The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq

November 12, 2003 1:41 AM

"Bring 'Em On:" A Certain Four Horsemen Rein Up to Inquire of The Taunt -- or "The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq (PDF)." An independent survey just released by the UK global health charity Medact, finds that "the war on Iraq and its aftermath exacted a heavy toll on combatants and civilians, who paid and continue to pay the price in death, injury and mental and physical ill health. Between 21,700 and 55,000 people died between March 20 and October 20, 2003." According to the BBC, the report says that the "conflict and its aftermath have put the most vulnerable in society - women, children and the elderly - at risk", and "there has been a reported increase in maternal mortality rates, acute malnutrition has almost doubled from 4% to 8% in the last year and there is an increase in water-borne diseases and vaccine-preventable diseases."
posted by fold_and_mutilate (32 comments total)

On tap for "liberated" Iraq per the report: malnutrition, environmental degradation, fewer vaccinations, more crime, more unemployment, fewer educational opportunities for women, increased rates of suicide, greater disability, increased drug and alcohol abuse, more social and domestic violence.

But on a happier note, the report notes that Bagdad may soon get its first McDonald's: "'The Iraqi people would love a Big Mac and fries as much as the rest of the world,' says US Defense Department."
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:42 AM on November 12, 2003

So what are we really saying here? Ideas? Comments? Discuss.
posted by Witty at 2:03 AM on November 12, 2003

On tap for "liberated" Iraq per the report: malnutrition, environmental degradation, fewer vaccinations, more crime, more unemployment, fewer educational opportunities for women, increased rates of suicide, greater disability, increased drug and alcohol abuse, more social and domestic violence.

- Welcome to the utopia that is the american dream
posted by johnnyboy at 2:39 AM on November 12, 2003

So what are we really saying here? Ideas? Comments? Discuss.

I told you so?
posted by iamck at 2:53 AM on November 12, 2003

It would seem that Medact are saying that things have got worse in Iraq for the moment. I suppose that's not exactly unexpected given that there's been a war. However, I guess the real question is: Are the coallition and their policies going to turn that round in the near future and deliver the benefits to Iraqi civilians that they promised when they went to war?
posted by johnny novak at 2:53 AM on November 12, 2003

CIA: Iraq security to get worse

A recent CIA assessment of Iraq warns the security situation will worsen across the country, not just in Baghdad but in the north and south as well, a senior administration source told CNN Tuesday.

The report is a much more dire and ominous assessment of the situation than has previously been forwarded through official channels, this source said. It was sent to Washington Monday by the CIA station chief in Iraq.
posted by y2karl at 4:18 AM on November 12, 2003

it's kinda funny, and almost too appropriate, that Witty has taken to defending bush by feigning ignorance.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:57 AM on November 12, 2003

CIA: Iraq security to get worse



in fact,

Fourteen Italians are reported to have been killed in a bomb attack on their base in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya.
posted by matteo at 5:06 AM on November 12, 2003

...Witty has taken to defending bush...

I am?
posted by Witty at 5:49 AM on November 12, 2003

1) How can we trust any statistics relating to the treatment of the population at large during the Hussein regime?
2) If we left Iraq to its own devices now, would this bad situation improve, remain static, or get worse?
Assuming options 2 or 3, as option 1 has historically proven unlikely:
3) How screwed up were Germany and Japan in the years following WWII but preceding reconstruction efforts? How screwed up are they now?
3a) What can be done to ensure a similar reconstruction effort succeeds, and as rapidly as possible?
posted by darukaru at 5:57 AM on November 12, 2003

In what sense are you using the word "independent," foldy? There's an axe being ground, and I'm not even talking about the numbers. Case in point -- this "medical charity's" report includes the following:

Some of the weapons used are of doubtful legality, or
were used in illegal ways because they were
indiscriminate and/or were used in built-up areas

The democratisation process must be speeded up
with a clear timetable for handing over authority to
a legitimate interim Iraqi administration under the
auspices of and accountable to the UN.

The occupying powers must allow the UN to play
the central role in peacekeeping and in the
humanitarian and reconstruction process.

Proposed economic, social and political reforms
should be debated widely. Care should be taken
that economic liberalisation does not result in the
creation of monopolies and vested interest.

Cancel or substantially reduce Iraq’s sovereign debt
of $260 billion. Successful reconstruction will not
be possible if this is left to hang like a millstone
around the neck of a new democratic government.

For an "independent" "medical" "charity," they sure seem to have opinions on a lot of political issues.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:07 AM on November 12, 2003

It's actually at least 22 dead Italian soldiers in this morning's attack
posted by matteo at 6:08 AM on November 12, 2003

Feh. War sucks, who'dve thought it. "Innocent people" die, a society's most delicate are most at risk, film at eleven. To those who opposed the Operation Iraqi Imperialism, it just confirms what they said all along. To those who supported it, they've already written off these losses as necessary to their cause. Why post this, except to provoke yet another unwinnable, unendable MetaFilter debate on the topic?
posted by JollyWanker at 7:59 AM on November 12, 2003

Funny; I thought that when it came to foreign peacekeepers, the Italians were viewed as pretty likeable and nonthreatening (as compared to You Know Who). On the other hand, they're from out of state, as we say.

