Letters

I was impressed with Matt Welch's "The Politics of Dead Children" (March). It convincingly demonstrated the real impact of sanctions and deserves to set the tone for all coverage going forward. However, it also left me with some unanswered questions. For instance, I am not persuaded that we should lift sanctions on Iraq.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad we are "engaging" China. I think we should lift the sanctions on Fidel Castro too, and let markets render him irrelevant. But is it fair to argue, as Welch seems to, that sanctions never work?

Those who advocated sanctions on South Africa were apparently vindicated when the apartheid regime was overturned. If I had been involved in the debate, I probably would have argued then that we should "engage" South Africa (as reason did), but I'm a results-oriented guy. If I'm honest, I have to acknowledge that sanctions seemed to work in that case.

But there's another point to consider. What impact--if any--do sanctions have on Saddam Hussein's ability to build weapons of mass destruction and threaten America? If sanctions kill Iraqi babies but save American ones, I'll bet most Americans would accept the trade. It's a cruel but indisputable truth. Ask just about any American. They'd say: Better their dead babies than ours.

Of course, one could argue that there is no connection between sanctions and military affairs. In fact, you could argue that sanctions make rogue nations more hostile and more dangerous. But observe what happened when the Soviets realized that their "self-imposed economic sanctions"--which is one way of looking at the autarkic economic system they had created--were undermining their ability to keep up with America's technological sophistication. They allowed the Berlin Wall to fall.

Yes, the embargo has certainly been a propaganda bonanza for Saddam and America's enemies. But has it truly been "ineffective"? I am not convinced.

Britton Manasco

Austin, TX

Matt Welch writes, "There have been no weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1998. As a result it is exceptionally difficult to know with precision what nuclear or biological weapons Saddam has on hand or in development."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which polices the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has just returned from its annual inspection of Iraq. It said there has been no change in the status of the fissile material Iraq had acquired for use in its nuclear power plant. There has been no evidence Iraq has acquired additional amounts. If it had a nuclear weapons program, it would be identifiable by spy satellite, as it requires enormous amounts of electrical power to run the cyclotrons.

Welch is right about chemical-biological warfare, but as Rumsfeld himself acknowledges, chem-bio can be produced in such small, undetectable places that it was always foolish to think U.N. inspectors could find them if they did exist. All weapons "found" by the United Nations were identified by November 1991, and the Iraqi government took the inspectors to the places where they had been destroyed.

In any case, the number of Iraqi civilians who have died since the Gulf War, under 5 or over; years of age, is enormous. U.S. policy intends to make the Iraqi people suffer so much that they overthrow Saddam Hussein. Our political establishment and the major media that do its bidding have known and supported this evil policy all along. There's your story, but don't bother trying to get it published where anyone will see it.

The exact number of dead children is unimportant when set against Madeleine Albright's stupid remark about it being worth the deaths of 500,000 children to contain Saddam. Since that went into global circulation, it has been a waste of time for reporters to fuss about the exact number. The reporting on Iraq by our press corps has been scandalous, and 9/11 is the price we have paid. So far.

Fude Wanniski

polyconomics.com

First, it should be noted that I voted for George Bush, the Elder--once. I also voted for his son. As a veteran of five years of service with the 1st Cavalry Division, the 7th Infantry Division, and the XVIII Airborne Corps, I am no peacenik. That said, the establishment's manic efforts to whip up war hysteria are nauseating, and Welch's attempt to minimize the impact of U.S. policy on Iraqi civilians is disingenuous.

The fact is that George Herbert Walker Bush manufactured Desert Storm in a doomed attempt to rescue his administration from the political consequences of his tax flip-flop. Bush failed. Now his son is attempting to impose a state of permanent war on America, all the while laying down the foundation of a police state.

Whether American policies have led to the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi children or 600,000 is immaterial. It is time for Imperial America to withdraw its legions and dismantle its empire.

Frank Brady

Via e-mail

Who deserves to be dealt with most harshly: criminals who murder hundreds of thousands of children, people who absolve the criminals of any wrongdoing and applaud them for their actions, or people who exaggerate the number of victims?