Comments on: Child malnutrition in Iraq

By: Where's The Beef?

Where's The Beef? — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:32:11 +0000

roger, in this instance sophistry is both an unaffordable indulgence and an evasion of responsibility. Are you proud of the following comment you made upthread? >>What I would like to know is — are the Americans using the same Iraqi mass grave diggers that Saddam employed as they dump the “insurgent” bodies in Falluja. Wouldn’t that be neat? Getting an Iraqi industry back on its feet again. We really are a highly moral people. —- To reiterate to roger and to other commentators and readers here: if the post at the top of this thread nudged your complain-o-meter, have you plans to take action, or have you already taken action of some sort, to address the reported malnutrition in Iraq?

By: roger

roger — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:30:31 +0000

Where’s the beef, you seem a little behind the news. Not only did I—disloyal to the occupation cause—think that the razing of Fallujah was an atrocity, but it seems to have made a big impression on “Iraqis of all faiths”—or at least, to be more honest, on Sunnis and Kurds. The U.S. policy has turned towards selecting ethnic and religious groups to victimize, the sort of strategy Milosovic used in the 90s in the breakup of Yugoslavia. The preferred victims: sunnis. The goal: associate Allawi with the revenge faction among the Shi’ite in order to prevent him from sinking in a possible free election into non-entity hood against Sadr. Paranoid delusion? Well, something like that idea must animate our former good friend Adnan Adnan Pachachi—remember, the guy who sat behind Laura Bush at one of the CoC’s state of the union blatherfests?—and the two largest parties of Kurds, who are urging that elections be postponed now. Meanwhile, hawks like Charles Krauthammer salivate publicly about the U.S. “using factions”, ie promoting civil war, in order to promote its larger aim, hegemony in Iraq. As for putting myself in harm’s way in Iraq—alas, I can barely afford to put myself in harm’s way in Austin, Texas, due to an economy that submits the low end wage earner, such as myself, to a punishing regime of unemployment and inflationary fiscal policy. So volunteering isn’t a charity I can afford. Which actually makes little difference—the idea that I am going to “help” Iraqis, whose language I don’t know, whose history shows a clear ability to help themselves, who suffer from a rate of unemployment that could allieviated to some extent if all those “helpful” Western tech folk were replaced by their Iraqi counterparts (pity the country whose unemployment problem is compounded by an influx of “helpful” Americans) and who, in my opinion, need to be disinvested of foreign forces—American, British, Wahabi, Iranian, etc.—rather than infested with further specimens of same.

By: Where's The Beef?

Where's The Beef? — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:28:07 +0000

>>>The article makes grim reading for anyone concerned about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Are you moved to take action to aid these children? Are they on your Holiday wish list yet? There are hospitals, schools, and food suppliers who have been risking their lives to do so. At least one prominent CARE worker has been butchered by the enemy simply for doing good deeds. The Red Cross workers and their depots are also targets of the enemy. And more than a few people in Coalition and Iraqi uniforms have been at risk—some killed—in protecting the providers of aid. Human shields may or may not be effective but I wonder how grim things need to get before someone among the commentators on this popular website organizes care packages or lobbies their Representatives to push for getting even more aid to the Iraqi people. Maybe the voices of the American people can light a fire under the arses of the UN to get itself onside with the Iraqi people and make a full court press. >>>What I would like to know is — are the Americans using the same Iraqi mass grave diggers that Saddam employed as they dump the “insurgent” bodies in Falluja. Wouldn’t that be neat? Getting an Iraqi industry back on its feet again. We really are a highly moral people. There’s ambiguity in your bold remarks. Are you one of “the Americans” or are you one of the “highly moral people” you mock? Look, if the death toll escalated among civilians to the extent that the Lancet has guesstimated, then, the volume of burials would hardly go unnoticed. That study and this new one on malnutirtion both would face a similar constraint in the collection of valid data. Their guesstimates deserve greater scrutiny all round. As for the deaths of the enemy combattants, their aim was to kill women and men in uniform. To kill Iraqis and other Coaliton members in uniform. To kill civillians—Iraqis of all faiths, ethnicities, sexes, and ages. To demoralize the good people like yourself who watch from a distance. They’d kill you and me if they thought it would terrorize even more Americans and Iraqis. Want to come with me to see for yourself? Besides, they ran their own little cottage industry in the manufacture of instruments of terror in Falluja. The dismembered and unburied bodies on their watch may be worthy of mockery as well, perhaps? Reread your comments and see if you can return to tell the group her that you are proud of what you wrote.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:23:28 +0000

You will already have seen the extraordinary lengths the US has gone to protect civilians in the critical operation to secure Falluja for the Sistani backed elections, so I don’t have to mention that. I have “seen” nothing of the kind. We’ve been told about these “extraordinary lengths” by representatives of the US military, and by embedded reporters whose work (not to mention physical safety) is entirely dependent upon the approval of said military. What I have “seen,” on the other hand, is that if civilians were endangered by US military actions, the Pentagon would see no compelling reason to tell us about it—nor would the “liberal media” see any reason to report it.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:14:04 +0000

Juan Cole’s post about the lack of moral equivalence was, frankly, a little odd coming from someone who thinks the Lancet study should be taken seriously and also given what he has said both before and after that one. I agree that one shouldn’t compare the actions of a soldier in combat (even if it turns out to be a war crime) to the cold-blooded killing of a hostage. One action is bad (if it was a war crime) but the other is worse. But Abu Ghraib is on the same level as hostage-killing, and bombing Fallujah with the hope (admitted in the press) that the suffering of the civilians would drive a wedge between them and the insurgents is what I’d call terrorism. Rule of thumb—when someone says there is no moral equivalence between the actions of X and Y, there’s probably a good argument for saying that there is.

