|
|||
GLOBAL VIEWPOINT GLOBAL ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT EUROPEAN VIEWPOINT NOBEL LAUREATES |
11/04/02 ARBIL, Iraq - During a dinner in Iraqi Kurdistan last month, the elderly matron of the family I was dining with urged my interpreter to translate her question. She was reluctant, but finally did. Was it true, she wanted to know, what people were saying? That the U.S. would release a gas in Baghdad to put the populace to sleep, then snatch Saddam and his henchmen without the need for bombs? "If only it could be so easy," I replied, laughing. Her face fell. She It's not just Iraqis who don't want to face the very real jeopardy the people of Iraq will face in the event of U.S. military action there. Debate in America has focused on polarizing questions about the propriety of The risk of civilian casualties from the fighting itself is likely to be particularly high in Iraq. Saddam Hussein will almost certainly attempt to draw the U.S. into an urban battle, one in which Iraqi civilians are used as human shields. Anyone who remembers the intense fighting in Jenin several months ago, or the bloody battle of Mogadishu depicted in "Black Hawk Down," realizes what dangers urban warfare represents. In addition, despite In Iraq, civilian casualties caused by U.S. military actions would In Kurdistan last month, the risks to civilians were very clear. My If the United States initiates a war with Iraq, it will have an obligation to do what it can to protect vulnerable Shia and Kurdish populations from attack. In Kosovo, NATO bombers could do little from the air to protect civilians as the Serbian forces intensified their killing spree in response to the bombing. The United States cannot allow a repeat of that tragic experience. The safety of the civilian population of Iraq will be greatly blocking access to safety. In 1991, tens of thousands of fleeing Kurds got stuck on the wrong side of the closed Turkish border, some of them freezing to death. Any planning for military action requires the development of a well-funded humanitarian plan, and pressuring regional governments to commit to keeping their borders open. War in Iraq could also cause furious inter-ethnic fighting and massive retribution against perceived supporters of Saddam's government. During my three weeks in Iraqi Kurdistan, I met with dozens of Kurdish and Turcoman families recently expelled by the Iraqi government from the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and now living in miserable conditions in Kurdistan. The Kurds can be expected to return en masse to Kirkuk at the first opportunity-and they could As the experience of 1991 shows, members of Saddam's Ba'ath party, his Tikrit clan and his hated security services will face severe retaliation in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam. To prevent bloodbaths, the U.S. needs to make absolutely clear to its potential allies among Saddam's opposition that abuses by them will be punished. Such a commitment was not forthcoming in Afghanistan, where the Northern Alliance troops in Mazar-i-Sharif killed hundreds of captured combatants without much worry Finally, experience teaches us that the fall of a government creates a security gap. In Afghanistan, the failure of the U.S. to immediately fill that gap allowed the warlords to force their way into positions of control, and allowed mass looting and similar abuses to take place. In Kosovo, the victorious Kosovo Liberation Army immediately began killing Serbian and Roma civilians whom they suspected of collaboration with Milosevic. Bringing stability, The Bush administration appears to be planning for a more ambitious role in Iraq than in Afghanistan-including the possibility of a long-term military occupation of the country. In that planning, the security of the civilian population, particularly in the chaotic early days following Saddam's fall, must be a paramount U.S. objective.
|
||