The day before the election, Bush said this:
"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday.
So - obviously the Democrats are all anti-American, in fact they don't even seem to be American. I'm so very happy that this rhetoric of fear is no longer working with the American people. What a ridiculous statement.
Bush talked a lot at the time of his last election about how the people had given him a mandate concerning Iraq (even though he just barely won). I wonder if after this landslide shift that reflects public opinion concerning his administration - I wonder if he will take that as a mandate to change his policies in Iraq.
What do ya'll think? We gonna hear Bush say - "Well obviously the people of the country want us to get out of Iraq - so that's what I'm going to do. I've been given a mandate!"
Nov 8, 2006
Nov 6, 2006
T's Reply:
[ya'll will have to excuse my friend T. he's beginning his dissertation, so he currently lacks the ability to be succinct. - or perhaps this discussion warrants a long response. in either case, make a cup of hot tea and then sit down to read . . .]
Thanks to all for continuing the discussion. I’ve been aching for one that goes beyond the talking-head media flotsam. Matt & anyone else, please take me to task on whatever Tim posts on this blog. The implication of me agreeing that he could post our discussion is that it’s out there for all to debate. There’s something in the OT about harsh words from a friend being better than flattery by an enemy. So be a friend.
This discussion started about the big round number 600,000, so maybe it’s best to bring it back to that. Tim’s post cited Jim Wallis’ article, an article that erroneously cites 600,000 Iraqi deaths as the beginning and ending of any discussion about the war. His error was not in bring this to the fore of the discussion, but with the number itself. It needs to be clarified again and again that 600,000 deaths in Iraq are NOT civilian deaths. They are Iraqi deaths. The study does not attempt to distinguish civilians from combatants. The study doesn’t even venture a guess as to how many were civilians and how many combatants killed in action against U.S. troops.
Why is that important? Because every discussion about 600,000 deaths is framed by the supposition that they are civilian deaths. Some even imply that these deaths came at the hands of U.S. soldiers. They did not. They study itself estimated that only 1/3 of the 600,000 were at the hands of U.S. soldiers. The rest came at the hands of Iraqis, mostly from car bombings and gunfire. That sounds an awful lot like Iraqi on Iraqi crime. It fits the M.O. of the Iraqi death squads and other internal factions who mercilessly slaughter each other over tribal and religious differences. So, if we’re talking about deaths at the hands of the U.S., we’re talking about an estimated 200,000. That’s still about ¼ of a million people, a huge and tragic number. But that’s also still an estimate from a study whose criteria for “citizenship” was that someone only live in Iraq for 3 months or more. Any household who agreed to partake in the survey only had to live there for 3 months. Is it possible that some of these “citizens” were foreign fighters who were sent to Iraq to gain real-life training in fighting the U.S. troops? The study did not even mention this possibility, even though no one denies that this is taking place.
Furthermore, the study’s “control” death-rate began during the 1 year run-up to the war, when it was clear to anyone paying attention that the U.S. was going to take out Saddam. It was also a year of close scrutiny of Iraq, when the whole world was watching, looking for evidence of WMDs and other activity (such as his daily shooting at U.N. sanctioned jets who were patrolling the Iraq no-fly zone, an act which itself was an act of war). Do you suppose that during this time, Saddam’s brutalizing of his civilians was curtailed? Maybe Saddam played nice (or relatively nice) with his population while preparing for a U.S. invasion and putting together a bogus Declaration of Armaments? The study of civilian deaths should have gone back at least to the end of the first Gulf War in order to look for what a “normal” civilian death rate would be. But for some reason this methodological problem was also not mentioned in the study. It also failed to mention when the bodies in the numerous mass-graves were originally filled. That would certainly be relevant in any discussion of Iraqi civilian deaths. I’m not suggesting that Saddam was constantly using WMD’s against his people, even though he had used them in the past. I’m suggesting that he didn’t need WMDs to kill civilians and brutalize his people. He could take them to any of the ubiquitous rape rooms and “jails”, then dump the bodies with the rest of the slaughtered Iraqis at the hand of Saddam’s “bad” regime. If we’re going to talk about Iraqi deaths, let’s include statistics from this time period in our discussion. But again, no one does this. Too bad, because a stronger control rate would lend more credibility to the study.
