How Many Dead In Iraq?
Don't ask me how the new Osama Bin Laden tape is going to affect the Bush and Kerry campaigns. I haven't a clue.
I do know how it ought to affect the rest of us. OBL's non-chalant manner of justifying and vowing more mass death ought to chill us.
Equally chilling is the report coming today from the Johns Hopkins researchers who extrapolate as many as 100,000 civilian deaths so far caused by the war in Iraq.
A word about the reliability of such figures in a moment"¦
But my work as a reporter who has covered social conflict for the past three decades makes these sort of numbers anything but abstract to me. I know what 100,000 dead in Guatemala or 75,000 in El Salvador look like.
A hundred thousand dead in Iraq is an awesome, horrifying number. And numbers mean a lot in war. Until now, the operative figure of civilian dead in Iraq has floated around 17,000. Sorry to be so clinical, but that was a relatively low figure as modern war goes (unless of course you are a relative of one of the casualties).
A hundred thousand dead would be "collateral damage" of a whole different magnitude.
Problem is, the Johns Hopkins report seems anything but convincing. Writing in Slate magazine, Fred Kaplan convincingly deconstructs the methodology employed and reveals the figure of 100,000 to be quite shaky — fortunately.
The variables built in to the study, Kaplan explains, would actually indicate additional deaths of somewhere between 8,000 and 198,000 — 100,000 being simply the arbitrary mid-point:
"So, let's call it 15,000 or"”allowing for deaths that the press didn't report"”20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure"”and, given that fact, no less shocking."Exactly. Horror is horror. No need to exaggerate. I thoroughly reported the 1989 invasion of Panama and know to a moral certainty that a total of about 500 people died in that pointless "war." And yet, thanks to a lot of endlessly recycled hyperbole the completely unsubstantiated figure of 4,000 has become accepted "fact" by many critics of the war. Likewise, those of us who resisted and opposed the Pinochet regime in Chile absolutely swore for an entire decade that he had killed upward of 25,000 people. More careful accounting in the mid-80's determined the real figure was about 3200 — macabre enough in a nation of 11 million people. Let's hope that opponents of the current war in Iraq take no comfort from such a bloody figure as 100,000 dead. Our most sincere hope must be that the figure is considerably lower. The Pentagon and the Bush administration only feed the paranoia and possible exaggeration by refusing to keep any public tally of the civilian dead. This is, of course, inexcusable. Civilian victims are exactly that and their deaths should be respected and honored. How can we as nation claim, with a straight face, that we are willing to pay any price to bring democracy to the Iraqi people but we can't be bothered to keep track of how many innocents might perish in the process? Those of us who oppose the war must maintain the moral high road. The more recklessly the administration handles its rationales, justifications and accounting of the war, the more precise and exact we must be.
October 29th, 2004 at 11:44 pm
Well, said.
I am always astonished at the high minded rhetoric thrown around about our willingness to “pay any price” to bring freedom to the Iraqis—yet tallying up the far greater price in lives paid by the objects of our unasked for grand beneficence is just too much of a bother.
October 30th, 2004 at 12:04 am
How the heck is the US to keep a civilian death toll? In a country with the security issues of Iraq, it would not be possible to come close to a good number. If you look at the Hopkins survey, security issues reduced their sampling area. A US effort to keep track would have the same problem. The genuine “collateral damage” casualties will almost all be in areas controlled by rebels or terrorists. You can’t waltz in there and count dead civilians. The hospitals in hostile areas can’t be trusted either. We saw that with the first Marine attack on Fallujah.
Having what you want to count be in hostile territory, with hostile residents eager to exaggerate the civilian death toll for political reasons, makes such an idea even less practical.
Finally, what purpose would such a count serve? Provide political fodder for those who oppose the war? Can you think of any other value?
The US is using technology and tactics that minimize civilian deaths, but when the enemy is among the civilians, sometimes there is nothing you can do. Many Amore mericans have died as a result of tactics chosen for their reduced risk to civilians.
For example, the Marine invasion of Fallujah minimized the use of heavy weapons – bombs and artillery – to minimize civilian deaths. Had the Marines simply wanted to take over Fallujah, without regard for civilian casualties, they would have provided an escape route, and then started heavy bombing and shelling. Fewer Marines would have died. A whole lot more civilians would have died.
I think any complaint about civilian deaths has to be taken in context. If we weren’t there, how many would Saddam have killed? What state would Iraq be in regarding weapons of mass destruction and terrorism?
The US military prides itself on minimizing civilian deaths. It probably produces fewer civilian deaths for a given operation than any other force in the world is capable of.
Furthermore, they have been trying to avoid any kind of body count mentality, because of the trouble it caused during the Vietnam War.
October 30th, 2004 at 12:17 am
Hostile territory? In a country we occupy? With a government we installed? We have no responsibility to keep a guesstimate? We just kill them and let someone else sort them out? Yes, there’s a context for eveything. And yes, I dont think civilians are purposefully targeted. But it tests the imagination to believe the US is interested in a political victory if it ignores political realities. Dead civilians, for whatever reasons, are political realities. They sure are for us, arent they?
October 30th, 2004 at 1:13 am
“I think any complaint about civilian deaths has to be taken in context. If we weren’t there, how many would Saddam have killed?”
According to all serious Middle East experts, that’s a no-brainer, far far fewer than have been killed or died unnecessarily in the last year and a half in Iraq. Just compare numbers with the last ten years.
Another interesting stat, and entirely consistent with the history of war, the majority of civilians dead, women and children, followed by the elderly.
October 30th, 2004 at 1:26 am
There is an irony in the questioning of the numbers, which is fine by me, since most statistical analyses tend to be flawed in one respect or another. Michael Turner made an excellent argument about the terribly unreliable character of the estimates of ‘millions’ killed in Cambodia a while ago on the Totten comments section, and boy was he attacked for that. Similar criticisms can be made and have been made by serious demographers about the hyped numbers around the Great Leap Forward famine. None of these change the reality that awful things happened in both instances, but when challenges are made against the numbers in the common sensical discourse on official enemies of the US, rarely are they deconstructed, to borrow the now chique Derridean concept. However, when liberal scientists come out with estimates of the motherland’s role in creating havoc and death abroad in unnecessary military adventures based on almost unprecedented lies and media complicity, immediately out come the criticisms of the methodology.
And now I await the invariable attacks of being a Khymer Rouge Maoist lover of Sodom.
October 30th, 2004 at 1:46 am
Juan Cole has an excellent commentary on the study:
http://www.juancole.com/2004_10_01_juancole_archive.html#109902941049326214
October 30th, 2004 at 2:02 am
Civilian deaths taken into context? This strikes me as similar to the arguments I heard at the time of Abu Ghraid, that our torutues weren’t as bad as Saddams. I mean not only are we an occupying army in Iraq, but we went in there supposedly on a democratising mission. Apologetics for torture, abuse and civilian on our behalf strike me as hollow. While we’re speaking of casualties, I just caught Seymour Hersh on TV arguing that US bombing of civilian neighbourhoods in Iraq has increased dramatically, with next to one in the US press bothering to issue reports, much less question the adminstration.
As for Josh’s proposition that the US “prides itself” on maintaining low civilian casualties…United States of Amnesia for all!
