Operation Infinite Injustice: Impact of Sanctions and Prospective War on the People of Iraq

Abstract

War is well known to have devastating consequences for life and health. Estimates of war-related deaths in the last century alone exceed 110 million. Modern weaponry is lethal, but the indirect effects of war such as disruption of civilian economies triggering starvation and disease, claim an even greater number of casualties. The recent report by Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), entitled Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of a War on Iraq, starkly attests to this pattern of human carnage in its assessment of the likely impact of war on Iraq. The bloody battle of Solferino in 1859 inspired Swiss businessman Henri Dunant to launch the Red Cross to treat victims of battle, and to prod governments to the first Geneva Convention in 1864 designed to regulate war and the treatment of wounded and prisoners of war in a more humanitarian way. In the aftermath of the Second World War, with most of humankind horrified by the knowledge of experimentation by German and Japanese doctors on civilians and POWs, such codes began to extend to civilians. Only in 1977 did the Geneva Convention formally prohibit starvation of civilians as a weapon of war. Despite these measures, civilians have increasingly become targets in war, by some estimates making up over 80% of its casualties. This harsh statistic reflects the increasingly one-sided character of modern war. It speaks as well to the inherent vulnerability of civilians, particularly in poorer societies, to the economic disruption and chaos triggered by warfare. Meanwhile, western public opinion becomes increasingly averse to casualties among our own forces. The response of our militaries has been to make war a sanitized video game. Bombing from up to 30,000 feet safeguards pilots and shields our civilian population from knowledge of the true costs of war, at the expense of civilian populations. Magnifying the dilemma of public ‘innocence’ of war are recent efforts to limit media coverage of civilian consequences, with journalists sequestered and presented with ‘official’ press briefings, a pattern dramatically evident in the 1991 Gulf War. Physicians and other health care professionals working with victims of war are ideally placed to know the true human costs of war. Moreover, public health specialists are trained to evaluate the cost/risk benefit of any action, taking into account both shortand longterm consequences. They are trained also to evaluate etiology, to analyze not just proximate causes of death but underlying, root causes with a view to prevention. As the US administration seeks to launch its own version of a ‘preventive’ programme, a pre-emptive battle against Saddam Hussein and the threat of his alleged weapons of mass destruction – at best a dubious legal concept – it may now be time for physicians to detail for decision-