The Iraqi government now believes that at least 12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the last 18 months. In the last ten months, about 800 Iraqi civilians and police have been killed each month. Adding a bit more to account for unreported deaths (especially in Sunni Arab areas where chaos, not the government, runs things) the death rate is running at the rate of about 45 dead per 100,000 population per year. This is far higher than the usual rate in Middle Eastern countries (under 10). Well, most of the time. During civil wars and insurrections, the rate has spiked to over a hundred per 100,000, sometimes for several years in a row. During Saddam’s long reign, the Iraqi death rate from democide (the government killing its own people) averaged over 100 per 100,000 a year. This does not include the several hundred thousand killed during the war with Iran in the 1980s.
In other words, the death rate in Iraq today is less than half of the rate suffered under Saddam, not including a few hundred thousand Iraqis killed in the war with Iran, 1980-1988. So by this measure it is not true that the Iraqi people are suffering more now than under Saddam, as many of the war's critics like to claim. Furthermore, the 45/100K death rate in Iraq is not close to that of some other countries.
There are other parts of the world that are more violent than Iraq. Africa, for example, especially Congo, Sudan and South Africa. Only South Africa has a sufficiently effective government to actually keep track of the death rate, mostly from crime, but it’s over 50 per 100,000. It’s worse in places like Congo and Sudan, but the numbers there are only estimates by peacekeepers and relief workers. In southern Thailand, a terror campaign by Islamic radicals has caused a death rate of over 80 per 100,000.
It needs also to be remembered that most of Iraq is fairly peaceful; the terrorism mostly takes place in about 20 percent of the country, concentrated in the Sunni dominated areas where Saddam dead-enders, unregenerate Baathists and al Qaeda mainly operate (and the Iraqi Sunnis are starting to get plenty sick and tired of the mostly--foreign al Qaeda terrorists).
Nonetheless, a death rate of 45 is pretty high. Merely observing that other places on the globe have it worse cannot be a comfort to the Iraqi people, nor even reminding them that Saddam & Co. were more violent than the ongoing terrorism. Furthermore, violent crime is a severe problem in Iraq and will almost certainly prove more intractable than Islamist or Baathist terrorism. As journalist-blogger Stephen Vincent, murdered in Basra, pointed out, there is no clear dividing line in some parts of the country between ordinary criminality and ruthless enforcement of order by corrupt Iraqi police or officials, who resort to Mafia-like methods to work their will.
Eventually the insurgencies will be ended, though sadly much blood will yet be shed. But it will be a long time before Iraq's death rate falls to approximately the norm of the region of under 10.
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about either.
Even if the body count is higher than this (and some estimates are double the 12K count you cite here), and
even if proportionally more women and children are included in the casualty list than during Saddam's reign, and
even if we don't consider the number killed during the invasion (something like 30K maybe), and
even if the trend has been rising, and
even if it may get a lot worse and not better,
IT WAS WORTH IT because Saddam was a really bad guy, and being President is hard, and if you supported the war you have to think like this.
Or the fact that the largest study done on the death rate in Irar put the death toll's highest probability at around 98,000-100,000, and according to the UNICEF the malnutrition rate has doubled.
Billiam, if you are refering to the notorious Lancet study, it wasn't the largest study done. The UN did a larger study that ascribed approx one-quarter as many fatalities.
The Lancet "study" was more of a political stunt than a study, published without any peer review.
Good. You should sign up and go.
Since Iraq's so safe, and the invasion of Iraq was such a good idea, I expect you would relish the chance to go over there and grab some glory.
What are you waiting for?
jim, Thanks for yet another variation of the chickenhawk fallacy. We should start a collection.
Less women and children means less future terrorists. We should worry less about collateral damage and more about bombing the snot out of the enemy in whatever house, school, or mosque they hide in. If we did, the fight would be over by now, the mourning would be done, the soldiers would be home, and you turds would have nothing to argue about.
"You should sign up and go."
His own son is going there, you jackass.
Yes, I think you did correctly identify the species Matt.
jim, Thanks for yet another variation of the chickenhawk fallacy. We should start a collection.
