Juan Cole reports the bad news about the town of Fallujah. Forty per cent of the buildings were destroyed in the bombardment and the remaining buildings have either “major” or “significant” damage. The city has effectively no water or power. It is currently a tent city, composed of about 9,000 residents living in tents near the ruins of their homes. The other 290,000 residents are living with relatives in other cities, or in refugee camps, or dead. Presumably the refugees will be experiencing a mortality rate rather more than 1.5x its prewar level.
I suspect that the Fallujah residents might consider it an addition of insult to injury that the main importance of their town in Western political debate is as a trophy for statisticians like me to show how intellectually scrupulous we are and win arguments with morons, by discarding their suffering as an “outlier”. With real tears in my eyes, I apologise.
{ 31 comments }
John Isbell 03.16.05 at 5:04 pm
We are all outliers. Dresden was an outlier. I feel certain that most Americans neither know nor care how many Iraqi civilians we have killed, to within 5,000, and that would be different in Europe. This is not the least thing to lament about America today.
Kevin Donoghue 03.16.05 at 5:34 pm
Lately I haven’t been following the news from Iraq too closely. It gets too depressing when you read things like this:
“The American military said that it was seriously considering abandoning the notorious Abu Ghraib prison complex after incessant insurgent attacks have made it one of the most dangerous places in Iraq.”
They can’t even secure a prison from attack? So now Wolfowitz gets to run the World Bank.
am 03.16.05 at 7:23 pm
But how can this be? According to the Lancet survey, 100% of the population of Falluja were killed or injured by US bombing even before the most recent military action there.
ernie 03.16.05 at 7:40 pm
Ther can be no doubt that the US military destroyed Falluja in order to “save” Iraq.
John Emerson 03.16.05 at 8:57 pm
The PR for wars, during certain stages, will always emphasize the benefits that victory will have for those crushed under the heel of the tyrant enemy. During other stages, the culpability of the wretches will be emphasized.
For example, the Russians now are being properly punished for their failure to be liberated properly and for their servile submission to Communism.
Some of the greatest enthusiasm for the recent elections in Iraq and Palestine (and the demonstrations in Lebanon) has come from the “exterminate the brutes” faction of the mad-dog right.
Confirming my conviction that the engine of American conservativism is liberal-hatred and nothing else. Anything that makes liberals unhappy makes those guys happy. They hate Osama because they think he’s a liberal. (But he isn’t; he’s a social and political conservative).
Donald Johnson 03.16.05 at 10:59 pm
40 percent of the buildings destroyed and most of the rest damaged in a place that originally held 300,000 people. Nah, there’s no possibility of large numbers of civilian casualties.
Now to be fair, we don’t know whether most of the buildings were destroyed or damaged after most of the civilians had fled. Though judging from the Lancet Fallujah cluster, a fair number of civilians hung around at least until September and paid a heavy price for it.
Russell L. Carter 03.17.05 at 1:05 am
Well there you have it. I tried several times to add my own views on top of Daniel’s (In my own mind), but I failed. In these comments, we’ve got the same sort of futility that I faced: how to do a better job, or maybe provide a more specific face: impossible! The crime is too large. It is barbaric that we argue over random clusters; when people die every day trying to live their lives.
P.T. 03.17.05 at 1:15 am
“With real tears in my eyes, I apologise.”
Dsquared, the boy who cried wolf. Minus the wolf.
dsquared 03.17.05 at 2:19 am
Just to make it crystal clear, there is no special “Biggest Moron” prize of dinner for two at Alain Ducasse for the stupidest piece of poorly remembered Lancet denial talking points on this thread. I really don’t understand why “am” and “p.t.” thought there was.
Could we take it as read that having called these people morons once in the top post and once in this comment, I’m not going to do it again and this does not constitute agreement with whatever they manage to dredge up? Thanks.
Ajax B 03.17.05 at 3:41 am
The seeds of Fallujah were sown before the invasion. And whatever the next horror is, and the next. Once you accept the enormity of what this is the obvious steps get clear.
