the family of a suicide bomber in Palestine but wont do the same to the family of a child dying of cancer? According to Saddam, these children are patriots because they are dying of the spent uranium leftover from the first gulf war. I guess Iraqi patriots dont need compensation.
The billions spent obtaining marginally acceptable items for use in war could just as easily have been spent on those “suffering under UN sanctions”. Less would have died and Saddam couldve been more credible in his call for the end of sanctions. As it is, those who died because of US sanctions can be counted with the other poeple whom Saddam had killed. These he merely allowed to die.
---
### Author:  [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/27 "2003-05-09T19:25:21Z")
The banning of chlorine apparently was one of the reasons that Iraq had poor sanitation and hence a high rate of disease.
Here’s a snippet from an article that references a declassified Defense Intelligence Agency
> [@](#):
>
> The primary document, “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.
>
> “Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline,” the document states. “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.”
> …
> Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."
>
> The document notes that the importation of chlorine “has been embargoed” by sanctions. “Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low.”
> Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. “Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants,” it says.
article source: [http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html](http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html)
the declassified document: [http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/old\_site/pages/139.htm](http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/old_site/pages/139.htm)
So apparently many deaths can be directly attributed to the sanctions, not Saddam’s missappropriation.
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/28 "2003-05-09T19:35:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Then by that “logic”, can’t I also place a majority share of the blame on Ronald Reagan and his Administration? After all, if the Reaganites hadn’t given Saddam Hussein military and financial aid during the Iran-Iraq war, then Iranians would have steamrolled over Saddam and avoided all this.
>
> That is a broad and likely unsupportable statement.
Maybe, but the Reagan administration certainly believed that Iraq would fall if the U.S. didn’t step in:
> [@](#):
>
> In June 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. **President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.** President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive (“NSDD”) to this effect in June 1982. I have personal knowledge of this NSDD because I co-authored the NSDD with another NSC Staff Member, Geoff Kemp. The NSDD, including even its identifying number, is classified.
>
> **CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war.** Pursuant to the secured NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required.
>
> _…snip…_
>
> I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the Iranian attacks. When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were **a perfect “force multiplier” that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the “human waves” of Iranian attackers.** I recorded those comments in the minutes of National Security Planning Group (“NSPG”) meetings in which Casey or Gates participated.
–Sworn testimony of [Howard Techier,](http://www.webcom.com/%7Elpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm) former National Security Council official
> [@](#):
>
> I’m not defending the Reaganites’ conduct, but given (i) Iraq’s better financial situation at the time, (ii) the greater professionalism and better equipment of the Iraqi military at the time, and (iii) Iran’s ideological decision to abandon proper military tactics (the greatest and most grosteque example being its use of human-wave martyr attacks), I doubt that the Reaganite aid did more than shorten the war in Iraq’s favor.
All those points only came about because Reagan stepped in. If he hadn’t, Saddam Hussein would probably not have lived long enough for GeeDubyaBush to rattle sabers against.
---
### Author:  [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/29 "2003-05-09T20:02:51Z")
> [@](#):
>
> ## _by rjung_ quote:
>
> ## I’m not defending the Reaganites’ conduct, but given (i) Iraq’s better financial situation at the time, (ii) the greater professionalism and better equipment of the Iraqi military at the time, and (iii) Iran’s ideological decision to abandon proper military tactics (the greatest and most grosteque example being its use of human-wave martyr attacks), I doubt that the Reaganite aid did more than shorten the war in Iraq’s favor.
>
> All those points only came about because Reagan stepped in. If he hadn’t, Saddam Hussein would probably not have lived long enough for GeeDubyaBush to rattle sabers against.
Huh? Point No. 3, for example, was purely on the _Iranian_ side. How da heck did Reagan support for Iraq cause the Iranians to use ill-fated tactics?
Iranian tactics in that war came about because a big chunk of the Iranian officer corps was purged after the revolution, and revolutionary ideology led to a concept of “allow yourself to be martyred to defeat the enemy.” As Patton noted, the idea is not to die for your country, it’s to make the other SOB die for his.
Said ideology also asserted that religious fervor was a perfectly fine substitute for training. A belief disproven by unbelievable losses amongst the Pasdaran.
As for point #2 Iraq was better equipped because it hadn’t been cut off from its weapons supply. Iran had US weapons - and couldn’t get replacements, spare parts, etc., while Iraq had Soviet weapons - and could.
Quite frankly (no cites, just my own analysis), I don’t think US military support could have been that effective, as US supplies would have been incompatiable with the Iraqis Soviet weapons.
Finally, for point No. 1, Iran’s economy was a mess after the revolution, while Iraq’s was humming along pretty well (can’t find GDP data for that long ago, so going on memory). I strongly doubt that US aid is was made the Iraqi economy stronger than the Iranian one at the time.
Sua
---
### Author:  [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)
#### Post date: [May 9, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862/30 "2003-05-09T20:26:40Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by tagos \*
> \*\*
> 100,000 + dead children cannot be dismissed with a realpolitick shrug. We could have lifted the sanctions for the sake of the Iraqi people.
> \*\*
The article said “100,000 dead.” Not “100,000 children dead.” Major difference.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-was-responsible-for-the-deaths-under-un-sanctions-on-iraq/173862.md?page=1)