Archive Article: The Health And Environmental Costs Of War On Iraq. 3 Jan 03
December 27, 2008

There still seems to be a high risk of war against Iraq in the next few months. I have just been reading a report on what war has already done to Iraq and what it could do in the next round.

MEDACT, based in London, is an organization of health professionals that exists to highlight and take action on the health consequences of war. It is the British affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (which won the Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago). MEDACT has issued a report entitled “Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq”.

Iraq has known only war and suffering almost ever since Saddam Hussein became president in 1979. In 1980 he launched an attack on Iran and the Iraq-Iran war was one of the 20th century’s longest conventional wars. It ran on until 1988, by which time both countries had run out of energy so to speak to continue the fighting. Both had started with very large gold reserves because of their oil wealth and both were near bankruptcy by the end. Ironically, the frontline in 1988 was situated pretty much where it had been back in 1980. Only the countries and companies that sold weapons derived much benefit from that war.

Two years later in August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. This time, the United States, which had supported him against Iran, decided to oppose him. The US-led coalition drove Iraq out of Kuwait but did not drive Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. Instead, the US hoped that sanctions would do the job. The sanctions have failed to bring down Saddam Hussein but they have done an immense amount of damage to Iraqis.

The MEDACT report shows the extent of the suffering by the ordinary Iraqi. Two decades ago, Iraq was an oil-rich country, well on the way to acquiring the status of becoming a “developed country”.

Now Iraqi children aged under five years have one of the worst child mortality rates – on a par with Yemen and Uganda. In 1990, Iraq was ranked by the United Nations Development Programme as 50th out of 130 countries on its Human Development Index; in 2000 it was ranked 126th out of 174 countries.

The report also examines how the next war could be fought. It suggests that there will be four stages: (i) a series of heavy air attacks (ii) the landing of forces in the south-east to gain control over the oil fields (iii) landing forces in northern Iraq, which is the mainly Kurdish area, with the hope that the Kurds will assist in the ground invasion to the south to gain Baghdad and then (iv) the attack on the Baghdad region itself (that is the central part of Iraq). All this has to be done by April, when the desert winds scatter dust across the country (and will clog up the sophisticated military equipment).

Well, that’s the theory. The MEDACT report also looks at some of the things that could go wrong, such as what will happen if Iraq expands the extent of destruction into the Middle East oil fields and so disrupts global oil supplies. At the very least, if all goes according to American plans, there will a still be a lot suffering for ordinary Iraqis.

To conclude, in healthcare terms, the medical profession has moved from just treatment to prevention, such as discouraging smoking. The report concludes with some broad recommendations on how to prevent further “Iraqs”. For example, it calls for a reduction in the global arms trade. In the UK, the arms trade is now the country’s second biggest export earner – ironically if British forces are to attack Iraq then some of the equipment they will confront will be British.

Broadcast Friday 3rd January 2003 on Radio 2GB’s “Brian Wilshire Programme” at 9pm.