In contrast to what normally passes as a post here on the unenthusiast(s), I want to discuss one of the most important issues our time: the Iraq War. It's a pretty mammoth topic, so for the sake of brevity I'm going to leave out the debate over casus belli, war-aims and the broader situation in the Middle East and just focus on the recent controversy surrounding loss of human life. After all, is that not the most important thing at stake here?
The facts: The number of confirmed US military casualties in Iraq is currently 2776; the number of British losses is 119. Of the other coalition members, 118 military personnel have been killed, of whom 2 were Australian. 85 journalists have lost their lives covering the Iraq War. If we are to believe the new Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian losses (and there are certainly plausible reasons why we should), the current death toll stands at around 655,000 (31% of this directly attributed to Coalition forces), which would equate to around 2.5 percent of the population. Civilian casualty numbers are disputed however: the L.A. Times points to a figure around 500,000, and the White House claims any estimate above 300,000 is "not credible". In any case, these numbers are pretty hard to comprehend out of context. To put it in perspective (and no, I am not infering moral equivalency), Human Rights Watch estimates that deaths under Saddam range from 250,000 to 290,000. Perhaps we will never know how many were murdered by the Baathist regime, but with the current civil war showing no signs of abating, any plausible figure would likely be exceeded by the time Iraq is stabilised (and indeed it may have already been exceeded). I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.
Baghdad on Google Earth. If you haven't looked it up yet you should.The opinion: History will make up its own mind whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified. In any case, we cannot simply undo all of these deaths. They are the price that has been paid for Saddam's removal, and we must now ask ourselves the question: are we responsible for Iraq's future? Supporters and opponents of the war alike mostly agree that we are. The challenge therefore is to debate responsibility in a rational and nonpartisan manner, and to fufill whatever responsibility we accept to the best of our ability — especially if Iraq was, as many believe, a mistake.
Comments welcome.
Sources for this post:
Japan Times Online: 'More Deadly Than Saddam'
PBS Online NewsHour: 'Study Finds Iraq Death Toll Higher Than Previous Estimates'
Editor and Publisher: 'Iraqi Death Rate May Top Our Civil War'
Iraq Coalition Casualties
Iraq: Journalists in Danger
13 comments:
"If we are to believe the new Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian losses..."
Clusters. Completely inaccurate.
Iraq Body Count has it at 48,000.
Regardless, my opinion is not that the toppling of Saddam in'03 was wrong. Rather, that we waited too long. Had we toppled him in 1991, we would have saved a quarter of a million lives. (see shiite/kurdish uprisings) Top baathists would not have had a chance to flee to Syria to organize a resistance as most of the Republican guard was in the southeast corner of the country. We would have had more of a moral imperative (stopping his expansionist plans), we already had the massive number of troops in place to affect security/prevent looting, etc and 1/2 million newborns/young children would not have died from the effects of sanctions as happened in the 90's.
For perspective on casualties, remember that in Iwo Jima alone, during one month, the U.S. lost close to 7,000 men. The Japanese 22,000 men. In one month.
I respect your opinion even though I think your numbers are faulty. Peace.
Also, if you toppled him in 1991, then today your troops could of gone straight to Syria and saved a whole lot of time.
"..then today your troops could of gone straight to Syria..."
I think you mean "our" troops. Yours were there too in '91. And the blood of 100's of thousands of shia and kurds that were killed after our departure from the region are on our hands as well as the baathists.
yeah see, that's my problem with this whole thing: Why do Australians have to be in this war? We seem to be doing very little except for dodging bombs and cleaning our guns
Intelligent debate… exactly what I was hoping for!
JSB: these aren't my numbers; they come from articles I sourced. I admit, having done some further reading since I posted this data on Friday night, I now agree that the Lancet study was probably misrepresentative. However, my reading also leads me to disagree with your comment. Cluster sampling, far from being "inaccurate" as you say, is actually (and I'm quoting from STATS.org, the article is here: http://www.stats.org/stories/the_science_ct_dead_oct17_06.htm)
"well-established in statistics, and is routinely used to estimate casualties in natural disasters or war zones." According to this article and at least one independent audit mentioned in the Japan Times article I sourced, Paul Boston of Boston University (who refers to the methodology as “excellent”), the method chosen by the Lancet study was sound, and so it should in theory be considered accurate. It could only be considered inaccurate if it had been carried out incorrectly.
