Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.

After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.

"These figures clearly indicate the downward trend," said Alexander Malyavin, a child health specialist with the UNICEF mission to Iraq.

The surveys suggest the silent human cost being paid across a country convulsed by instability and mismanagement. While attacks by insurgents have grown more violent and more frequent, deteriorating basic services take lives that many Iraqis said they had expected to improve under American stewardship.

Iraq's child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi, a central African nation torn by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than rates in Uganda and Haiti.

"The people are astonished," said Khalil M. Mehdi, who directs the Nutrition Research Institute at the Health Ministry. The institute has been involved with nutrition surveys for more than a decade; the latest one was conducted in April and May but has not been publicly released.

Mehdi and other analysts attributed the increase in malnutrition to dirty water and to unreliable supplies of the electricity needed to make it safe by boiling. In poorer areas, where people rely on kerosene to fuel their stoves, high prices and an economy crippled by unemployment aggravate poor health.

"Things have been worse for me since the war," said Kasim Said, a day laborer who was at Baghdad's main children's hospital to visit his ailing year-old son, Abdullah. The child, lying on a pillow with a Winnie the Pooh washcloth to keep the flies off his head, weighs just 11 pounds.

"During the previous regime, I used to work on the government projects. Now there are no projects," his father said.

When he finds work, he added, he can bring home $10 to $14 a day. If his wife is fortunate enough to find a can of Isomil, the nutritional supplement that doctors recommend, she pays $7 for it.

"But the lady in the next bed said she just paid $10," said Suad Ahmed, who sat cross-legged on a bed in the same ward, trying to console her skeletal 4-month-old granddaughter, Hiba, who suffers from chronic diarrhea.

Iraqi health officials like to surprise visitors by pointing out that the nutrition issue facing young Iraqis a generation ago was obesity. Malnutrition, they say, appeared in the early 1990s with U.N. trade sanctions championed by Washington to punish the government led by President Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait in 1990.

International aid efforts and the U.N. oil-for-food program helped reduce the ruinous impact of sanctions, and the rate of acute malnutrition among the youngest Iraqis gradually dropped from a peak of 11 percent in 1996 to 4 percent in 2002. But the invasion in March 2003 and the widespread looting in its aftermath severely damaged the basic structures of governance in Iraq, and persistent violence across the country slowed the pace of reconstruction almost to a halt.

In its most recent assessment of five sectors of Iraq's reconstruction, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington research group, said health care was worsening at the quickest pace.

"Believe me, we thought a magic thing would happen" with the fall of Hussein and the start of the U.S.-led occupation, said an administrator at Baghdad's Central Teaching Hospital for Pediatrics. "So we're surprised that nothing has been done. And people talk now about how the days of Saddam were very nice," the official said.

The administrator, who would not give his full name for publication, cited security concerns faced by Iraqi doctors, who are widely perceived as rich and well-connected and thus easy targets for thieves, extortionists and the merely envious or vengeful. So many have been assassinated, he said, that the Health Ministry recently mailed out offers to expedite weapon permits for doctors.

Violence has also driven away international aid agencies that brought expertise to Iraq following the U.S. invasion.

Since a truck bombing at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad killed more than 20 people last year, U.N. programs for Iraq have operated from neighboring Jordan. Doctors Without Borders, a group known for its high tolerance for risk and one of several that helped revive Iraq's Health Ministry in the weeks after the invasion, evacuated this fall.

CARE International closed down in October after the director of its large Iraq operation, Margaret Hassan, was kidnapped. She is now presumed to be dead. The huge Atlanta-based charity had remained active in Iraq through three wars, providing hospitals with supplies and sponsoring scores of projects to offer Iraqis clean drinking water.

By one count, 60 percent of rural residents and 20 percent of urban dwellers have access only to contaminated water. The country's sewer systems are in disarray.

