The Guardian has a story today about some research led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore which claims 100,000 excess Iraqi deaths, many of which it attributes to bombing by coalition forces. Juan Cole has some comment on this (and more links).
I should state plainly that I have no way of judging the accuracy of this figure. It may be way off. Nevertheless I can predict with certainty that there will be numerous posts on weblogs supporting the war attacking the study. However much they criticize such exercises, though, there is some fact of the matter about how many excess Iraqi deaths there have been as a result of the war. My faith in human reason and evidence is such that I must believe that there is some figure which, if verified, would lead the enthusiasts for this war to conclude that it was a mistake. But perhaps I’m wrong about that: perhaps they think that the case for some war to displace Saddam Hussein was just so strong that no facts about the actual war have any bearing on the correctness of the decision to fight?
I was a supporter of the invasion; I admit that was a mistake. It didn’t need this latest research to make me change my mind - it was already changed by the mess in Iraq - but this certainly just adds to the evidence why invasion was wrong.
However, it’s not just about Iraq. I won’t support western military action anywhere that goes beyond obvious defence. Not for ideological reasons, just to avoid the risk of becoming embroiled in a mess. So, for example, Sudan should be treated with a combination of diplomatic pressure and an arms embargo. That’s it.
Meaningful international solidarity is an oxymoron.
the slippery word here is surely the definite article “the enthusiasts for the war”. I honestly think that there are some for whom no amount of civilian casualties could be too large, providing they are are “islamofascists”, “arab-muslims” and so on. Most, obviously, are not like that.
Some must be. If you take on board the LGF worldview — “we are at war. They are trying to kill all of us”, then it is clearly better to kill too many of them than too few. The British felt like this about bombing Germany in the war.
The real suckers are those high-minded liberal imperialists, like me, who made the argument that a quick war might be better than prolonged sanctions, because sanctions (or a siege) kill women, children, and the old, while in wars young men die on battlefields. Well, ha bloody ha ha. I hadn’t realised that in a modern war you kill civilians from the air so as not to endanger your troops on the ground.
Here we are in a world where every primary school has a copy of “Guernica” on the wall somewhere — and just as the dislocated imagery no longer seems extraordinary, so, too, the dislocated morality which allowed the bombardment of defenceless town from the air now seems entirely normal.
One justification for the war was that the sanctions imposed upon Iraq were killing thousands every year and invasion rescued them from all that.
The latest evidence suggests otherwise.
If saving lives had ever been the point, perhaps we could have changed the terms of the sanctions. For that matter, if WMD had ever been the point, we could have continued to use inspectors.
Are Iraqis better off than they were four years ago? We can only ask the ones who are still alive.
How exactly do you propose the sanctions should have been changed? Remember that the sanctions, in themselves, did not cause those deaths; they were caused because Saddam diverted the supplies and money Iraq was alowed to get (which included food and medicine) to his own use rather than the population’s.
Whatever the figures are, the extent to which the concept of civilian casualties has been removed from public consciousness, debate, reports on the war, is rather striking. The first Gulf War, Yugoslavia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, there’s been a sort of progression of denial, civilian deaths seem to matter less and less. They only become figures to be argued about. Small mercy, at least we don’t hear talk of “collateral damage” that often now.
I think the case for any war has to be independent from the number of victims it causes. The case has to be valid before the war. And for Iraq it wasn’t. But if it had been valid, even a large number of victims wouldn’t necessarily invalidate it (WWII being the last example of that). What it does is raise questions about how military operations are conducted, how the actual consequences of a war can be disregarded, the disgusting hypocrisy in talking of a war like it was a policy like any other, budgets, plans, business opportunities, tv debates. The actual people on the ground become a fictional element.
A few weeks ago when that cockpit video of a US pilot bombing a bunch of people in Fallujah was shown on the news, the pilot going “Whoa dude!” after blowing up a crowd of unarmed civilians who were walking down the road… the US military maintained they’d been attacked by those people so they were legitimate targets, but all you could see were people walking, and what stuck was that “Whoa dude!”.
Many proponents of the war have already recanted. Those who are still holding out mostly seem to reason that the worse it gets, the stronger the presumption that Saddam’s Iraq would have been worse. Christopher Hitchins, for example, modified his picture of Saddam’s regime, from one of iron tyranny to one of a failing state where places like Fallujah were turning into Islamofascist hell-holes outside his control. The utilitarian spreadsheet can always be tweaked to give the desired answer.
