I Propose a Sanction on Sanctions!
Iran’s continuing defiance of the worlds calls for an end to their nuclear ambitions have forced the US and the world into quite a quagmire. How far are we willing to go? Do we back off? Do we forcibly remove another leader? Not yet. Nope, according to the playbook on international relations, it’s time for economic sanctions.
But do economic sanctions really work? Do they force leaders to give up their disagreeable ways and put their citizens first? Quite simply, no. As with many steps a government takes, the results turn out to be quite contrary to the intended results. Let’s take Iraq as an example.
After the first war for Baghdad, the US retreated back to Saudi Arabia and decided that the best way to force Saddam to his knee’s and end his weapons programs was through economic sanctions. The world agreed and sanctions were put in place to stop a wide variety of goods from flowing to Iraq. Huge lists were made that included everything from toner to pesticides to Xray machines for hospitals. The thinking is that so many products have a “dual purpose” that to be safe, we must stop the flow of any and all goods that could be even remotely misused.
An interesting sidebar is of course the “Oil for Food” program which was so poorly run by the UN. But the corruption and underhandedness of that program warrants it’s own blog, hell it’s own books.
But back to the sanctions….so the goods stopped flowing. The world rejoiced because now Saddam would not have the tools to continue his weapons programs. In fact, we hoped that through the suffering of him and his people he would have no choice but to walk away from his homeland. That of course did not happen. What did happen? Well, Saddam went on building palaces. Based on the pictures I’ve seen of him during that time, it doesn’t appear that he went hungry either. So Saddam was still fat and happy running his little empire while the people of Iraq suffered without food, water, hospital equipment, repair parts for sewage plants, power stations etc etc etc.
So the people suffered, but as long as we stopped the weapons programs than it was worth it, right? This is where truth and the logic of sanctions starts to get a bit hazy. If we had faith in the sanctions, if we thought the sanctions had worked than our intelligence about the weapons programs was completely wrong 3 years ago. If we thought the sanctions were working than our intelligence community was intentionally misleading us. Before the war Saddam continued to maintain that he had no weapons programs, was he actually telling the truth? The inspectors did not find any weapons although to be fair Saddam wasn’t being very open with them.
Cuba is another good example. Have our sanctions crushed Castro? No. The people may still drive ’55 Chevy’s, but there has been no revolution, not since Castro’s own revolution anyway. Sanctions make leaders into living martyrs. The big bad world is blackballing your country but your fearless leader is standing up to them.
History repeats itself but we never seem to learn from it. So today we have Iran. Iran is unique when compared to the Iraq of Cuban situation in a number of different ways. Unlike Saddam, Iran not only has a 100% confirmed weapons program, they aren’t even discussing to end it or allow international scrutiny. I fear it’s becoming an issue of national pride within Iran. “If we’ve got some nukes, the world will have to listen to us”. The Iranian leader will become a living martyr, the face of Iran but the outcast of the world. The rhetoric for sanctions is cranking up.
From MSNBC. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., the committee’s ranking Democrat, said persuasion won’t work with Iran. “We can only hope to inflict such severe economic pain on Tehran that it would starve the leadership of the resources they need to fund a costly nuclear program,”
All they’re going to wind up doing is starving the citizens of Iran. Is this what we’ve become. Who are we really after here?
So we impose sanctions, then what. In 5-10 short years the economic affects will have become so dire that Iran can’t survive. But so what, based on where they are now they’ll probably have a bomb in 1-2 yrs. Then we’ll be back to square one. What if sanctions are just a prelude. Just a line item that you must check off at the UN before getting the OK to invade? “We tried everything else, we had no choice”.
I think at this point we have to face facts, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. They are apparently bound and very determined to reach this milestone. China has them, India has them, the US has them, North Korea has them and soon Iran will. It's not a good situation, but we'd better deal with reality and not pipe dreams.
But do economic sanctions really work? Do they force leaders to give up their disagreeable ways and put their citizens first? Quite simply, no. As with many steps a government takes, the results turn out to be quite contrary to the intended results. Let’s take Iraq as an example.
After the first war for Baghdad, the US retreated back to Saudi Arabia and decided that the best way to force Saddam to his knee’s and end his weapons programs was through economic sanctions. The world agreed and sanctions were put in place to stop a wide variety of goods from flowing to Iraq. Huge lists were made that included everything from toner to pesticides to Xray machines for hospitals. The thinking is that so many products have a “dual purpose” that to be safe, we must stop the flow of any and all goods that could be even remotely misused.
