America's 'inaction' and Iraq

This viewpoint is in response to Jonathan Perle's viewpoint in support of the future US attack/invasion of Iraq. Mr. Perle wrote with great confidence that this invasion/attack will be beneficial for the world, especially for the Iraqi people who will have "democracy" imposed on them. I, as an Iraqi-American, with family in Iraq, disagree with him.

The US had not been without action for the past 12 years. The US has been practicing "siege warfare" as used in the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages this referred to when one warlord would surround the castle of another and try to starve the defenders into submission. Today this is called sanctions. Sanctions may not be forcing the US to do anything but they are causing every Iraqi to run around each day in search for a means to survive to see tomorrow.

Where should I start? If not for being in America, I would be one of a whole generation now growing up with their future blighted by sanctions. Take Iraq's collapsing education system: One in four Iraqi children now drops out of school. According to UNICEF, one in eight Iraqi children still do not make it to the age of five, with malnutrition to blame for 60 percent of their deaths. In a country with no proper economy, the vast majority of Iraqi families rely on government food rations to survive and some have to sell them to meet other basic needs.

UNICEF says the situation had been getting progressively better since the UN's Oil-for-Food Program was introduced. But it is one of the most inefficient systems ever. Imagine trying to constantly restock a refrigerator for 23 million people. Wouldn't it be better to give the people tools to be able to provide themselves with food (restore the economy, help rebuild infrastructure etc.) rather than throwing them their rations? This one program was never meant to replace an entire national economy.

What about Saddam's mighty regime? They hit the jackpot with sanctions. With the population weak and the black market completely under their control, all deaths that result from starvation and inefficiency from Oil-for-Food, the Baathis can blame on outside forces.

Although I look at past history and I already know that sanctions have never worked in any other country, I will offer a realistic alternative to those who see war as the only solution. I believe the US, and the rest of the UN could have reformed and restructured the sanctions many times in these past 12 years so as to fill up the holes and perhaps make them achieve their intended goal.

The entire world saw Saddam grow stronger, why not change the sanctions against him? Instead, Saddam was left alone and contained while the US was busy fighting other things. And now their plan to "action" is just as sloppily thought out and will be just as ineffective as all their previous ones.

We can't forget that for nearly 12 years, the US and UK have been bombing Iraq continually, the longest US bombing campaign since Vietnam. The Washington Post reported that the US and UK had flown 280,000 sorties over Iraq. Iraqis are faced with terror from the bombing almost every day. On Aug. 25, 2002, for example, US planes bombed the city of Basra, killing eight more people. How is this inaction?

Mr. Perle shared in his viewpoint that war happens and people do die. That is something he may accept. Being an IR major myself, I know we have all been taught this "realist" way of thinking. I don't accept it.

There are over 40 bomb shelters in Baghdad built in the 1980s. I want Baghdad to one day be a city that does not invite war. I want these bomb shelters erased from Iraq's memory. Just because realism, which supports conventional warfare, is the dominant ideology in America, it doesn't mean we shouldn't start building ways to reduce militarism and violence in our lives both in the US and in Iraq. There are other non-military alternatives.

Lastly, I want to point out that an image of a democratic Iraq the "day after" the invasion and attack is mere illusion. This war will not be fought for democracy or because of this "sudden" threat to the US from Baghdad. Iraq is merely an opportunity for the US to control the region, plain and simple. The possible "successors" to Saddam have been called by the British Sunday Herald, "corrupt, feckless, and downright dangerous. Some say they even make the "Butcher of Baghdad" look good."

Here is a brief overview of who they might be: Neither the Iraqi Communist Party nor the Islamic Call, who are both groups that exist within Iraq, will replace the Baathis. They are intensely persecuted by Saddam's regime, are not liked by the West, and strongly oppose a US invasion.

Second, neither will the groups representing sectarian or ethnic interests such as the four million Iraqi Kurds and the country's Shi'as (60 percent of the population). The US has sought their backing for its invasion plans, but they remain split within their own ranks, and have no chance of being installed in Saddam's place as they cannot claim to represent all Iraqis.

Third, there are the new groups, often formed under US auspices after 1990. The US has tried to encourage senior members of Iraq's military and civilian establishments to defect to the West. It is from these groups that the US will select the new rulers if they succeed in ousting Saddam.

So who are these lovely chaps? We have General Al-Khazraji, who was Saddam's chief of staff until 1991, leading the army through the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. He left Iraq in 1996. He led the 48-hour chemical weapons attack which poisoned and burned 5000 Kurdish civilians in the town of Halabja in 1988!

Hmmm... this one is hard to beat... but perhaps General Al-Salihi can try. Salihi played a significant military role in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and was a commander of Saddam's top division, the Republican Guard. He was also engaged in putting down the uprising against Saddam 's rule that followed Iraq's defeat by US-led forces in 1991.

And last but not least is Mr. Chalabi. He came to international attention not for his politics, but for fleeing to London from Jordan in 1989 amid allegations of embezzling millions from a bank he used to own. Chalabi took the reins of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization created in 1992 with the assistance of the CIA. Although he never showed up at his trial, if he ever decides to go to Jordan, he will begin his 32 years in prison.

I know, it's a hard to tell. Which one will be the better democrat? No one wants Saddam to go more than myself. Iraqis are the ones who truly suffered under him. It is we who lived choking in fear and witnessed, ate and drank the bloodshed and murder of this regime. But I do not (along with the many other Iraqis) support this attack/invasion.



Rana Abdul-Aziz is a senior majoring in international relations and Middle Eastern Studies.