I suppose if I had supported the war I might still be trying to convince myself it was right, but this study certainly would make it harder.
The point is that things are worse now. How do we make them better?
Remember that the sanctions, in themselves, did not cause those deaths; they were caused because Saddam diverted the supplies and money Iraq was alowed to get (which included food and medicine) to his own use rather than the population’s.
“Look man, I didn’t shoot those people. I only gave the gun to a man I knew was a homocidal maniac, so I am absolved of any culpability.”
Come to think of it, isn’t this Kerry’s defense of his vote to give Bush the authority to wage war?
Remember that the sanctions, in themselves, did not cause those deaths; they were caused because Saddam diverted the supplies and money Iraq was alowed to get (which included food and medicine) to his own use rather than the population’s.
But surely all sanctions must work like this? Again, compare them to sieges. You can control what gets into the besieged city. but you can’t control how it’s distributed in there. In almost all cases, the soldiers and the governors will eat best, and the weakest will starve. mutatis mutandis the same had to be true of Iraq. If Saddam had been running the sort of state where ordinary citizens were entitled to the same treatment as party members then there wouldn’t have been any of these wars.
And if anyone but Bush had been running our state for all these years then we wouldn’t have had all these problems.
they were caused because Saddam diverted the supplies and money Iraq was alowed to get (which included food and medicine) to his own use rather than the population’s.
No. They caused death because they were far too harsh, the institutionalized smuggling only compounding the problem. Quoting human rights watch organisation :
”[…] the increasing use of holds, most of them reportedly by the United
States, appears to be capricious and unjustified.(11) At the very least,
this situation highlights the long-standing need for the Council to address
the absence of transparency and the apparently high degree of politicization
with regard to the decisions of the sanctions committees. “
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/irak/huma-rightswatch-memo
But surely all sanctions must work like this?
No, sanctions don’t work like this. ‘Sanctions’ is a tool with stick and carrot. It’s a tool that gives the government being sanctioned a strong incentive to modify its behavior.
The Iraqi sanctions had no carrot whatsoever - sanctions combined with ‘regime change’ policy make no sense. It wasn’t, strictly speaking, ‘sanctions’, it was punishment, slow-motion death sentence without any possibility of redemption.
I’m wondering; Just exactly how many years did it take, before we’d saved more lives by holding WWII, than we would have by peacefully surrendering to Hitler?
Nobody sensible expects a war to save lives in the short run. But given the impressive rate at which Saddam slaughtered his own subjects, give it a few years and this war will have saved lives in the long run.
Let’s forget the bygone sanctions and the massacred conscripts and people living in the wrong neighborhoods then. Think about the persisting privation and attacks on people living in the wrong neighborhoods now.
While we Americans are proud of bequeathing democracy to Iraq, we continue to regard them as the enemy.
Yabonn is right. Despite the looting going on in the oil-for-food program, the actual per capita income of Iraqis throughout the sanctions period was well above poverty levels; they ought not to have been dying of malnutrition and disease in such numbers given the income they had. What really caused the trouble was that the USA kept preventing them from importing agricultural fertilisers and desalination equipment because these items could in principle have had a “dual use” in the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons.
Tonight, American competence is on display. We’re officially killing Iraqis faster than the previous regime.
We’re not only deadlier, we’re less efficient. Worse water, less electricity.
“But given the impressive rate at which Saddam slaughtered his own subjects, give it a few years and this war will have saved lives in the long run.”
How many of his own subjects did Saddam Hussein kill in the two years before the invasion?
The trouble is, the justification for the war is constantly shifting. WMDs? What WMDs? To save lives? Hasn’t happened. To create democracy? Hmm, let me get back to you on that in a few years.
And any good outcomes from the war have to be balanced by the fact that there are a lot of good outcomes that you can buy for a whole lot less than the war has cost in money and lives. There is such a thing as opportunity cost.
Well, lot’s more interesting criticism of official policy (sanctions, war,…) towards Iraq here. Nothing suggesting what should have been policy there.
Is the best we in the west can do when human rights are being grossly violated in some part of the world is pass a UN resolution and introduce an arms embargo? Was western reaction to Rwanda basically right?
That, sadly, is the conclusion I’m coming to. Cheer me up somone. Suggest something better.
Is the best we in the west can do when human rights are being grossly violated in some part of the world is pass a UN resolution and introduce an arms embargo? Was western reaction to Rwanda basically right?
Ray is correct - there weren’t any notably grievous human rights violations in Iraq before the invasion, so Iraq can not be the base for this conclusion. Rwanda is a different matter.
