Not only is child malnutrion soaring in Iraq, but so are deaths from crime. The Times reports that in Baghdad alone more that 700 people are killed every month:
Shot, stabbed, blown up,burnt: the bodies of Iraqis killed in Baghdad lie piled in overcrowded refrigerators at the city’s central mortuary, their ever-increasing number overwhelming both staff and storage space in a wave that marks the city’s descent into a Hobbesian world of crime and brutality.
“Our morgue was designed to cope with between five and ten bodies a day,” explained Kais Hassan, the harrassed statistician whose job it is to record the capital’s suspicious deaths. He gestured into the open door of a refrigeration unit at the stomach-turning sight of tangled corpses inside, male and female, shaded with the brown and green hues of death. “Now we’re getting 20 to 30 in here a day. It’s a disaster.”
To be fair, the article also reports that the hospital staff cannot agree on whether on not the situation is worse than under Saddam, since they remember the Baathists dumping large numbers of unclaimed bodies at the morgue. No doubt there’ll be blog commentary to the effect that (a) the crime-related death figures are invented by anti-war ideologues and (b) the Coalition can in no way be held responsible for deaths from crime. (via Juan Cole )
This NYT story has more, including a depressing graph.
Oh and there’s c) cite John Lott’s contention that Baghdad has a lower murder rate than New York.
Gee, sounds like Washington, DC., NY city, Los Angeles and Detroit. But several hundred less than died under Saddam. What is the point of this story?
I believe you will find that not even 700 people a YEAR die of violent crime in any of the cities you list, let alone 700 a month. What was the point of your comment?
It’s good to see liberals in favour of cracking down on crime. They didn’t quite have this attitude last week in the UK when Blunket unveiled his measures to crack down on yob Britain, but at least it could be said you are in favour of this type of thing when it comes to Baghdad. Well done.
As you may be aware, there is a war going on in Iraq at present, and the brave Iraqi police are the main targets of the terrorists who are trying to prevent any chance of democracy through murdering as many people as they can. One might expect crime to go up under these circumstances - it’s quite obvious, really; just as it’s obvious that child malnutrition will go up when terrorists are killing aid workers and blowing up the infrastructure. But don’t worry; we will crush the f**kers. As well as giving Iraq the best damn public services they ever had, they will also enjoy the benefits of a decent police force, that while keeps crime to a minimum, doesn’t need to use electric wires, pull out nails or breaks fingers, or use other well known torture type activity, to extract confessions.
Having said that, reports coming out of Falluja during the fantastically successful operation that has taken place there over recent weeks, said that insurgent prisoners begged to be in the custody of US troops, rather than Iraqi police, so perhaps there is still a bit of training to be done. But make no mistake, this training is indeed going on. It’s an old record, I know, but everyday in Iraq teachers are being trained, police are being taught human rights; and great progress is being made. This is a great cause which deserves our unreserved support.
rob, you little pissant, you are either incredibly ignorant or you know perfectly well that Blunkett’s “actions” are no more than blind man’s bluff, tough sounding, unworkable unlawful bluster for the upcoming elections.
Instead of posturing, Blunkett should pay some attentiont o enforcing the law already on the books, rather than add more duplication.
But don’t worry; we will crush the f**kers.
Have you ever given a moment’s thought to how you, your kin or your community would react if you were the targets of a strategy like this at the hands of an occupying army? Do you think you’d just roll over?
This is rich: U.S. Sends in Secret Weapon: Saddam’s Old Commandos
…
“The hardest fighters we have are the former special forces from Saddam’s days,” Colonel Ron Johnson, commander of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, told reporters late on Friday.
…
“They’re aggressive, they’re tough,” said Captain Tad Douglas after a raid in the town of Latifiya on Saturday in which the bulk of his force was an Iraqi police “SWAT team.”
Obviously Mr. Negroponte is firmly in charge there.
former special forces from Saddam’s days
hmm. these must be the ‘former regime elements’ we hear so much about.
I think, Chris, that your summary of the Times article in the first two sentences of your post is misleading. The figures reported there justify neither the claim that deaths from crime are “soaring” nor the claim that “more than 700 are killed every month” in Baghdad.