An interesting sidebar is of course the “Oil for Food” program which was so poorly run by the UN. But the corruption and underhandedness of that program warrants it’s own blog, hell it’s own books.
But back to the sanctions….so the goods stopped flowing. The world rejoiced because now Saddam would not have the tools to continue his weapons programs. In fact, we hoped that through the suffering of him and his people he would have no choice but to walk away from his homeland. That of course did not happen. What did happen? Well, Saddam went on building palaces. Based on the pictures I’ve seen of him during that time, it doesn’t appear that he went hungry either. So Saddam was still fat and happy running his little empire while the people of Iraq suffered without food, water, hospital equipment, repair parts for sewage plants, power stations etc etc etc.
So the people suffered, but as long as we stopped the weapons programs than it was worth it, right? This is where truth and the logic of sanctions starts to get a bit hazy. If we had faith in the sanctions, if we thought the sanctions had worked than our intelligence about the weapons programs was completely wrong 3 years ago. If we thought the sanctions were working than our intelligence community was intentionally misleading us. Before the war Saddam continued to maintain that he had no weapons programs, was he actually telling the truth? The inspectors did not find any weapons although to be fair Saddam wasn’t being very open with them.
Cuba is another good example. Have our sanctions crushed Castro? No. The people may still drive ’55 Chevy’s, but there has been no revolution, not since Castro’s own revolution anyway. Sanctions make leaders into living martyrs. The big bad world is blackballing your country but your fearless leader is standing up to them.
History repeats itself but we never seem to learn from it. So today we have Iran. Iran is unique when compared to the Iraq of Cuban situation in a number of different ways. Unlike Saddam, Iran not only has a 100% confirmed weapons program, they aren’t even discussing to end it or allow international scrutiny. I fear it’s becoming an issue of national pride within Iran. “If we’ve got some nukes, the world will have to listen to us”. The Iranian leader will become a living martyr, the face of Iran but the outcast of the world. The rhetoric for sanctions is cranking up.
From MSNBC. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., the committee’s ranking Democrat, said persuasion won’t work with Iran. “We can only hope to inflict such severe economic pain on Tehran that it would starve the leadership of the resources they need to fund a costly nuclear program,”
All they’re going to wind up doing is starving the citizens of Iran. Is this what we’ve become. Who are we really after here?
So we impose sanctions, then what. In 5-10 short years the economic affects will have become so dire that Iran can’t survive. But so what, based on where they are now they’ll probably have a bomb in 1-2 yrs. Then we’ll be back to square one. What if sanctions are just a prelude. Just a line item that you must check off at the UN before getting the OK to invade? “We tried everything else, we had no choice”.
I think at this point we have to face facts, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. They are apparently bound and very determined to reach this milestone. China has them, India has them, the US has them, North Korea has them and soon Iran will. It's not a good situation, but we'd better deal with reality and not pipe dreams.
posted by Corrigan at 8:51 AM
5 Comments:
Sanctions don't work, I agree.
I was watching the Daily Show (last week I think) and they had on Georges Sada, a former Air Force General (or whatever they are called). He was like third in command. Well to the point, he has a book out now, called Saddam's Secrets, talking about Iraq DID have WMDs and that they were moved to Syria before the war started.
Interesting thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada
Diagreement = Hating America?
I like Hamiltons america...i like jefferson's America...i like reagan's america...hell, i even like Kennedy's america (the president, not the senator). Not sure i like Bush's america though. I voted for him, twice, but in hindsight i'm not so sure. Would Gore or Kerry have been any better? No. But come on..where's the the social security reform, what was with the highway bill?, curb spending, cut some pork...do something more than just dance for the press and play to the polls!!
have you never heard sean hannity? thats all he ever talks about. how if you disagree with bush, you hate america and should basically leave. anyway, sean hannity is me in disguise. a little satire if you will. i've been using him on my club 309 blog.
dance for the press? i don't know if bush has done that. he pretty much does what he wants. i agree with you on hamiltons, jeffersons, reagans, and kennedy's america. bush's america scares me. i didn't vote for him but i agree that kerry might not have been better. all i know is that both parties scare me. neo-con policy scares me because well it scares me. liberal policy scares me because they're too pussy to actually take a stance on anything and just want to "study" things. i'll probably be voting libertarian in the next election because i can't stand either party AND it won't be throwing my vote away.
Damnit..and here i am thinking Sean Hannity, the man, the myth, the legend from Hannity and Colmes is taking an interest iun what im saying. ignorance is blis!
Post a Comment
<< Home