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:45:24 +0000

Zachary, About the article by Richard Garfield, “Studies on young child malnutrition in Iraq: problems and insights, 1990-1999.” you wrote: “If anyone would like to know about the methdological difficulties of conducting studies of child nutrition in Iraq, and determining secular trends, this paper would seem to be a good choice (I haven’t read it, though, and it’s not available on line):” It might be on line. Garfield’s website has a link to his Publications in “NLM’s PubMed,” which appears to be a professional data base. The article above is #5 on the list the link displays. I don’t know how access works but you might. Good luck. By the way, Garfield is one of the authors of the Lancet study. Small world. (; -)

By: roger

roger — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:21:40 +0000

George, from the bottom first: The incursion into Falluja was objected to by Iraq’s current “interim” president, while it was supported by Allawi—who is misrespresented by your account. He isn’t a brave man who opposed Saddam Hussein, but a cowardly hit man for Saddam Hussein who turned against him and proceded to employ exactly the tactics that the insurgents now employ against the Iraqi/American government. The invasion of Fallujah was not, as you say, an example of humanity. Rather, it was designed to be inhuman. First, no effort was made to involve any agency in the construction of refugee camps before the assault, even though the Americans announced it in order to drive around 200,000 people from the city. Those people underwent a culling, as Americans wouldn’t allow young men to leave. Then, the assault began with the bombing of a hospital. The heavy use of force has the consequences we can see on this site: fallujapictures.blogspot.com/ . Judge for yourself about the ferocity of the attack. The use of white phosphor has the effect, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, of burning the skin—of, in effect, operating like napalm. So yes, it is like Hussein’s use of chemical warfare. It is not a harmless substance, nor is meant to be. The ghost prisoners at Abu Ghraib have been admitted to by the Pentagon. They were specifically kept from the Red Cross. As for the cages and torture chambers found in Fallujah—I have no doubt Zarquawi’s group uses torture. And I have no doubt the Americans do, too. As for the Mukhabaret that the CIA is reconstructing, I suspect they probably do too. I agree that “we should never let down brave Iraqis democrats.” That is why we should support the overthrow of Allawi through peaceful means. One way of doing this is to support letting Al Jazeera and other media operate in Iraq—at the present time, Allawi’s government, operating according to the traditional Saddamist template, is trying to suppress any media that isn’t pro-government, as well as using the courts and various militia to ban or kill his opposition. Hopefully, the election to come will spin out of the hands of the Americans. In which case, we might have an interim government that demands a timetable for withdrawal. This is probably much too optimistic a hope—the Americans have managed many a faked election, and I expect this one to be run on the Marcos standard. In the run up to this one, however, the Americans are using a tool even I did not expect—the exaggeration of religious differences, the identification of Allawi with Shiite force against the Sunnis, and the general tactic, so successful for Milosevic in Serbia, of exterminating some enemy. Clever, inhumane, and ultimately what one would expect from the Bush crew.

By: nic

nic — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:16:01 +0000

I’m glad that’s over and done with. Yes, reality is so antiamerican. Let’s kill it too.

By: George

George — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:52:59 +0000

I'd have to say you're wrong on that, Roger. Of course, the legal international security forces are not in anyway using the same tactics, or are equivalent to, the terrorists they are trying to stop. You will already have seen the extraordinary lengths the US has gone to protect civilians in the critical operation to secure Falluja for the Sistani backed elections, so I don't have to mention that. The whole operation was designed to rid the town of the illegal insurgency that was using Falluja as a base to launch attacks on Iraq's state infrastructure, to assassinate anyone working for the legal government, and murdering anyone trying to rebuild the country. Al Qaeda's headquarters have been discovered, along with their torture cells, removing any doubts some may have had about the rightness of the mission. There are of course mistakes and various incidents that don't always meet the extremely high standards we expect, which are to be investigated, but clearly there is no moral equivalence between the US forces and the terrorists, and it would be absurd for anyone to suggest there was. The red cross do indeed have access to prisoners. The Americans very much want the aid agencies to come back to Iraq, which is why the Falluja operation was such a necessity. You are right that it is an irony that aid agencies based in London - that have nobody on the ground in Iraq, and release statements based on what they have picked up off the evening news - would voice concerns about such a critical operation for the future of Iraq. But that is the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. In the case of the Iraqi red crescent trying to get into Falluja, it was extremely impractical and dangerous for them to be roaming the streets at that time; the Iraqi ministry of health was already taking case of business, which is why initial reports of a humanitarian crisis proved totally unfounded. White phosphorus is a standard fireball weapon used on enemy bunkers and vehicles, and is not equivalent to a chemical weapon in any sense - that's why you don't have to wear protective equipment like a chemical suit to use it, and why there is contamination. To compare the careful use of this weapon to the deliberate and indiscriminate gassing of 7000 civilians in Halabja, would be crass in the extreme. I was pleased to have seen the Iraqis object to any sort of time table on the withdrawal of the international security forces at the Egyptian conference. To do so would have given the terrorists a date which they could plan to hold out until, which would embolden them. We should never let down brave Iraqis democrats, such as Dr Allawi, who opposed Saddam's regime every day it was in power over 25 years; especially at this extremely important time for Iraq. The elections that some falsely claimed would never happen, leaving egg on their face, are only weeks away. We can only leave when Iraq is victorious.