Morever, if we piece together the numbers of autopsies of suspicious deaths in the Baghdad mortuary since the fall of Saddam Hussein by drawing on both the Times article and the New York Times article to which the first commentator in this threat links, we get the following:
726 deaths in October 04
670 in September 04
696 in August 04
Over 700 in each of June and July 04
About 550-650 per month from Sept 03 to May 04
A post-Hussein-regime high of 875 in August 03
Over 700 in July 03
Slightly more than 600 in June 03
About 450 in May 03
These numbers don’t support the claim that “more than 700 are killed every month”. And, apart from May 03 to August 03, I don’t think it’s accurate to describe deaths from crime as “soaring”.
There is, however, no doubt that these numbers are alarming and appalling.
Have you ever given a moment’s thought to how you, your kin or your community would react if you were the targets of a strategy like this at the hands of an occupying army? Do you think you’d just roll over?
Of course he would. The warbloggers’s fundamental trait of character isn’t belligerence, but obsequiousness to power. Rob and his ilk would be collaborators, and wonder why the rest of us idiots were determined to make life difficult for everyone.
Anecdotal evidence:
An acquaintance of mine witnessed a typical attack on a crowded sidewalk in the central city: a middle-aged man was walking home from the market with two bags of groceries in his arms when he was accosted by a knife-wielding youth demanding his food and money. Pedestrians passing by saw this, and did not intervene. The middle-aged man put down his groceries and reached into his pocket, but instead of coming up with a wallet, came up with a gun. He did not use it to chase his assailant away, but without a word thumbed off the safety and shot the would-be thief dead in the head. An approving crowd then gathered and urged the man to flee, not before the Americans galloped onto the scene (there was no risk of that) but before someone from the dead youth’s family arrived to exact vengeance. The man pocketed the gun, picked up his groceries, and calmly walked away.
From Welcome to the Green Zone by William Langewiesche in November’s Atlantic, article not online.
Martin,
I find your hypocrisy appalling. Briton’s too are crying out for tough law and order policies; not just Iraqis. Yet you choose to abandon your comrades in Brixton and else where, in their hour of need, in favour of cheap Blunkett bashing - shameless behaviour.
addi,
It stands to reason that former special forces troops would make better soldiers than someone who was a milk man up until six months ago. As long as these soldiers haven’t been involved in any crimes against the Iraqi people, then I see no problem with them fighting on behalf of the UN back legal Iraqi government. In fact, it’s now pretty much a consensus view that the biggest mistake the coalition made upon arriving in Iraq was to disband the entire Iraqi army, causing chaos.
However, if these special forces troops don’t want to fight for freedom, they can always go to Falluja and end up in a mass grave with all the other terrorists.
ogged,
I think it unlikely that I would be a collaborator. It’s one of life’s little ironies that the people who most vigorously oppose the war in Britain would most likely be an Iraqi that is working with the Americans to create some sort of democracy; even more so than the pro war gang, who although would be intelligent enough to fight against the fascist and Islamist forces - two things they deplore (the scenario is very different to the facile comparisons with the Nazi occupation of France we often hear), they would still feel a bit compromised by their strong feelings of patriotism. You would have no such problems.
Incidentally, the whole patriotism thing is why Americans understand the Iraqi state of mind often better than Europeans, I find. Americans know that a bit of patriotic hostility and bluster is perfectly natural, and doesn’t mean they don’t know deep down that they need them.
They didn’t quite have this attitude last week in the UK when Blunket unveiled his measures to crack down on yob Britain
If seven hundred people a month were being killed by kids hanging round in hooded tops, I’m sure it would have been covered by the Camden New Journal and perhaps even the Hampstead & Highgate Gazette. Since it hasn’t been in either of these papers (I just checked), I think that there perhaps might be enough of a qualitative difference to make Chris’s postion tenable.
Thus concludeth the substantive argument; now let the cheap ad hominem attacks begin. Fuck off, Rob.
