To the Editor:
An op-ed piece you ran recently, Sanctions Away, shows a gross misunderstanding of the implications of U.S. foreign policy. This column reacted to the recent bombings of Iraq that followed increasing activity in tracking U.S. led air monitors of the rogue state.
To begin with, Staff columnist Stebbins callously proclaims that "the old white guys are at it again." This unnecessary stereotyping sets the stage for more serious blunders in logic.
Stebbins seems concerned that the U.S. bombing of Iraq is killing innocent Iraqis and encourages the powers that be to follow the non-lethal course of economic sanctions. The column ignores the documented fact that the U.S.-led sanctions of Iraq starve thousands of Iraqi children a year. These are people ruled by a brutal authoritarian they did not elect who obviously cares little for their well-being. Stebbins insists that 10 years is not enough time to bring Saddam to his knees. He's right. Ten years is only enough time to completely devastate the Iraqi population and further deprive them of anything near adequate living conditions. Saddam has made it clear that he cares little about the conditions of his people and has not been swayed by their increasingly desperate situation.
Furthermore, the historical evidence that Stebbins uses to prove his point shows little relevance to the current situation. The U.S. did not subdue the "Russian bear" through economic sanctions. The cumulative burden of an inefficient communist system led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, not the "far-sighted vision" of U.S. policy makers that Stebbins alludes to. Additonally, while the world may be a better place than it was during the Cold War, it would be foolish to consider the current state of Russia and eastern Europe a rousing success.
Finally, Stebbins asserts that when Fidel Castro dies and Cuba opens it will be a direct result of high minded U.S. foreign policy. The humanitarian tone that pervaded the rest of the column evaporates when he writes that the only negative effect of the blockade is the deprivation of "a few good cigars and a sunny place to gamble" to American citizens. The fact that Cuba's population has suffered at the result of our actions is mitigated by the fact that "we can reclaim those fantastic hotels" when our sanctions finally produce change only a short 40 to 50 years after their implementation. With successes like that I'd hate to see failures in foreign policy!
The column that ran in The Dartmouth may have been well-intentioned, but it only succeeded it getting just about all the facts wrong. Bombing Iraq may be not be the right solution but we should think a little first before we embrace the "noble" policy of sanctions that choke a population without a voice.