October 30th, 2004 at 4:33 am
John Moore said: “The US military prides itself on minimizing civilian deaths. It probably produces fewer civilian deaths for a given operation than any other force in the world is capable of.”
“Probably”….
When an organization has a serious goal, something that it takes pride in, it measures that something. If not, there is no way to tell whether the goal is being achieved, to learn ways to improve in the future, etc. The military measures a great many things for these reasons, things small and large.
Therefore, a complete failure to make any accounting of civilian deaths resulting from U.S. military action, in Afghanistan and Iraq, shows that minimizing these deaths is not a serious goal. Instead, there is simply an assertion, an article of faith, that lower civilian deaths are the result of new fighting techniques.
Carl Conetta, with the Project for Defense Alternatives, and the Canadian military blogger Bruce Rolston, have made these points with more authority than I in their examinations of civilian casualties in the U.S.-waged Afghan and Iraq wars.
Bombing cities kills large number of civilians. The U.S. military is bombing cities on a weekly basis in Iraq. Many Americans do not know this, and many do not want to know.
October 30th, 2004 at 6:21 am
I am having trouble discerning a positive difference between 10,000 and 100,000 civilian deaths other than that the higher count would provide certain evidence that our precision bombing is actually not very precise.
October 30th, 2004 at 7:46 am
Regarding the last comment by too many steves (and how can there ever be “too many steves”?), I am having trouble discerning how the lives of 90,000 people wouldn’t constitute a “positive difference”. I must also note that often it appears that the folks who have been backed into the corner of rationalizing the war in Iraq on the basis of their concern for Saddam’s war crimes and mass graves – deaths that in most cases date to conflicts in which the U.S. either assisted Saddam with military intelligence or encouraged an anti-Saddam uprising that our leaders then turned their backs on – make rather astoundingly bloodless comments about civilian Iraqi deaths (and U.S. casualties for that matter.)
October 30th, 2004 at 8:03 am
One more thing on this issue, and it will be my last. Let’s remember that the folks who would rather we evade the issue of Iraqi casualties also objected to Nightline showing the names and faces of our own kids who’ve died in this war.
October 30th, 2004 at 8:11 am
This is how the Johns Hopkins-Columbia-Mustansiriya figure was derived:
The researchers conducted their survey in September 2004. They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods of 30 homes from across Iraq and interviewed the residents about the number and ages of the people living in each home. Over 7,800 Iraqis were included. Residents were questioned about the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household since January 2002. Information was also collected about the causes and circumstances of each death. When possible, the deaths were verified with a death certificate or other documentation.
The researchers compared the mortality rate among civilians in Iraq during the 14.6 months prior to the March 2003 invasion with the 17.8 month period following the invasion. The sample group reported 46 deaths prior to the March 2003 and 142 deaths following the invasion. The results were calculated twice, both with and without information from the city of Falluja. The researchers felt the excessive violence from combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred.
Essentially, the 100,000-deaths figure is reached extrapolating from that 7,800 sample to the estimated March 2003 population of 24.4 million Iraqis. I can’t for a minute pretend I know whether or not this approach is methodologically sound or not. But here’s what the Associated Press says about it:
Richard Peto, an expert on study methods who was not involved with the research, said the approach the scientists took is a reasonable one to investigate the Iraq death toll.
However, it’s possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq, said Peto, a professor of medical statistics at Oxford University in England.
Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s.
According to the AP, the survey’s lead researcher, Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University, decided when the Lancet article would be published, and influencing the election was undeniably a factor:
“I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election,” Roberts told The Associated Press. “My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq.
“I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives,” Roberts said. “As an American, I am really, really sorry to be reporting this.”
“This isn’t about individual soldiers doing bad things. This appears to be a problem with the approach to occupation in Iraq,” Roberts said.
The researchers called for further confirmation by an independent body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the World Health Organization.
October 30th, 2004 at 8:41 am
Silent Cal: 100000 civilian deaths is certainly worse than 10000, but my point is that 10000 dead civilians is pretty damn horrible. My bad for being unclear.
The blame for these deaths falls to both sides – the insurgents because they actively attempt to make distinguishing warriors from civilians impossible and because they hide and travel among the civilians; and we, the Coalition, because we deploy battlefield tactics that allow for such a high number of civilian casualties even given what we know of the insurgents tactics.
Worse yet, I am suspicious that the “collatoral damage” that results from our imprecision is an ancillary part of the overall war effort in that it may have the effect of undermining the support for the insurgents among the locals.
October 30th, 2004 at 11:24 am
I have taught statistics in the past (though not currently) and have some familiarity with the topic. Marc is correct in the sense that this study is deeply flawed and should not be part of the debate of “numbers.” I am strongly pro-life, and thus even one needless death (other than due to old age) is a tragedy. But I also know that war produces dead peoples.
I was going to write an article about the Lancet study for Marc, but he did a good job of puncturing the methodology. You can find some that support the methodology, but many more who do not. Suffice it to say that it is “useless” information.
Now, collateral deaths are a tragedy as I said, and even more so to the ones that loved the deceased. But, expecting Bush (or Clinton, or Johnson, or … fill in the blank) to be able to eliminate civilian casualties is a no-brainer, it can’t be done.
In WWII, terror bombing of cities was governmental policy and may have indeed been necessary to end a war that might not have ended otherwise. Dresden, London, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Stalingrad, Warsaw, Tokyo, Rome, Palermo (the list goes on and on) saw huge numbers of civilian casualties. The civilian loss of life in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc far exceeded the combatant casualty counts.
Is Iraq any different? Apparently not! In addition, I am not relying on the bogus numbers of the Lancet study either. There have been far too many civilian casualties.
During the years between gulf wars, some estimates of “children casualties” were as high as 4,000 or 5,000 per month. However, in 1999, Unicef estimated 108 infants per 1000 births dying. Lancet says 57 per 1000. So, one could argue from those numbers that the war improved the chances of an infant making it to childhood. That is bull and everyone knows it, but it does point to numbers being used to bolster arguments. In the “social sciences” this type of advocacy has been going on for a long time (3 million homeless anyone?) This type of statistical game playing is used to generate sympathy for a cause and you are one cold-hearted sob if it does not affect you. But the numbers are still a lie.
As Marc said regarding Pinochet, there is a huge difference between 25,000 and 3,200. While the murder of 3,200 people is a true tragedy, the sympathy grabbing idea of 25,000 is so much more horrendous
We need to do everything we can to make every effort to minimize any civilian casualty. But, know that it cannot, will not be a perfect result. Especially when the “insurgency” hides among the civilian population and wantonly attacks that population.
Civilian death is tragic, but usually unavoidable. Combatant death is desired in war (the other guys, not your guys). When it is government policy (as in WWII, both sides) it is “the national will.”
As Stalin once is said to have said “One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are merely a statistic.” Keep a perspective on the reporting as well as the cause.
October 30th, 2004 at 11:32 am
“The blame for these deaths falls to both sides – the insurgents because they actively attempt to make distinguishing warriors from civilians impossible and because they hide and travel among the civilians; and we, the Coalition, because we deploy battlefield tactics that allow for such a high number of civilian casualties even given what we know of the insurgents tactics.”