Was getting rid of Saddam worth this kind of suffering? (Of course, since his head's not on a pike outside 1600 Penn. Ave. yet, and apparently his hardcore supporters are pissing in the soup, I guess we can't even say we're "rid" of him, can we?)
posted by alumshubby at 8:11 AM on November 12, 2003

Awareness JollyWanker... a-fuckin'-wareness G. Otherwise we might think the world, and life for that matter, is just one big slice of coconut cream pie drifting in a pool of pineapple coulee.
posted by Witty at 8:13 AM on November 12, 2003

I have been scouring the Italian media coverage of the bombing of the Italian compound, as it could have serious repercussions.


http://reuters.feedroom.com is carrying unedited footage of the bombing, which is the deadliest attack against the coalition to date. The building partially collapsed and then caught on fire, so we could be looking at a lot of buried, trapped people who never really had a chance. Over 300 Italians and 150 Rumanians were based out of this facility, and most were asleep when the attack happened.

The Italians are viewing this as a major national tragedy, and the media is giving out emergency numbers for relatives to call. Depending on the final casualty count, this has the potential to seriously undermine the Italian government, who sent troops to Iraq despite overwhelming public opposition.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:17 AM on November 12, 2003

Pardonyou?: "For an "independent" "medical" "charity," they sure seem to have opinions on a lot of political issues."

You're right of course but that's simply the way that NGOs are - they try and sort things out on the ground and see the causal connection between act and effect.

While it might strike you as illegitimate that Medact have a view on, say, the use of napalm, when they're dealing with the consequences it behoves the organisation so to do.

In fact, for Medact not to have these perspectives which you would deem ancillary, would be akin to a doctor having an opinion on a symptom but not on the underlying condition.
posted by dmt at 9:32 AM on November 12, 2003

While it might strike you as illegitimate that Medact have a view on, say, the use of napalm, when they're dealing with the consequences it behoves the organisation so to do.

It doesn't strike me as illegitimate, per se. I was quibbling with foldy's use of the word "independent." And I guess I don't see how opining that "the occupying powers must allow the UN to play the central role in peacekeeping and in the humanitarian and reconstruction process" has anything to do with cause and effect. That strikes me as a purely political, anti-U.S. statement totally removed from an "independent" analysis of the health situation.
posted by pardonyou? at 9:40 AM on November 12, 2003

I still suspect that the administration is craftily creating the illusion that all Iraq is in chaos, just for the sake of Iraq suddenly getting "all better" about June before the election. I also suspect that it is so obvious in Washington, that the democratic candidates won't touch the issue, knowing that they would get burned later.

And, when an entire division (30,000) of Iraqi police re-enter the country back from training in eastern europe, there will be a serious drop-off of violence.
posted by kablam at 9:54 AM on November 12, 2003

pardonyou? please explain how involving the UN in the Iraq situation would be 'anti-US'.

They can be independent and have opinions on the situation. Their opinions would not effect the outcomes of their research, unless they were unscientific in their methods.

darukaru - 'How can we trust any statistics relating to the treatment of the population at large during the Hussein regime?'

How can we trust any statistics, ever? The stats relating to the treatment of the population of Iraq during the Hussein regime were of great interest to a proportion of the global population. They were compiled by Unicef, as well as those provided by the regime, they gave a good picture of the situation according to the Iraqis and Kurds that I know.

'3a) What can be done to ensure a similar reconstruction effort succeeds, and as rapidly as possible?'

Learning from past mistakes would be a start. Maybe involving various NGOs who have amassed an immense knowledgebase would be a positive step, some might say the obvious first step.

JollyWanker, I am interested that you feel you can speak for all parties on this subject. Is it not possible that people could change their opinions, given relevant information? When is more information a bad thing?

One thing is certain in my mind, the Iraq situation was avoidable and has been exascerbated by the incredible shortsightedness/ignorance/bellicoscity/arrogance (delete where appropriate) of the present US government. They need help, and lots of it, can they swallow this bitter pill?

kablam - 'And, when an entire division (30,000) of Iraqi police re-enter the country back from training in eastern europe, there will be a serious drop-off of violence.'

Another way of looking at that might be:

And, when an entire division (30,000) of Iraqi police re-enter the country back from training in eastern europe, there will be 30,000 more collaborators to kill.
/attempt at empathy with beseiged Iraqi youth
Also, you are not very well informed if you believe that the situation in Iraq being 'chaos' is an 'illusion' created by the press/administration. Maybe the press reports of the newly trained police force bringing peace to Iraq will also be 'an illusion'?
posted by asok at 10:28 AM on November 12, 2003

That strikes me as a purely political, anti-U.S. statement

Woah there pardneryou!
Never equate the actions of the unelected fraud with whose of the citizens!
The truth is NOT anti-US, it is very often anti-aWol administration.
Find a narrower brush to paint your 'fair and balanced' defense of Awol with please.
posted by nofundy at 11:49 AM on November 12, 2003

What is up with this foldy crap, pardywardy?
posted by y2karl at 12:20 PM on November 12, 2003

nofundy: The truth is NOT anti-US, it is very often anti-aWol administration.