The Lancet report wins further support. As the bad news piles up, those who supported the war on humanitarian grounds find themselves in a bind. It becomes harder to argue that Iraqis were suffering more prior to the invasion than they are now. The usual response is to project a brighter future – a bit like a company whose sales forecasts get more optimistic as the cash flow dries up.
Orwell called it catastrophic gradualism. When you admonish a revolutionary about the bloodshed he is causing, he tells you that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. When you ask where’s the omelette, he tells you Rome wasn’t built in a day.
When you ask where’s the omelette, he tells you Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Lol, this is very funny. Thanks.
I’m sure Iraqis could have done without a couple of years of chaos before they were able to really enjoy the full benefits of their free press; freedom of expression, and the ridding of all the aspects of their fascist totalitarian system. But don’t think for a minute that the current problems somehow invalidate the war.
The antis may well have a lot of fun with the problems; but just as carpet bombed Germany, or nuked Japan, weren’t looking like the beacons of democracy they are today, for a considerable time after the war, a bit of chaos and high crimes in Baghdad (which, btw, is not representative of the situation all over Iraq) while the police and government are being trained and elected, won’t stop generations of Iraqis benefiting from this action.
Perhaps it’s the here today, gone tomorrow, culture we now have in the west, where people are unable to concentrate on anything for too long, and everything must happen yesterday, that is responsible for this short term view. But you must understand that this is very much a long game; to pass judgement before even the first round of elections have been held, only 19 months out, is of course an absurdity.
But don’t think for a minute that the current problems somehow invalidate the war.
= “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs”
this is very much a long game
= “Rome wasn’t built in a day”
There’s a war going on in Iraq. What exactly are you expecting, that this would be the first war in history run so well that life was actually better in the war zone during the war, rather than just some time afterwards?
‘rice and flowers’
‘cakewalk’
‘~30,000 US troop by Sep 03’.
Of course, these were said by US administration officials well over a year ago,
so only Evul PC Libruls would still remember them.
You know rob, by your standards we can justify any horror or atrocity by saying that in 50 years it will look different. Seeing as how the victor writes the history, you might even be correct from a history-books standpoint. But by your reckoning, I could go out and kill someone tomorrow and say “Well, they were going to blow up a school in three days. History will vindicate me.” When asked by, say, the authorities, what evidence I have of the random person’s school blowing-up plot, I can say that the really conclusive convincing evidence is classified, but the fact that the random person had a bag of fireworks in their house and a box of matches clearly indicates a program for blowing up schools.
Yes, yes they would.
Perhaps it’s the here today, gone tomorrow, culture we now have in the west, where people are unable to concentrate on anything for too long, and everything must happen yesterday, that is responsible for this short term view. But you must understand that this is very much a long game
Rob, you’re talking to old lefties here. We remember all these windy statements from the days of apologia for Communism. They sounded pretty thin then, and they haven’t improved with age.
I can’t really answer Brett Bellmore’s question since my expectation was that the US would screw up royally once the purely military phase was over and the political phase began. Michael Ignatieff had higher expectations:
“Gen. George C. Marshall began planning the postwar occupation of Germany two years before D-Day. This administration was fumbling for a plan two months before the invasion. Who can read Bob Woodward’s ‘Plan of Attack’ and not find his jaw dropping at the fact that from the very beginning, in late 2001, none of the civilian leadership, not Rice, not Powell, not Tenet, not the president, asked where the plan for the occupation phase was? Who can’t feel that U.S. captains, majors and lieutenants were betrayed by the Beltway wars between State and Defense? Who can’t feel rage that victorious armies stood by and watched for a month while Iraq was looted bare?
“Someone like me who supported the war on human rights grounds has nowhere to hide: we didn’t suppose the administration was particularly nice, but we did assume it would be competent. There isn’t much excuse for its incompetence, but equally, there isn’t much excuse for our naivete either.”