Am I suggesting the war is right for humanitarian reasons, that war was necessary because Saddam killed a lot of people? Nope. How many are slaughtered, even as you read this, in Darfur? South Africa? Kenya? Indonesia? Cambodia? North Korea? How many people, do you suppose, have died as the result of corruption, internal strife, starvation as a means of population control, or simple homicidal tendencies? But do we invade those countries? Does anyone intervene in those countries? (That’s maybe a discussion for another thread) Why, then, would it be a good idea to target Iraq because of the war Saddam treated his people? It wasn’t. I think Bush envisioned a democratic, stable Middle East. Iraq would be the cornerstone because of its strategic location, its resources (yes, oil), and because if a country like Iraq can do it, its example would spread, domino-like, across the Middle East. The Middle East, of course, is the clumsy way to refer to the provenance of the jihadists who attacked on the U.S. 2001 and earlier, and who vowed to continue to attack us. And that threat is what changed a presidential candidate from being against “nation building” into the president we have today. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that was the reason why we invaded Iraq. We went in on the technical violation of Iraq’s bogus weapons declaration to the U.N., (even the U.N. said it was bogus), we went in because Saddam had been in violation of the Gulf War treaty for 16 years, and we have what we have in Iraq today as a result of that decision. That decision and that plan should be the focus of discussion. It should have been discussed in the beginning, but our wussy Congress and Executive Branch didn’t require a declaration of war, because that would have required this type of analysis, and because it would have put everyone on the hook for the way the war turned out.
Back to the numbers. This latest report about 600,000 is important, but it is not where the discussion of Iraq should begin and end. The discussion of Iraq should also not begin with the Monday morning quarterback syndrome into which many have fallen. The Iraq discussion should begin with why we went to war and whether we agreed with those reasons (not, agree-now-that-we-know-how-things-turned-out). Any discussion of war should factor, at the beginning, how many civilians are likely to die as a result, decide on an acceptable number (tragic and tough as that discussion is), then figure out the cost-benefit ratio before going to war. When the bodies pile up, it’ll feel “icky”, but if it’s within the agreed-upon range, then get on with it and pursue the goal. We don’t get to pull out early just because things don’t feel right. As cold-hearted as this type of analysis it, it is a very real part of war. If we can’t stomach this type of discussion, then don’t go to war, & don’t support the war. But, if the goal is worthwhile, then go to war and live with it.
As for the number 600,000, (or more properly, 200,000), how many of these were insurgents, freedom-fighters/terrorists/jihadists/whatever, and how many were civilians. I’d feel a lot worse about non-combatant civilian death then I would about people who are living by the sword. We could estimate what percent of Iraq’s population is fighting against the U.S., then, somehow, transfer that percentage to the 200,000 deaths from this study, and then have a better picture of civilian from combatant. I don’t know what that percentage is, and I don’t know the methodological nuances for translating that into an estimate of Iraqi casualties. But one would think that a study, whose purpose is to discuss how many more Iraqis died during the war, would at least address the issue. One would think.
One might argue that we’re responsible for all 600,000 of the deaths, because we removed the iron fist that prevented the Iraqi infighting which caused it. Would you also argue that car companies are responsible for vehicular deaths because they allow their cars to move faster than the speed limit, or because cars does not require a breathalyzer before being able to be turned on? Maybe we should hold rape victims responsible for the crime because they weren’t wearing a burka? I’m suggesting that people are responsible for their own actions, the street-racer, the drunkard, the rapist, and the murderer alike. We don’t encourage Iraqis to murder other Iraqis. We don’t arm the citizens so they can go shoot their neighbor. We “created an environment” where laws are not enforced during reconstruction, but that only means that people no longer have an external threat to keep them in check. They still have their conscience. They still have their humanity. They could also love their families more than they hate other tribes. Unless, that is, we’re suggesting that the U.S. is responsible because it is the nature of Persians and Arabs to act like savages, as if they’ll kill each other the first chance they get. Maybe what we’re saying is that we’re responsible for all 600,000 Iraqi deaths because they just can’t help themselves, those uncivilized beasts have a bloodlust that overwhelms any shred of humanity they Saddam might have enforced. Is that what we’re saying?
