Liberation Report

According to the Associated Press, hospital records in Iraq show that the battle for Baghdad cost at least 1,101 civilian lives. Another 1,255 corpses were "probably" civilians, while many others, of course, never made it to hospitals at all. Thousands more were wounded.

Comments

[Sean]

"Although it was a fairly simple task to categorise women and children as civilians, men presented a different challenge, especially in the final days of the war."

"An additional 1,255 dead probably were civilians, doctors say, all reported at the same three hospitals near the airport. At Al Kharama, 30 per cent of 450 such bodies belonged to women and children, doctors said."

If it was so simple a task, as the first quote indicates, to count W&C as civilians, why the confusion as to W&C being PROBABLY civilian, as in the second quote.

Together these are either contradictory, or indicate that the 1,101 civilian deaths are a subset of the 1,255 probable civilian deaths (and this number should be referred to as confirmed and probable civilians deaths).

[Jesse Walker]

Good question, Sean. It's unclear what the article means when it says "it was a fairly simple task to categorise women and children as civilians." There were certainly cases of women working with the Iraqi military, as scouts if not as soldiers, so presumably the reporter doesn't mean that all the dead women were civilians. If the meaning was that it was somehow easier to tell which women were non-military, though, it doesn't say how.

The key line in the piece may be this one: "the hospital records provide what appears to be the first credible, if imperfect, starting point for determining how many civilians in the capital perished in the war."

[Sean]

Yes, the tallying of the dead is not only difficult, it's almost impossible to get agreement between all parties with access (and even the amount of this varies). I can understand why the U.S. military has decided to not do it's own official count. No matter what, it would be doubted and criticized as purposefully undercounted, much like the Park Police crowd estimates before they stopped that practice. I'm sure the Pentagon has got a working figure, and I'm sure this figure will "be revealed by anonymous sources," several times over the next decade, and be considerably different each time.

[joe]

Don't Muslims bury their dead very quickly? If so, even this number would be low.

[Xrlq]

Saddam is estimated to have killed at least 1.5 of his own countrymen since coming to power in 1979. Spread out over a 24-year period, we're looking at an average of 62,500 dead Iraqi civilians per year, 1,202 per week.

The Three Weeks' War appears to have cost the lives of a whopping 2,356 Iraqi civilians, as contrasted with the expected 3,606 who would have perished if we had left Saddam's regime alone. For some reason, though, I don't see Jesse "Maybe Those Kids Belonged In Jail" Walker praising our military for saving 1,250 innocent Iraqis during the war (to say nothing of the 1,202 saved every week since then).

[Jesse Walker]

I'm not sure where that "Maybe Those Kids" quote comes from, nor why it's being linked to my name. Am I missing some pop-culture allusion here?

As for your silly (and math-challenged) sophistry about "saving 1,250 innocent Iraqis": Do you even believe that yourself?

[Xrlq]

Whoops, another hour just went by since my last comment. That's 7 more Iraqi civilians who are still alive now but would not be if the Jesse and his fellow idiotarians had gotten their way. There may be room for rational debate as to whether or not it was in the U.S.'s long term interests to invade Iraq, but can we at least put the pseudo-humanitarian canard to rest?

[Todd Fletcher]

Thanks for clarifying, Xrlq, now we can safely ignore you.

[Andrew Rettek]

The "mabye those kids" comments most likely refers to the childrens prison that was liberated mid april.

[Jesse Walker]

So in just two comments, Xlrq has:

1. Confused a lowballed civilian casualty count for one city with the complete civilian casualty count for the entire country.

2. Offered a ridiculous moral argument that only makes sense if you believe the only possible alternative to Saddam's dictatorship was war -- and isn't convincing even then.

3. Not even made a gesture toward the idea that war is a tragic choice, and that a body count comparable to 9/11's might be a cause for regret even if you think it's the least bad option.

4. Essentially claimed, if Andrew's interpretation of the "those kids" remark is accurate, that it is impossible to disagree with his views on the war without supporting the very worst aspects of Saddam's dictatorship.

5. Used the word "idiotarian."

You're right, Todd. This isn't someone worth taking seriously.

[Eric]

"As for your silly (and math-challenged) sophistry about "saving 1,250 innocent Iraqis": Do you even believe that yourself?"

