If ball* this were to occur, would you acknowledge that you were wrong about what to do with Iraq?
The war is quickly over resulting in the removal of Saddam from power
It is learned and proved that Saddam had stockpiles of bio and chemical agents ready for use (he might even have used them in the war) and had an active WMD program including use of moving laboratories
There are relatively few civilian casualties (except for those maybe inflicted by Saddam himself)
Sanctions terminate quickly
Malnutrition among the Iraqi children drops precipitously
The Iraqi people welcome the American and UK troops as liberators with flowers in the streets
Iraq’s natural resources are developed and used for the benefit of the Iraqi people
Within a couple of years, a new representative government emerges in Iraq*
Correct (although the expectation at the time was for shorter)
Wrong
Correct
Correct
Don’t know (Nadia, do you have any info?)
Wrong
Correct?
Wrong (I expect no stable government for a very long time)
In short, 4/7 correct.
I quote from my original post: Will the USA supporters start admitting they might be wrong…NOOOO! Because they don’t accept that the USA CAN be/do wrong (sometimes).
If a search is done on google for “Iraq post war children”, many different sources are turned up. However, because i know individuals on both sides will accuse me of using partial sources no matter which references i turn to, i thought it would be wiser to just use one source that is generally, around the world, considered roughly accurate when it comes to reports on the humanitarian situation of children. UNICEF is the source i based the following upon.
In 1999, UNICEF released a major report regarding child mortality rates in Iraq, a study whose data were compiled for the preceding year (i.e., 1998). The data were collected at a time when sanctions were still in place and Saddam Hussein’s government was still in power. The 1998 statistics are presented below. Note, that if the argument that malnutrition among Iraqi children has dropped ‘precipitously’ in the post-war and post-Hussein period is true, then we should see a difference in the mortality rates of 1998 versus today.
Now let’s take a look at a UNICEF report published this year. According to UNICEF, the under-5 mortality rate in Iraq, in the current post-war period, is 125. This means there has no been no marked difference when it comes to under-5 mortality rates when comparing the pre-war, and post-war, scenarios in Iraq. (By the way, “under 5” refers to children under the age of 5; “infant” refers to children under the age of 1).
The 2004 report indicates that the infant mortality rate is 102. The 1999 report indicated that the infant mortality rate was 103. So relatively speaking there has been a slight improvement in that field, when comparing the pre-war, and post-war Iraq scenarios.
By any measure, if you compare Iraq’s current infant and under 5 mortality rates to those in the region, and internationally, these statistics should be unacceptably high. For eg., Iraq is ranked 36th out of all the countries in the world for its high infant mortality rate; Haiti, by comparison, with its virtually non-existent medical infrastructures, does slightly better than Iraq. It is ranked 37. Even Bangladesh, not exactly known for its low child mortality rates, is ranked far better than Iraq at 59.
The 2004 UNICEF report makes some startling statements. i suggest for a broader picture, one should read this study for themselves.
Above applies to post-war and post-Hussein Iraq.
In May 2003, UNICEF released a video/report, titled “War Is Over but the Battle to Protect Iraq’s Children Is Far From Won”. It was conducted immediately subsequent to the war, it may be helpful to read that with the above 2004 report, so any differences in childrens’ health situation can be more easily understood over the past twelve months.
Overall, then, there has been little improvement in child mortality rates in Iraq from the pre-war to post-war scenario. One argument may be that this is due to a lack of time needed for necessary infrastructural repairs. The pros and cons of this argument are upto each individual to decide on their own.
For # 1, Im not sure the war is over. Just because G. Bush 'declared an end to major combat' 8 months ago, doesnt mean its over. The war continues so long as there is retaliation. US may classify current attacks on US (or alleged coalition forces) as terroristic attacks, but its a war no doubt.
For #3, we really have no clear picture of how many civilian casualties there were, since not many of the evils of this war have been widely advertised in the press, with all the press muzzling that went on in the name of 'confidentiality and security'.
For #7, so far its the US contractors who are raking in the billions. Iraqis are a long way off from seeing any return to their pre-war affluence.
The justification for this war has changed about 30 times already. These questions could be just as easily answered even before the war started.
OLD MAN:
My scorecard would be slightly different than yours and indicates 6 out of 8 parameters were or are the way to being met. I agree with your assessment of 1-4.
As to items 5, 7 and 8, we are talking about works in progress. Economic activity, oil production, electricity delivery, and other economic and infrastructure measures have, according to recent reports exceeded pre-war levels for the first time. Assuming the correctness of the reports on malnutrition cited by Nadia, the dire pre-war predictions of massive children's deaths has not occured. With the economic engine and infrastructure being revived, things should improve more quickly now. The poll of the Iraqi people discussed in another thread establishing that the majority of Iraqis feel like they are better off today than they were under Saddam and that they have great hope and expectation for improvement in their lives in the near future seem to confirm this. As to number 8, we are less than one year into the post-war period and the disparate Iraqi factions have agreed to a constitution and will assume more substantial control over government in another two months. Elections appear on the horizon in early 2005. Whatever its form, a representative government will exist in 2005.
That would make a clear 6 of 8 on the scorecard. As to item 6, I'll give you that the American troops have not been welcomed with flowers in the streets. However, you don't gauge Iraqi sentiment in this regard from the bomb throwers and snipers. The poll cited herein reflects that 85% do not want US soldiers to immediately leave. The biggest negative and discontent is that we have not been able to bring more security to Iraq. A fair criticism and a clear failure.
Personally, I'll take 6 out of 8 as a good report card but not a great one. More important though is the view of the majority of Iraqis toward what we did. The poll numbers are good now. Assuming they are right that things will be getting even better in the future, that a representative Iraqi government is put in place by early next year and that we get most of our troops out sooner rather than later, support for our action among the Iraqi people will rise even more.
Any timeline, “myvoice”? I understand there is quite a lobby by people in the USA for the soldiers to be returned. How do you see the issue being handeled by the relevant candidates during the election campaign?
I think it's premature to start talking about much of a timeline. So much is dependent upon the nature and legitimacy of the government that takes over in June and its ability to provide some reasonable level of security for the Iraqi people.
Realistically, I see a phased withdrawal. First, you try to take the US and coalition troops out of the cities and turn over day to day law enforcement and security to the Iraqis. I think a significant presence will remain (less visibly) in key locations around Iraq. This presence will be important to keep Iraq from moving toward civil war. Once a representative government can get elected and integrate all factions into a relatively unified country capable of defending itself against militant insurgency, then we get our last man out. Hopefully, month by month the new government will grow stronger and month by month the US presence will be reduced.
As far as the presidential campaign is concerned, I think it will play out with Kerry touting a plan to get the troops home sooner while Bush will claim Kerry just wants to abandon Iraq to chaos. Bush will tout our responsibility to rebuild Iraq no matter the cost and Kerry will portray him as a bumbling cowboy mired in a quagmire.
Continued positive opinion polls from the Iraqi people, a relatively smooth transition to an Iraqi government from June through November, and bringing home 20,000 troops before November will really help Bush. The capture or confirmed death of OBL would be a real gift to GW.