"Even myself, I suffer from the quality of water," said Zina Yahya, 22, a nurse in a Baghdad maternity hospital. "If you put it in a glass, you can see it's turbid. I've heard of typhoid cases."

The nutrition surveys indicated that conditions are worst in Iraq's largely poor, overwhelmingly Shiite Muslim south, an area alternately subject to neglect and persecution during Hussein's rule. But doctors say malnutrition occurs wherever water is dirty, parents are poor and mothers have not been taught how to avoid disease.

"I don't eat well," said Yusra Jabbar, 20, clutching her swollen abdomen in a fly-specked ward of Baghdad's maternity hospital. Her mother said the water in their part of Sadr City, a Shiite slum on the capital's east side, is often contaminated. Her brother contracted jaundice.

"They tell me I have anemia," Jabbar said. Doctors said almost all the pregnant women in the hospital do.

"This is not surprising because since the war, there is lots of unemployment," Yahya said. "And without work, they don't have the money to obtain proper food.''

Iraqis say such conditions carry political implications. Baghdad residents often point out to reporters that after the 1991 Persian Gulf War left much of the capital a shambles, Hussein's government restored electricity and kerosene supplies in two months.

"Yes, there is a price for every war," said the official at the teaching hospital. "Yes, there are victims. But after that?

"Oh God, help us build Iraq again. For our children, not for us. For our kids," the official said.

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Breeding a new generation of free people, the right way :D
 

cyberserf

Member
Sep 28, 2000
58
0
61

This is but 1 thing, what about the countless other evil the USA is committing? destroying towns/homes/murder etc....Those huge bombs we are dropping is really going to destroy their envirnment as well, creating so much more problems later on.
This is 1 0fold worse then saddam would have ever done.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
GWB et al thought that after the invasion, the US troops would be met with flowers and would have the graditude of a thankful Iraqi people.

GWB et al were wrong.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Duckzilla
Originally posted by: BBond
Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos
...
poor health.

".

I didn't read all that. Who's to blame? The US or all the devil-spawn insurgents? Do you think for a moment that the US government or its people would stand by and let little kids go hungry?!

It's coming, devil-spawn.

You're kidding yourself.

To answer your question, yes, the US government and its people are standing by and letting little kids go hungry RIGHT HERE AT HOME IN THE USA.

Shhh, Don't Say 'Poverty'

 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
I was angry that we bombed so many children. I see now this was more humane than starving them to death. I wonder why the world hates us so much?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
I was angry that we bombed so many children. I see now this was more humane than starving them to death. I wonder why the world hates us so much?

Well, if you believe some people, they hate us for our freedom.

:roll:

 

isasir

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
8,609
0
0
Originally posted by: Duckzilla
Originally posted by: BBond
Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos
...
poor health.

".

I didn't read all that. Who's to blame? The US or all the devil-spawn insurgents? Do you think for a moment that the US government or its people would stand by and let little kids go hungry?!

It's coming, devil-spawn.

I think the US is to blame for not adequately determining if the Iraqi people wanted us there in the first place, and how much of a problem would be caused by those that didn't want us there.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: isasir
Originally posted by: Duckzilla
Originally posted by: BBond
Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos
...
poor health.

".

I didn't read all that. Who's to blame? The US or all the devil-spawn insurgents? Do you think for a moment that the US government or its people would stand by and let little kids go hungry?!

It's coming, devil-spawn.

I think the US is to blame for not adequately determining if the Iraqi people wanted us there in the first place, and how much of a problem would be caused by those that didn't want us there.
The majority of Iraqis did want the US there, wanted Saddam deposed, and are happy he is gone. The polls of Iraqis have shown that already.

The problem is a very small percentage of the population that is royally fvcking it up for the rest. That's one thing that irritates me about forums like ATP&N where certain posters attempt to make sound as if the entire population of Iraq compose the insurgency. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are 25 million people in Iraq. There are estimated to be 50,000 to 60,000 insurgents. Do the math and figure out the percentages.