It’s on a case by case basis - there is no universal solution.
If American and British leadership had been led by historical wisdom instead of political intuition, the war would have never taken place and the Iraqi people would have continued to evolve in a mildly secular—-and prosperous—-direction. Saddam Hussein was actually the kind of brutal secular leader that Western ideologists have always seen as helpful to the geopolitical interests of Western nations. Hussein would have been more than happy to crack down hard on Islamofascists since they hated him as much as they hated British and American imperialism.
I would suggest that—-in hindsight—-England, the US, and the Iraqi people would all have been better off if Clinton and Blair had recognized that a “humbled” Saddam Hussein restored to quasi-legitimacy would have better served Western interests than continuing with their pointed efforts to insulate themselves from domestic political criticism by sustaining the unending demonization of Saddam Hussein. If they could have found a way to declare that S.H. had been taught a lesson and that he would be given another chance to lead his country in a “forward” direction, there is little doubt in my mind that Hussein would have been happy to lead the efforts of secularists in the region in opposing Islamic fundamentalism. Local potentates like Hussein want more than anything else to simply continue in their positions as undisputed leaders in their countries (see N. Korea’s Kim). That is the leverage you have to work with.
George Bush’s naiveté in thinking that he could “bring democracy” to the Iraqi people rivals that of another historical figure: Karl Marx. Marx saw history as a morality play. There are the good guys and the bad guys. The bad guys, the “focus of evil in the world” (to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan) were the capitalists who exploited the working class for their own selfish interests. Marx believed that if the working class were to rise up and remove the bad guys from power, everyone would live happily ever after. Because they were victimized, the exploited were “inherently good” (in comparison) and this inherent goodness would guide them in making all the right decisions. Of course, the reality was far more complicated than that. Bush, of course, suffers from the same simplistic delusions re: democracy. Viz., remove the Bad Dictators and the people will joyfully rise up and embrace the blessings of democracy. As Britain well knows from its own history, democracy is something that evolves slowly over time, along with advanced economic development.
Such stupidity is a great danger to the entire world when it is guiding one of the most powerful nations on the planet.
I recently read a stat (I think it was in the Chris Hedges book) that the ratio of military to civilian fatalities in warfare has been almost exactly reversed over the last 100 years (from a great majority of military to a great majority of civilian deaths; forgive the vagueness). Maybe we shouldn’t call it “war” anymore. Maybe we should call it “tactical mass murder,” or something like that.
A bit off-topic, but this notion that 19th century wars were ones where mostly military types died must be based on a limited selection. I doubt it was true of China’s civil war in the mid-1800’s, when 20 million died. It wasn’t true when the French military retook Paris from the Commune. It probably wasn’t true of the Indian wars in the US, though I haven’t looked at the statistics closely. Leopold’s rule in the Congo involved a lot of shooting, and amounted to one prolonged slave raid, which would have seemed like a war against the populace if you were at the receiving end. The American war against the Philippines killed at least 200,000, of which maybe 20,000 were soldiers. It’s true that most of the dead in the American Civil War were soldiers and in the Franco-Prussian War as well. I’m not sure who did most of the dying in that Guiness Book of World Records war in Paraguay, where most of the men and many of the women died. Maybe all the men were in the army.
Others have already made the correct point about the sanctions, which is that both Saddam and the US were responsible for the deaths.
On intervention, I see that others have also beaten me to it—it’s a case-by-case thing, with no hard and fast rules, except one—George Bush can be counted on to screw it up.
My attempt at putting in separate paragraphs in the preceding post didn’t survive the posting process. The sanctions comment isn’t quite the non-sequitur it appears to be—I’d gone back on-topic. I just wanted to add that I was one of the dummies who thought that the humanitarian case for the war had at least partial validity—the sanctions and Saddam’s brutality would be ended and however bad the occupation would be, at least death rates would probably go down. That’s what I get for trying not to be a knee-jerk lefty.
We have no way of knowing how many civilians actually died-but the figure cited in the article (100,000) is almost certainly absurd.
From the article itself.
“”I can remember how, on a single day (August 12), US warplanes bombed the southern Shiite city of Kut, killing 84 persons, mainly civilians, in an attempt to get at Mahdi Army militiamen. These deaths were not widely reported in the US press, especially television.”“
Note that this is reported as a significant event.
But for the math to work out, it would have to be the opposite of a significant event-it would have had to be the report of an easy day!