Since many of the civilian deaths are due to the bombing campaigns, I can’t see how the two can be equivalent for starters. But even more important, most of the world would not agree with your statement by virtue of the utterly illegal and unnecessary characteristic of the occupation alone. The idea, for example, that a resistance movement in the US wouldn’t engage guerilla tactics to get rid of a superpower 10x our size in military power [say from Mars] is pretty hard to believe. Recall the Brits complained endlessly about the use of guerilla tactics when they fought against the American revolution. No less did we complain about guerilla tactics during Vietnam, as did the French in Algeria, the Italians in Ethiopia, etc. Not anything new really, nor is it new that the occupying powers try to blame the resistance for the large numbers of war related deaths and injuries, loss of economic subsistence, etc.
October 30th, 2004 at 11:42 am
“Civilian death is tragic, but usually unavoidable.”
However, it is only noteworthy in the media, with exceptions for the sake of ‘balance’, with outrage when the ‘enemy’ is responsible for the civilian deaths. The media has made a far far bigger deal of civilians being killed by whatever form of resistance is involved in the killing of civilians than the far larger numbers being killed by ‘precision bombs’, trigger nervous soldiers, etc. The outrage at the ‘enemy’ is far far greater in the US, no less is the attention to US lives lost. At least this is consistent with the war effort however, which had nothing to do with helping Iraqis anyhow.
October 30th, 2004 at 12:25 pm
Here is an Iraqi who has suffered greatly from the war who believes the price is worth it. It seems that a number of Iraqis place a rather celestial value on Liberty.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/10/news-from-front.html
When you look at what Americans have been willing to pay for liberty it wonders me why so many Americans think that only we value liberty so highly. Or is it that you think the wogs are different?
October 30th, 2004 at 12:28 pm
No Marc. You’re wrong. They’re not really dead. The jihadis have kidnapped them all and are hiding them in a bunker outside Tehran just to shame the U.S.
October 30th, 2004 at 12:56 pm
Shouldn’t war ALWAYS be a last resort for the reasons being discussed. Can anyone seriously argue that THIS war was a last resort ? Don’t bother rehashing current Admin talking points for it. Just think about it.
October 30th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
Shouldn’t full-scale war ALWAYS be a last resort for the reasons being discussed. Can anyone seriously argue that THIS war was a last resort ? Don’t bother rehashing current Admin talking points for it. Just think about it.
October 30th, 2004 at 1:14 pm
Mr. Simon, Your reference is plainly in the minority, most Iraqis want the occupation to end today, not tomorrow.
As for Americans not having the stomach, hey, we’re not that much different from the Bush family now are we? Maybe if it were their kids dying, we’d feel like we had stronger stomachs.
Check out this marine’s reflections on the war:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20337/
October 30th, 2004 at 1:30 pm
So let me see if I have got it.
The “insurgents” in Iraq are promoting liberal democracy in Iraq and the Bushies want to impose an American controlled tyrany?
–==–
Once upon a time I was a liberal – you know – extend the values of liberty and self rule through out the world. Peaceably if possible by force when necessary. We rejoiced at the overthrow of tyrants.
–==–
I’m still a liberal. Only now instead of a Democrat, I’m a Republican.
How did that happen?
–==–
Liberalism in America is very sick these days. The sickness started when we gave the Vietnamese people to the Communists (a move I supported at the time – alas).
Why have the Democrats put up Kerry when they could have had Lieberman? A dude who would have gotten my vote in an instant. Lieberman understands capitalism generates wealth and it ought to be nurtured. Without wealth it is impossible to help the less fortunate.
Lieberman also understands the war. I think he would have been as unrelenting as Bush.
So here I am stuck with the Republicans and the chimp in chief.
Let me repeat. What ever happened to liberalism in America?
October 30th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
A quick question: GM, I certainly have never taught statistics, but my degree and post grad work is in psychology, so I was forced into dealing with the odious number stuff more than I’d have liked. So, explain, if you would, why you say that the Lancet methods are so deeply flawed that the shouldn’t be considered.
First let me qualify my question by saying—it seems to me, simply from a logical perspective, that the Lancet estimates are just that: estimates. Their methods seem roughly analogous to polling numbers, and other like surveys that use random samplings to extrapolate the whole, with the understanding that there may be other factors—plus or minus—that the samplings fail to measure, causing them to skew high or low.
In other words, while it would be foolish to take those Lancet numbers to the bank (and purely on a gut level, as has been expressed here and elsewhere, most of us suspect that they’re skewing pretty high), yet to say that they are so flawed as to be useless even as estimates, thus they should not be factored in as part of the numbers dialogue at all, doesn’t track logically—at least to my admittedly math-phobic mind. So explain what your thinking is on this, if you wouldn’t mind.
Also, this is a ‘graph from the Juan Cole run down on the issue that Steve has linked to above. For those of you not, at least occasionally glancing at Juan Cole’s blog, I certainly recommend you start. Cole has a strong POV, which you’ll easily discern. However, his contacts in and around the ME are getting better all the time, thus— whether you agree with his take on the facts or not– he’s an excellent source for those attempting to keep an eye the situation in Iraq et al, beyond what you see on the nightly news.
Here’s the Juan Cole graph:
“The most important finding from my point of view is not the magnitude of civilian deaths, but the method of them. Roberts and Burnham find that US aerial bombardments are killing far more Iraqi civilians than had previously been suspected. This finding is also not a surprise to me. I can remember how, on a single day (August 12), US warplanes bombed the southern Shiite city of Kut, killing 84 persons, mainly civilians, in an attempt to get at Mahdi Army militiamen. These deaths were not widely reported in the US press, especially television. Kut is a small place and has been relatively quiet except when the US has been attacking Muqtada al-Sadr, who is popular among some segments of the population there. The toll in Sadr City or the Shiite slums of East Baghdad, or Najaf, or in al-Anbar province, must be enormous….”
One more thing: Just to head off another three-page John Moore diatribe: no one is suggesting that the military isn’t doing it’s best to avoid civilian casualties, but if you invade a country and, post invasion, find yourself fighting a widespread guerrilla resistant movement, one of two things is likely to happen: Either A. you will lose, or B. you will unavoidably kill a tremendous number of civilians. The Catch 22 is, of course, the more civilians you kill, the larger the resistance is likely to grow.
In terms of the World War II analogies in terms of civilian casualties—at the risk of sounding like a broken record: In WWII WE WERE RESPONDING TO AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON THE U.S.! Morality was on our side.
In Afghanistan: WE WERE RESPONDING TO AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON THE U.S.. Morality was on our side.
Not so in Iraq. Period. Thus the morality of a mounting number of civilian casualties becomes harder and harder to justify.
October 30th, 2004 at 1:43 pm
I’m sure only a minority want liberty in Iraq.
It was the same in 1776 and that turned out all right.
The key for me is – after every bombing the numbers applying for positions in the Iraqi security services increases.
And then we have the success in Afghanistan.
You think we will muck up Iraq as badly as we have done in Afghanistan? I hope so.
There will be elections in Iraq in a couple of months. People will have a chance to vote and voice their opinion (kind of like we do in America from time to time). Might it not be wise to see what the outcome of that vote is?