It's those few insurgents that are making their own people uncomfortable and starving them. If they weren't around blowing up their own infastructure, beheading people, shooting them in the back execution style, bombing their police and National Guard, and disrupting their society in general Iraq would be in decent shape right now. It's vividly clear the insurgents truly don't give two craps about Iraq or Iraqis because if they did they wouldn't be doing what they are doing right now. They'd be participating in the political process and trying to rebuild instead of destroying everything.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Without the support of the people no guerilla movement can exist.

The polls really are worthless. Sure practically everybody wanted to get rid of Saddam. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Iraq was going nowhere fast. But just because the US got rid of Saddam as an side effect of the US agenda which dictated the US invasion does not mean that the Iraqi population will embrace the US agenda just like that. Really what has the US done to earn the trust of the Iraqi people. Made laws that sell Iraq's national resources to multi nationals? The problem now is the US agenda just as much as the agenda of the insurgents. The Iraqi people simply does not trust the US and why should they?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GrGr
Without the support of the people no guerilla movement can exist.
Without the support of money no guerilla movement can exist. All it takes is a few rich and powerful people to make it happen.

Besides, if the insurgents have such overwhelming support, why don't they just participate in the political process? They'd be a shoe-in, wouldn't they?

The polls really are worthless. Sure practically everybody wanted to get rid of Saddam. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Iraq was going nowhere fast. But just because the US got rid of Saddam as an side effect of the US agenda which dictated the US invasion does not mean that the Iraqi population will embrace the US agenda just like that. Really what has the US done to earn the trust of the Iraqi people. Made laws that sell Iraq's national resources to multi nationals? The problem now is the US agenda just as much as the agenda of the insurgents. The Iraqi people simply does not trust the US and why should they?
Iraqis were taught under Saddam's regime not to trust westerners. Anti-west rhetoric was commonplace.

As far as the selling of "national resources," you seem a bit confused. The US is privatizing former state-owned industries in Iraq, which is not nearly as alarming as the left-wing socialist alarmists would leave one to believe. Of course those folks are upset when socialism is reduced as they'd much prefer a nanny-state in Iraq, and everywhere else for that matter. The problem with such states though is that corruption tends to become epidemic in proportion, just as it was in Saddam's time.

Iraq still owns its oil and the Oil Ministry was one of the first things returned to Iraqi control once the war was over.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,564
6,708
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Without the support of the people no guerilla movement can exist.
Without the support of money no guerilla movement can exist. All it takes is a few rich and powerful people to make it happen.

Besides, if the insurgents have such overwhelming support, why don't they just participate in the political process? They'd be a shoe-in, wouldn't they?

The polls really are worthless. Sure practically everybody wanted to get rid of Saddam. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Iraq was going nowhere fast. But just because the US got rid of Saddam as an side effect of the US agenda which dictated the US invasion does not mean that the Iraqi population will embrace the US agenda just like that. Really what has the US done to earn the trust of the Iraqi people. Made laws that sell Iraq's national resources to multi nationals? The problem now is the US agenda just as much as the agenda of the insurgents. The Iraqi people simply does not trust the US and why should they?
Iraqis were taught under Saddam's regime not to trust westerners. Anti-west rhetoric was commonplace.

As far as the selling of "national resources," you seem a bit confused. The US is privatizing former state-owned industries in Iraq, which is not nearly as alarming as the left-wing socialist alarmists would leave one to believe. Of course those folks are upset when socialism is reduced as they'd much prefer a nanny-state in Iraq, and everywhere else for that matter. The problem with such states though is that corruption tends to become epidemic in proportion, just as it was in Saddam's time.

Iraq still owns its oil and the Oil Ministry was one of the first things returned to Iraqi control once the war was over.