The definition of sickness is made by the host – to the pathogen it’s life, business as usual.
There’s nothing about your public expression of grief that’s inappropriate or weak. But now what?
Following behind them as they burn down toward the center of the earth, counting the bodies and the living nightmares in their wake?
Get in front of them and agitate, scream, embarrass yourself, risk their vindictive scorn and cowardly violence. There’s no middle ground anymore.
abb1 03.17.05 at 4:23 am
Interesting piece on another Daniel’s pet topic: the Al-Mahdi army and their MO. Fascinating read: You Thought Fallujah Was Tough?
Kevin Donoghue 03.17.05 at 6:24 am
“Just to make it crystal clear, there is no special ‘Biggest Moron’ prize of dinner for two at Alain Ducasse for the stupidest piece of poorly remembered Lancet denial talking points on this thread.”
Even if there were, “am” and “p.t.” will never match some of the truly priceless performers out there. The link to Tim Lambert brought to my notice the remarkable Rob, a man who has difficulty calculating percentages but no difficulty dismissing the Lancet methodology. As Lambert says, don’t look unless you enjoy the spectacle of someone repeatedly punching himself in the face:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/LancetIraq/lancet22.html
B. Wise 03.17.05 at 7:15 am
The absurd “Sunni insurgency” is morally responsible for the damage to Fallujah. The “Insurgency” is fighting a battle to the death with entire rest of Iraqi society, not just the US. The insurgency has no chance of victory, they are just bleeding themselves and the rest of the country out of nihilistic pique.
If the US were to pull out the Kurds and Shiite would find other allies willing to suppress the Sunnis: The Iranians, Turks and Syrians would all be asked to help. Then you would see a bigger bloodbath.
John Lederer 03.17.05 at 7:38 am
This piece seems to be based on writing by the American Friends Service Committee and a letter by Rep. Jim McDermott (strongly opposed to the war) in early January. I doubt that it is accurate.
The Iraqi government reported that hundreds of buildings were destroyed (out of about 17,000)– seemingly short of the 40% reported destroyed or havily damaged in this report.
Satellite photos seem to suggest that areas of destruction visible in the photos are quite limited. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah-imagery.htm
Military reconstruction units entered into Fallujah immediately after the fighting to start restoring vital services.
It would be interesting to know what the present situation is.
John Lederer 03.17.05 at 7:44 am
As of January 19th according to this report about half of the residents had returned, and central water and power had been restored (though service not yet restored to the distribution systems).
http://www.portaliraq.com/shownews.php?id=741
dsquared 03.17.05 at 8:06 am
John, that’s an interesting report but I can’t seem to find it reproduced in any normal news sources. This story, also from globalsecurity.org suggests that many more people “have returned” (ie, have passed through checkpoints) than are still living there. Looking around the web, there certainly seem to be lots of people living in refugee camps near Fallujah, which I don’t think is consistent with things being as good as that in January.
Geordie 03.17.05 at 9:03 am
Shouldn’t Daniel’s tearful apology belong in Chris’ “Further religious news” post?
http://www.warrens.net/miracle.htm
mw 03.17.05 at 9:08 am
Usually CT seems like one of the more reasonable left-leaning sites, but not here. Comparing Fallujah to Dresden? Dresden was burned to the ground, without warning, by incendiary bombs with all the civilian population still living there.
I have read differing accounts of the extent of damange to buildings and infrastructure, the rate of reconstruction, and the number of returned refugees–the degree of optimism or pessimism seems to depend on the politics of those doing the reporting (as is the case with Iraqi civilian casualties). However, I’d be willing to bet that Cole turns out to be as wrong as he turned out to be about the elections in this pronouncement:
Cole: Readers often write in for an update on Fallujah. I am sorry to say that there is no Fallujah to update. The city appears to be in ruins and perhaps uninhabitable in the near future.
Ruins? No Falujah to update? Unihabitable? I’d be willing to bet that the months to come will demonstrate that to have been ridiculous (but then it will, of course, have long since scrolled off his blog).