Kevin O’D-
One extremely plausible answer is that the current situation was the plan. Is the plan. Because whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Fallujah has been leveled. There is to be sure a bitter anger among those Iraqis not catatonic with grief and despair, one imagines much like the anger and bitterness of the Irish as England began its period of exploitative rule there, some few hundred years ago. All you have to do is admit that the guiding hand here is not connected to a human heart, that it’s a P.R. concern, not a moral, certainly not a legal one. That the deaths of Iraqi civilians - whether men, women, or children - are not collateral but integral. That the goal from the beginning was an impotent, fragmented, decentralized, militarily dependent, economically quadriplegic Iraq.
Mission Accomplished.
While in some cases it does happen to be true, it’s generally not helpful to use the malevolence of people who disagree with you as a starting premise.
Don’t we have the same level of culpability for these deaths in Baghdad as we did for the deaths that occurred under Saddam’s regime? We could stop both, after all.
Matt W: would you explain how your position—opposition to the war, thus leaving Saddam in power—isn’t subject to the “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs” line? I mean, Saddam was in the habit of pretty regularly breaking eggs, so to speak, wasn’t he?
Brett:
“While in some cases it does happen to be true, it’s generally not helpful to use the malevolence of people who disagree with you as a starting premise.”
Brett, by now there are only two possibilities left regarding this administration - malevolence or incompetancy. And considering their success in seizing power and looting, incompetancy is less plausible.
Of course, since you look at four years of screwing up/deliberate evil, and claim that there’s something wrong with people who criticize the administration, by now malevolence is pretty much the only explanation left for your beliefs.
Rob, you’re talking to old lefties here. We remember all these windy statements from the days of apologia for Communism. They sounded pretty thin then, and they haven’t improved with age.
You’re talking to the commander of Her Majesties Royal airforce during WW11 here. I remember the same defeatist windbag-ism from those who said Germany and Japan weren’t worth spending any money on, and we should just cut and run, leaving behind whatever the chaos brought for the damn natives. Luckily for the people who live in these countries, then and today, we didn’t listen to those voices.
kevin donoghue,
“Who can read Bob Woodward’s ‘Plan of Attack’ and not find his jaw dropping at the fact that from the very beginning, in late 2001, none of the civilian leadership, not Rice, not Powell, not Tenet, not the president, asked where the plan for the occupation phase was?”
I read plan of attack and wasn’t amazed by that. In 2001 they were still in the process of whipping the Taliban (and look how that turned out), so I wouldn’t expect them to be going through all the details at that stage. My impression was not that the problem was especially that they hadn’t gone through the planning thoroughly enough, but rather that they kept taken the plan off the shelf and taking bits out as confidence grew. Anyhow, I believe that Michael Ignatieff quote was from last April - a particularly low point in this whole venture. The Marines had just failed to re-conquer Falluja; Al Sadr’s boys had taken much of the south, and it appeared that nobody had any idea what to do next. But now, with a popular government in place since June, a successful operation to liberate Falluja having just taken place; Al Qaeda on the run, and elections - which are supported by the majority of Iraqis - only few months away, Ignatieff must surely be eating those words.
vernaculo,
you demonstrate the central dilemma for a lot of the war critics. You are so consumed by this notion of ‘the power’, that controls absolutely everything, and that we have to be against for being against’s sake. And of course, those who support ‘the power’ have to either have been corrupted by it, or are trying to appease it for fear of some strange thing happening to them (maybe they’ll ban smoking if I don’t do what they say?) - instead of the reality that it many instances they are actually egging the power on, and are even ahead of it (ahem) - that you simply can’t bring yourself to contemplate the idea that the power could ever fuck anything up. It would screw up too many other conspiracy theories if it were true; thus all the chaos in Iraq over the past year has to be put down to some sort of crazy, meticulously planned and choreographed, strategy designed to help Bush win re-election. There are more of you around than one might presume.
Thomas -
As far as I can tell, the US is culpable for Saddam Hussein’s actions only to the extent that the US had a history of arming and supporting Hussein (in the Reagan and Bush I Administrations). A stupid, stupid mistake - one which demanded American action in the Gulf War and the subsequent disarming of Iraq by UNSCOM.
