25,000 Civilian Deaths
I'm hoping my first post in 3 months will mark the beginning of routine posting (like at least once a week), but don't count on it (not that I presume you care...).
A couple posts ago, I wrote,
While it is true that Iraqi citizens may still be being killed in large numbers, one can safely assume that this number will fall and remain at a level significantly lower than the number that were being killed under Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is a safe assumption at all anymore. The more conservative estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq since the beginning of the war in March of 2003 put the number higher than 25,000. This still doesn't come close to conservative estimates of civilian deaths under Saddam's regime, which put the number between 300,000 and 400,000. But it must be considered that the civilian deaths under Saddam were spread out over a 24 year period, so a conservative estimate of the amount of civilians killed per year under Saddam is about 14,600. Since it was only 2 years ago that the U.S. began the Iraq war, a conservative estimate of the civilians killed per year is about 12,500. This is certainly a disturbingly close number. Moreover, using the less cautious estimates, which put civilian deaths under Saddam as high as 1 million and civilian deaths since the beginning of the war as high as 100 thousand, the numbers become 41,700 per year under Saddam and 50,000 per year since the war began.
There are a couple qualifications that need to be made here. Regardless of the similarity or dissimilarity of the numbers, there is certainly a moral distinction to be made between Saddam's deliberate killing of civilians and the U.S.'s accidental (but arguably sometimes careless) killing of civilians while targeting military personelle. Furthermore, many of the civilian deaths that have occured since March of '03 have been the result of the insurgency, not the U.S. military. But it is of course true that the insurgency would not be doing what they are doing if it wasn't for the presence of the U.S. millitary.
The point is that the humanitarian rationale for the war, the only rationale that to me has any legs to stand on, seems to be fading...We all know now that the war wasn't fought over WMDs and I don't buy that the war has made us safer in the U.S. I still stand by my statement that the number of civilians being killed in Iraq will inevitably fall, but the question to be asked is how long will that take. If it takes another 10 years, which it certainly seems like it might despite Cheney's claims about the insurgency being in its "last throes", then this seems largely irrelevant, as Saddam (who is 67 or 68 now) might have been dead in 10 years if we hadn't captured him, and might die within the next 10 years anyway. While I'm still "very much confident that whoever comes to power [as a result of the U.S. war] will be worlds better than Saddam Hussein", I'm not confident that whoever comes to power will be worlds better than who his successor(s) would have been, given the U.S.'s track record.
None of this means that we should immediately pull out of Iraq; I in fact think that sudden withdrawal would be the worst thing we could do. We must finish what we started. I even think that one could still rationally support the war, given the effects it could have on the future of the Middle East and the future of terrorism. But it's clear to me that this war was by no means necessary and may not even be beneficial. While we still may save more lives than we destroy in the long run, if one was to err on the side of life - the cornerstone of the much lauded "culture of life" *- one would have to be opposed to such a bloody war.
-Larry
*I'm not saying that I adhere to the "culture of life" whatever that actually entails, but erring on the side life is generally a good principle, one that Bush, and most Americans, certainly claims to abide by.
A couple posts ago, I wrote,
While it is true that Iraqi citizens may still be being killed in large numbers, one can safely assume that this number will fall and remain at a level significantly lower than the number that were being killed under Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is a safe assumption at all anymore. The more conservative estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq since the beginning of the war in March of 2003 put the number higher than 25,000. This still doesn't come close to conservative estimates of civilian deaths under Saddam's regime, which put the number between 300,000 and 400,000. But it must be considered that the civilian deaths under Saddam were spread out over a 24 year period, so a conservative estimate of the amount of civilians killed per year under Saddam is about 14,600. Since it was only 2 years ago that the U.S. began the Iraq war, a conservative estimate of the civilians killed per year is about 12,500. This is certainly a disturbingly close number. Moreover, using the less cautious estimates, which put civilian deaths under Saddam as high as 1 million and civilian deaths since the beginning of the war as high as 100 thousand, the numbers become 41,700 per year under Saddam and 50,000 per year since the war began.
There are a couple qualifications that need to be made here. Regardless of the similarity or dissimilarity of the numbers, there is certainly a moral distinction to be made between Saddam's deliberate killing of civilians and the U.S.'s accidental (but arguably sometimes careless) killing of civilians while targeting military personelle. Furthermore, many of the civilian deaths that have occured since March of '03 have been the result of the insurgency, not the U.S. military. But it is of course true that the insurgency would not be doing what they are doing if it wasn't for the presence of the U.S. millitary.
The point is that the humanitarian rationale for the war, the only rationale that to me has any legs to stand on, seems to be fading...We all know now that the war wasn't fought over WMDs and I don't buy that the war has made us safer in the U.S. I still stand by my statement that the number of civilians being killed in Iraq will inevitably fall, but the question to be asked is how long will that take. If it takes another 10 years, which it certainly seems like it might despite Cheney's claims about the insurgency being in its "last throes", then this seems largely irrelevant, as Saddam (who is 67 or 68 now) might have been dead in 10 years if we hadn't captured him, and might die within the next 10 years anyway. While I'm still "very much confident that whoever comes to power [as a result of the U.S. war] will be worlds better than Saddam Hussein", I'm not confident that whoever comes to power will be worlds better than who his successor(s) would have been, given the U.S.'s track record.
None of this means that we should immediately pull out of Iraq; I in fact think that sudden withdrawal would be the worst thing we could do. We must finish what we started. I even think that one could still rationally support the war, given the effects it could have on the future of the Middle East and the future of terrorism. But it's clear to me that this war was by no means necessary and may not even be beneficial. While we still may save more lives than we destroy in the long run, if one was to err on the side of life - the cornerstone of the much lauded "culture of life" *- one would have to be opposed to such a bloody war.
-Larry
*I'm not saying that I adhere to the "culture of life" whatever that actually entails, but erring on the side life is generally a good principle, one that Bush, and most Americans, certainly claims to abide by.
posted by Larry R. Friedman at 8:40 PM
4 comments