But completely aside from the question of percentages of buildings damaged and infrastructure repaired, I do not see any sense here that what was at stake in Fallujah was important — that had Fallujah been left as it was, as a safe haven for the Baathists and Al Queda alliance, the insurgency would be very much stronger now. Other areas of Iraq (perhaps all of the Sunni triangle) would also be firmly under insurgent control, and they would be poised to grab Baghdad as soon as the U.S. stepped aside. Obviously there would have been no elections.
If you see defeat of the terrorists as important, if you see a decent outcome in Iraq as critical not only for the people of Iraq, for the region, and, by extension, for the rest of us–then the damage to buildings in Fallujah pales ridiculously in comparison to what is at stake and to the liberation of european cities from the nazis (many of which, of course, were piles of burning rubble and yet did not long remain uninhabitable). On the other hand, if you do not believe the defeat of the Baathists and Wahabbis much matters (and perhaps that, on balance, the checking of U.S. power would be a preferable or at least acceptable alternative), well then I guess you weep over piles bricks and mortar in Fallujah (and avert your eyes as they’re put back together).
Donald Johnson 03.17.05 at 9:44 am
Civilians were advised to leave Fallujah and bombed for months before the final assault. Under that onslaught most fled before November, though the Lancet paper shows that probably many died in the meantime. Pentagon officials told the NYT (I saved the clipping, but don’t have it handy) that civilian casualties had a good side because civilian suffering might cause a rift between the inhabitants of Fallujah and the insurgents.
But yeah, it’s all the fault of the insurgents and none of it is our fault. Exactly the same procedures were followed in Vietnam with the same excuses made. You would think it’d be possible to find a prowar supporter who was deeply embarrassed by this, just as there were military supporters of the Vietnam War (like John Paul Vann) who were disgusted and horrified by US bombing of villages. I guess such people haven’t shown up in this thread yet.
paul_holloway 03.17.05 at 10:22 am
As far as I am aware, although civilians were told to leave Fallujah, men of fighting age were turned back by the US forces when they tried to leave. As for mw’s comment 18 – you treat all people living in Fallujah as insurgents when that plainly isn’t the case. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with insurgents unless you are an apologist for the occupation forces – in fact, insurgency is an inevitable outcome of occupation.
mw 03.17.05 at 11:34 am
As far as I am aware, although civilians were told to leave Fallujah, men of fighting age were turned back by the US forces when they tried to leave.
My understand was that they were allowed to surrender–but not to pass through checkpoints without possibly being detained.
Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with insurgents unless you are an apologist for the occupation forces – in fact, insurgency is an inevitable outcome of occupation.
In the abstract, there may be nothing wrong with insurgents, but in this case there is a great deal wrong with these particular insurgents.
They have declared Democracy to be an anathema. They are seeking to reinstate one of the most brutal tyrannies in the world (and using the same methods of brutality it used to hold power when it controlled the country). As a primary tactic, they are killing large numbers of civilians with suicide bombs–the purpose of which is to try to ignite an ethnic-motivated civil war. They are also sabotaging civilian infrastructure with the goal of increasing the suffering of ordinary people. It is hard to think of any outrage against humanity that they could have committed and have not.
ajay 03.17.05 at 12:02 pm
Oh, I have one. They could have waged aggressive war against another country. That’s a crime under international law, and has been since Nuremberg. In fact, it’s pretty much the international-law equivalent of murder: the worst crime possible. But the insurgents haven’t done that one, have they?
dsquared 03.17.05 at 12:17 pm
As a primary tactic, they are killing large numbers of civilians with suicide bombs—the purpose of which is to try to ignite an ethnic-motivated civil war. They are also sabotaging civilian infrastructure with the goal of increasing the suffering of ordinary people.
As I have mentioned a few times in the past, no doctor in the history of obstetrics has ever said “congratulations, Mrs Khan, a beautiful bouncing baby insurgent!”. These people were not insurgents before we invaded and would not have been insurgents had we not invaded. Whatever their moral culpability, the consequences of their actions were predictable consequences of our acting in the manner in which we did, and so we’re at fault too. Chris has regularly pointed out that the blame game is not zero-sum.
mw 03.17.05 at 12:22 pm
They could have waged aggressive war against another country. That’s a crime under international law, and has been since Nuremberg. In fact, it’s pretty much the international-law equivalent of murder: the worst crime possible. But the insurgents haven’t done that one, have they?