Look, I'm sorry to hear that Mr. Sensing's son is going. I hope he comes out of it alright. If he has a son going over there, then I was clearly wrong, and rude about it also. I automatically assumed that Mr. Sensing is the sort of person who supports this war, while having nothing personally on the line; I apologize.
I'm just sick and tired of hearing justification after justification of this war, that to me just seems to be moving the goalpost somewhere else. And I hear this article as saying "Hey, now Iraq is marginally less homicidally dangerous than it was under Saddam. It's a good thing we invaded!"
Which, considering the number of innocent Iraqi civilians who we killed with our bombing in 2003 and 2004, not to mention the number of our own soldiers who've died, been maimed or traumatized for life, this seems like statistical nitpicking to me and it really rubs me the wrong way.
I hope we get out in a way that doesn't make the whole region worse, or do more damage to our honor and our relations with our allies; and I hope we never ever do something this stupid as a nation again.
Call me cold and uncaring, but I simply don't care enough for the Iraqi people's general well-being to spend the amount of blod and treasure that we have at this point. To me, clicking down the death rate a few notches just isn't worth the cost.
To get back to the point, lets agree that it is a really difficult and ultimately unanswerable quesion. I have often heard the argument made that Saddam massive murder sprees were largely in the past, and hence going forward we should assume smaller numbers. Thats the kind of insane, unanswerable that adds nothing to the conversation. We have little idea what would have happened. In 1990 it could have been argued Saddams killing sprees were behind him, as the Kurds and Shiia found not to be the case to their sorrow. Ultimately its immaterial anymore. We are there, we must stay, and we must make it work. Anything that takes our eyes off that critical reality is counterproductive.
I'm just sick and tired of hearing justification after justification of this war, that to me just seems to be moving the goalpost somewhere else.
These justifications were given before the war. Kenneth Pollack argued that 135,000 to 150,000 Iraqi children died from the sanctions regime. Continued containment could not be justified as the more moral option.
Even if we don't care about the death of foreigners, America was implicated in a policy that was (a) a defacto state of war and (b) a source of anti-Americanism. Example:
Bin Ladin's Fatwa Against America.
I have stringently argued against the stupidity and unAmericanism of the "chickenhawk" argument, but I see that fighting idiocy is really playing whack-a-mole.
For the record: I am a retired Army artillery officer. My son is a US Marine who will deploy to Iraq in less than a month.
And that is irrelevant to what I posted here.
It's obvious that Jim can't read well nor think objectively. I never wrote that "Hey, now Iraq is marginally less homicidally dangerous than it was under Saddam. It's a good thing we invaded!" One, if the death rate is now substantially less than half of what it was under Saddam, that's not marginal. Second, my post doesn't even discuss whether the invasion was a good idea or bad, I simply present some facts and their context. In fact I wrote specifically, To claim that this or the rest of the post somehow is the same as saying, "It's a good thing we invaded!" is pretty muddled thinking at best.By itself, the death rate neither justifies nor unjustifies the invasion and what has followed. But it deserves a place in considering the topic.
I suspect the high average rate under Saddam is mostly due to the casualties suffered in the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's (which Iraq fought with American help).
Averages can be misleading; if the author is suggesting that Iraqis are somehow safer now than they were in 2000 he/she is misreading the data rather badly.
BUSH/CHENEY find any WMD yet?
just checking............
And, much as I have always respected Mr. Dunnigan's work, I'm dissapointed to see that he gives no references for his numbers. It's unlike him to just pull numbers out of a hat like that...
'A Hermit' (comment 14) "suspects" something that has already been refuted. The Strategy Page quotation explicitly excludes casualties from the Iran-Iraq War. Try again.
And again, it is hardly an effective argument that Hussein who had already started 2 major regional wars, who had on at least 3 occasions launched massive genocides against his own people, and who had intentionally bullied the international community into imposing crippling and supposedly murderous sanctions was on the verge of settling down and becoming a quiet citizen of the world. Or that his psychotic sons would be a whit different for the next 50 years. Or even moreso that 25 million Iraqis living in a Stalinesque police state full of government sponsered torture and rape rooms was a tolerable state much better than death. I grant you it is not for us to decide for others, but it is supposedly one of our founding principles that death is preferable to tyranny. I find that this argument bounces right off the anti-war left, and that is disheartening from the 'no peace without justice' crowd.
