Slice-o-Life: Sanction on Saddam

Slice-o-Life: Sanction on Saddam
by Mike Madias, Clinical Sociologist and Columnist

August 28, 2002

Columnist Mike Madias Sometimes, a debate can hide a possible discourse. A man and a woman find themselves trapped in an argument over a trivial issue, and the matter never gets resolved. But there is a more fundamental, or more disquieting issue that is never spoken. This type of denial often occurs in political debate.

In the Sunday Detroit News/Freep of August 18 there was an op/ed piece by a Dr. Muqutedar Khan, who is director of the international studies program at Adrian College.

Here is what Dr. Kahn suggested: "Perhaps a $10 billion bounty and guaranteed amnesty for past crimes to individuals or groups who can dislodge Saddam may be better alternatives. While extremely abhorrent, even attempts to assassinate him would be preferable to an all out war."

Kahn makes a statement of morals values: sanctioning a covert assassination attempt on Saddam is preferable to conducting an all out war on Iraq. Kahn does not venture who might supply the jackpot money, or who would or could grant amnesty.

There is said to be such a thing as a just all out war. But, assassination may be a morally troubling issue. The United States does conduct all out war and it does train and employ assassins. The euphemism for this type of professional hit man is "sniper."

During the Vietnam war, teams made up of US Green Berets, Rangers, Australian SAS and some locals went out on sniping missions expressly directed to "decapitate the enemy leadership"; that is to assassinate.

But this question, of whether we should put out a contract on Hussein, or carpet bomb Iraq him into the pre-Cambrian age misses a larger point. How can we as a nation participate in the establishment of the rule of international law that can prosecute war criminals, genocidal governments and international groups that carry out acts of mass murder.

According to a UNICEF report, quoted by the Detroit Free Press on April 17, 2002, "Every day hundreds of children in Iraq die of diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition." In September of 2001, UNICEF reported the death of 6,380 Iraqi children, five years of age or younger, dead due to these causes. That is 229 children every day.

Certainly Hussein is culpable. In the wake of the bloody war between Iraq and Iran, in 1989, UNICEF reported that 120 Iraqi children aged five or under died from dehydration due to diarrhea every month.

This is shocking because it is a condition that should be easy to remedy. There are many over-the-counter remedies sold at any neighborhood pharmacy in the United States.

Diarrhea must be a miserable way to die. This is a type of terrorism: being a parent or a sibling watching a family member shit themselves to death; and, all the while, fearing that they might be next.

Yes, in those days, 120 children died of diarrhea over the course of a month. War between Iraq and Iran was hell. And Hussein is culpable.

But, after 12 years of sanctions imposed by the victors of the Gulf War; there were 2,932 documented deaths of Iraqi children under the age of five, due to diarrhea, in one month. If war is Hell, then keeping this particular peace has been 23 times worse.

In that same month 1,594 young children died of pneumonia, and 2,364 more died of malnutrition.

Of course the Iraqi government could have avoided or ended the suffering of its population by complying with the directives of the United Nations Security Council. Hussein could have what he said he would do when the Gulf War ended.

The Detroit Free Press reported that Michigan Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, said the sanctions are necessary to prevent the growth of Iraqi military power. According to Levin, Hussein "doesn't give a damn about his people, but we do."

After 12 years of sanction, Levin might be right in asserting that Saddam doesn't give a damn about his people. But, when distingushed senators like Carl Levin make claims of US government compassion for the common Iraqi citizen it seems to me to be an example of culpable stupidity. In my opinion, it is morally bankrupt.

Perhaps there is a quote somewhere, made by some high ranking official in the Third Reich, saying that their policies were good for Jews, gypsies and homosexuals. Perhaps it was a statement expressing compassion. Perhaps it was like the incredible statements attributed to Levin by the Detroit Free Press. Certainly, continued sanctions have not prevented the buildup of the Iraqi military.

When a foreign policy initiatiiative of the United Nations Security Council has failed to meet its original objective of disarming Iraq; when its continued activity of the Iraqi government and the resignation of the Securtiy Council supports and does not end genocide; and when the chief proponents of this policy continue to apply that failed and catastrophic strategy, then they all are accountable, should by declared criminal and should be judged.

In July of this year, the United Nations General Assembly established the International Criminal Court to try war criminals. In the waning days of the Clinton administration, the United States signed on to the treaty, called the "Statue of Rome." The US Senate did not ratify the treaty. In April, the United States withdrew its support for the court. President Bush has repeatedly denounced it, saying it is a threat to US sovereignty. George Will, a man of superior wisdom and knowledge of baseball, concurred.

A permanent court to prosecute genocide and war crimes could be directed against Saddam Hussein. He used poison gas in the Kurds, and torture on dissidents. He lets the Iraqi children go without food and medical supplies and offers tens of thousands of dollars to families who have their sons and daughters choose suicide bombing as their profession. But, there may be ways in which the United States and individual Americans may be found to be culpable as well.

It is the policy of this administration, and its application of justice, to tighten the noose on our own dissidents, malcontent US senators, and investigative journalists. Go ahead, the DOJ says, scrutinize citizens. Only those with hidden criminal behavior need be worried. We all must be honest. Let the chips fall where they may. That's just the way it goes when you fight evil.

Using the same logic, there should be an International Criminal Court, that can prosecute international evil doers with due process of law. Don't you think?

Only those elements of a government, ours included, that carry out acts international criminality need be worried. All nations must be honest. Let the chips fall where they may. That's just the way it goes when the world sets out to fight evil.

Yes, a simple rub-out, a drive by shooting, or firebombing Highland Park style, would be less seem less bellicose than an all out war. We can do it. We just might.

But frankly, when I hear representatives of our government debate the relative merit the different types of shower nozzle design, I can not stay quiet.

There should be an International Criminal Court. The United States should be subject to it. War criminals should be punished. All of them.

Do you hear that, Senator Levin?

Recently the president invoked the "Four Freedoms" of the Atlantic Charter in a public address. These were declared during the days of the second world war: freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom from want; freedom from fear. Americans believe in these ideas. They give their lives to promote them. Sometimes they lay down their lives for the sake of their brothers. We are a great nation.

In his "Four Freedoms" speach, Bush said that his war on terror represents, among other things, the freedom from want. This is either the assertion of a monumental hypocrite, a master propagandist, or an idiot. Maybe it is none of the above. Maybe it is something far worse. ***

Photo of Mike Madias courtesy of the author

A clinical sociologist living in the Metropolitan Detroit area, Mike's work has appeared in The Detroit News. He may be reached by e-mail at News4629@aol.com.