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:
I applaud your thoughtful comments. These figures are also disturbing to me as well. Especially disturbing were the reports of the children killed in last week's suicide bombing - absolutely horrific. It's sad that a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites may be waiting down the road, and even more ironic that under Hussein's regime, some could argue a civil war would have been avoided since he so handily controlled both sides through his regime. I just wish someone could figure the whole mess out and fix it.
i agree with a lot of what you said, but i also think it's important to take a look at why and how these people are (and were) being killed, on what grounds and for what purpose, by whomever. i know you went over this, but i just want to emphasize the quality of life issue here, cause that's the one thing i think you missed. i mean for instance, imagine some foreign country (and ugh, it's disgusting how this really isn't so hard to 'imagine'...) with some totalitarian regime that, every month or so, picks the name of a random person out of a hat - let's say the name of a woman or a child, to make it more inflamatory - and then goes to that woman or child's house and tortures them and kills them in front of their family. that's only like 12 women or children a year. a big part of me would rather see a revolutionary civil war break out in this country that results in hundreds of deaths per month, thousands per year, and ends up in some kind of sane government some years thereafter, with a legacy of human rights and governmental accountability, than for that kind of shit to keep happening. i mean yeah of course all things are a matter of degree, i'm not about to say that we should nuke texas for executing a retarded man (although i imagine some people would). i dunno, it's a shallow analogy (both of them), but you know what i mean.
I think there are a few things worth fighting for that in their own ways are even more important than the right to life, like freedom, justice, and the American way (haha...but seriously...) And yeah, it's a matter of degree, but these things are definitely worth taking a look at when considering the necessity of war.
25,000 civilian deaths is hardly something to celebrate, and that number certainly could've been lower had the administration not made terrible mistakes basically from the first minute of this war onwards, and probably before as well. But there is simply no comparison between collateral damage and a dictator murdering dissenters and keeping the majority ethnic groups in line with nonstop violence. Keep in mind that the only thing preventing Saddam from wiping out the Kurds wholesale after the Gulf War was the no-fly zone. I'm not sure there's any kind of number that makes me think that calculating 1 million deaths over x number of years versus y number of deaths over z number of years is a helpful activity. There is more to life than how likely you are to die, in absolute terms. For example, if one assumes that the Civil War was fought largely over slavery, than wouldn't it have been a morally absurd undertaking to have 600,000 Americans die over an institution that enslaved people, but did not kill a comparable amount? The answer of course, os that no matter how bad the war was, nothing could justify the status quo that preceded it in which a man could physically own someone, and the war had to be fought sooner or later.
That being said, I'm as confused as you are about why we're in Iraq and what the best case scenario is at this point. Part of me is positive that democracy and dignity are the key to minimizing terrorism. Another part of me says that countries that are true threats should receive a hefty heap of bombs, a quick invasion to remove their leader, and then an immediate pullout. Whatever's left behind is Kim Jong Il \ Saddam Hussein \ Mullah Omar's fault for starting it. I hope the first one's the truth.
-Benjy
In response to Jesse and Benjy:
You both make a similar, very important point - that humanitarian intervention/war isn't just about saving lives, it's about larger principles of freedom and justice and such. I completely agree, and I admit to getting a bit caught up in the (disturbing) numbers and neglecting the 'larger principles' aspect. But I think what I was trying to say is that because the amount of civilian deaths since the beginning of the war is so staggering, possibly worse than under Saddam, the war better result in a clear victory for principles of freedom and justice. If the result is a dictator only a few notches better than Sadddam and not much changes overall in the Middle East, then the war seems indefensible to me on humanitarian grounds.
Post a Comment
<< Home