Now that we have committed to Iraq shouldn’t we wait a bit to hear the voice of the Iraqi people? Or do you fear that in a fair election that the Iraqis might want a few more years of American support until like Germany and Japan they can stand on their own?
In fact until the fall of the Soviets the Germans were at least somewhat happy about American willingness to defend them. Why should the Iraqis be any different?
Is it because the Vietnamese are happier under communist tyrany than the South Koreans are under American imposed liberty? I believe that. For sure.
October 30th, 2004 at 1:51 pm
This from today’s New York Daily News regarding he OBL tape:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/247753p-212149c.html
“We want people to think ‘terrorism’ for the last four days,” said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. “And anything that raises the issue in people’s minds is good for us.”
A senior GOP strategist added, “anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush.”
He called it “a little gift,” saying it helps the President but doesn’t guarantee his reelection.
Osama bin Laden alive, well and threatening America is….A LITTLE GIFT??!!!!!!!
October 30th, 2004 at 2:02 pm
Rose dog,
In responding to an unprovoked attack on America by Japan, America responded by attacking Tripoli which had never attaced us. It was a disgrace. On top of that we suffered defeat at the hands of the Germans defending Tripoli from the onslaught of the Americans. What kind of stupidity keeps going in the same direction after so many American dead?
What kind of morality was that American action?
I think we should have taken your council and left Tripoli alone. What had they ever done to us?
If we were going to attack any where shouldn’t we have gone straight for Germany instead of bombing for years the helpless French? What did the French do to deserve all the killing? Weren’t the Germans doing their best to protect the French from the American onslaught?
On top of that we did the same thing to the Philipines we did to the French. Where was that at?
I’m sure had you been in charge of things in WW2 we could have accomplished our goals with much lower casualties among American troops and hardly any at all among the civilians.
Well I’m convinced. Compared to the thousands killed in one day invading France, the thousand or so killed in a year in Iraq is a disgrace.
You supporting Kerry?
I’m convinced.
Kerry in a landslide.
October 30th, 2004 at 2:09 pm
rosedog,
I think Kerry could have won the election (is that a prediction?) had he personally killed Osama with his bare hands. Or possibly a knife. Hell he could have used a Model 1911. It would have been OK.
Why did Kerry let Osama get away? After all Kerry has enough money to do a personal operation to get Osama.
Then Americans could have focused on the real issues.
Why did Kerry let Osama go?
October 30th, 2004 at 2:11 pm
OT but Republicans need to understand that even if Mr. Bush wins (and I suspect he will) on Tuesday movement conservativism and GOP dominance are finished. The neoconservatives will bear a significant share of the responsibility for the coming Republican decline by goading this country into the same kind of disastrous Wilsonian idealism of the 1960s McNamara crowd, but the supply side set will not be without responsibility as well, for helping to lead ths country into a coming debt and currency crisis of historical magnitude. And of course we can’t leave out the culpability of the theoconservatives for the coming Republican decline, and their fanatical and anti-mainstream commitment to rolling back the cultural liberalization of the 1960s.
Indeed, the Republicans now most resemble the Democratic Party of the mid 1960s, in control of all three branches of the federal government, but poised to fracture from within (and soon). The GOP leadership, like the Democratic leadership of the Johnson/Nixon era was increasingly out of touch with the American mainstream (read: independents), and like the shrill left-wing activists and propagandists of the 1960s and early 1970s, the most ideologically driven elements of the GOP are not simply increasingly out of touch with the mainstream, but out of touch with reality. The GOP today, like the Democrats of the later 1960s, seems intent on no longer being the adults in the room, and it will cost them the country for a generation.
October 30th, 2004 at 2:26 pm
“The “insurgents” in Iraq are promoting liberal democracy in Iraq and the Bushies want to impose an American controlled tyrany?”
Not quite that black and white surely. More like this: The resistance is multifaceted with one clear goal, the removal of the ongoing US occupation, which has no legitimate place in a new Iraq. The Bushies wish to implant a government that does as Washington sees fit, tyrannical or otherwise.
“Lieberman understands capitalism generates wealth and it ought to be nurtured. Without wealth it is impossible to help the less fortunate.”
Unfortunately you don’t understand capitalism. The formula for Iraq (privatization, allowing foreigners to buy up cheap and send out 100% of profits out of the country tax free, etc.) is the exact opposite of the formula that made Germany and Japan rich countries.
October 30th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
“In responding to an unprovoked attack on America by Japan, America responded by attacking Tripoli which had never attaced us. It was a disgrace. On top of that we suffered defeat at the hands of the Germans defending Tripoli from the onslaught of the Americans. What kind of stupidity keeps going in the same direction after so many American dead?”
You’re comparing the German military machine of 1941 with Saddam’s exhausted “army” of 2003??? WOW!
October 30th, 2004 at 4:04 pm
It would be interesting to have information about the number of Iraqis killed by the insurgents. This situation is unlike most of the insurgency situations mentioned by commentors in that the insurgents seem to attack the occupier less vigorously than it attacks ita own citizens. (Unless one attributes the results to gross incompetence.)
It is really pretty twisted to equate efforts to prevent development of a secure country and frustrate free elections with resistance such as one saw in Europe in WWII, etc.
Where is yesterday’s voice urging that the combatants “give peace a chance?” Stop the insurgency and see whether the US leaves or not.
October 30th, 2004 at 4:24 pm
Earth to conservatives: the war in Iraq is lost. You’re finished.
Sincerely,
God
October 30th, 2004 at 4:36 pm
“This situation is unlike most of the insurgency situations mentioned by commentors in that the insurgents seem to attack the occupier less vigorously than it attacks ita own citizens.”
False, that might be what CNN/FOX are telling you, but reality is they kill civilians less than the US. There’s no way the insurgents, with their low level of military technology could kill nearly as many as “precision” bombs, bradleys, helicopters, etc.
Do they kill, even target civilians? Some cells certainly do, though it’s likely the majority do not. Even the worst among them can’t compete with the dameage the US has done. Not even close.
October 30th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
“God” writes, “Earth to conservatives:”
Hmmm, if this were really from God, shouldn’t it read “Heaven to Conservatives on earth?”
tawdry, really tawdry!
October 30th, 2004 at 5:08 pm
Earth to God:
Please send another son, so we can nail his ass to a cross again.
October 30th, 2004 at 5:09 pm
rosedog writes, “I am always astonished at the high minded rhetoric thrown around about our willingness to “pay any price”
Are you equally astonished at the high minded rhetoric thrown around by the left of center folk? If not, why not and how does that affect your weltschraung? (please answer in no more than 20 typed pages, APA format with endnotes as appropriate.
October 30th, 2004 at 5:52 pm
“Hmmm, if this were really from God, shouldn’t it read “Heaven to Conservatives on earth?”
First of all, unless that “God” fella is a Taro Plant, He’s a FAKE god!! Second of all, hey GM, the presidency, both houses, and you STILL don’t think you’re in Heaven????
October 30th, 2004 at 6:06 pm
I don’t doubt that bombing is killing “civilians”, especially women. But I also don’t doubt that a lot more men, dressed as civilians, are dying — though they are, in fact, terrorists.