You seem to propose something different: either “we” - America, the UK, the world - are responsible for the actions of every foul dictator by dint of the fact that we can theoretically stop them, or that the same “we” has a moral imperative to stop all such dictators. The only problem with this argument is that neither the US, or the UK, has the power to do so. There are, in fact, worse regimes than Saddam Hussein, commiting worse atrocities, and we’ve done nothing to intervene - in part because the US military has been bogged down in a neverending quagmire in Iraq.
Worse, the intervention of the US has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, not eased it. How can the US be culpable for deaths under Saddam’s rule if by “stopping” those deaths, American action causes more deaths to occur?
“And considering their success in seizing power and looting, incompetancy is less plausible.”
Hm, then considering that I’m fabulously competent at designing extrusion dies, I should have no trouble at all getting elected to the Senate… Since people who are competent at one thing are automatically presumed to be competent at ALL things, right?
Though I think your criteria for competence in warfare are rather wonky anyway. Judging before the task is finished, and counting anything short of overwhelming success as a failure, and all.
“And of course, those who support ‘the power’ have to either have been corrupted by it, or are trying to appease it for fear of some strange thing happening to them […]instead of the reality that it many instances they are actually egging the power on, and are even ahead of it (ahem)”[?]Brilliant work there, rob. Debunking and confirming all at the same time. Vivid illustration of cognitive dissonance, that also creates and perpetuates what it describes.
“…that you simply can’t bring yourself to contemplate the idea that the power could ever fuck anything up. It would screw up too many other conspiracy theories if it were true; thus all the chaos in Iraq over the past year has to be put down to some sort of crazy, meticulously planned and choreographed, strategy designed to help Bush win re-election. “Gotcha there, rob. Smack dab in the tar. You’re compassless in the wilderness, bereft, blanketless, I bet you forgot your sunscreen too.
“There are more of you around than one might presume.”No, there are not. There is only one me, sadly. There are many more of what you see here, but that’s because you aren’t seeing what’s here accurately.
>>> When you admonish a revolutionary about the bloodshed he is causing, he tells you that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. When you ask where’s the omelette, he tells you Rome wasn’t built in a day.
- Yes, Saddam and his fellow Baathists did crush more than a few eggs, as thomas pointed out in a comment upthread. Likewise with the islamo totalitarians who have infested the Middle East and have projected their omelette-making around the world. Their long term “Rome” is offered as justification for bloodletting of innocents. Resist them or embrace them, there really is no middle ground for them.
- Frankly the above quotation and other posted cliches here are like screams of defeatism when applied to the war against islamo totalitarians. It’s hard, so stop trying. There is no instant and total victory, so cut and run. In fact the intellectualized defeatism expressed is one that gloats with reports of difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-It ain’t a schoolchild’s debate about the moment; it is a war that must be won. Both sides in this war know that it is being fought to be won long term.
-The Saddam regime released thousands of violent criminals prior to the imminent invasion. That just might have a little something to do with that portion of the death toll not attributable to military actions.
Brett:
“Hm, then considering that I’m fabulously competent at designing extrusion dies, I should have no trouble at all getting elected to the Senate…
Since people who are competent at one thing are automatically presumed to be competent at ALL things, right?”
A good point - except for the fact that the administration’s strong points are seizing and using power to get what they want. With Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, DeLay, etc., we’re not dealing with engineers here, you know.
“Though I think your criteria for competence in warfare are rather wonky anyway. Judging before the task is finished, and counting anything short of overwhelming success as a failure, and all.”
Uh, Brett, you haven’t been noticing what’s going on in Iraq,have you? Our forces are playing ‘whack a mole’ in various cities, at least one of which was supposed to be safe (Mosul). Baghdad, otherwise known as the capital, is not safe for westerners or Iraqis. Right now, driving to the airport isn’t safe, let alone anywhere else in Iraq.
Things are trending against us,
with no credible plan to reverse the trends. Our only hope now is that the Shiites form a government which isn’t too unfriendly.
As for judging success and failure, Brett, I’ve been quoting those administration statements made backin 2002-03. I notice that you’re not quoting them, because the contrast between what they said and what’s going on would be too much for even you to take. Best that they float down the memory hole.
The administration didn’t seize power, Barry. They won an election. If you have trouble grasping that rather obvious fact, why should I take you seriously on anything else?