How is this the "truth": "the occupying powers must allow the UN to play the central role in peacekeeping and in the humanitarian and reconstruction process"? The "occupying powers" must do something? That's not even a statement of fact whose truth can be discerned. It's a statement of opinion about who is in the better position to oversee the peacekeeping and reconstruction process. The U.S. clearly believes it, rather than the UN, is more equipped to handle the job. I'm not saying it's right, or that Medact's right -- I'm just saying it's a political statement of opinion that has nothing to do with independence or neutrality.

y2karl: What is up with this foldy crap, pardywardy?

It's my little pet nickname for him. I believe I've also referred to him as "the foldster," although I think it was ColdChef who once referred to him as: "crumple_and_holepunch," which I thought was clever.

I refer to him that way because I cannot stand his smug, superior, font-of-all-knowledge attitude. I use "foldy" to try to counterbalance the God-like esteem in which he is held by so many MeFites.

(and for the record, you can call me whatever you want -- pardywardy is fine. I don't actually like "pardonyou?" and wish I hadn't chosen that nick at the outset)
posted by pardonyou? at 12:39 PM on November 12, 2003

I refer to him that way because I cannot stand his smug, superior, font-of-all-knowledge attitude. I use "foldy" to try to counterbalance the God-like esteem in which he is held by so many MeFites.

And who gave you the God-like right to do that? It seems to me one size fits all, two wrongs don't make a right and so forth. People attack people for what they wrote before--never for what they write now.
posted by y2karl at 1:01 PM on November 12, 2003

It doesn't strike me as illegitimate, per se. I was quibbling with foldy's use of the word "independent."

Humanitarian organizations routinely describe themselves as 'independent' when they are neither controlled nor influenced nor funded by the government of a sovereign state. So, for example, USAID isn't independent, since it's an arm of the U.S. government.

And I guess I don't see how opining that "the occupying powers must allow the UN to play the central role in peacekeeping and in the humanitarian and reconstruction process" has anything to do with cause and effect. That strikes me as a purely political, anti-U.S. statement totally removed from an "independent" analysis of the health situation.

Guess what? It's international law. By way of the U.N. Charter (which all U.N. members are bound to obey) and other legal instruments, the United Nations is charged with upholding human rights law and, in time of war, humanitarian law. Saying that this is political is like saying that being against murder is political.
posted by stonerose at 1:28 PM on November 12, 2003

I use "foldy" to try to counterbalance the God-like esteem in which he is held by so many MeFites.

And who gave you the God-like right to do that?

well, it's not that he stalked fold until he managed to Google up his identity and then proceeded to Photoshop fold's portrait in an unflattering way
"foldy" I think is acceptable. like "karly", or "matty"

"fold_and_mutilate" is pretty long. we're busy bashing Bush and endorsing North Korean Communism, here -- "foldy" is way faster to type


posted by matteo at 1:40 PM on November 12, 2003

And who gave you the God-like right to do that?

Nobody, but I guess I'd ask if the right needed to be given -- did I miss a memo? Of course, Matt could ban me if he viewed it as a ban-worthy transgression. Anyway, I just think it's a funny little tweak. I'm sure it doesn't even phase Mr. Mutilate. Why are you so offended?
posted by pardonyou? at 1:59 PM on November 12, 2003

i feel so pretty!
posted by quonsar at 3:41 PM on November 12, 2003

I don't know, it just irked me at the moment.

We have this very irritating newscaster, Jean Enersen--Die Jean Enersen, Die!--who's been on TV here ever since I can remember. She did a piece on gutterpunks a few years back and she kept calling them punkers. It annoyed me in pretty much the same way--and I can't stand gutterpunks from direct experience of same on the street, not at all.

I guess I prefer f&m--that's even easier to type. Well, this horse is dead, I think.
posted by y2karl at 4:09 PM on November 12, 2003

I use "foldy" to try to counterbalance the God-like esteem in which he is held by so many MeFites.

No shit? God-like esteem?

Hell, foldy annoys the fuck out of me with his attitude, too, even if I agree with most of what he has to say. But 'god-like esteem' is laying it on a little thick, I'd say.

Also : down with America, up with people, off with your pants! Whee!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:17 PM on November 12, 2003

stav, have you been drinking again? If so, can I have a swig? All this argufyin' and North-Korea-praisin' has given me a powerful thirst.
posted by languagehat at 5:47 PM on November 12, 2003

Well, I wasn't then, but I am now. All praise asynchonous communication and the precious fact that no matter what time it is, it's cocktail hour somewhere in the world.

Also, 'Down with America, up with people, off with your pants! Whee!' is my new weblog tagline. Sometimes I amuse myself way too much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:11 AM on November 13, 2003