Look, I know Baghdad and central Iraq are a mess right now. Hundreds of thousands have died, countless more were maimed, and these numbers will continue to climb. I wish we’d conducted the war and reconstruction differently, and maybe that’s what we should champion, a strategy change in Iraq. But what is the goal and how best ought we pursue it? Not just with Iraq, but with the idea of national security in general? How should America conduct itself against the current threat of guerilla warfare by terrorist groups who target the civilian population? Because that’s the context of the 600,000; that’s the subtext of this whole discussion. To what end is America using its force against a perceived enemy? And how ought we conduct ourselves as Americans and as Christians?
[ya'll will have to excuse my friend T. he's beginning his dissertation, so he currently lacks the ability to be succinct. - or perhaps this discussion warrants a long response. in either case, make a cup of hot tea and then sit down to read . . .]
Thanks to all for continuing the discussion. I’ve been aching for one that goes beyond the talking-head media flotsam. Matt & anyone else, please take me to task on whatever Tim posts on this blog. The implication of me agreeing that he could post our discussion is that it’s out there for all to debate. There’s something in the OT about harsh words from a friend being better than flattery by an enemy. So be a friend.
This discussion started about the big round number 600,000, so maybe it’s best to bring it back to that. Tim’s post cited Jim Wallis’ article, an article that erroneously cites 600,000 Iraqi deaths as the beginning and ending of any discussion about the war. His error was not in bring this to the fore of the discussion, but with the number itself. It needs to be clarified again and again that 600,000 deaths in Iraq are NOT civilian deaths. They are Iraqi deaths. The study does not attempt to distinguish civilians from combatants. The study doesn’t even venture a guess as to how many were civilians and how many combatants killed in action against U.S. troops.
Why is that important? Because every discussion about 600,000 deaths is framed by the supposition that they are civilian deaths. Some even imply that these deaths came at the hands of U.S. soldiers. They did not. They study itself estimated that only 1/3 of the 600,000 were at the hands of U.S. soldiers. The rest came at the hands of Iraqis, mostly from car bombings and gunfire. That sounds an awful lot like Iraqi on Iraqi crime. It fits the M.O. of the Iraqi death squads and other internal factions who mercilessly slaughter each other over tribal and religious differences. So, if we’re talking about deaths at the hands of the U.S., we’re talking about an estimated 200,000. That’s still about ¼ of a million people, a huge and tragic number. But that’s also still an estimate from a study whose criteria for “citizenship” was that someone only live in Iraq for 3 months or more. Any household who agreed to partake in the survey only had to live there for 3 months. Is it possible that some of these “citizens” were foreign fighters who were sent to Iraq to gain real-life training in fighting the U.S. troops? The study did not even mention this possibility, even though no one denies that this is taking place.
Furthermore, the study’s “control” death-rate began during the 1 year run-up to the war, when it was clear to anyone paying attention that the U.S. was going to take out Saddam. It was also a year of close scrutiny of Iraq, when the whole world was watching, looking for evidence of WMDs and other activity (such as his daily shooting at U.N. sanctioned jets who were patrolling the Iraq no-fly zone, an act which itself was an act of war). Do you suppose that during this time, Saddam’s brutalizing of his civilians was curtailed? Maybe Saddam played nice (or relatively nice) with his population while preparing for a U.S. invasion and putting together a bogus Declaration of Armaments? The study of civilian deaths should have gone back at least to the end of the first Gulf War in order to look for what a “normal” civilian death rate would be. But for some reason this methodological problem was also not mentioned in the study. It also failed to mention when the bodies in the numerous mass-graves were originally filled. That would certainly be relevant in any discussion of Iraqi civilian deaths. I’m not suggesting that Saddam was constantly using WMD’s against his people, even though he had used them in the past. I’m suggesting that he didn’t need WMDs to kill civilians and brutalize his people. He could take them to any of the ubiquitous rape rooms and “jails”, then dump the bodies with the rest of the slaughtered Iraqis at the hand of Saddam’s “bad” regime. If we’re going to talk about Iraqi deaths, let’s include statistics from this time period in our discussion. But again, no one does this. Too bad, because a stronger control rate would lend more credibility to the study.