Yup, get rid of socialism. It interferes with the corporate nanny state.
 

isasir

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
8,609
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: isasir
I think the US is to blame for not adequately determining if the Iraqi people wanted us there in the first place, and how much of a problem would be caused by those that didn't want us there.
The majority of Iraqis did want the US there, wanted Saddam deposed, and are happy he is gone. The polls of Iraqis have shown that already.

The problem is a very small percentage of the population that is royally fvcking it up for the rest. That's one thing that irritates me about forums like ATP&N where certain posters attempt to make sound as if the entire population of Iraq compose the insurgency. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are 25 million people in Iraq. There are estimated to be 50,000 to 60,000 insurgents. Do the math and figure out the percentages.

It's those few insurgents that are making their own people uncomfortable and starving them. If they weren't around blowing up their own infastructure, beheading people, shooting them in the back execution style, bombing their police and National Guard, and disrupting their society in general Iraq would be in decent shape right now. It's vividly clear the insurgents truly don't give two craps about Iraq or Iraqis because if they did they wouldn't be doing what they are doing right now. They'd be participating in the political process and trying to rebuild instead of destroying everything.

Do you have links to these polls and what specific question was asked? I'm sure a good majority wanted Saddam ousted, but by what means would be the question. I doubt they wanted the US intervention as the means for removing him from power.

Nonetheless, those 50-60k insurgents apparently wasn't expected by the U.S. and for that, the U.S. is at fault.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Without the support of the people no guerilla movement can exist.
Without the support of money no guerilla movement can exist. All it takes is a few rich and powerful people to make it happen.

Besides, if the insurgents have such overwhelming support, why don't they just participate in the political process? They'd be a shoe-in, wouldn't they?

The polls really are worthless. Sure practically everybody wanted to get rid of Saddam. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Iraq was going nowhere fast. But just because the US got rid of Saddam as an side effect of the US agenda which dictated the US invasion does not mean that the Iraqi population will embrace the US agenda just like that. Really what has the US done to earn the trust of the Iraqi people. Made laws that sell Iraq's national resources to multi nationals? The problem now is the US agenda just as much as the agenda of the insurgents. The Iraqi people simply does not trust the US and why should they?
Iraqis were taught under Saddam's regime not to trust westerners. Anti-west rhetoric was commonplace.

As far as the selling of "national resources," you seem a bit confused. The US is privatizing former state-owned industries in Iraq, which is not nearly as alarming as the left-wing socialist alarmists would leave one to believe. Of course those folks are upset when socialism is reduced as they'd much prefer a nanny-state in Iraq, and everywhere else for that matter. The problem with such states though is that corruption tends to become epidemic in proportion, just as it was in Saddam's time.

Iraq still owns its oil and the Oil Ministry was one of the first things returned to Iraqi control once the war was over.

Yup, get rid of socialism. It interferes with the corporate nanny state.

I much prefer it to the liberal ninny state.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The majority of Iraqis did want the US there, wanted Saddam deposed, and are happy he is gone. The polls of Iraqis have shown that already.

Link?



 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
I am still curious how they determined the rates pre-war.
This was a country where health records were poorly kept. Nobody really knows much of anything pre-war.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,564
6,708
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Without the support of the people no guerilla movement can exist.
Without the support of money no guerilla movement can exist. All it takes is a few rich and powerful people to make it happen.

Besides, if the insurgents have such overwhelming support, why don't they just participate in the political process? They'd be a shoe-in, wouldn't they?

The polls really are worthless. Sure practically everybody wanted to get rid of Saddam. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Iraq was going nowhere fast. But just because the US got rid of Saddam as an side effect of the US agenda which dictated the US invasion does not mean that the Iraqi population will embrace the US agenda just like that. Really what has the US done to earn the trust of the Iraqi people. Made laws that sell Iraq's national resources to multi nationals? The problem now is the US agenda just as much as the agenda of the insurgents. The Iraqi people simply does not trust the US and why should they?
Iraqis were taught under Saddam's regime not to trust westerners. Anti-west rhetoric was commonplace.