By: vernaculo

vernaculo — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:30:09 +0000

Jet- Thank you from all of us. – Jet- Thank you from all of us. – Jet- Thank you from all of us. – Javier- My sincerest compliments for your decorum and insistence on accuracy. A lot of us are so far outside any truly verifiable system of information, and unskilled in the technical processes of verification anyway, that it requires an emotional insistence and suppression of doubt that has no basis other than intuition, or hope, to take any kind of stand at all. Still, the US government is by its own admission no longer concerned with consensus reality, only the fabrication of its own. Under that circumstance emotional truth may prove to be more accurate than any statistic. I admire those who wade in to the effluent stream and analyze it. But it is effluent. That it has bits of identifiable fact in it doesn’t counteract the stench.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:24:50 +0000

George, have to disagree. First, the question isn’t whether to side with Zarqawi or the Americans. There are plenty of other groups in Iraq, from Sadr and Chalabi, that bizarre duo, to the Communists. Second, both the terrorists and the Occupiers are using the same tactics—terrorist bombing, torture, etc. In the American case, there are reports that the troops used white phosphorus in Fallujah, making that form of warfare the moral equivalent of Saddam’s war against the Kurds. Third, the U.S. has banned aid workers from its prison and holding centers, bombed hospitals, and kept the red cross from delivering timely aid in Fallujah. So if you are concerned about Iraqis getting help from aid workers, you might be interested to know that the Red Cross has denounced both the insurgents and the Americans. Not only do I support a troop pull out, I believe that if a schedule of withdrawal had been drawn up last year, there would be less violence this year. After the destruction of Fallujah, the presence of occupation troops has moved from being arguably positive to being inarguably negative. They are simply being used as instruments of the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis. A weapon in the hand of an ex-Ba’athist appointed by the American chosen IGC. There’s no difference between Iraq and, say, American support for the death squad regimes in El Salvador.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:52:56 +0000

Real convincing rant there George. Glad you set us all straight.

By: George

George — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:43:33 +0000

“One of the points made most insistently by critics of the Lancet study was that they disbelieved the claim that infant mortality had increased since the war.” Really? Isn’t that obvious? If terrorists are blowing up the countries infrastructure, bombing the water treatment plants, and targeting anyone who’s trying to run government services, then I would have thought it to be expected that child mortality, and mortality from decease and terroist attacks amongst the rest of the population, would go up. That’s indeed what I thought made up a lot of this ridiculous Lancet figure. But as we know, most of these deaths were absurdly blamed on US arial bombardments; I think the events in Falluja, and the fact that we now have documented evidence of locals claiming, without embarrassment or hesitation, that the dead men found with guns they are digging graves for, were woman and children, of just civilian men out for a walk, puts the Lancet study to bed once and for all. This is precisely why this sort of study has never been conducted in a live war zone before, and why it must never happen again to avoid phoney statistics being used for propagandist purposes in this way. The Lancet authors knew this, but they pressed ahead anyway – shame on them. This child malnutrition figure also puts shame on anyone who supports the terrorist, and their campaign to assassinate government officials, aid workers like Margaret Hassan, and target the key infrastructure needed for the Iraqi people. Nobody could now credibly argue that a troop pull out is the right thing for Iraqis, or that it was wrong to go into Falluja and deal with these fuckers, so that aid agencies can return to Iraq without fear of being beheaded. I’m glad that’s over and done with.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:23:39 +0000

Old style imperialism was a bit more honest at least. It wasn’t. The old-style imperialism was carried out under exactly the same pretext with only slightly different terminology: to civilize savages, to teach them benefits of the law and order, and so on.

By: Zackary Sholem Berger

Zackary Sholem Berger — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:47:11 +0000

Ah, that’s more like it! Thanks! Here’s what seems to be the central paragraph about how the study was done: “The new data on child health comes from a UNICEF-supported household survey of malnutrition among children under five that was conducted in the south and center of Iraq by the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the Central Statistical Organization in February 2002.” Now I’d like to know if there’s anything different about the south and center of Iraq compared to the rest of it. (I guess that’s excluding the Kurdish region? Excuse my Iraq-ignorance.) And, of course, there’s still the nagging question about selection methods. The link to the full study is broken, though. So frustrating! I’ve e-mailed UNICEF to see if I can get a copy.