Am I suggesting the war is right for humanitarian reasons, that war was necessary because Saddam killed a lot of people? Nope. How many are slaughtered, even as you read this, in Darfur? South Africa? Kenya? Indonesia? Cambodia? North Korea? How many people, do you suppose, have died as the result of corruption, internal strife, starvation as a means of population control, or simple homicidal tendencies? But do we invade those countries? Does anyone intervene in those countries? (That’s maybe a discussion for another thread) Why, then, would it be a good idea to target Iraq because of the war Saddam treated his people? It wasn’t. I think Bush envisioned a democratic, stable Middle East. Iraq would be the cornerstone because of its strategic location, its resources (yes, oil), and because if a country like Iraq can do it, its example would spread, domino-like, across the Middle East. The Middle East, of course, is the clumsy way to refer to the provenance of the jihadists who attacked on the U.S. 2001 and earlier, and who vowed to continue to attack us. And that threat is what changed a presidential candidate from being against “nation building” into the president we have today. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that was the reason why we invaded Iraq. We went in on the technical violation of Iraq’s bogus weapons declaration to the U.N., (even the U.N. said it was bogus), we went in because Saddam had been in violation of the Gulf War treaty for 16 years, and we have what we have in Iraq today as a result of that decision. That decision and that plan should be the focus of discussion. It should have been discussed in the beginning, but our wussy Congress and Executive Branch didn’t require a declaration of war, because that would have required this type of analysis, and because it would have put everyone on the hook for the way the war turned out.
Back to the numbers. This latest report about 600,000 is important, but it is not where the discussion of Iraq should begin and end. The discussion of Iraq should also not begin with the Monday morning quarterback syndrome into which many have fallen. The Iraq discussion should begin with why we went to war and whether we agreed with those reasons (not, agree-now-that-we-know-how-things-turned-out). Any discussion of war should factor, at the beginning, how many civilians are likely to die as a result, decide on an acceptable number (tragic and tough as that discussion is), then figure out the cost-benefit ratio before going to war. When the bodies pile up, it’ll feel “icky”, but if it’s within the agreed-upon range, then get on with it and pursue the goal. We don’t get to pull out early just because things don’t feel right. As cold-hearted as this type of analysis it, it is a very real part of war. If we can’t stomach this type of discussion, then don’t go to war, & don’t support the war. But, if the goal is worthwhile, then go to war and live with it.
As for the number 600,000, (or more properly, 200,000), how many of these were insurgents, freedom-fighters/terrorists/jihadists/whatever, and how many were civilians. I’d feel a lot worse about non-combatant civilian death then I would about people who are living by the sword. We could estimate what percent of Iraq’s population is fighting against the U.S., then, somehow, transfer that percentage to the 200,000 deaths from this study, and then have a better picture of civilian from combatant. I don’t know what that percentage is, and I don’t know the methodological nuances for translating that into an estimate of Iraqi casualties. But one would think that a study, whose purpose is to discuss how many more Iraqis died during the war, would at least address the issue. One would think.
One might argue that we’re responsible for all 600,000 of the deaths, because we removed the iron fist that prevented the Iraqi infighting which caused it. Would you also argue that car companies are responsible for vehicular deaths because they allow their cars to move faster than the speed limit, or because cars does not require a breathalyzer before being able to be turned on? Maybe we should hold rape victims responsible for the crime because they weren’t wearing a burka? I’m suggesting that people are responsible for their own actions, the street-racer, the drunkard, the rapist, and the murderer alike. We don’t encourage Iraqis to murder other Iraqis. We don’t arm the citizens so they can go shoot their neighbor. We “created an environment” where laws are not enforced during reconstruction, but that only means that people no longer have an external threat to keep them in check. They still have their conscience. They still have their humanity. They could also love their families more than they hate other tribes. Unless, that is, we’re suggesting that the U.S. is responsible because it is the nature of Persians and Arabs to act like savages, as if they’ll kill each other the first chance they get. Maybe what we’re saying is that we’re responsible for all 600,000 Iraqi deaths because they just can’t help themselves, those uncivilized beasts have a bloodlust that overwhelms any shred of humanity they Saddam might have enforced. Is that what we’re saying?
