These posts from Seeing the Forest and Whiskey Bar reminded of me of my recent "discussion" with "Matt" at Big Brass Blog about innocent Iraqi civilian casualties of Bush's war.
my comments:
I seem to remember reading- in the early days of "the war" - that any male over the age of 14 was considered a soldier and therefore was not considered a "civilian" casualty.
I am uneasy with the phrase "INNOCENT Iraqi civilian men, women and children."
The fact is that if we had not invaded, all of those males who picked up arms to defend themselves would still be alive.
Let's not suggest that there were no "innocents" among the Iraqi "soldiers." (And who determines, in this war, who is a soldier?)
I believe the number generally cited is around 100,000 TOTAL dead, although it will be years before we have anything resembling accurate estimates of total Iraqis killed.
George Bush's war- 100,000 dead (so far).
The same sort of white-washing took place in 1991- when tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths were ignored (and Americans were told that Iraqi casualties were insignificant).
glassfrequency | 06.29.05 - 9:24 pm |
I have read 20-25,000 total dead, but you may inflate it to 100,000 if it makes your point better.
Matt | 06.29.05 - 9:56 pm |
22,582 - 25,590 (as of today) is the Iraq Body Count's number of CIVILIAN DEAD. It does not include soldiers, combatants, insurgents, or any other male Iraqi who might be considered "non-civilian."
The estimate most often cited- which includes ALL IRAQIS (even those with stones, sling-shots, guns and bombs) is much higher than 25,000.
The Lancet study was the first to ESTIMATE the total dead and came up with 100,000.
While this might be a high estimate, no one seems to doubt the number is considerably higher than 25,000 when ALL deaths are included.
The sad thing is that the organization most capable of making an honest assessment of casualties- the US military- refuses to disclose ANY information about ANY Iraqi casualties. They have clearly stated that they are not even looking into it (which I doubt is true).
Some fine print
We won't know the actual numbers for a long, long time. Iraq Body Count's estimate, by their own admission, is a conservative estimate of civilians only.
My only "point" is that if we are expected to support this war (OUR WAR) we need to understand the consequences and accept responsibility for our actions. Everyone writes about the American soldiers killed- some include information on Iraqi civilians. I just wanted to remind you that there have been many, many more lives lost - who do not fall into either of these two categories.
When you look back on this period (ten or twenty years from now) remember that some of us were telling you that it's much worse than you wanted to believe. IT ALWAYS IS.
You might recall that in the beginning of this campaign, "the Iraqis" were "not the enemy." I suppose it's best to avoid the subject of just how many of them we've killed?
glassfrequency | 06.29.05 - 11:40 pm
100,000 deaths?
Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey.
The Lancet, Volume 364, Issue 9448, Pages 1857-1864
L. Roberts, R. Lafta, R. Garfield, J. Khudhairi, G. Burnham
(published October 2004)
ALSO:
Oct 2004 pacific city diary @ Daily Kos
glassfrequency | 06.30.05 - 12:02 am
No comments:
Post a Comment