As noted in the comments to his post, Cervantes over at Stayin' Alive has written a "depressingly excellent" summary of the state of health in Iraq as we approach the 3-year post-invasion mark. To put it mildly, it ain't a pretty picture.
- Log in to post comments
Cervantes and the sources he quotes (including "antiwar.com" - obviously an unbiased group who just happened to be interviewing an ex-Iraqi general) paint quite a rosy picture of life under Saddam (sure there was some mismanagement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq
but at least they had a great health care system - just like Castro's glowing accomplishment
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm
). One wonders what the thousands of people in mass graves thought of the state of Iraq's health care system prior to the invasion.
Cervantes states, "Recently the individual who is most culpable for the tragedy conceded that approximately 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war."
Interesting that he has given an unconditional pardon to Saddam. He also quotes antiwar.com, saying "that unemployment is approximately 70%, most Iraqis cannot afford to feed themselves" Strange that more credible sources say that the unemployment rate is closer to 30% and reports of mass starvation seem to have been neglected by the media that never mentions a single positive news story out of Iraq and never hesitates to report the bad news.
The journal Nature (apparently) states that "Disruption to water supplies during the conflict means that roughly 20% of urban households now have no access to safe drinking water." So there was 100% water access in urban households before the invasion? It is odd then that so much of the reconstruction has consisted of replacing or repairing water and sewage systems that have not worked in 20 years. I wonder how the rural population was doing under Saddam. One of the things that anti-war sites often forget to mention is that Saddam's Iraq gave preferential treatment to cities where he might spend a day or two in one of his palaces while electricity and water for rural people was pathetic. They will mention brown-outs in Baghdad but give no thought to the small towns that have been wired up for the first time.
Maybe the reason that the health care system is so bad in Iraq is because there has been such little help from other countries with the exception of the help being given to the murderers and bombers. Fortunately there is USAID but you never see (and never will see) any coverage on their work.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html
And USAID is just one organization working in Iraq. Funny that the Army Corps of Engineers has been over there for so long and has not done anything worthy of being reported in the news.
There are at least two sides to every story, even if one side never gets told.
Free pass? Did you miss this:
No one denies that there was great suffering. No one denies Saddam was a mass murderer. But that wasn't the reason given for the invasion.
Can you cite one? I'm not well-versed in Iraq's economy, and the first site I found just on searching was this one describing a 2004 study by Baghdad University. This 2005 CNN story says 18% and notes that
I'd prefer something in the "real" lit rather than a news report, so if you know of some, I'm always happy to read.
Perhaps that wouldn't be the situation if we'd not burned our bridges by going into this war against the wishes of the rest of the international community. If this was a humanitarian project, there were other areas of the world more in need of our assistance.
I've seen probably as many "good" stories as "bad" stories on these issues. And goodness knows Bush keeps saying how swell everything is over there. Maybe if he were a bit more straightforward about the conditions, there wouldn't need to be as many news stories showing where he's wrong.
"Free pass? Did you miss this:
Iraq's people were suffering prior to the invasion and occupation, after decades of misrule, war, and international sanctions."
This obligatory tip of the hat to the facts is then followed by what seems to me to be putting all of the blame for the situation on the war.
To be frank, I don't really care what the reasons were for going to war were (though I seem to remember that Iraq continuously making fools out of the UN and their weapon inspectors and refusing to abide by the conditions of it's surrender after the Kuwait invasion had something to do with it). The point is that those who are against the war have been completely cherry picking what they report on from Iraq in order to justify that position. As for burning bridges, France, Germany, Russia and the UN (all having financial ties with Saddam) made it quite clear that there were absolutely no circumstances in which they would remove their protective diplomatic influence that they were using to shield Iraq. In short there were no bridges to burn.
And yes, there are worse places than pre war Iraq: North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma are all doing as bad or worse that Iraq under Saddam; killing and torturing their citizens, destroying their economy while reaping profits from corruption. They should, in my opinion, all be liberated but the world is content to let whatever goes on in a nation happen as long as it does not threaten its neighbors. A dubious policy.
"Can you cite one? I'm not well-versed in Iraq's economy, and the first site I found just on searching was this one describing a 2004 study by Baghdad University. This 2005 CNN story says 18% and notes that"
Finding credible and disinterested information on Iraq is hard since just about every person and organization is either for or against the war. At this time, one of the best sources is the information that biases sources release that contradict their bias (usually buried in the back of the paper or a 6 second blurb just after a commercial). The CNN (hardly a pro-Bush organization) article notes that the unemployment is 18% where as antiwar.com (and others) puts it at 70%. Either somewhere along the way "Unemployment rate" and "Employment rate" are getting mixed up or else anti-war sources are just lying. Granted that getting an accurate figure is hard especially since there is confusion as to who is unemployed, underemployed and looking for work but 70% unemployment is just not credible. Also, if "most" Iraqis are unable to buy food why haven't the largely anti war press put a camera on some of them while they plead for food instead of asking them about politics.
"I've seen probably as many "good" stories as "bad" stories on these issues"
It seems to me that all of the "bad" stories are on national TV and all the "good" news are on the wire services and are often only picked up by local and regional papers. Bush's administration has been abysmal at actually highlighting what is being done in Iraq. They got caught trying to pass off this information as independent news and it made them look foolish go they gave up. Chrenkoff had been doing a good job until recently retiring from the blogosphere, of documenting the kind of
stories that don't make the news.
Good news stories on national news are about soldiers coming back after there tour of duty to "rebuild the country I helped destroy" - in other words, they are pure "Tokyo Rose" works. No mention of schools or hospitals being built or of economic growth. If I were to believe the portrait from the mass broadcast media I would believe Iraq was a flaming pool of magma where the last innocent Iraqis huddle in fear of marauding US troops.
I don't know why I spill so much virtual ink on this issue. I realize that my view on Iraq are not going to convince anyone. I guess that I just like to point out that not everyone who supports the war and believes that the media is taking a negligently biased editorial stand is a homophobic Pat Robertson follower. Though I could probably have used his miraculous diet drink about 10 pounds ago.
I sympathize. Still disagree, but sympathize. It sucks for anyone when their position is shared with nutcases who get more press than the more reasonable supporters.
No one denies that there was great suffering. No one denies Saddam was a mass murderer. But that wasn't the reason given for the invasion.
I've stopped caring about "this wasn't the reason given for the invation stuff". Sure, the way it was handled was pure spin. Sure, from the POV of international law the Iraq war is a doubtful thing. Sure, one cannot go on like that and liberate countries without being asked. But we all know that. Bush knows that. What I care about that as time goes, there is more and more improvement in Iraq. And it looks like people there are starting to learn democracy, since they took so much trouble to vote in the elections. I think that despite all the reservations one has -- and me too, there was a period when I thought "it was one big mistake" -- the allies did more good than wrong in Iraq.
Pendostanets!