As far as the selling of "national resources," you seem a bit confused. The US is privatizing former state-owned industries in Iraq, which is not nearly as alarming as the left-wing socialist alarmists would leave one to believe. Of course those folks are upset when socialism is reduced as they'd much prefer a nanny-state in Iraq, and everywhere else for that matter. The problem with such states though is that corruption tends to become epidemic in proportion, just as it was in Saddam's time.

Iraq still owns its oil and the Oil Ministry was one of the first things returned to Iraqi control once the war was over.

Yup, get rid of socialism. It interferes with the corporate nanny state.

I much prefer it to the liberal ninny state.

Sure you do, but then we know that you have a sense of taste so discriminatory everything tastes like chicken. Best you not wonder too far from home. New experiences will offend you.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GrGr
Without the support of the people no guerilla movement can exist.
Without the support of money no guerilla movement can exist.


TLC: All it takes is a few rich and powerful people to make it happen.

GrGr: No it doesn't. If the insurgency does not have popular support then the insurgency won't be longlived and the US has nothing to fear. It is not wealth that supports a guerilla movement but 'belief in a righteous cause'. The communists in Vietnam were never wealthy. Neither were the communists in China. Nor were the Algerian insurgents that threw out the French wealthy. The US will lose the conflict in Iraq simply because the harder they try to suppress it by force the more the resistance will grow. The more force the overwhelmingly strong US applies against the weak insurgency the more face the US will lose and the more sympathy the weak will get and the stronger the insurgency will grow. In the end the US Military Killing Machine will be just a broken self playing piano with a tune full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Just like in Vietnam.

This time around the US is not even trying to win the 'hearts' of the population but simply to convince the 'minds' of the Iraqi population that the overwhelming US military force is irrestistable. The US strategy is 'resistance is futile'.

TLC: Besides, if the insurgents have such overwhelming support, why don't they just participate in the political process? They'd be a shoe-in, wouldn't they?

GrGr: Who says they aren't participating?

The polls really are worthless. Sure practically everybody wanted to get rid of Saddam. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Iraq was going nowhere fast. But just because the US got rid of Saddam as an side effect of the US agenda which dictated the US invasion does not mean that the Iraqi population will embrace the US agenda just like that. Really what has the US done to earn the trust of the Iraqi people. Made laws that sell Iraq's national resources to multi nationals? The problem now is the US agenda just as much as the agenda of the insurgents. The Iraqi people simply does not trust the US and why should they?

TLC: Iraqis were taught under Saddam's regime not to trust westerners. Anti-west rhetoric was commonplace.

GrGr: The Iraqi people threw out the British and they remember it very well. In fact the current US adventure in Iraq resembles the British adventure pretty well so far. The Iraqi people are well aware of it.

TLC: As far as the selling of "national resources," you seem a bit confused. The US is privatizing former state-owned industries in Iraq, which is not nearly as alarming as the left-wing socialist alarmists would leave one to believe. Of course those folks are upset when socialism is reduced as they'd much prefer a nanny-state in Iraq, and everywhere else for that matter. The problem with such states though is that corruption tends to become epidemic in proportion, just as it was in Saddam's time.

GrGr: Nice strawman. This is not a question of socialism v. capitalism. The selling out of Iraqi resources is illegal. It is yet another crime in the long line of crimes committed by the 'morally superior' US. Imo it should be for the Iraqi people themselves to decide what to do with their own resources not foreign interests. Why should the Iraqi people support the US invasion when the US clearly wants to decide all the important issues without input from the Iraqi people. What is wrong with having the Iraqi people decide for themselves which direction they want to take their own nation?

I do not think Iraqis have anything to teach Americans on the subject of corruption.

TLC: Iraq still owns its oil and the Oil Ministry was one of the first things returned to Iraqi control once the war was over.

GrGr: Yes it was returned to the puppet 'government'. One of the very first things Bush did after the invasion was to change the oil trade from euro's to US dollars.