SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SilentZ who wrote (164349)3/15/2003 1:28:54 PM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574260
 
The Plague We Can't Escape
By LARRY KRAMER

nytimes.com

Why does no one have the courage to say loudly and unequivocally that 50 million people around the world are going to die in a matter of days or months or at the most a few years unless they are treated immediately with the life-saving drugs that are now available? I have arrived at this figure after conversations with many experts.

Why has no effective plan been started to stop this immense horror? "AIDS is not a death sentence" is heard over and over again, when it most emphatically is a death sentence to these 50 million people, most of them in countries other than our own, most of them poor and without health insurance. In China, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and Russia, the number of AIDS cases is predicted to double by 2010, with a total of 50 million to 75 million infected people in those countries alone.

This plague is not going away. (And may we all please start calling it a plague?) These 50 million people are dying now. They do not have time to wait while we clean up their countries' water supplies and change their economic and educational systems, rain condoms on their communities, promote abstinence and teach them about the dangers of drug abuse.

There simply is not enough time or money to make these noble and expensive suggestions doable. The $15 billion in AIDS programs that the heroic Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health designed and won support for from the Bush White House will not enter the system for two years. It is already bogged down in so much bureaucracy that in my estimation most of it will never see the light of day.

Most of all, 50 million dying people do not have time for governments and drug companies to battle endlessly over patent rights and who can manufacture generic versions of life-saving drugs. In the 1940's, streptomycin was the first antibiotic to be effective against tuberculosis. Merck owned exclusive rights to the drug, which meant it could profit mightily from it. But George W. Merck, the company's head and the son of its founder, released its hold on the patent, thus allowing any company to manufacture streptomycin and effectively keeping its cost minimal and hundreds of thousands of people alive. George Merck was on the cover of Time in 1952 above a caption of his own words: "Medicine is for people not for profits."

It is impossible to imagine today's Merck or any other pharmaceutical manufacturer being so humane. GlaxoSmithKline, which controls most of the drugs people with H.I.V. must take, refused for years to provide AZT at a reasonable price to poor countries. Only after a publicized dispute did it hand over rights to its AIDS medicines to a local generic drug company in South Africa. AZT was developed to treat H.I.V. at the National Institutes of Health — financed by taxpayer money — in collaboration with Burroughs Wellcome, now GlaxoSmithKline. The most recent anti-H.I.V. drug, Fuzeon, also developed in part with taxpayer money, has been priced at $21,000 a year in Europe by its manufacturer, Roche. (It is feared it will cost even more in America.) For one person. That works out to more than $57 a day.

It is incumbent upon every manufacturer of every anti-H.I.V. drug to contribute its patents or its drugs free for the salvation of these people. Almost every such drug on the market — there are some 18 effective drugs — has already more than paid for its development in spades, and also earned millions of dollars in additional profit for its makers.

I believe it is evil for drug companies to possess a means of saving lives and then not providing it to the desperate people who need it. What kind of hideous people have we become? It is time to throw out the selfish notion that these companies have the right not to share their patents. The world should no longer tolerate this. There are too many of us now dying, and there are too many destructive illnesses appearing every day. A new world prescription must be written immediately.

When I first heard about what would become known as AIDS there were 41 cases of some strange occurrence. Almost 25 years later we have failed to mount a thoughtful, concerted effort to stop what is now this plague. We have failed to keep up any pressure. We have failed to outrage each other enough so that people in authority would have no choice but to do something.

For almost 25 years we had our chance to do something. Year after year, we blew it. AIDS tells us about the worst of America and the world. It tells us that people don't care about others. It shows us over and over and over again that people can be allowed to die. It should break everyone's heart. Why doesn't it?

Larry Kramer, co-founder of Gay Men's Health Crisis and founder of Act Up, is author of "Women in Love and Other Dramatic Writings."



To: SilentZ who wrote (164349)3/15/2003 5:23:36 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1574260
 
Seattle Times Archives

Nation & World: Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Close-up

Postwar Iraq to challenge U.S. forces keeping peace

By Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post




WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is bracing both for war in Iraq and a postwar occupation that could tie up two to three Army divisions in an open-ended mission that would strain the all-volunteer force and put soldiers in the midst of warring ethnic and religious factions, Army officers and other senior defense officials say.

While the officers think a decade of peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Somalia, the Balkans and now Afghanistan makes the Army uniquely qualified for the job, they fear that bringing democracy and stability to Iraq may be an impossible task.

An occupation force of 45,000 to 60,000 Army troops — the range under consideration by the Joint Chiefs of Staff — could force an end to peacetime training and rotation cycles in a service already deployed in Germany, South Korea, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai.

Calling in the Marines?

Army officials note they missed reserve recruiting goals in January and February, as potential reservists faced lengthy overseas deployments instead of the regular commitment of 39 days a year. There is even talk among senior officers that the Marine Corps may be assigned peacekeeping chores in northern Iraq to share the burden.

But the greatest sources of concern among senior Army leaders are the uncertainty and complexity of the mission in postwar Iraq, which could require U.S. forces to protect Iraq's borders, referee clashes between ethnic and religious groups, ensure civilian security, provide humanitarian relief, secure possible chemical- and biological-weapons sites, and govern hundreds of towns and villages.

