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

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 21:26:53 MST

  • Next message: Emlyn O'regan: "RE: [WAR/IRAQ] American POW's"

    On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 21:56, Michael M. Butler wrote:
    > 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?

    ### Sorry, I should have mentioned that women and children would not be
    *forced* to go back to the city - they could stay in the refugee camps,
    safely with their men, as long as all of them agree not bring guns with
    them. Of course, this would require major amounts of food, and
    investment is infrastructure (including movie screens, and other
    propaganda assets), as well as protection of the people, but this is
    likely to be a small cost compared to having thousands killed as
    bystanders in urban warfare. Also, for PR value, feeding hungry people
    is much better than blowing them up.

    --------------------------
    >
    > 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.
    >
    ### Once the bad people are deprived of their human shields, effective
    means of persuasion can be safely brought to bear on them.

    As I was saying before, I am slightly against the war, but once it is
    initiated, it should be effectively and hopefully, cleanly, fought till
    the objective is achieved.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 21:35:06 MST