There are those who believe, against all historical evidence, that “war never solves

anything.” This is historically inaccurate. War liberated the US from Britain. War

repelled the invasion of South Korea. War liberated Belgium and France from Germany –

twice within 35 years. War rescued the remaining Jews, Gays, Communists and others

Hitler was gassing. War freed the peoples of East Asia and the Pacific Islands from the

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of the Japanese. Without exception, the countries

liberated from the AXIS in WWII are better off than they had been.

In fact, those major international issues that have not been solved by war are far fewer

than those that have.

Those who would put sanctions over war misunderstand the nature of sanctions. Many

studies have demonstrated that sanctions are far harder on a country than is a war. Who

and what are hurt via sanctions? Women, children, infrastructure, education, health. Who

is not affected by sanction? The military and civilian leaders who created the policy

against which the sanctions have been placed. War, on the other hand, in recent history

(the same recent history in which serious sanctions have been tried), results in fewer lives

lost among the civilian population, less economic hardship over time, and a more-rapidly-

repaired infrastructure.

In short, if you care about your enemy’s populace, you fight him;

if you don’t care about your enemy’s populace, you sanction him.

From: http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00123.html

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

 Excerpts from an essay by Roger Normand, Policy Director, Center for 

Economic and Social Rights

 There are a number of reasons why economic sanctions have become a 

favored foreign policy tool in the post-Cold War era. Sanctions provide 

the US with a relatively cost-free mechanism for defining the 

boundaries of acceptable international behavior and punishing regimes 

that, in the American view, cross the line. Sanctions do not require 

Congressional approval and do not attract much public attention, 

thereby minimizing the government's accountability to domestic 

politics. And in today's global economy, with most countries dependent 

on access to international markets, sanctions have more bite than ever 

before. This is especially true for comprehensive sanctions, which 

isolate a country from all foreign trade and investment.

 It is commonly believed that sanctions are a humane alternative to 

war. But this is a misconception. Both sanctions and war are forms of 

organized violence that cause people in the targeted country to suffer 

and die in order to achieve certain political objectives. Economic 

violence is a humane alternative to military violence only if one 

believes that it is more humane to die from hunger than from a bomb. 

 In fact, there are several reasons why war may sometimes be a humane 

alternative to sanctions [emphasis mine – DGC]. The resort to war 

generally attracts intense public scrutiny and a certain level of vocal 

opposition, and therefore must be politically justified at every turn. 

Moreover, the pain of war is usually felt on both sides of the 

conflict, even if one country holds the military advantage. In 

addition, war is limited and regulated by international law, albeit 

imperfectly. Military attacks are supposed to be directed against 

legitimate targets such as the opposing army or political leaders, and 

may not cause disproportionate civilian casualties. Carpet bombing an 

entire city in order to kill its leaders or "change their behavior" is 

a clear violation of the laws of war, as is causing civilian starvation 

through blockade.

 Of course, these limiting factors have not gone far towards reducing 

the horrors of war. Yet it is significant that even these weak 

constraints are absent in the case of economic sanctions. Sanctions are 

not generally viewed as subject to human rights law or even the laws of 

war. Sanctions generate very little public attention, since soldiers do 

not risk their lives and television does not provide instant coverage. 

Most importantly, by depriving the entire targeted country of 

resources, comprehensive sanctions take the greatest toll on the 

poorest and weakest sectors of society (minorities, women, and 

children) rather than on political or military elites.

 Iraq is a case in point. Eight years of comprehensive sanctions have 

not affected the nature or behavior of the Iraqi regime. Any temporary 

gains in dismantling weapons of mass destruction (which can always be 

reconstituted later) are dwarfed by the staggering human costs. Well 

over half a million Iraqi civilians, many of them children, have been 

killed by hunger and disease brought on by economic collapse. A 

civilian death toll of this magnitude during the US-led war against 

Iraq in 1991 would have provoked public revulsion and been denounced as 

a violation of international law. But what would have been unacceptable 

in war has passed almost without notice because economic violence kills 

people quietly, in homes and hospitals, beyond the glare of television 

cameras.