Withe regard to the omelette thing, Arendt apparently said:
“It’s true you can’t make an omelette with breaking eggs, but you can break a lot of eggs without making an omelette”
brett bellmore, yeah they won one election, and more than one, but in fact their power is not restricted to those defined in laws. You are forgetting that they had more power before any election than many elected, or not, governments in the world. And, btw, “seize the power” is perfectly applicable to describe what an election winner does.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0221800.html
DSW
Brett:
“The administration didn’t seize power, Barry. They won an election. If you have trouble grasping that rather obvious fact, why should I take you seriously on anything else?”
My point was that the skills of the top members of this administration is the acquisition and use of power (is that better?). Which was in reply to your objection to my choosing malice over incompetancy in Iraq. You, if you would please remember, pointed out that your die-extrusion engineering skills didn’t imply your ability to gain a seat in the Senate.
I pointed out the lack of applicability of your example to this administration. Are you willing to accept that?
Thomas wrote:
Don’t we have the same level of culpability for these deaths in Baghdad as we did for the deaths that occurred under Saddam’s regime? We could stop both, after all.
Well—we could have stopped the genocide in Darfur, couldn’t we, at least if we hadn’t tied up our whole army in Iraq? So by this standard, we’re responsible for the genocide in Darfur—specifically, you warmongers who called for the invasion of Iraq and are now trying to justify it on humanitarian grounds, while throwing up your hands at a much worse crisis elsewhere, are responsible for the genocide in Darfur.
I think this is a nonsensical way to assign responsibility myself—there’s a difference between recognizing that you have no satisfactory way to stop some bad things and causing some bad thing as the foieseeable consequence of a policy you choose to pursue—but if you’re going to use the warblogger’s standard, you have to convict yourself of genocide.
Well, that is all very predictable stuff, using Iraqis to pursue your own little political vendettas against American politicians. Unable to take your eyes away from manufacturing self-righteous “evidence” for your ideological attacks, you haven’t bothered to find out what might be happening in the southern Marshes (though bird-watchers have, and they have been good enough to thank Japan for the efforts being made by them), and the last thing you want to do is have to face what the Kurds in the North might say (though I don’t underestimate your ability to slant a story about either to suit your own ends). Let me say it clearly - the southern marshes might now survive, be a home agains to their people and to wonderfully diverse wildlife. One more year of Saddam would have been the end. No war was waged for this, but it is an outcome, and a very fine one.
Well, that is all very predictable stuff, using Iraqis to pursue your own little political vendettas against American politicians. Unable to take your eyes away from manufacturing self-righteous “evidence” for your ideological attacks, you haven’t bothered to find out what might be happening in the southern Marshes (though bird-watchers have, and they have been good enough to thank Japan for the efforts being made by them), and the last thing you want to do is have to face what the Kurds in the North might say (though I don’t underestimate your ability to slant a story about either to suit your own ends). Let me say it clearly - the southern marshes might now survive, be a home agains to their people and to wonderfully diverse wildlife. One more year of Saddam would have been the end. No war was waged for this, but it is an outcome, and a very fine one.
Matt Weiner - Dont bother bringing Darfur into the arguement. If Sudan was actually important to the World or the US something would have been done in the early 80’s. Bush is the first world leader to have an actual success restraining the Sudanese leadership. It may only be over southern Sudan. It may fall appart. Its more than anyone else has acheived.
“city’s descent into a Hobbesian world of crime and brutality”
It does not seem correct to refer to this as a Hobbesian world. The famous quote “Life in an unregulated state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,and short.” is Hobbes’s description of the state of nature not the world that he was suggesting – in fact pre-invasion one could argue that Iraq was Hobbsian as there was a single leader, a leviathan, that stood outside morality, so the place has moved has moved away from a Hobbsian state not towards one.
James—You are correct that Bush has been the first president to accomplish anything in Sudan. But it’s not good enough. If people get to accuse me of having blood on my hands because I realize that the United States can’t solve all the world’s problems, then I get to respond in kind.