Look, I know Baghdad and central Iraq are a mess right now. Hundreds of thousands have died, countless more were maimed, and these numbers will continue to climb. I wish we’d conducted the war and reconstruction differently, and maybe that’s what we should champion, a strategy change in Iraq. But what is the goal and how best ought we pursue it? Not just with Iraq, but with the idea of national security in general? How should America conduct itself against the current threat of guerilla warfare by terrorist groups who target the civilian population? Because that’s the context of the 600,000; that’s the subtext of this whole discussion. To what end is America using its force against a perceived enemy? And how ought we conduct ourselves as Americans and as Christians?
Nov 2, 2006
From an interview with Linford Detweiler concerning Over The Rhine's album Drunkard's Prayer. The interview may be found here.
Jeffrey:
"Spark" has a riveting refrain: “Sleep with one ear close to the ground / And wake up screaming / When we lay our cold weapons down / We'll wake up dreaming." That sounds like a sentiment with a story behind it — something that could be about a relationship, or about the drama playing out on the world stage. (It strikes me as a “sequel” to “Changes Come.”) Can you give us a window into the genesis of that song?
Detweiler:
You’ve nailed it. It applies to relationships for sure, but it’s basically a protest song at the end of the day -- very much in the spirit of “Changes Come”. It’s a simple statement that addresses the reality of the fact that as long as we rely on massive military solutions to supposedly resolve conflict, we deny the possibility that there could be more innovative, creative, helpful solutions. We deny the fact that America, the country that gave the world Jazz and Bluegrass and Blues and Gospel music, could be equally as innovative when it comes to human conflict. The fact of the matter is, when we ignore the lives of people like Jesus, Gandhi or Martin Luther King and rely on force to bring about change, we do irreparable damage to the psyche of our nation.
Nov 1, 2006
Concerning the 600,000 post below -
T. and I continued our conversation through email. Here's more of the conversation (you may want to get caught up first by reading our comments in the 600,000 post. Please don't read this post unless you're terribly interested in the issue, for it is a ridiculously long post. T. was smart to continue the conversation through email in order to spare anyone that might be reading this blog. I, however, still need to learn my lesson.
T. wrote:
So, I read the report and took some notes on it. My pro-war bias shows through and I readily admit that. I only hope that between my bias and your that I will continue to learn and have my opinions shaped. The notes are simply notes, the only cohesive statement is at the end. They are what I think significant factors in the report that detract from the initial shock and implication of 600,000 deaths resulting from the war. They're hawk-ish and arguably pro-Bush cool-aid opinions about the report, even though I'm no fan of of Bush and the way he sold the war or how the war has been handled (that among many harsh domestic and foreign-affair criticisms I have of him). Given my bias in reading the report, I still think that I've pointed out significant factors in the report, not least of which is that it does not separate combatant and non-combatant deaths; and that it only begins the survey in the 1 year run-up to the war, a time when it was clear we were going to war is Iraq and therefore population data is going to be different than "normal", non-war or prelude-to-war surveys. In other words, the pre-war period which is the baseline for deaths only had 2 violent deaths recorded in the surveyed population. I doubt that the normal, non-wartime or pre-wartime periods in Iraq or any other country has only 2 violent deaths. L.A. alone has more than that. I'm curious what you make of all this. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm a knee-jerk hawk who needs to be tempered by more leftist considerations. I take your criticisms to heart and am continually reminded why you're such a good friend, because only a good friend would be honest in a discussion of this nature.
The attachment:
25% of the surveyed households were from Baghdad (the most violent place in Iraq), though it does have 25% of the population of Iraq.
Surveyers went house to house and asked for consent for the survey. Check out page 7 and the potential for bias and distortion in the survey. Among the factors could have been the migration of people from violent areas to non-violent areas, which would tend to increase the mortality rate of the violent areas because of the nature of those who were left behind. Considering that fully ¼ of the survey came from the most violent area of Iraq, that alone is a significant factor in potential bias. The report does, however, note many instances and causes where they could have underestimated the death rate, and the report spells out this implication. Yet where there was potential to overestimate the death rate, the report does not spell it out. So, it’ll say, “ and so-and-so could be a cause for underestimating deaths in this survey”, whereas it never says, “and so-and-so could be a cause for our overestimating deaths in this survey”, even though it is clearly an implication.
