The Cost of War

[Ivo Skoric]

Since 1990, Iraq's mortality rate for children has risen 10 times 
faster than Rwanda's, even throwing in those children killed in the 
1994 Rwandan genocide. (The Economist, 10/19/02)

Yet, individuals responsible for the Rwandan genocide, at least, 
face the war crimes tribunal, while those responsible for dying 
children in Iraq, just face re-election.

Is it then a surprise that Iraqi citizens would hate the U.S.?

And it would be patently wrong to pin all the blame on Bush Jr. 
Since "the coalition" [of the US and the UK] has been at war with 
Iraq since 1991. General Schwarzkopf withdrew the ground troops, 
all right. But the U.S. air force continued to patrol Iraqi skies and 
bomb targets in Iraq for ten years after. Cruise missiles were 
launched against Iraq on Clinton's orders. The tightest economic 
sanctions - allowing Iraq to export only oil and import only food - 
had been in place, as a part of an effort to weaken Iraq as a 
country before the ground troops are ordered to return. Now it is 
just the time to finish Iraq off.

Unsurprisingly, too - Iraq's air force was practically until this week 
serviced by Serbian engineers. Economic and military ties between 
Iraq and Yugoslavia go long way back. Milosevic inherited them 
from Tito, and Kostunica inherited them from Milosevic.  
Pragmatically, the defense contractor providing services to Iraqis 
was located in lawless Republika Srpska. But the trading company 
that put the deal together was headquartered in Belgrade. It's 
director got fired on October 22, following the tremendous pressure 
from the U.S.

Both countries - Iraq and Yugoslavia use 'dinar' as their local 
currency. Both countries were bombed by the U.S. They had long-
standing economic ties. Was there any incentive to break them 
sooner? No.

This war, talking about incentives, will be costly: Turkey and Israel 
demand $10bn each to support American war against Saddam. 
Saudi royals are going to demand that the U.S. keeps them on life 
support indefinitely if they are to allow use of U.S. bases on their 
soil for the attack on Iraq. And it could also cost a bunch to keep 
Busharraf in power in Pakistan, faced with parliament under control 
of Islamists.

This war may also further alienate generations of young Arabs from 
American ideals: presently more than 50% think favourably of 
American freedom and democracy, while less than 10% think 
favourably of American policy. As American policy tends to think of 
them less and less favourably, they may start thinking less 
favourably about American ideals, as well.

This war is probably going to be bloody. Iraqis are armed and 
desperate. The charm campaign the US is putting on dropping 
fliers from aeroplanes, is not reaching their hearts. Why should 
they trust the U.S.? Didn't U.S. abandon Saddam's opponents 
(Kurds and Shia Muslims) time after time?

This war may be full of surprises. As the post-cold-war world nearly 
every day is. Did anybody expect a terrorist attack involving flying a 
jetliner into a high rise? No. But that's exactly what happened. And 
in a recent case of sniper attacks in DC suburbia: did anybody 
expect an angry black American male? No. 

The experts came out with a range of suspect profiles: from white 
male teenage two friends posse, to the typical angry white male 
loner serial killer type, and/or a domestic militia, and/or an Al 
Qaeda terrorrist cell. But nobody expected what actually 
happened. What makes us think the upcoming war on Iraq should 
be any different in terms of uncertainty?

The bottom line is that in order to get out from the economic 
stagnation, which actually lasts since the seventies, the U.S. 
needs cheaper energy - and in past thirty years it did not do 
enough to make a switch to the non-fossil-fuel sources, and it also 
did not do enough to make itself less dependent on the foreign 
sources of those fossil fuels. Instead of changing its ways, the 
U.S. would rather go to war to secure its needs.

ivo