Jesse, I can't vouch for the validality of the other guy's numbers, but it goes without saying that the Saddam's regime has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the years, perhaps over a million, on political grounds. Not to mention over a half-million Iranians, tens of thousands of Kuwaitis, and all those conscripts killed in the first Gulf War. And the countless number of people he's had imprisoned, tortured, raped, etc. If he had remained in power for another decade or two, all signs indicate that his regime would've killed and tortured many more Iraqis, definitely far more than were killed during this war.

Granted, one can argue that isn't enough to justify an invasion, should there not be sufficient self-interest involved to risk the lives of American soldiers and spend tens of billions of dollars prosecuting a war. And on that level, I'm still ambivalent about this whole affair. What I can't fathom, however, is how anyone can argue that we somehow committed a crime against the Iraqi people by fighting this war, given the type of monster we deposed, and the net lives saved by deposing him.

Was there a way to get rid of Saddam's regime without a war? Maybe, but I tend to doubt it. His sons were as psychopathic as he was, Uday probably moreso, thus a single assassin's bullet wouldn't be enough. Furthermore, Ba'athism is as much an ideology as Islamism, and even if both Saddam and his sons were killed, there's a good chance that another tyrant from the Iraqi Ba'ath party ranks would've stepped up and taken the mantle.

[Xrlq]

The reference to "maybe those kids..." was lifted from one of Jim Treacher's mock anti-war signs. No, I don't think that you think the Iraqi kids should be in prison, but yes, I do think - or, rather, know - that they would still be there if we had not gone to war with Iraq. To argue that one supports X but opposes X's consequences is facile (unless, of course, one can demonstrate that the consequences of not-X would be worse).

"Silly" is a handy, all-purpose ephithet for any argument that one cannot or will not refute. "Math-challenged," however, implies that the numbers are wrong, not merely that you do not like them. I ran the numbers twice on MS Calculator before posting them, and re-checked them on Excel just now, all with the same result. If you are telling me that 1.5 million dead Iraqis, divided by 24 years of Saddam's rule, divided by 52 weeks per year does not equal 1,202 (or, if you prefer, 1,201.9230769230769230769230769231), then you'll have to take that issue up with Microsoft. I'm not interested in re-re-computing that figure by hand.

As to whether I believe my own "silly" statement, the answer is yes, as to the average, no as to any given individual week. Maybe the Three Weeks' War saved exactly 1,250 Iraqi civilians during that three-week period, maybe it saved many more than that, maybe things zeroed out, or maybe the war actually killed more people during that three-week period than the dictator would have done on his own. We'll never know that for sure. We can be sure, however, that it saved a hell of a lot more Iraqi lives than it cost in the long run.

Speaking of silly arguments, I suppose that one could counter by arguing that 1,202 isn't even valid as a ball-park figure since it assumes the "average" amount of warfare with Iran. This argument is silly, however, because it casually assumes, without evidence, that Saddam would not have invaded any countries over the past 12 years if he had been left to his own devices, as the peaceniks advocated. For an example of how Hussein would have acted without sanctions, one need look no further than at how he behaved during the portion of his tenure in which he was not subject to sanctions.

[Xrlq]

Meanwhile, in just one comment, Jesse has:

1. Made a huge issue of a "lowballed" statistic that purports to account for the single biggest battle, without taking into account the fact that this figure does not even attempt to distinguish those killed by U.S. forces from those murdered by Iraqis. Maybe the total civilian figure will prove to be higher, but then again, the same may be true of the total number massacred by Saddam.

2. Pooh-poohed as "ridiculous" the notion that the only possible alternative to Saddam's dictatorship was war - while offering no credible alternative himself.

3. Not even made a gesture toward the idea that a continuation of Saddam's "peace" was a tragic choice that may have been - and in the long term, almost certainly would have been - more deadly and dangerous than war.

4. Taken umbrage over my observation that you can't support a given course of action without effectively supporting, or at least tacitly accepting, its consequences. My guess, though admittedly, it is a guess, is that he would have no problem applying the same principle in reverse, if anyone were silly enough to argue that they supported the war but opposed the possibility that there be any casualties at all.