In their former roles in the Saddam government, they launched aggressive wars against both Iran and Kuwait. And, of course, the Al Queda wing of the insurgency has launched violent attacks against many countries. Right now, however, their capabilities to undertake such actions seems to be somewhat limited.
mw 03.17.05 at 12:25 pm
As I have mentioned a few times in the past, no doctor in the history of obstetrics has ever said “congratulations, Mrs Khan, a beautiful bouncing baby insurgent!â€. These people were not insurgents before we invaded and would not have been insurgents had we not invaded.
No they would have continued to serve as Mukbarat agents, Fedayeen nut cases, Saddam cronies, and/or Al Queda recruits thrown into attacks elsewhere (the US? Spain? Morocco? Bali? Saudi Arabia?)
JRoth 03.17.05 at 12:39 pm
Remarkably, mw wants the best of both blame-the-victim worlds: everyone in Fallujah was an insurgent, and every insurgent was a direct agent of Saddam. Maybe those 97% vote tallies weren’t frauds, after all.
mw 03.17.05 at 1:00 pm
Remarkably, mw wants the best of both blame-the-victim worlds: everyone in Fallujah was an insurgent, and every insurgent was a direct agent of Saddam. Maybe those 97% vote tallies weren’t frauds, after all.
Where on earth did I claim everyone in Fallujah was an insurgent or that every insurgent was an agent of Saddam? Some of the insurgents clearly are Al Queda-recruited foreign Arabs. Some also seem to be Syrian intelligence agents. As for the 97% tallies–the fraction of the Iraqi population supporting the insurgency is not large. Most Iraqis polled support drastic action against the terrorists (they call them terrorists there, BTW, not insurgents). Did you catch the news report of the recent demonstration in front of the Jordanian embassy protesting the ‘Martyr’s Wedding’ celebration in Jordan by the family of the suicide bomber who killed 130 Iraqis in Hilla?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/international/middleeast/15hilla.html
Less interesting to me than the question of whether or not Raad al-Banna was the Hilla bomber are the protests and the rapid backpedalling by Jordanian authorities and al-Banna’s family. How many other Jordanian families will now see fit to hold celebrations for ‘martyrs’ and pay for proud obituaries? Will the Jordanian government allow such celebrations even if families want to hold them? Al Queda’s work with the Iraqi insurgency doesn’t seem to be doing much for their popularity.
Uncle Kvetch 03.17.05 at 1:24 pm
Paul Holloway:
As far as I am aware, although civilians were told to leave Fallujah, men of fighting age were turned back by the US forces when they tried to leave.
MW:
My understand was that they were allowed to surrender—but not to pass through checkpoints without possibly being detained.
To “surrender” for what? For being men of fighting age who happened to live in Fallujah?
pedro 03.17.05 at 2:05 pm
Ah, just in case, uncle kvetch. Then they could be subjected–if deemed necessary by the appropriate decision-makers–to the power of stipulation of ticking-bomb scenarios, exercised with such marvelous discretion by those whose knowledgeable decisions cannot be explained in the open, for reasons of national security.
mw 03.17.05 at 2:50 pm
To “surrender†for what? For being men of fighting age who happened to live in Fallujah?
Oh, please–the coalition forces could hardly allow the insurgents to walk through checkpoints and melt away or alternately to pick up weapons stashed in cashes behind the perimeter and start attacking from the rear.
Surrender for what? Surrender until the battle was over and those in custody could be vetted. Men of fighting age who had not left Fallujah by the time the battle began had a far above non-zero probability of being insurgents. Certainly it was necessary to detain them and check. Any commander who decided otherwise would have (properly) faced a court-martial.
bitchphd 03.22.05 at 12:31 pm
A really lovely and meaningful post. Nice job.
Comments on this entry are closed.