The survey did not separate combatant from non-combatant. Criminal murders from anti-coalition force also not distinguished. We know that there are death squads in Iraq, Iraqis killing Iraqis. Gunshots and car bombs account for the most violent deaths. Gun shots alone count for half.
Survey begins during the 1 year run-up to the invasion, during which time the violent death rate was low because Saddam was concentrating his forces for the invasion. Does not account for, say, a 10 year, pre-war death rate that includes the murder of Curds and wholesale slaughter of Saddam’s enemies.
Coalition caused deaths are 31% post-invastion
Coalition-caused deaths decreasing, even though the violent death rate increases.
Pre death rate 5.5 per 1000. Post invastion 13.5 % per 1000. Highest death rate was 20% during the invasion.
650,000 crude deaths.
600,000 due to violence.
The death rate has doubled during the post-invasion period.
Also compare to other conflicts and the civilian death rate there. Vietnam saw 3 million civilians die, Congo saw 3 million people die. East Timor saw 25% of it’s population die, (200,000 out of 800,000), whereas Iraq has 2.5% of its population have died.
All of these notes mean that the war has killed people from the hands of American forces. It also means that by removing a dictatorship, which, though violent and unjust, did bring stability to the country, now Iraq is in a period of instability. Infighting that was kept in check by the iron fist of Saddam is now flourishing, so Iraqis are killing Iraqis and account for 60% of the violent deaths in Iraq. They are killing each other. They are also destroying infrastructure, which also makes the place unstable. The report does acknowledge this infrastructure gap as a cause of the deaths as well.
What I am suggesting is that the report confirms that modern wars include civilian deaths, especially in unstable areas of the world. Post-invasion reconstruction is a lethal time and needs good-well planned leadership to guide the rebuilding process. Given that people die in war and they die after the war during reconstruction, the question is whether war is worth it. If a war is worth it, say as the last or only viable option, then we should mourn the deaths but also expect them and factor them into the cost-benefit analysis of the war. Given that 2/3 of the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of Iraqis, and that this survey does not separate combatant and non-combatant deaths, the number is appalling and expected and needs to be addressed. But consider whether simply de-funding the war and withdrawing troops would increase or decrease the violence. There are, after all, still American troops stationed in Germany and in Korea. This report is a strong piece of evidence for why war should be avoided at great cost, and for how we should proceed in this war and in future wars, but it is not a definitive piece of evidence for why the war in Iraq is or is not warranted at all. As for the elections, it should be a strong piece of evidence for how to vote, (and I personally hope that Democrats take over at least the House or Senate, and that in the next election the Executive and Legislative branches are split), but it is not the only piece of evidence for how to vote, even if the vote is solely based on the war in Iraq (to say nothing of the one in Afghanistan, or the looming one in Korea and Iran).
And I'll put my response to T. in the comments area.
(Congrats T. No one has ever received a whole post on my blog with only their thoughts.)
T. and I continued our conversation through email. Here's more of the conversation (you may want to get caught up first by reading our comments in the 600,000 post. Please don't read this post unless you're terribly interested in the issue, for it is a ridiculously long post. T. was smart to continue the conversation through email in order to spare anyone that might be reading this blog. I, however, still need to learn my lesson.
T. wrote:
So, I read the report and took some notes on it. My pro-war bias shows through and I readily admit that. I only hope that between my bias and your that I will continue to learn and have my opinions shaped. The notes are simply notes, the only cohesive statement is at the end. They are what I think significant factors in the report that detract from the initial shock and implication of 600,000 deaths resulting from the war. They're hawk-ish and arguably pro-Bush cool-aid opinions about the report, even though I'm no fan of of Bush and the way he sold the war or how the war has been handled (that among many harsh domestic and foreign-affair criticisms I have of him). Given my bias in reading the report, I still think that I've pointed out significant factors in the report, not least of which is that it does not separate combatant and non-combatant deaths; and that it only begins the survey in the 1 year run-up to the war, a time when it was clear we were going to war is Iraq and therefore population data is going to be different than "normal", non-war or prelude-to-war surveys. In other words, the pre-war period which is the baseline for deaths only had 2 violent deaths recorded in the surveyed population. I doubt that the normal, non-wartime or pre-wartime periods in Iraq or any other country has only 2 violent deaths. L.A. alone has more than that. I'm curious what you make of all this. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm a knee-jerk hawk who needs to be tempered by more leftist considerations. I take your criticisms to heart and am continually reminded why you're such a good friend, because only a good friend would be honest in a discussion of this nature.