(I don’t think so many women are terrorists.)
The Leftists are certainly trying to use civilian deaths to claim a “moral high ground” — and this is good. It’s good to argue about some of the real costs, and these civilian Iraqi deaths are among the greatest of costs. The Slate article says 20 000 is a better estimate. And it’s still a lot.
But how much is it worth? There is no mention of the benefit of booting Saddam in any similar metric.
At some point, as the Iraqi Police become better at stopping (and killing?) terrorists, the blame for the deaths is going to switch to be on the terrorists. Primarily, and overwhelmingly. The bombing deaths are because the local Iraqis did NOT provide enough support to the Iraqi Police “good guys”, and their American allies, to kill only the terrorists.
The local civilians are not fully innocent; they are NOT willing to risk helping the liberators, yet. When they do start helping, they’ll be liberated. And most of the liberation caused dying will stop.
October 30th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
“But I also don’t doubt that a lot more men, dressed as civilians, are dying — though they are, in fact, terrorists.”
Wow, not even the US military is making such outlandish claims.
As for Iraqi civilian deaths being part of the ‘costs’ [I envision some Charles Dickens character counting pennie] they don’t even make the barometer in the debate, not even close. ALL that matters is numbers of American dead, end of story.
As for Iraqi police improving,
I recall you guys saying that last year. I have a feeling we’ll be hearing it again next year this time. Only it’ll be in light of probably 2 or more thousand US deaths. Whether by then 100K or 500K Iraqis are dead won’t enter into the debate.
And the number of Iraqis who believe the US is there to liberate can be counted with one hand.
October 30th, 2004 at 6:22 pm
I think it was Michael Turner who put it well a while back, if Iraq were truly the center of the “War” on “Terror”, you’d see armchair warriors signing up to go and fight the ‘terrorists’. Let me put it like this, what self-respecting hater of “islamo-terrorism” who was under 30 wouldn’t be in Iraq now if they truly believed the threat that caused 911 or future 911s was and is in Iraq?
October 30th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
“South of Baghdad, witnesses said a U.S. convoy came under attack, prompting Iraqi forces to open fire randomly and throw hand grenades, hitting three minibuses and three vans. At least 14 people were killed, hospital officials said.
Three minibuses and three vans were hit on the street near Haswa, 25 miles south of Baghdad, witnesses said.
Abdul Razzaq al-Janabi, director of Iskandariyah General Hospital, said 14 people were killed and 10 others injured. More wounded were taken to other hospitals. Reporters saw bloody bodies riddled with bullet holes inside the buses.
In Baghdad, Mohammed Bashar al-Faydhi, a spokesman for the influential Association of Muslim Scholars, demanded a government investigation into “this massacre” because “Iraqi policemen are carrying out such crimes.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-103004iraq_wr,0,2512425.story?coll=la-home-headlines
October 30th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
Note… I’m sorry, but this will be a little long, as it tries to answer multiple posts and issues.
Marc Cooper
Would you explain how the military would keep track of civilian casualties? Certainly the information would be useful in calibrating battle tactics to reduce that casualty rate, but gathering the information is hard. For one thing, places you bomb tend to be not where you can go in and ask, or if you conquer the area, believe the answers.
Can you cite me on example of a military operation where civilian casualties were measured during the operation?
If not, perhaps you should communicate this new standard to our military and add it to their responsibilities.
Re: The Study
I have read that if you take Fallujah out of the numbers, the excess death rate is calculated from 27 excess deaths. This is probably why the error bars are so wide. Any study where there is a 95% probability that the number is between really small and horribly enormous is worthless. See other posters.
Earth to Liberals
Look where the insurgency is strongest. Look who lives there. Hint: Sunnis, many Baathists.
This is not a normal insurgency against an imperialist occupation. It is a pre-planned attempt by the Baathists to regain their power. We know that M14, one of Saddam’s security organizations, planned for the insurgency before the invasion, and presumably emplaced equipment and munitions, and set up cells and communications. This also means it is not a popular uprising, but essentially Saddam’s government gone underground. So anyone with standard liberal romantic notions of rebels needs to recognize that these folks are essentially Nazis who want to take over the country again.
We are bombing and shelling parts of Fallujah right now. This is preparation for retaking Fallujah. If they don’t leave, many civilians will be killed. But what is the alternative? Let the Baathists continue their activity?
Some object to bombing. But what is the alternative… hand to hand combat? While we want to minimize civilian casualties, we also want to minimize American casualties. It’s is a macabre balance that has to be struck. Does anyone have a formula we should use?
Earlier we also had the Sadr Brigades, which was a different situation. This was a move for power in a power vacuum by a guy who wasn’t too bright, and his followers who were mostly thugs and criminals. He had no popular support, and hence his brigades were destroyed rather easily, but no doubt there were innocent civilian deaths in the process. Our operations against Sadr had the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani.
If you step back and look at it, the insurgency is not a popular uprising. The guerillas are in Fallujah because that is friendly territory. And friendly territory actually includes a small part if Iraq, including parts of Baghdad.
I challenge those who are moralizing about the civilian casualties to suggest an alternative. It’s easy to point fingers, but so far nobody has suggested an alternative.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that we have freed a people from something horrible. The question is whether they can keep their freedom. We could end up doing as we did in Vietnam, where a liberal congress forced us to abandon the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laos. The result was a bloodbath, at least in Cambodia and Vietnam, and the Vietnamese are still living under a tyranny. But hey, at least we could go back to our knitting.
Someone commented on the Republicans becoming Wilsonian. I think that was a result of a view that undemocratic Muslim countries would support terrorists. Iraq was already doing so (with some minor links to Al Qaeda and an Al Qaeda organization operating in the NE – Zarqawi’s).
There may be some among the neocons who want to go to war just to export Democracy. Most of us want to remove the territory for terrorists to operate. The democratization of Iraq is an experiment. If it works, there is a way to deal with the problem. If it does not, then we are left with harder problems.
Consider the big picture here: Al Qaeda gets a nuke. Al Qaeda sets off that nuke in, let’s say, Los Angeles.
What do we do next? Go to the UN? Think about what the citizens will be thinking, and what they will DEMAND of their government. It won’t be pretty.
That is the risk that is behind the War on Terror, along with the biological weapons risk. Chemical weapons are nothing in comparison.
So, how do we stop it?
Iran is developing nukes and ICBM’s. They have announced they will launch a satellite next year. Depending on the weight and orbit, that may demonstrate ICBM capability. They may be very close to having nukes already, depending on whether they bought enriched uranium from North Korea (as many people believe, based on an incident that resulted in closing a very large and brand new civilian airport indefinitely). They may have a nuke or two. It is unlikely they can be stopped short of pre-emptive attack (and guess who has a whole lot of forces and airbases north of Iran and west of iran).
Imagine that the Saudi’s then get nukes (yes, they’ve been trying to).
A big flash in LA. What do you do? The US populace will be scared to death, demanding safety and revenge. But who do you nuke? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan (it’s got nukes)? North Korea? Or maybe China slipped a nuke to Al Qaeda, knowing we couldn’t backtrace it with so many possible supplies.
Nuclear proliferation is the big issue in the “War on Terror.” Biological weapons are equally dangerous. Nothing else is significant.