I have stringently argued against the stupidity and unAmericanism of the "chickenhawk" argument, but I see that fighting idiocy is really playing whack-a-mole.
The 'chickenhawk' argument, as you call it, is a response to the idiocy of GOP members painting all liberals as anti-military, because some moderates dared to question the White House's wisdom in placing the military in harm's way.
I hope that you have argued stringently against that idiocy, as well. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you have.
Further on you say:
'To claim that this or the rest of the post somehow is the same as saying, "It's a good thing we invaded!" is pretty muddled thinking at best.'
So here you say that it's muddled thinking, hence wrong, of me to say that these statistics are being presented to help justify the invasion.
And in the very next paragraph of your response, you say:
'By itself, the death rate neither justifies nor unjustifies the invasion and what has followed. But it deserves a place in considering the topic.'
So here, you say that these statistics are being presented, in justifying or unjustifying the invasion.
And since on their face they indicate that in some way things are better, of course they would be used to justify the invasion. Otherwise, why bring them up at all?
Now, one other reason why you might bring these stats up, which is my hope, is in the spirit of honest inquiry into exactly what's going on in Iraq. And not only as an argument to combine with others, in an attempt to justify the invasion.
I assumed that you were about justifying this invasion, and were using these figures towards that cause. I will now give you the benefit of the doubt here, as well, and presume that honest inquiry is your motivation.
Frankly, I don't think Jim's attempt at an apology above absolves him of his offense. And I suspect that Jim's only regret is his poor aim rather than his use of the vile chickenhawk ad hominem.
I grant you it is not for us to decide for others, but it is supposedly one of our founding principles that death is preferable to tyranny. I find that this argument bounces right off the anti-war left, and that is disheartening from the 'no peace without justice' crowd.
This probably bounces off the 'no peace without justice' crowd so easily, because they're aware that the US installed Saddam, and had absolutely no problem with all of the people Saddam had shot, gassed, raped and tortured - as long as Saddam did what we wanted, not one ounce of effort was put forth for the freedom of Iraq.
And, since the US currently supports numerous other leaders who repress, torture and kill their citizens, to the point of boiling dissidents alive, the White House suddenly getting so piously moral about tyrants like Saddam seems just a tad convenient.
Jim, false, the US did not "install" Saddam.
Frankly, I don't think Jim's attempt at an apology above absolves him of his offense. And I suspect that Jim's only regret is his poor aim rather than his use of the vile chickenhawk ad hominem.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not an offense. Being wrong about it is.
I had spoken without researching, and found out I was wrong in my charge of hypocrisy. And the only honest thing to do when you find out you're wrong, is to admit it.
I could go on about what I suspect of Robin Roberts, but that would be just as wrong as assuming things about Mr. Sensing, wouldn't it?
Mr. Roberts:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
"[Saddam's] first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim...
...According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union....
... The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group."
I mean, why do you think Rumsfeld met with him twice? Why do you think we sold him weapons and supported him, even when his atrocities were getting condemnations from the UN, for ten years? He was our boy.
Yep, Jim, the US sold him less than 1% of his weapons, so he was "our boy".
A "strategic asset" against the Soviet Union who drove Soviet tanks and APC's , carried Soviet firearms, flew Soviet planes ( and a few French models ) , used Soviet artillery and fired Soviet ammunition. Participated in several Arab Israeli wars and invaded Kuwait.
Nope. More silliness.
So Jim, in your world, is it a good thing that the U.S. brought Saddam to power and perpetuated him?
I want to return to the idea that the "chickenhawk" thing has been laid to rest.
The phrase to me has always meant more the tone of the pro war but stayed safe folks rather than that they favor war.
I'm struck by the manner in which Bush, Cheney, et al have impugned the honor and patriotism of Americans who disagree with them over the war.
Sure you can be pro war if you didn't serve, or didn't serve in combat.
