Vodkapundit - War by the Numbers

War by the Numbers

Posted by Stephen Green · 12 March 2003

Walter Russell Mead makes the humanitarian case for war in today's Washington Post. He runs the numbers and claims that

Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill.
In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.

The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians.

Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.

Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis.

It's a powerful case that the bad alternative of war is more humane than the French alternative of continued sanctions and inspections. What I can't say is whether the numbers are solid, but you can bet Matt Welch can. Hopefully, he'll have something to add to (or subtract from) this.

UPDATE: Matt Welch responds.

Comments

Coupla reactions/thoughts:

1. The same people who oppose going to war are the ones who also oppose continuing sanctions. This is, all too often, bait-n-switch.

"Don't fight a war, let the sanctions work."
"Okay, let's leave the sanctions in place."
"I can't believe you're so callous that you'd let a MILLION Iraqi children die every week, due to sanctions."

2. The sanctions are nowhere near as lethal as the blockade of Germany during (and after) World War I. In part because we allow food, medicine, etc., to flow through. Not unfettered, not unlimited, but we do. As opposed to the complete and total blockade of Germany. So, the degree of badness of the sanctions needs to be put in context. Ironically, the same loopholes allow Saddam to import luxury goods, like the engraved bathroom fixtures some Brit paper noted today.

3. When the Iraq war is finally fought (and won), at least TWO major American policies in the Middle East, the most controversial will end: the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, and the ongoing sanctions. Remind me why not going to war is better?

Posted by: Dean at March 11, 2003 11:03 PM

I've made Mead's arguments several times in discussions about the war among college students, and when you put things in starkly utilitarian terms (and add that the other alternative is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East), the anti-war kids shut up. Fast. (The fact that I used the phrase "Dead Iraqi Babies" repeatedly seemed to have an impact on the audience.) I wonder if Jimmy Carter will read Mead's article . . .

Posted by: Matthew at March 12, 2003 05:33 AM

...And the invasion will *begin* an extremely controversial American policy in the Middle East, the outright occupation of a Middle Eastern country as an American protectorate for an unspecified length of time. I agree that this is probably better than the sanctions that currently keep the people of Iraq poor; but it needs to be mentioned in any honest accounting of the costs and benefits.

And it's worth mentioning that none of the Iraqis I've heard, including those who advocate toppling Saddam, like the idea of a US occupation at all. Sanctions would almost certainly kill more people than the war to get rid of Saddam, but if the aftermath is a multi-year civil war of faction against faction and all the factions against the Americans, the overall death toll could be much higher.

So everything depends on how willing the Iraqis are to have a free, peaceful, somewhat federalized country after the war, and if you ask five supposed experts about that you will get five starkly different answers.

Posted by: Matt McIrvin at March 13, 2003 06:24 PM