Child Malnutrition Rising in Iraq

If I had a dollar for each time, in response to arguing that the innocent Iraqis who've died in this war deserved a better solution to the problem of Hussein, I was told about the number of children dying of malnutrition under Hussein's regime (who presumedly were now better off since we invaded), I'd, well, actually I'd try to send the money over there to help curb this situation:

Malnutrition among Iraq's youngest children has nearly doubled since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq despite U.N. efforts to deliver food to the war-ravaged country, a Norwegian research group said Monday.

Since the March 2003 invasion, malnutrition among children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years has grown from 4 percent to 7.7 percent, said Jon Pedersen, deputy managing director of the Oslo, Norway-based Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science, which conducted the survey. (emphasis mine)

I know there's some validity to the claim that  "it's the insurgency's fault." However, securing Iraq to where the relief agencies can do their work safely is our responsibility and moral obligation. There are no excuses here. Malnutrition is low in the Kurdish area and, as one would expect, higher in the high-conflict areas. Still, the degree of increase here is confusing to the group that conducted the study:

Regardless of the unrest that has gripped the country, Pedersen said the findings were still puzzling.

"Given the fact that World Food Program has distributed a lot of food, it's quite clear that one could expect some malnutrition, but the level that there is, it's a bit difficult to explain."

I'd bet part of it is stress. You don't eat well when you're stressed, even if the food is available. Between the oppressive rule of the insurgents in some areas, the bombings, the evacuations, the shame of being occupied, the uncertainty, etc., it's not at all odd to me that some childen would lose their appetites. I could never eat when stressed out as a kid.

Comments

[angua]

Obviously, this is a problem. However, it looks like the story is based on a study from three weeks after the invasion. More here: http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_11_21_oxblog_archive.html#110105898212629320

Again, the invasion was meant to the problem, and it hasn't (yet). This is bad. But it doesn't necessarily mean the invasion caused the problem.

[Edward]

Thanks for that link Angua.

Oxblog pays lip service to our responsibility and lunges into blaming the messenger though.

So no one should pretend that this isn't problem. But why is this problem on the front page of the Washington Post? Because the problem is supposedly America's fault.

If malnutrition rates increased at all under our watch that SHOULD be front-page news. We should find the source of the problem and FIX it. We're morally responsible to do so.

Naturally, the conclusion that malnutrition has doubled depends on the uncritical comparison of statistics compiled while Saddam was in power with those compiled more recently.

I'm not quite sure I understand that, actually. If I'm interpreting it correctly then I'd repeate what I've been saying a lot lately, but we're supposed to be the "good guys." Comparing our efforts to Saddam's, as if he were a reasonable benchmark, is counter to our entire mission in Iraq.

Even so, the Post does illustrate that some of this fault is indirect. For example, one apparent cause for the rise of malnutrition (and the widespread lack of health care) in Iraq is the fact that violence has forced relief workers out of the country. The United Nations, Doctors Without Borders and CARE International have all left the country.

I'd say that represents direct fault, not indirect fault. We are responsible for security. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. That's one of the things we must fix.

Reader OV points to this UNICEF study of malnutrition in Iraq which also reports that 7.7% of Iraqi children suffer from acute malnourishment. The problem is that this UNICEF study was conducted less than three weeks after the invasion of Iraq.

This raises a lot of questions. Were two different studies conducted, one last year and one this year? If so, then the malnutrition rate has remained essentially stable since the US invasion of Iraq -- and the increase from 4 to 7.7 percent was Saddam's doing.

That conclusion is debatable here. Malnutrition rates three weeks after the invasion are arguably the invaders' fault. How long does it take interruptions of supplies to lead to "malnutrition"? That's not clear.

Again, Oxblog seems upset that the US owns this problem. Personally, I don't see it as a feather in our cap that regardless of the original source of the problem we're unable to improve it in all the time we've been in charge.

[angua]

The nature of malnutrition is such that three weeks should not really affect the rates. In that, it's a long-term issue. Having food-access problems for three weeks is one thing. Having consistent food-access issues since last April is something that will cause reprecautions for decades.

I don't mean to blame the messenger or deny that US has the responsiblity (even for the simple reason that they are the only ones who can do something at this point). I just mean that it would be good to have an *accurate* idea of the current rate to determine the causes and deal with them. For example, if the malnutirition rates persist in areas that are under US control, then a solution could be some form of food distribution progam. If the malnutrition is based mainly in areas under insurgent control, maybe the best idea would be to get rid of the insurgents.

Incidentally, I think you are misreading OxBlog when you say "Comparing our efforts to Saddam's, as if he were a reasonable benchmark, is counter to our entire mission in Iraq." They are not talking about the rates of malnutrition, but rather the accuracy of Saddam's statistics. Some sources should always be prefaced with "according to X, who is a well-known fibber..." Saddam is certainly one of them.

[hilzoy]

It does not seem to me that the story is based on stats from three weeks after the invasion. Oxblog just says: hey, how odd that two studies should both come up with the figure of 7.7%.

[Jadegold]

I'd commend Crooked Timber's discussion to those interested.

Frankly, Oxblog's 'analysis' of studies that don't support their pro-war biases is...troublesome.

[mike p]

I'd say that Saddam era statistics are of questionable accuracy. Pollsters lacked the freedom to talk to enough people about the amount of food they were receiving to get a valid sample.

That being said, the US ought to do all we can to reduce/eliminate malnutrition in Iraq, especially in children in their developing years. Frankly though, if there were masses of starving Iraqi children, we'd have seen them on al Jazzera or other networks as more evidence of the Iraqi disaster at US hands.

Furthermore, the Iraqi government, the UN, and NGOs all have financial incentive to frame this as a crisis and more aid to Iraq means also more administering to be done.

So I'm not saying that starvation definitely isn't a problem there, but since I'm not seeing pictures of famine, even thought there are plenty of news organizations that would love to air that to embarrass the US and coalition, and the charge is being made by folks with incentives above and beyond feeding kids, color me skeptical.

[hilzoy]

Mike P: as I understand it, most journalists in Iraq who are not embedded scarcely leave their hotels any more because it's too dangerous, so their failure to show pictures of famine is inconclusive. -- I think that any rise in malnutrition ought to make us ashamed. Keeping kids from starving seems like the least we could do for people we supposedly came to help.

[Tim Lambert]

Oxblog claims about the study are incorrect. See here.

[Dianne]

There is some validity to blaming the insurgancy for the current problem of malnutrition in Iraq, but there is more validity in blaming the already high rate of malnutrition in the later years of Saddam Hussein's regime on sanctions imposed by the west, especially the US. The fact that the US and other coalition partners appear to be doing even worse than Saddam Hussein did under sanctions at providing basic nutrition and health services to the Iraqi people is beyond embarassing.

Again and again I hear the war and all related atrocities justified by people with the argument "well, it would have been worse under Saddam Hussein". I've never liked this argument, with its implication that the most one can ask from the "leader of the free world" and head of one of the oldest democracies currently in existence is that he be just a tiny bit better than a particularly vile dictator, but it is even sadder that it appears that even that claim is not true.