100,000 divided by 500 (roughly 1 1/2 years of days) equals 200. There would have to have been an average of 200 civilian deaths per day for the math to work out. Since there have been vast stretches of time in which no aerial bombardment occurred, the days in which aerial attacks occurred would have had to have yielded thousands of civilian deaths-I’m sure the western press would not have ignored those.
Disappointing-the above is not higher math-its pretty basic stuff. Am I really the only one to think of it?
Steve
My faith in human reason and evidence is such that I must believe that there is some figure which, if verified, would lead the enthusiasts for this war to conclude that it was a mistake.
Ah, “American foreign policy considered as a Sorites paradox”, isn’t it?
While we can only salute your attempt at quantitativity, the Iraq war (like the inscrutably related war on Terrrr) is in fact a monument to Vagueness in rather more general terms than this.
It’s an uncommon relief to read a thread that really puts this issue into perspective. It’s great to see so many posters intelligently rebut the canard that Saddam, rather than the sanctions themselves, generated the deaths under the sanctions.
There has been an unbelievable amount of silly cant in the US media since the invasion about how Saddam “shockingly neglected” the electrical grid / public water supply / hospitals. How stupid can we be and live? We’ll find out on November 2.
Unfortunately the major liberal blogs such as DailyKos, Political Animal and Atrios haven’t yet found this news worth mentioning.
I’m sorry about the bile in the previous post, which is an ugly contrast to the temperate posts in this thread.
The reality-based community is in general agreement by now that the war was a bad idea. Those outside of that community will be swayed by casualty figures around the same time fossil evidence convinces Pat Robertson of evolution.
DailyKos does have a thread on this topic.
Well, war being waged by nintendo warriors makes it more impersonal. Going back to short swords where you can actually look at the person you are killing, or being killed by makes it a more personal activity. That might make some sort of buffer to this penchant for solving problems militarily. Plus we should have an agreement that the White House gets complimentary copies of every daily, monthly, and periodical published. While I wouldn’t expect anyone to read them all, it might just make it possible that the occupant would catch a headline or two and get curious. Unlike the knothead we are stuck with for a few more days, weeks.
Civilians have always borne the brunt of the violence of warfare. Then after the act they usually are either enslaved or coerced to do the bidding of the victors. Solving problems without violence should be the first, second, third option, then and only then should the military card be played. We are all on this one ball of dirt, and no matter what the only way off of it is by dying. People need three things to survive, clean water, food, shelter, well maybe clothes depending on the climate. But those basic necessities should be available to all. The ones that forment war are usually the rich, elites, they don’t fight them, they use the poor, the disenfranchised to do their dying for them. Remember the great conquerors? They usually led the armies, then they died either on the battlefield or in their dotage. THe point being that wars will be with us as long as we are manipulated, conned by the “leaders” that usually don’t lead into battle. Time for a change, time for a new paradigm, time for some peace on this planet, and a break from killing and suffering.
“There would have to have been an average of 200 civilian deaths per day for the math to work out. “
Note that the article is talking about excess deaths from all causes, not deaths by violence alone. One of the figures it quotes is that the infant mortality rate has doubled.
Also, the Kut bombing was after ‘Mission Accomplished’. What was the level of bombing when ‘major combat operations’ were ongoing?
Is the best we in the west can do when human rights are being grossly violated in some part of the world is pass a UN resolution and introduce an arms embargo? Was western reaction to Rwanda basically right?
I’m afraid so. An interesting data point in this regard is that the conventional picture of Western inaction in Rwanda is not correct. There was a very extensive intervention — by the French — on behalf of the genocidaires.
Far more people die of preventable diseases each year than from the combined efforts of all the world’s tyrannies combined. When malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS and dysentery are eliminated, it will be time to entertain the notion of humanitarian interventions. Until then, liberals who support them are just providing cover for actors with other motives, as we saw so clearly in Iraw.
“Far more people die of preventable diseases each year than from the combined efforts of all the world’s tyrannies combined.”
Assuming that tyrannies don’t simply find famine and disease to be convenient means of killing people.
Wow, first time in ages I read some sane analysis of the sanctions. From the great Monde Diplomatique of course.
Let’s not forget that if the peaceful options to deal with Iraq were failing, it’s because the state actors intent on regime change were putting some pressure in the right places. A google search for “Jose Bustani” would be very instructive.
Oh and nice balanced post, Chris. In those times of war and civilian deaths, it’s truly important not to offend the crank warmongers of the internet.
The Poor Man points to the Johns Hopkins press release on the Lancet paper.