But the fact is that this war was not prosecuted in order to help Iraqis, nor was it marketed as such. The retrospective focus on Iraqi human rights (except for some advocates, like Geras, who were concerned with that all along) has come only as all other rationales have been shown to be completely fraudulent. And people who focus on human rights ought to admit that human rights would have been better served by doing something about Darfur.
Matt, you say that “there’s a difference between recognizing that you have no satisfactory way to stop some bad things and causing some bad thing as the foieseeable consequence of a policy you choose to pursue.”
It seems to me that you’re just relying on an action/omission distinction, and that’s not a distinction I’d expect you to find persuasive in any other context. (Unless your “no satisfactory way” test is meant to suggest impossibility—but I don’t think that’s what you mean.)
Matt Weiner - One of the best arguements I heard against the war in Iraq was: “There are little Hilters all over. Why this one? Why now?” Sudan, Zambawe, Cambodia, Ivory Coast all could have been delt with for the price of dealing with Iraq. You are correct in saying the humanitarian benifit would be greater.
It’s interesting that when it comes to corporations, pretty much everyone agrees that in point of fact, corporations are legally bound to pursue profit, and moral concerns are irreleevant except insofar as responding to them makes a corporation more profitable.
But in debates about wars, the idea that states do not spend billions of dollars on “humanitarian interventions” in other countries - and if they claim to be doing so, they are lying - is considered a fantastical conspiracy theory by some on the right, it seems.
There are no theories of “free markets in state violence” which attempt to explain why the elite-directed self-interest of states are a benevolent and wonderful thing, in the same way as there are theories apologising for the capitalist system. No-one proposes an “invisible hand of the warring states”, by analogy to the invisible hand of the free markets. This would of course be absurd and impossible to carry through. Even libertarians (most of them, anyway) don’t try to include war in the legitimate sphere of market activity.
Rather, we are fed the frankly incredible claims that we are staying there and “finishing the job” out of some sense of moral responsibility, and “we have no long term ambitions in Iraq” (John Kerry). Often added to the claim that, after being “Machiavellian” under Kissinger et al, US planners have finally seen the happy light of democracy after all these years. (What? We’ve been lied to for all these years about putatively noble reasons for war and now they’re finally telling the truth? Do I smell something fishy here?)
I suppose the reason why some see it as conspiratorial is because of where a more realistic view of the situation takes you. What is our geostrategic interest in “not cutting and running”? (Never mind all that “humanitarian” bullshit, as I said, it really can be discounted as a credible motive.) War-on-turrr can also be discredited as a motive (see Chomsky). No, one of the main reasons is roughly “to exert greater control on Iraq and the region”, i.e., to put it bluntly, because of oil.
Given that we are occupying to safeguard oil supplies, and we have flown in Negroponte, and we are using / have used incendiary weaons and cluster bombs, and we have not done much reconstruction yet - what reason is there to trust the claim that we are there to do reconstruction, support human rights and institute liberal democracy with free speech and a free press?
Yes, there will be great anger in Iraq if the promise of democracy is not delivered. But there is great anger already in Iraq, and that hasn’t stopped the US so far.
As I discuss on my blog, the Baghdad morgue figures are supportive of the Lancet study’s post-war estimate of the rate of violent death. But they also suggest that the Lancet’s pre-war estimate was grossly understated. So this article is another piece of evidence that tends to undermine the claim of 100,000 excess deaths from the Iraq war.
At the same time, the level of violent crime in Baghdad is certainly appalling.
Interesting comment, Ragout. Is it plausible that Baghdad pre-war was exceptionally prone to suspicious deaths, since many of Saddam’s victims were probably killed there? If so then the Lancet increase for Baghdad would be suspect, but not the increase for the country as a whole.
I’m just throwing out the suggestion - from your exchanges with D-squared I judge that you have a pretty good feel for the data.
Kevin,
The London Times article Chris links to seems to imply that those executed by Saddam weren’t counted in the morgue’s figures.
Ragout, there is this section in that article: “But the staff also remember when hundreds of victims of mass execution were dumped by the Baathist authorities at the mortuary and relatives were too frightened to collect them. “.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review