Should U.S. forces succeed in overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, they will inherit a country divided among armed and organized Kurdish factions in the north, restless majority Shiites in the south and a Sunni population that has been the backbone of Saddam's Baath Party rule. Adding to the complexity will be the interests of at least two bordering powers — Turkey, which has its own Kurdish minority and opposes any move toward greater Kurdish autonomy, and Iran, which has historic ties to Iraqi Shiites.

"There's going to be a power vacuum," said one senior defense official sympathetic to the Army. "How will that be filled? I'm not an expert in the region, but if you use the Balkans as a model, we may be getting into the middle of a civil war."

"The Army is wary of being the one left to clean up after the party is over," added retired Lt. Col. Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash commanded the first Army peacekeeping operation in the Balkans in 1995. He also occupied the area around the Iraqi town of Safwan on the Kuwaiti border with three battalions for 2-1/2 months after the 1991 Gulf War. During that mission, his troops dealt with recurring murders, attempted murders, "ample opportunity for civil disorder" and refugee flows they never could fully fathom, he said.

Nash said he believes 200,000 U.S. and allied forces will be necessary to stabilize Iraq, noting that up to two divisions alone — 25,000 to 50,000 troops — could be required just to guard any chemical- or biological-weapons sites that are discovered until the weapons are disposed of properly.

"There's apprehension inside the Army as to the extent of the mission and a concern that there hasn't been the recognition by the senior leadership — I read civilian — as to the enormity of the challenge," Nash said.

The Army's concern bubbled up publicly two weeks ago when Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "several hundred thousand soldiers" could be necessary for peacekeeping duties. Two days later, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz — one of the architects of the president's postwar ambitions in Iraq — took the unusual step of publicly differing with the Army chief, dismissing his estimate as "way off the mark."

Shinseki and other defense officials have said they hope allied forces will contribute significantly to the postwar mission, though it is unclear how much other countries would be willing to pitch in. The Bush administration has experienced difficulties recruiting other countries to send forces to the Afghan peacekeeping mission.

Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former Clinton-administration official, said recent history shows that 60,000 peacekeepers were needed in Bosnia to separate warring ethnic factions, just one facet of the mission that could confront the Army in postwar Iraq. And Bosnia's population is 4 million, 17 percent of Iraq's 23 million.

Postwar Iraq promises to be highly volatile. In the north, two well-armed and well-organized Kurdish factions have enjoyed semi-autonomy under the protection of U.S. and British jets patrolling the northern "no-fly" zone. Longtime rivals, they have achieved an uneasy truce in anticipation of a U.S. invasion to unseat Saddam.

They have been warned by the administration not to push for a Kurdish state. In turn, the Kurds have warned Turkey not to send troops into northern Iraq once the fighting starts to establish a buffer zone to control Kurdish refugees.

In the south, around Basra, Shiites — who represent a majority of Iraq's population — have bitterly opposed Saddam's leadership since 1991, when the Iraqi president crushed Shiite uprisings after the Gulf War.

Many Shiites, led by the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, still hold the United States responsible for facilitating the slaughter by allowing Saddam's military to fly attack helicopters against them.

Hundreds of Shiite militiamen, backed by the Supreme Council and the Iranian government, have recently set up an armed camp in northern Iraq, from which they plan on fighting the Iraqi military once a U.S.-led invasion begins.

Worries over power vacuum

The heart of the country, greater Baghdad, a sprawling metropolis of 6 million mostly Sunni and Shiite Muslims, is also likely to be riven by strife and intrigue, with revenge killings of officials from Saddam's Baath Party likely after its brutal reign.

Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst who argues in favor of invading Iraq, said he believes most Iraqis would see U.S. troops as liberators, at least initially. But he said he is worried "that we won't have enough troops to provide the kind of immediate security presence to ensure that there isn't going to be a power vacuum."

The Army and the Marine Corps have extensive experience conducting stability operations in Iraq. They deployed 20,000 troops for 3½ months after the Gulf War ended to conduct Operation Provide Comfort, a humanitarian mission to protect the Kurds.

Bad memories

While U.S. forces began that mission by confronting the Iraqi military, they ended up squaring off with Kurdish militia, a cautionary tale for U.S. peacekeepers entering the north.

"It was really a wild time, a very bloody time," recalled one officer, noting that the operation involved multi-front fighting in which Kurds attacked Iraqi security forces, and also attacked each other, while the Turkish military attacked one Kurdish faction.

Interestingly, several commanders from Provide Comfort are key figures in the current confrontation with Iraq and have made clear that lessons learned 12 years ago have not been forgotten. One of them is retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the Pentagon's coordinator for relief and reconstruction efforts in postwar Iraq.

Another, Marine Gen. James Jones, who commanded Marines during the operation and was accosted at one point by Iraqi forces, is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's combatant commander in Europe. A third is Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, an American of Lebanese descent who speaks fluent Arabic. He is now deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for executing an invasion of Iraq, and defense officials speculate that he may be designated the U.S. military commander for postwar Iraq.

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company