Iraq and sanctions. By Raphael Moscarella

If Saddam Hussein were to round up a dozen people at random and execute them, and then announce that he would do the same every day until the sanctions were removed, would anyone claim that it is the sanctions which are killing those people? Presumably not. So the question becomes is the current situation analogous. It is close enough. Whether you believe that the sanctions are an effective strategy, they are certainly justified. Hussein has repeatedly demonstrated his aggressive intent and willingness to develop and use weapons of mass destruction and terror. We simply can not allow him to pursue his aims unfettered. Nor have we presented him with an ultimatum with which he can not comply. He could reduce or eliminate the sanctions by allowing unrestricted inspections. And the sanction themselves allow for plenty of funds for food and medicine if that is how he chose to spend them. Instead in builds palaces and reinforces his army. Then there is the question of how bad it really is. A recent op-ed piece, Has Iraq Hoodwinked Humanitarians? By Keith Marsden, in the WSJ has it that the dire nature of the situation is systematically exaggerated by Iraq with the complacency of the WHO, and various liberal groups. Editorial comment: Thank you Mr Moscarella I hope you don't mind my quoting you. Everyone else, check out http://standardtheory.blogpot.com for an intelligent Classical Liberalist perspective. I can't say I agree 100% with Mr Moscarella. I'd take his analogy a step further: What if you're talking about a "normal" hostage situation? Even though it would be the criminal's fault if anyone died, we try to avert their death by temporarily (at least) appeasing the hostage-taker. I personally think sanctions were a bad idea to start with; I prefer conventional military force (and incidentally that is the topic of my middler year writing requirement Report).