Practical humanitarian issues, was Re: (Iraq) This war a meatgrinder for the U.S.?

From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 19:56:42 MST

  • Next message: Hal Finney: "Re: SARS: latest news"

    I appreciate the desire to look at humanitarian issues.

    On 27 Mar 2003 20:32:47 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal@smigrodzki.org>
    wrote:

    > On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 13:06, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
    > Let's be clear here:
    >> Taking Baghdad is very possible. Taking it without substantial
    >> losses on the side of the Coalition forces _and_ without large
    >> civilian casualties looks impractical if the Iraqis decide to go
    >> down fighting. It will be very interesting to see how the Coalition
    >> forces intend to go about this.
    >>
    > ### One option is to set up food and other aid dispensing areas right
    > outside the city, and invite all civilians to go out and take what they
    > need, while denying this to the military. Young men who come for aid
    > would not be let back into the city and would be diverted to temporary
    > refugee camps. Women and children returning to the city could be
    > fingerprinted, and issued only enough food for themselves, to eliminate
    > transfers to the military.

    Umm, forgive me, but what stops them from getting hijacked by the first
    pair of strong arms (or AK) that crosses their path? "It takes about two
    weeks to starve, as a rough rule of thumb. Be nice, keep your mouth shut
    and go back tomorrow for your next dole-out, and *maybe* we'll let you eat
    some of it."

    > Then all you need is sit and wait, although if the Baathists decide to
    > starve their own population, this could be costly to the average Iraqis.

    OK, sounds like you *are* thinking of that possibility. I consider it
    likely, if "food" == "food provided by the Great Satan".

    > Sooner, rather than later, the city's inhabitants would rise and get rid
    > of their oppressors, ending the war. There would be no Coalition losses
    > and no losses inflicted by the Coalition.

    Perhaps. And perhaps your diverting the young men to refugee camps would in
    part make the remaining family members even more subject to oppression over
    time, without young men in place to rebel. I can't tell if that counts as
    "losses inflicted by the Coalition" or not. But I guarantee that if I were
    such a young man, interned while my family suffered, I wouldn't think
    kindly of my internors. Ever.

    Make the women and children eat the food while they're outside? Then they
    get treated badly when they return, as "examples" of what happens to
    "sympathizers". Forced to vomit it up, maybe, even. While being videotaped.

    I see no way to force _any_ Baathists to act in a humane manner short of
    direct person-on-person intervention forcing them to restrict their
    behavior. And that's expensive and probably horrible work.

    MMB



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 20:04:37 MST