5. Resorted to multiple ad hominems, thereby reminding us all why words like "idiotarian" were coined in the first place, and then objected to my use of the term in context.

So go ahead with your smug "anyone who disagrees with me isn't worth listening to" attitude. It's annoying, but ultimately harmless. A lot more Americans share my view than yours, so as long as both sides continue to write each other off as not worth paying attention to, guess which side wins?

[Jesse Walker]

I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me isn't worth listening to, Xlrq. I said that, on the basis of your comments here, you aren't worth listening to. Your most recent post doesn't give me any reason to change that opinion, though I did get a chuckle out of seeing you accuse someone else of being smug and of tossing around ad hominems.

I've laid out my reasons for opposing this war several times before; you'll have to forgive me for not launching into them yet again. The issue on the table is the death toll, which you apparently regard not as a bad thing, not even as a regrettable necessity, but as something that can be willed away with sophomoric number-juggling. I'm afraid I can't agree.

[Lou]

I think Xrlg made a valid point with his "number-juggling", but it's a shame he had to be a jerk about it in the process.

However, for the numerical argument to really hold up, you'd have to believe that NOT using force to remove Saddam from power would make us responsible for any deaths caused by Saddam, and that this responsibility is morally equivalent to the responsibility we bear for deaths as a result of our military action. If this is the case, then we are not only justified in taking out every dictator in the world, we are morally obligated to do so.

[Poltroon]

Does anyone really believe that this government took us to war to save Iraqis from Saddam's evil ways?

Did we go to war in 1941 to stop the Japanese brutalising the Chinese? Or even to stop Hitler chewing up half Europe?

This argument about casualties is pointless. It is impossible to put real or potential casualties in the balance and decide one or other is better.

[JDM]

"Does anyone really believe that this government took us to war to save Iraqis from Saddam's evil ways?"

The government took the citizenry to war for its reasons, and the citizenry went along for an overlapping set of reasons of its own. I think one of the main reasons to support the war in most people's minds was that Saddam was an evil thug.

The reason? Most people understand that:

"NOT using force to remove Saddam from power would make us responsible for any deaths caused by Saddam."

[Anonymous]

How many of those killed by Saddam were apolitical civilians minding their own business? Consider that factor in your calculations, Xlrq. Not that Bush & co. gave a shit about saving anyone's life, but if you think they did, then read this

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030503/COMACA

[David]

In a different context, the number of lives lost (military, civilian, etc) during the liberation of Iraq is truly staggering in its SMALLNESS. Pre-war, many people, particularly those vehemently opposed to war, predicted tens of thousands, even HUNDREDS of thousands, of dead Iraqis, and American/coalition casualties at least into the thousands.

The fact that this did not occur is testament to both the incredible skill & training of the American military, and the remarkable war-planning by senior leaders, both military & civilian.

[Xrlq]

Jesse: Chuckle all you want about other people's smugness, but when you post a snarky entry with a snarkier heading, you set a particular tone and can expect responses in that vein. Next time, try writing something that at least sounds balanced, and you'll notice a similar tenor in the responses.

I appreciate your link to your stated reasons for opposing the war, but you might want to consider revising that blog entry if you intend to preach to anyone who isn't already a member of the proverbial choir. The "Saddam has nothing to do with terrorism" meme has never been an easy one to swallow, but given the detailed documents that have been found over the last couple weeks, it now appears completely untenable. Unless, of course, you have evidence that all these documents about the al-Qaeda meeting were forgeries, that Saddam's payments to families of Palestian "martyrs" never really happened, etc. If that's the case, say so.

Lou: I'm not sure why you think it's A-O-K for Jesse to post a one-sided piece that counts the bodies while ignoring any trade-offs, but my calling him on that and pointing out its logical conclusions (like it or not, those kids would still be in jail if we hadn't acted) makes me a jerk.

Your conclusion that the trade off obligates us to remove any dictator - or at least any dictator who is bad enough to make a war worthwhile - does not follow. Suppose that you hear a bloodcurdling scream for help from your neighbor's house, and the only way to get in to rescue him/her is by breaking a window. You would certainly be justified in breaking your neighbor's window under the circumstances, but that does not mean you would have any obligation to do so. There is no general duty to rescue, only a privilege to do so if it reasonable under the circumstances (e.g., you do not have a right to break down your neighbor's front door because you think his plants could use a little watering).