Sampled here:
Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children. However, the researchers stressed that they found no evidence of improper conduct by the Coalition soldiers.
Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.
I personally believe that these aerial bombardments of civilian city quarters by a military occupier that has already conquered the country are a gross violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, governing the treatment of populations of occupied territories.
Sad he may think only he personally believes that.
Isn’t the whole purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to make it common knowledge around the world that such acts are now forbidden?
Aerial bombardment of civilian populations in a conquered country by its occupier has been a violation of the plainly understood words of the publicly acknowledged Fourth Geneva Convention since 1949.
The saner heads of 1949 with all their recent experience of aerial bombardment agreed that bombing the civilians under those circumstances was too grotesque even by the loosened standards of total war. Unsurprisingly, they forbade it. They didn’t doubt aerial bombardment was a weapon of immeasurably massive destruction, the unspoken equal partner of any conceivable means of obliteration. And so they sought to constrain its use.
However, the researchers stressed that they found no evidence of improper conduct by the Coalition soldiers. — the Johns Hopkins press release.
The use of air power by the Coalition grows out of the understandable desire on the part of any sensible warrior to engage as much as possible in a zero-defects war, one in which his forces suffer nearly no casualties at all while raining down complete and utter ruin on the opponent, such as can be had from the comfortable distance of a passing plane or the deck of a ship parked far off shore. Given the enormous sums of money directed at the development and procurement of the means to just these ends by the United States, conductor of the Coalition, it was inevitable these weapons would be unleashed when it came to war in Iraq.
Aerial war is the readily discoverable though unspoken weapon of mass destruction there, it turns out.
Note to Steve—Yes, the rest of us are capable of doing basic arithmetic and had already done that calculation and wondered what it meant. One possibility is that the study is flawed in some way—perhaps memories of the survey respondents were wrong or they lied. Though of course this estimate seems at least as firm as any estimate of the number of enemy atrocities. You don’t see too many stories questioning how we know the death toll under Saddam. I’d like to know what those statistics are based on—for some odd reason you only hear the methodological details when an accusation is made against the US.
You know, it’s also possible that the reason this 100,000 figure comes as a shock is that the media simply doesn’t do an adequate job reporting the bombing our forces do on urban areas. Is any reporter badgering the Pentagon for statistics on the bomb tonnage dropped on Iraqi urban areas? If there is, I haven’t seen evidence of it. Another point, made by Juan Cole, is that the Iraq Body Count statistic of 16000 maximum is, if anything, a bare minimum because it’s only based on Western reporting and we simply don’t know how many deaths never make it into the papers. That falls into the category of “Duh”, but this simple point manages to elude some people.
Note to Steve—Yes, the rest of us are capable of doing basic arithmetic and had already done that calculation and wondered what it meant. One possibility is that the study is flawed in some way—perhaps memories of the survey respondents were wrong or they lied. Though of course this estimate seems at least as firm as any estimate of the number of enemy atrocities. You don’t see too many stories questioning how we know the death toll under Saddam. I’d like to know what those statistics are based on—for some odd reason you only hear the methodological details when an accusation is made against the US.
You know, it’s also possible that the reason this 100,000 figure comes as a shock is that the media simply doesn’t do an adequate job reporting the bombing our forces do on urban areas. Is any reporter badgering the Pentagon for statistics on the bomb tonnage dropped on Iraqi urban areas? If there is, I haven’t seen evidence of it. Another point, made by Juan Cole, is that the Iraq Body Count statistic of 16000 maximum is, if anything, a bare minimum because it’s only based on Western reporting and we simply don’t know how many deaths never make it into the papers. That falls into the category of “Duh”, but this simple point manages to elude some people.
Speaking of simple points eluding people, I should have paid more attention to that little note at the bottom about how to avoid double-posting.
Peter,
This issue of aerial warfare and the geneva accords has not come up on the bits of the blogosphere that I read. I’ld be interested to see it fleshed out and debated in this particular context. Do you have any links?
I’ll grant you there may be a loophole they’ve been flying those B-52’s through all these years, catfish.
All I’ve got really is this:
Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children. However, the researchers stressed that they found no evidence of improper conduct by the Coalition soldiers.
Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.
Which sentence doesn’t belong?
The number of civilian deaths in a war needs to be kept in the public view. There is a tendency to ignore problems that occur in far away places. One concern is over the accuracy of this total. If it turns out the count is flawed, the general public will ignore future concerns in this area. Lets not forget how Marc Harold’s flawed count in Afghanistan harmed the issue there. Is the Lancet methodology correct? Are the implied assumptions correct?