In regards to the Iraq Body Count, I quote from the same article I refer to above: "The IBC does not count excess deaths due to a deterioration of infrastructure, lack of hospitals or clean water. Nor does it count deaths not reported by the media. At least in theory, innumerable deaths occur quietly, under the radar screen of any accounting office." ISB itself admits that "substantially more deaths have occurred than have been recorded so far, but their number still remains highly uncertain." (from their recent press release here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14/0.php)
Lastly, regarding the failure to topple Saddam in 1991: I agree, though for different reasons. Unfortunately, Coalition leaders (the US, the UK and the Saudis) viewed Saddam as the best choice for stability in the region (and stated as much at the time). Which is pretty disgraceful, because as you said, we had the means to do it, and I would argue the moral responsibility also (considering the US funded Saddam in the 1980s, and gave his scientists knowledge of biological agents used to commit genocide against the Kurds). But regardless, making good on past mistakes was never the official casus belli until we actually got there, which I think is what disillusioned most people. Excusing the means to an end post facto is not what democracies do. It’s what Hitler and Stalin did.
Also...
New Bush strategy: "stability first" -- democracy second? Will the invasion of Iraq have achieved ANYTHING if Iraq becomes another Iran??
I'm interested to hear people's views on what should happen next.
Definitely a strong topic... Wouldn't foresight be nice if it could tell us the those things we learn only in hindsight?
Some interesting books on the topic might be Fouad Ajami's The Foreigner's Gift and Peter W. Galbraith's The End of Iraq, amongst all the others...
I think a question now that must be asked in considering what to do is whether or not Iraq is actually experiencing a civil war right now in the midst of the original war. That will certainly affect both the setting up of stability or democracy in any form!
Also, PJK, can you clarify what you meant by "if Iraq becomes another Iran" for me?
I mean if it reverts to a partial-democracy or a theocracy or somesuch. Or simply a puppet of Iran. Either of which is possible if the insurgency "wins". Theoretically it could win by either taking control of the Iraqi government (unlikely while US forces remain in Baghdad), or by forcing the Iraqi government to make concessions, to compromise etc. -- which isn't so unfeasible. If we go with a "stability first" strategy, the first thing we'll be doing is talking to the insurgents.
And I don't think there's any question that Iraq is in a civil war right now. You could give it another name but that would just be disguising the issue.
"Excusing the means to an end post facto is not what democracies do."
I've personally always been for Saddam's removal since Kuwait. And if you look at the text of U.N. resolutions and text of Bush's speeches prior to regime change, he was talking about more than just WMD, although I admit that WMD is what the administration, the media and the average person focused on.
The Lancet study is deeply flawed. There are better debunkers out there than me. Just google.
"The IBC does not count excess deaths due to a deterioration of infrastructure, lack of hospitals or clean water." Well, see the effects of 90's sanctions and you'll see they outnumber all the deaths combined from post-regime change.
As I said, I agree that the Lancet study seems flawed. I never said it was accurate, merely that there are plausible reasons to believe it, which there are. I've also discovered plausible reasons not to believe it, so now I think I'll just wait and see what comes out of it.
do you think the USA et al should pull out soon or stay put awhile?
I don't know Lada. I'm very undecided on that issue. I think one thing that should given more serious consideration is the fact that, according to polls, the majority of Iraqis are in favour of a Coalition pullout. I am definately one to side with self-determination over the idea that "we know what's best for them".
Let's do as the Iraqi people would have us do. More importantly, let's listen to what other people are saying for once. Clearly there aren't enough experts in the Bush administration and it's cost the Iraqi people dearly.
Hmm...I don't know, either. I rather had the idea that the Iraqi's are rather split about wanting the coalition to leave...although I suppose that is not such a shock... and I am afraid at what might happen whether the coalition pulls out or stays put awhile longer. So many things to try and factor in, and as you say... so few [true] experts in the administration... it all seems like such a botched up job; all wrong to begin with...maybe all wrong to end with?
Post a Comment