…as a side note…
For those who say Iraq had not attacked us, that just isn’t true. Iraq harbored terrorists who had killed Americans. It payed the families of suicide bombers who killed Americans in Israel. Saddam tried to have Bush Sr. killed, an act of war that Clinton fecklessly failed to respond to. Iraq was shooting at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zones – an act of war – on a daily basis for years. In fact, it was to keep that operation going that we had people on Saudi soil, which was what Bin Laden cited as his reason for attacking us on 9-11. Furthermore, we never had a formal treaty ending the Gulf War, just a truce agreement that Saddam kept violating.
So we had casus belli up the ying yang.
[I'm not trying to say that the casus belli should have led to war... I'm just saying we had far more than the minimum legal requirements to invade Iraq]
Somebody mentioned that the bulk of civilian casualties was caused by bombing, and that is probably true. What nobody has addressed was why the civilians were in a place that needed bombing.
Certainly some were trapped with bad guys. Others may have been next door to a bad guy and gotten unlucky. Others no doubt were in the house with the bad guys, and were themselves supporting the insurrection. By such acts, they are combatantso, and if they bring their children into such a situation, they are setting up a tragedy that could be avoided. Nobody wants to kill kids, and one would hope that the folks in Fallujah have taken appropriate precautions – like leaving town with their kids, or temporarily staying in a safe part of town.
Some are hit by ammunition that fails to guide. That is an accidental (but predictable statistically) tragedy.
Then there are incidental civilian tragedies. A person shot because he is acting suspiciously but is not a bad guy, etc.
Finally, I’d suggest some Iraqi blogs (not including Riverbend’s): Healing Iraq – http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ – is by an Iraqi dentist, Zeyad. He lost a cousin to a US atrocity (apparently meant as hazing – also illegal) that led to death. He has an interesting viewpoint.
Also, Iraq the Model – http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ – a group blog by 3 Iraqi medical people. This one will be annoying to liberals because these guys decided to only put up good news.
October 30th, 2004 at 7:06 pm
“Look where the insurgency is strongest. Look who lives there. Hint: Sunnis, many Baathists.”
I didn’t realize Najaf was Sunni, I must not have been paying attention. I thought the Shiites wanted the US occupation to be over as much as the Sunnis.
I love this line from John:
“Somebody mentioned that the bulk of civilian casualties was caused by bombing, and that is probably true. What nobody has addressed was why the civilians were in a place that needed bombing.”
Yeah, they just really needed the bombing from a foreign occupier that has no need to be there in the first place.
Heck, why would a blog from prowar Iraqis bother anyone? They only put up good news, how could anyone doubt them? I’d be curious their take on the Iraqi police shooting up 3 minibuses today…
Like I said, ya really don’t have to look that far for signs of truth, not least of which is the armchair warriors under 30 would rather call for this that and other measures of vengeance in Iraq than go to Iraq to fight, lose legs, or die to ‘defend liberty’ in Iraq. Thus is the bizarre world we live in, one in which those who try most desparately to convince us how important this war is are most inclined to sit at home and not go and die.
October 30th, 2004 at 7:06 pm
GM,
Heaven is being fumigated. Roaches. I’m in Boca for the winter.
God
October 30th, 2004 at 7:22 pm
PS:
And don’t ask me if I can fix this election down here. That’s Satan’s work.
I think he might’ve had something to do with the last one.
However, I’m sorry about all those hurricanes though. TV sucks these days. You can understand my anger no? Whatever happened to Archie Bunker and that Seinfeld fellow? Those guys were funny. But all this reality stuff…pure crap.
October 30th, 2004 at 7:45 pm
War is “not a business of perfection,” President Clinton told a group of U.S. newspaper editors …[April 15,1999] Clinton called any civilian casualties regrettable, but inevitable.
“If anyone thinks that this is a reason for changing our mission, then the United States will never be able to bring military power to bear again,” he said, “because there is no such thing as flying airplanes this fast, dropping weapons this powerful, dealing with an enemy this pervasive, who is willing to use people as human shields, and never have this sort of tragic thing happen.”
“You cannot have this kind of conflict without some errors like this occurring. This is not a business of perfection.”
Clinton also said U.S. troops are there “because stability in Europe is important to our own security. We want to build a Europe that is peaceful, undivided and free, a Europe where young Americans do not have to fight and die again.”
And why would we not want a Middle East that is peaceful, undived and free where young Americans do not have to fight and die again.
“[T]he only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.†(GWB 9/20/01)
“This is not, however, just America’s fight. And what is at stake is not just America’s freedom. This is the world’s fight. This is civilization’s fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.†(GWB 9/20/01)
“The advance of freedom always carries a cost, paid by the bravest among us. America mourns the losses to our nation, and to many others. And today, I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled.†(GWB 9/21/04)
“And I have faith in the transforming power of freedom.†(GWB 9/21/04)
“we’re pursuing a strategy of–of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror; free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people; free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want.†(GWB 9/30/04)
“We must deal with threats before they fully materialize–and Saddam Hussein was a threat–and that we must spread liberty, because in the long run, the way to defeat hatred and tyranny and oppression is to spread freedom.†(GWB 9/30/04)
“Every life is precious. That’s what distinguishes us from the enemy. Everybody matters. But I think it’s worth it… I think it’s worth it, because I think–I know in the long-term, a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan will set such a powerful example in a part of the world that’s desperate for freedom. It will help change the world, that we can look back and say, we did our duty.†(GWB 9/30/04)
October 30th, 2004 at 7:48 pm
“It will help change the world, that we can look back and say, we did our duty.†(GWB 9/30/04)”
“We” not including the Bush clan’s offspring of course…
October 30th, 2004 at 7:50 pm
Responding to nameless.
I am certainly not under 30. I’m a Vietnam veteran. When most of today’s leaders in both parties were dodging the draft, I was serving. and, I don’t have a hangup about those who avoided service like the Democratic paraty suddenly developed after Clinton was out of office. Bush served fine in my book. Many others in his cabinet did not serve (although Rumsfeld was a Navy fighter pilot and Colin Powell was career Army and a Vetnam veteran).
Even so, I find the chickenhawk argument to be pathetic. If you support a war, you have to go fight in it? How illogical.
Regarding the Shia, no, they are not as interested in seeing us go. The most important thing is security. With a real government in Iraq, much of the resentment at occupation went away.
As would be true with most people anywhere in the world, most people in Iraq simply want to live a normal life. That means an end to fighting. It also means more freedom than they have ever had – they are very interested in that.
As for the comment about the occupier who didn’t need to be there in the first place, do you truly believe that Iraqis would be better off if we had left Saddam in power? If not, then what’s your beef?
October 30th, 2004 at 8:58 pm
Rosedog, your answer has been sent to Marc to decide how to put it up, as a response (It’s over three pages in length) or as a comment on his entry. I’ve sent him the full comment.
October 30th, 2004 at 10:39 pm
ã¡ã‚‡ã£ã¨ä¸‹ã‚‰ãªã„投稿ãªã‚‰ã€ã“ã®ãƒ–ãƒãƒƒã‚°ã¯ä¸€ç•ªã よã。
October 30th, 2004 at 11:29 pm
For a guy who complains constantly about America’s deficient democracy, you sure are quick to censor others Marc.