It’s silly to say that flawed estimates caused a lack of interest in Afghan civilian casualties. There’s just not that much interest in the US in how many people we or our proxies kill. We get embarrassed when it is done in an exceptionally disgraceful way that makes its way onto the front pages of the world’s press. Other than that, some lefties make a fuss over it, but mainstream America doesn’t care, except to the extent that it might increase recruitment for Al Qaeda.
For any issue, an argument that makes use of bad sources looses value. An exaggerated or flawed count contributes to people ignoring future concerns.
Abb1, Oct. 29th:
Ray is correct - there weren’t any notably grievous human rights violations in Iraq before the invasion, so Iraq can not be the base for this conclusion.
Abb1, June 13th:
Just the fact that merits of torture are being seriously discussed indicates that the American society is plunging into barbarism.
Of course it could be two different posters, using the same pseudonym. Or perhaps “barbarism” is a far milder term, in this poster’s lexicon, than “notably grievous human rights violations.”
Or perhaps somebody’s sense of proportion is horribly skewed.
According to the report:
The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included.
Frankly when your statistical range is 8,000-194,000 I don’t feel the need to address the report until you can safely narrow it down.
And when your statistical method relies purely on interviews, enough said.
So if we exclude the Fallujah outlier, Sebastian doesn’t feel the need to address the report because there is a 2.5 percent chance that the death toll could be under 8000 and a 2.5 percent chance it could be over 200,000.
Gotta narrow that confidence interval before Sebastian would feel the need to discuss the use of military tactics that might be slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians. I admire the sense of priorities, the firm adherence to statistical rectitude, without any criticism, one might add, of the occupying power that refuses to issue even dishonest counts of civilian casualties. If there’s even a few percent chance that we’re only talking about a death toll 3 times higher than 9/11, he can’t be bothered.
Worse than its sample size in Sebastian’s eyes is the fact that it relies on interviews with surviving family members. Horrors. What a novel and unprecedented approach. Who ever would have thought we’d sink so low as to talk to people who claim to have lost loved ones to American military action. When talking about enemy atrocities, sure, no evidentiary standards necessary in that case. No need for a detailed explanation of methodology. That’s different.
Sarcasm aside, not that Sebastian’s post deserves better, it’d be nice if people responded to this article like human beings and wondered, whatever your stance on the war, what it might say about the tactics being used. Maybe bombs and helicopter gunships aren’t the best way to fight terrorists in an urban environment?
Sarcasm aside, not that Sebastian’s post deserves better
Sure it does. Haiku time!
Square jaw, steely eyes!
Heroes uncowered by
The death of others.
“…like human beings and wondered, whatever your stance on the war, what it might say about the tactics being used.”
Tactics are a symptom, the numbers are a symptom, the body count is the result of a disease no one seems to be able to name.
I’m convinced that the present state of Iraq, the economic ruin, the infrastructure fragmentation, the essentially non-existent military, was the purpose all along.
Mission Accomplished.
Bin Ladin surfaces today and says flatly 9/11 was caused by US injustices. Interestingly, hardly anyone with a strong opinion of the rightness or wrongness of the current “war on terror” could name those injustices, whether real or not.
Those sincerely intent on “fighting terrorism” would do well to look to its cause.
Yes, Chris, there is some level of Iraqi deaths that would convince me that the war was a mistake. But this study doesn’t change my belief that the war probably reduced the number of Iraqi deaths. The Iraq War got rid of two major causes of death: the sanctions and Saddam.
I’m very skeptical of this study because other studies of pre-war Iraqi mortality produced very different numbers than the Roberts et al study in Lancet. When you compare the various studies, I think it may be that the Iraq War did reduce “excess deaths” of Iraqis.
Certainly, the fact that Roberts et al come up with such different number than the other studies is something they should have discussed, but didn’t.
See my blog post on the topic.
8,000 to 200,000 deaths and you settle on 100,000 and say “see, we were right, Bush is worse than Saddam for Iraqis.”
And then you have the gall to point at exaggeration and hypocracy on the right.
What a bunch of unserious clowns.
If “hypocracy” was a word in actual use, and not a typing error for hypocrisy, it would means something like “lack of power/government”, i.e. the result of small government policies.
In any case Bush intentions had nothing to do with the welfare of Iraq civilians. They did not even try to determine the casualties amongst them, which would have been an essential first step.
DSW
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