The attachment:
25% of the surveyed households were from Baghdad (the most violent place in Iraq), though it does have 25% of the population of Iraq.
Surveyers went house to house and asked for consent for the survey. Check out page 7 and the potential for bias and distortion in the survey. Among the factors could have been the migration of people from violent areas to non-violent areas, which would tend to increase the mortality rate of the violent areas because of the nature of those who were left behind. Considering that fully ¼ of the survey came from the most violent area of Iraq, that alone is a significant factor in potential bias. The report does, however, note many instances and causes where they could have underestimated the death rate, and the report spells out this implication. Yet where there was potential to overestimate the death rate, the report does not spell it out. So, it’ll say, “ and so-and-so could be a cause for underestimating deaths in this survey”, whereas it never says, “and so-and-so could be a cause for our overestimating deaths in this survey”, even though it is clearly an implication.
The survey did not separate combatant from non-combatant. Criminal murders from anti-coalition force also not distinguished. We know that there are death squads in Iraq, Iraqis killing Iraqis. Gunshots and car bombs account for the most violent deaths. Gun shots alone count for half.
Survey begins during the 1 year run-up to the invasion, during which time the violent death rate was low because Saddam was concentrating his forces for the invasion. Does not account for, say, a 10 year, pre-war death rate that includes the murder of Curds and wholesale slaughter of Saddam’s enemies.
Coalition caused deaths are 31% post-invastion
Coalition-caused deaths decreasing, even though the violent death rate increases.
Pre death rate 5.5 per 1000. Post invastion 13.5 % per 1000. Highest death rate was 20% during the invasion.
650,000 crude deaths.
600,000 due to violence.
The death rate has doubled during the post-invasion period.
Also compare to other conflicts and the civilian death rate there. Vietnam saw 3 million civilians die, Congo saw 3 million people die. East Timor saw 25% of it’s population die, (200,000 out of 800,000), whereas Iraq has 2.5% of its population have died.
All of these notes mean that the war has killed people from the hands of American forces. It also means that by removing a dictatorship, which, though violent and unjust, did bring stability to the country, now Iraq is in a period of instability. Infighting that was kept in check by the iron fist of Saddam is now flourishing, so Iraqis are killing Iraqis and account for 60% of the violent deaths in Iraq. They are killing each other. They are also destroying infrastructure, which also makes the place unstable. The report does acknowledge this infrastructure gap as a cause of the deaths as well.
What I am suggesting is that the report confirms that modern wars include civilian deaths, especially in unstable areas of the world. Post-invasion reconstruction is a lethal time and needs good-well planned leadership to guide the rebuilding process. Given that people die in war and they die after the war during reconstruction, the question is whether war is worth it. If a war is worth it, say as the last or only viable option, then we should mourn the deaths but also expect them and factor them into the cost-benefit analysis of the war. Given that 2/3 of the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of Iraqis, and that this survey does not separate combatant and non-combatant deaths, the number is appalling and expected and needs to be addressed. But consider whether simply de-funding the war and withdrawing troops would increase or decrease the violence. There are, after all, still American troops stationed in Germany and in Korea. This report is a strong piece of evidence for why war should be avoided at great cost, and for how we should proceed in this war and in future wars, but it is not a definitive piece of evidence for why the war in Iraq is or is not warranted at all. As for the elections, it should be a strong piece of evidence for how to vote, (and I personally hope that Democrats take over at least the House or Senate, and that in the next election the Executive and Legislative branches are split), but it is not the only piece of evidence for how to vote, even if the vote is solely based on the war in Iraq (to say nothing of the one in Afghanistan, or the looming one in Korea and Iran).
And I'll put my response to T. in the comments area.
(Congrats T. No one has ever received a whole post on my blog with only their thoughts.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)