The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Iraq - Potential Consequences of War (Briefing Paper - Oct 02)

A contact recommended the following briefing paper:

Paul Rogers, "Iraq: Consequences of War", Oxford Research Group, October

I've not yet read the document and therefore can't comment on its contents.
Below is information on the paper's author and the Oxford Research Group's
document summary.

Nathaniel Hurd
Consultant, UN Iraq Policy, Mennonite Central Committee UN Office

Author Information

AUTHOR: Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies, University of Bradford (UK)

Arms control and disarmament
Environmental and resource conflict
North South relations
Global security after the Cold War
Persian Gulf security
Terrorism and political violence

Middle East especially
Persian Gulf

Rogers' Bradford University (UK) Url:

Document Summary


War with Iraq

* is likely to result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqi

* carries a high risk of the use of weapons of mass destruction

* will lead to substantial regional instability, and increased support for

Using the most up-to-date information on how the US might fight the war, and
how the Saddam Hussein regime might respond, the report concludes that:

* the regime will aim to draw the US forces into urban warfare in Baghdad. A
civilian death toll of at least 10,000 is likely, three times as many as
died in the 11 September attacks; this is a low estimate, the experience of
urban warfare in Beirut and elsewhere suggests even higher casualties;

* evidence of Iraqi military tactics in 1991 shows that the survival of the
regime is the core policy and that chemical and biological weapons are
almost certain to be used, certainly against attacking troops and possibly
against targets in neighbouring countries; severe casualties arising to
Iraqi use of chemical and biological weapons could result in a nuclear
response - the first use of nuclear weapons since August 1945.

* Even on the "best-case" outcome of regime destruction with minimal loss of
life, the effect of replacing Saddam Hussein with a client regime would be
deeply counterproductive.

* A pro-American regime in Baghdad would be seen across the region as a
puppet government through which the US seeks to control Iraq's oil,
currently four times the size of total US oil reserves including Alaska.

This would be a "gift" to al-Qaida and other paramilitary groups who have
longed claimed that the United States in the Gulf solely because of the
region's oil reserves. Support for such groups would rise, with an increased
risk of further paramilitary attacks on the US and other states involved in
the war.

The report concludes that destroying the Iraqi regime by force is a highly
dangerous venture and that alternative policies should be urgently

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]