Maybe there is no democratic left after all.
October 31st, 2004 at 12:48 am
GM… Going up to the next thread to read. (I’m beginning to feel like I’m your straight man…er…woman.)
Meanwhile…about: “Are you equally astonished at the high minded rhetoric thrown around by the left of center folk?”
Hell, yes. I’m an equal opportunity churlishly snarky and opinionated grouch.
October 31st, 2004 at 12:58 am
John Moore writes, among much other commentary: “There may be some among the neocons who want to go to war just to export Democracy. Most of us want to remove the territory for terrorists to operate.”
A liberal democratic Iraq will not remove territory for terrorist operations. As I commented in this forum quite some time back, it will INCREASE that territory. Suicide-bomber terrorism in particular stems almost uniformly from the following pattern:
(1) The target society is more or less liberal and democratic. Chechen rebels can blow up buildings in Moscow precisely because Russia is no longer a police state. Russia now offers considerable freedom of movement, compared to the time when Russians needed internal passports to go from one city to another, and in which there was an elaborately-nested hierarchy of internal exile cities. Indeed, terror as a political strategy is almost invariably tied up in creating an ambivalent citizenry within the target society, divided between those who feel that stringent police state measures are justified in the name of security (um, I check in with Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin on that point) vs. those who think ceding territory to the terror-sponsoring organization is the better deal, and who suspect and fear fellow citizens who are more security-minded, both inside and outside the government.
)2) The target society is seen as key to unblocking the political forces necessary to liberate some other territory. Elements of the PLO attack Israel with the long-run goal of a Palestine. Osama bin Laden attacks New York with the long-range goal of gaining the Saudi peninsula for islamo-fascism. Ideology might be Marxist, it might be Islamist, but it is ultimately nationalistic. In fighting terrorists, you are frustrated by an enemy that has no fixed territory. Well, guess what: having no fixed territory is precisely the beef that the terrorists have.
Look outside the confines of islamists-vs-everybody and you’ll find a bodycount from terror that considerably exceeds – even in recent years – the body count generated by terroristic islamists. Tamil Tigers? Independence movement. In Peru and Nepal, it’s Maoists. The list goes on – make your own, if you don’t believe me. I suggest using U.S. Department of State figures, if you’re worried about bleeding-heart bias.
Terror doesn’t work? Go tell it to Nelson Mandela. Terror doesn’t work? Gee, I think I saw a quarter-page ad in the Bloomberg section of the Int’l Herald Trib, touting the stock of a telecom company in some, erm, “entity” brazenly calling itself Palestine. Terror doesn’t work? Terrorism was part and parcel of the Union defeating the South in our own Civil War, and very much the strategy that brought Japan to its knees in WW II.
Iraq, with its highly porous borders and considerable internal tensions among ethnic and religious groups, will be a terror magnet, not a terror-free zone.
John Moore continues: “The democratization of Iraq is an experiment. If it works, there is a way to deal with the problem. If it does not, then we are left with harder problems.”
Au contraire. We are left with easier problems.
Much easier, after all, to settle for half a loaf at this point: a defense line around Kirkuk and its oil fields instead of trying to police all of Iraq with only 1/3rd as many troops as that would require. A concentration on keeping oil flowing through the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline, instead of trying to police every pipeline and every port in Iraq. Developing Kirkuk’s rich and easily exploited reserves, instead of trying to poli– oh, you get the picture. And holding the line for grateful Kurds, who will probably provide the lion’s share of ground defense, and who might only need arms, logistical support, and Anglo-American air power. Wouldn’t that be MUCH easier than trying to raise a loyal Iraqi army at this point, one that won’t defect or go AWOL?
Yes, that’s the easy way out. In some utterly and disgustingly amoral view of the situation, a collapse of control everywhere 200 miles south of the northern mountains in Iraq is devoutly to be wished. It would be an excuse for more profitable concentrations of effort. But for the time being, this administration will try to hold onto the rest of Iraq on a relatively modest budget, and a mostly-below-the-radar American bodycount. If it fails to secure all of Iraq on those terms, it can say that at least it tried, and it will fingerpoint at no-show allies like France and Germany when asked to explain why it didn’t succeed. That will be quite the moral figleaf for a Kurdistan Exit, at least in some quarters.
October 31st, 2004 at 2:11 am
I completely agree with Marc: “No need to exaggerate.”
Let me join the people who have critiqued this study already… my critique is here.
http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2004/10/pick-number-any-number.html
I would say, based on this study, Iraq Body Count, the two AP hospital surveys and the excellent Project for Defense Alternatives study ( http://comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html ), that the consensus numbers for violent deaths in Iraq, by cause, are as follows:
9,000 military killed by coalition during the invasion
3,700 civilians killed by coalition during the invasion
10,000-15,000 combatants killed by coalition after the invasion
500-1,000 civilians killed by coalition after the invasion
2,000-3,000 civilians killed by insurgents after the invasion
Again, this only takes into account direct effects.
Why are the numbers so different in each source? Because everyone is counting different things. Iraq Body Count for example is counting all deaths, civilian and combatant, and caused by anyone, not just the coalition, and so is the Lancet study. It pays to read the fine print.
October 31st, 2004 at 6:30 am
Just like in Vietnam, and other places where we have fought wars, the inhabitants will eventually tally up how many dead there were from the war. I don’t know why people are shocked that the US doesn’t count the number of dead Iraqis; have we ever done that in any previous war? I don’t think so. In any case, it is lots easier for the Americans to count their own dead, and the Iraqis to count their own dead.
So, why don’t we stick to the rule that we have been following all along: everyone counts their own dead.
The “100,000″ study is complete hogwash. They say 100K civilians, but then admit right inside the study that in fact close to 50% of those could have been non-civilian deaths. A range of 8K-194K is a bit too large for my liking, as well.
This study reminds me of statistics class in high school…
October 31st, 2004 at 9:58 am
“Even so, I find the chickenhawk argument to be pathetic. If you support a war, you have to go fight in it? How illogical.”
Misreading entirely the argument, namely that if the war were so important the armchair warriors out in blogistan who are under 30, in good health, and happy to call everyone under the sun traitors for opposing this military adventure in Iraq, would be volunteering to go to Iraq. Your own age has nothing to do with that argument. Nor is the argument ‘chickenhawk’, albeit obviously those under 30 or 35 even who don’t volunteer and claim to believe Bush’s claim that Eyerak is the center of terror struggle…is certainly applicable in that sense.
October 31st, 2004 at 11:32 am
Blogistan! That’s funny. Iraq not at the center of terrorism? Probably not, but Iran is. Democracy in Afghanistan, democracy in Iraq, strong democracy movement in Iran, The point of this war was to replace an axis of Evil with an axis of freedom. One major reason of invading Iraq is the destabilization of Iran. If Iran falls from within that would be a major victory in the war against fascism in the middle east.
October 31st, 2004 at 3:53 pm
Oh come on, Iran is hardly a strong power, gimme a break. It is, critically, not nearly as weak as Iraq was when we invaded and “won” the war but lost the battles. So we’d probably have a much harder time fighting them, since the US only goes after regimes that are throughly decimated militarily before daring to invade.