But to swagger and bully when you didn't feel like risking your skin when you were young, now that is a chickenhawk.
And the administration is full of them.
With contempt for our leaders in this war; a combat veteran of the USMC
Damn treasonous traitors abound, Donald. Don't let them get you down.
We're on our way to victory here (and there), so why put up with their unpatriotic garbage?
You guys here are on the leading edge in the charge of the light brigades against the forces that threaten freedom loving people everwhere.
Our Great President leads us as we go...how can a leader of such purity of vision and purpose be wrong about Iraq, it is a tautology that his will is the way. What we conceive becomes reality.
You can be an intellectual about it like Dan or Joe, or you, or a convert to the cause like AL, but the simple truth remains that we all march behind Our Great Leader in this endeavor, the most important one in human history. Victory demains we march in step, as all great Armies.
Neo, your claim is utterly without foundation.
"This probably bounces off the 'no peace without justice' crowd so easily, because they're aware that the US installed Saddam, and had absolutely no problem with all of the people Saddam had shot, gassed, raped and tortured - as long as Saddam did what we wanted, not one ounce of effort was put forth for the freedom of Iraq. "
Lets assume all this is true for a brief and absurd moment. So what? If we have been such a terrible nation and suddenly we reverse course, is righting our wrongs also immoral? How does that work? It seems like you're saying whatever America does is the wrong thing. Probably, I expect, because you assume everything America does must be the wrong thing.
"And, since the US currently supports numerous other leaders who repress, torture and kill their citizens, to the point of boiling dissidents alive, the White House suddenly getting so piously moral about tyrants like Saddam seems just a tad convenient."
Perhaps, but again, where do you line up? If we are damned if we do, damned if we dont, why should we care what you think anyway? Do something, do nothing, you will condemn us, so I suppose our best course is to ignore the demagogery and press on. Which is what we are in fact doing. Welcome to the thought process of rational America.
The link 'jim' gives to prove that the USA "installed" Saddam in power proves nothing of the sort. Even if you believe UPI's concatenation of anonymous sources claiming CIA support for the unsuccessful 1959 coup attempt, there's a huge gap in the story for the successful 1963 coup, a gap that 'jim' slyly disguises by selective quotation.
Of course, even if you succeed in filling the gap, how can you blame Bush for things Kennedy or Johnson did while he (Bush) was still in high school? I suppose we could charge the few surviving high-ranking members of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as war criminals for (supposedly) putting Saddam in power. As far as I know, the only ones left are McNamara (I think he's still alive) and Ramsey Clark (definitely alive, at least physically).
jim & neo,
The chickenhawk argument is no arguement at all. It is a rhetorical device designed solely to avoid engaging the points of this debate by shaming you opponent to be silent.
Not only that, jim pulled this fallacy out of his holster and started indiscriminately spraying these little rhetorical turds all over the room without any regard to who he was even arguing with. That was really nice jim.
So, I now call both of you chickendoves. Did either of you go to Iraq before the war to be a human shield for Saddam? Are you willing to go to Iraq now to become a human shield for a suicide bomber or a Baathist thug? Didn't think so.
Now, by your own standards of debate, you have no right to oppose this war.
Gold Wings, Is this a technique that you learned in your 8th grade debating society? Unless you have some facts or arguments to present, then might I gently suggest that you return from whence you came?
One can be delighted Saddam is gone,
proud of our lads,
and saddened by the caliber of Bush and his circle.
I am.
The term Chickenhawk doesn't silence anyone. It sure does describe spot on the distance from Bush et al's swagger and bullying tone and their reality when young.
And being both accurate and useful, the term Chickenhawk will continue to be applied to Bush and his bunch by those of us who call things like they are.
Like, whatever, chickendove.
Better a chicken-hawk than a chicken-chicken, also useful and accurate.
The death count you use is way low. Are you paid
by the US gov to post these lies? This web site is
for slaves paid to murder men, women and children
for a predatory elite who wage war by way of deception.
You should read Stan Goff's Full Spectrum Disorder.
He was in the special force death squads until he realized who he was murdering for. Wake up soldier boy.