Sunday, April 12, 2009

Environmental Issues linked to Health Issues

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/84318_10084318.html

The environmental implications in any country usually play second fiddle to the human consequences. The environment, generally, is only important in so far as it affects human beings. So while it is all well and good to worry about the impact of war on the landscape, what it ultimately boils down to is the people. The article discusses various health problems US army service women have experienced since being on tours of duty in Iraq. The health issues include hair loss, fatigue and fever. While the symptoms could be attributed to extreme stress, as war understandably puts its combatats under emotional duress, the sheer number of US airwomen suffering from similar symptoms begs the question, does environment have something to do with it? The study does not explore the illness, which it dubs "Gulf War Syndrome" after the illness that struck many troops during the 1991 Gulf War,any further, and it would be interesting to know whether or not the syndrome affects women living in the area, or foreign aid workers, if the women living in the area have built up an immunity to whatever viral strain is causing the syndrome. The only reason to not attribute it to war stress is that thus far the syndrome has not affected male air troops.

I know we are discussing the environmental impacts, but because the environment is so obviously inextricably linked to the people, it is interesting to see what impacts the war has on people via the environment.

Destroying the Garden of Eden

The following is a link to a video report on the environment in Iraq from the United Nations Environmental Programme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASfxGC7ZO0

The video explains how in 1991, after the United States withdrew forces from Iraq, the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq were forced to continue the fight against Saddam Hussein on their own. In order to demolish these forces and their resources, Hussein damned and drained the marshes in the South, which were once called “the Garden of Eden” and as a result, driving the Marsh Arabs into internal exile. After the second U.S. invasion in Iraq and once Sadddam Hussein’s regime fell, the southern Iraqis immediately destroyed the dams and returned the marshes to these areas. Unfortunately, the water has been greatly affected. For example, Stalinization levels have changed and now, the water is not safe to drink directly from its source. In response, six water treatment plants have been implemented to purify the water—the water is once again available and useable, but it took great pains and pricy reforms to bring the marshes back.

I found this video interesting because it specifically focuses on war tactics that actually exploit environmental degradation, as opposed to simply the negative impacts that the environment experiences due to warfare. This environmental warfare appears much more intentional and deliberate, but I am forced to question, if you can in fact compare the two, whether it is worse than the United State’s influence on the Iraqi environment. American forces are not actively destroying river systems to devastate Iraqi livelihoods, but they are, nevertheless, waging a war that still has its own environmental consequences. The United States is also extremely invested in the production of oil, which is a large factor in environmental degradation. Can exploitation of a land and its resources for the United State’s own interests be compared to deliberate environmental warfare?