Well, ok, Grenada’s military wasn’t thoroughly decimated…
October 31st, 2004 at 5:12 pm
Blank,
I state the chickenhawk argument is wrong. You say I don’t understand it, and then you give me exactly the standard chickenhawk argument.
Let me suggest that if you are against the war, you should volunteer to live in a country run by Saddam or something like them. Are you ready to do that? You might have to look hard at this point to find someone worse than Saddam, so we have reduced your ability to live in a totalitarian state run by psychopaths who used random terror against its citizens.
The argument implies that if you are in favor of the government doing anything, well by golly you should go do it. If you can’t see the silliness of the argument, it’s too bad. Your approach attempts to gain the moral upper hand over a war supporter, while you sit home in comfort. I suggest that if you are against the war, you should volunteer to live in a country run by Saddam or something like them. Are you ready to do that? You might have to look hard at this point to find someone worse than Saddam, so we have reduced your ability to live in a totalitarian state run by psychopaths who used random terror against its citizens.
If you aren’t ready to do that, then you are a hypocrite with your chickenhawk argument.
Regarding decreasing the land for terrorism, there is an amazing argument above that increasing areas under democracy increases terrorism. Puleez. It removes bases for terrorists. Yes, it provides another target for terrorists. So what>
October 31st, 2004 at 5:38 pm
“Let me suggest that if you are against the war, you should volunteer to live in a country run by Saddam or something like them.”
I disagree, nothing about opposing the war calls for me to either support Sodom OR go and die for the resistance there. However, believing that the war is the epicenter of the “War” on “Terror” and then not joining the battle is really odd, to put it mildly. Ya didn’t see much of that sort of behavior during WW2.
You’re plainly misreading my argument if you read it that if you support any government policy, you must actively support it. However, there are certain ones where the situation is truly bizarre, and this is one of them. We hear young 20something bloggers who are virulently prowar, pro-Bush, hectoring antiwar people as traitors, as people who are anti-american, etc. and, critically, who don’t appreciate that Iraq is the center of the fight againt terror, a la the 911 types, no different than WW2 was a battle against the epicenter of fascism. It is very odd that so few of them are joining up and fighting. Not a single Bush clan member has joined up, sees the matter as so pressing along the lines of WW2 that joining the army is called for. Ditto the prowar bloggers under 30-35…The contradiction is as plain as day and indeed worth considering when deciding whether to join the army to battle against ‘terrorists’ in Iraq.
October 31st, 2004 at 8:45 pm
So, everybody who didn’t go to AF in 2001 is guilty? Plenty did. Matter of fact, there are a lot of milbloggers in the active services and in theater now. They pretty much all support the war and the President.
But again, going into AF is good, going after OBL is good, right? If he’s in Pak, going there is good? What if he goes to Iran? China? You should go, and you suck if you don’t, because OBL is like the mothership in Independence Day, kill him and all the terrorists’ power will be cut off?
Funny thing is, I was just 18 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. I had transferred to VPI for my first semester there. I considered enlisting, decided to contimue my studies when I talked to a h.s. friend who had chosen Army and the Special Forces. He said I would never see action. So I stayed in school.
I still wonder if I should have gone. I wonder now if I should go, even if I’m maybe not what they’re looking for.
But just as you objectively serve the enemy by virtue of your posts, I don’t see why supporters of Western Civilization shouldn’t be able to serve our cause. FDR put dissidents into mental hospitals. Despite your greater deserts, I doubt it will happen to you.
October 31st, 2004 at 10:10 pm
“Matter of fact, there are a lot of milbloggers in the active services and in theater now.”
You forget the inconvenient fact that a good number of bloggers in the military have also been censored by the military and it takes exceptional courage to write a blog in the military that is critical of either the military leadership and/or the Shrub. Gosh, when CNN goes looking for interviews with soldiers on how they feel about Bush and the election, almost all want only to answer off camera for fear of reprisal.
I’ve never talked about going into AF as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. That’s Bush rhetoric, uninteresting in the extreme. However, when people start making the WW2 comparisions to Iraq, which every good armchair blog warrior loves to do, then yes, those under 30 or even 35 are doubtful in their sincerity to put it mildly. Has nothing to do with ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
“But just as you objectively serve the enemy by virtue of your posts, I don’t see why supporters of Western Civilization shouldn’t be able to serve our cause. FDR put dissidents into mental hospitals. Despite your greater deserts, I doubt it will happen to you.”
Certainly many of the armchair warriors out there would love to see my type in jail. But my sense is the ‘enemy’ you imagine is more emboldened by the prospect of having to fight the enemy it sees, thus I’m not so sure you’re empirically correct that I’m aiding the ‘enemy’. Indeed, looking at what soldiers are saying when they’re not afraid of being faced with reprisals, I’d venture I’m not the person who is responsible for the fate they face at the moment. Many of them in fact appreciate that there are many Americans who would rather have them all home right now instead of fighting a pointless war of US occupation.
November 1st, 2004 at 6:14 pm
I was going to post my favorite poll results but it would be inappropriate to this thread.
I will say this;
Regardless of opinion about the war it is largely a vicarious affair for nearly the entire population. We are aware of it from the internet and the media in all of it’s forms.
In the end we all affirm our loyalty to a group and it’s beliefs. Nevertheless the individual still has to produce for him/herself. I say this because I think criticism is misplaced frustration. You can’t avoid paying the price. You either do the work and suffer the ills or you complain, accomplish little for yourself and suffer the ills.
Nothing is more important than the self. Trust nothing, including this…
January 5th, 2005 at 8:25 am
Here’s an interesting thought.
Since all this analysis of death totals is statistical and based on the difference between the total number of deaths since the invasion and the number of deaths in an equivalent year before the invasion without differentiating the causes of death, who is to say that all or most of the deaths were not combat casualties?
The total number of Iraqi insurgent and terrorist casualties is reported at over 16,000, which is higher than the minimum number of estimated civilian casualties from the Hopkins analysis, so that could very well account for all the casualties.
Or at the very least, it makes the civilian casualties of around 4000 estimated by the DOD pretty close to correct.
Dave
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
At Crimeshare.net HELP IS AT HAND!
Have you been trying to sell your timeshare week, points, holiday Club membership?
Are you FEED UP with spiralling maintenance fee costs?!
Are you sick of phone calls “out of the blue” with ridiculous offers?
Do you simply want to GET OUT?!
At Crimeshare.net we show you the fraudsters so you know you can trust US !!
For a one time registration fee of $295 the value of your week can be redeemed within a six month period or YOUR MONEY BACK!
317a4d3bdf1389e62b37949a0d519a6e
May 16th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Are you f**cking crazy?! How many have been murdered during Saddam’s reign? Who murdered the 100,000 as you claim? Get your head out of the sand. The war is because of radical Muslims who want to eliminate ALL non-believers across the entire world. How many do you think will die if this cult is left unchecked? Grow up.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:57 am
kunf pcnox dmlcenh ndts lzyqtevo wacgkrzdh atsnbcyji
June 7th, 2008 at 6:59 am
zroqti qikduj gvwiyxc fltznsde acowbut douvfny rzedfxst