Poltroon: Yes, some of us really do believe that saving Iraqis from Saddam's evil ways was a key objective, and war opponents who try to assume that issue out of existence do little for their own credibility. Human rights in Iraq were not the only reason we invaded, of course, but they were certainly a major factor. They didn't call it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" for nothing.

[Eric]

In many of the places that they occupied, the Nazis had something called a 20:1 rule: For every Nazi soldier killed by a local, the Nazis would kill local 20 local men. One night, a group of five Greek Partisans launched an ambush on a Nazi camp and managed to kill four soldiers. The Partisans were subsequently captured, but the next days the Nazis nonetheless rounded up 20 men from a nearby village with the intention of executing them.

Seeing this happen, the mayor of the village went to the commander of the Nazi camp and pleaded with him to spare the lives of the villagers. The commander presented the mayor with an option: The lives of the villagers would be spared if he personally executed the five Partisans in the middle of the town square.

I don't know if this story's true, but regardless, I think it sums up the moral questions in the current debate quite well. If the mayor turned down the commander's offer, one could still say that he's not responsible for the deaths of the villagers, as the decision to execute them rested in the hands of the Nazis. Likewise, if he accepted the offer, he would technically be responsible for murdering the Partisans. But given the circumstances, could anyone honestly bring themselves to condemn him if he chose to accept the offer?

[Eric]

Correction: that was 80 men in the story, rather than 20.

[andrea]

"They didn't call it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" for nothing."

They called it that for domestic PR reasons. It's not quite the same thing as having honourable intentions.

[Lazarus Long]

1,255 dead...I feel badly for the victims and their families, but this is an incredibly low number for a conquest of a metropolitan city, which in turn has ended the age of State-sponsored terror. And considerably less than if the US had flown 747s into Baghdad skyscrapers....

I don't see how this can be anything but good news, hawk or dove. It would only be dissapointing to those who staked their entire anti-war position on massive civilian casualites and are now bitter that they have been proven incorrect -- which is pathetic.

[Croesus]

Lazarus short,

"...which in turn has ended the age of State-sponsored terror."

We all appreciate good hyperbole when we see it. 🙂

Its not good for the folks who are dead; or their families for that matter. Then again, when someone else is paying the price for what you want, its much easier to discount that cost as trivial or otherwise lacking in true importance. Which I suppose illustrates how value-laden cost-benefit analyses are.

Everyone else see this story?

LOS ANGELES, May 7 ? Pentagon adviser Richard Perle briefed an investment seminar on ways to profit from conflicts in Iraq and North Korea just weeks after he received a top-secret government briefing on the crises in the two countries, the Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/910268.asp?0cv=CB10

How soon will Perle's nuts be in a vice?

[Lazarus Long]

Croesus: It is considerably more than hyperbole...

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=C9E8FBBB-AE07-49CB-B5FA4F78C43BD848

As for Perle, so what? I thought this was a pro-capitalist rag. Good for him, wish I had attended that seminar.

[Jesse Walker]

Eric: The story is from John Fowles' novel The Magus.

All: I don't object to someone bringing up the issue of trade-offs. I do object to an argument that drives the utilitarian calculus to the level of self-parody.

I also object to the notion that I'm not allowed to link to a story on these deaths without adding a lengthy appendix on all the trade-offs involved. Not long ago, I wrote a piece that, among other things, expressed my pleasure that Saddam's regime had fallen. Not one of the above partisans of "balance" wrote me to say I wasn't allowed to do this without also citing all the corpses produced in the process.

I'm sorry my sardonic headline offended Xlrq so much. Next time I'll try to be more boring.

[Croesus]

Lazarus,

Its hyperbole. There will never be an end to state-sponsored terrorism. There will always be states that terrorize their own popluations, as well as their neighbors. I know this likely conflicts with your ST:TNG version of the future, but it has to be said.

"As for Perle, so what? I thought this was a pro-capitalist rag. Good for him, wish I had attended that seminar."

I smell the stink of war profiteering - furthermore, there is a conflict of interest here so big you can drive a semi through it. His use of top secret documents to promote his business dealings is pretty foul if you ask me, and has very little to do with "capitalism."

[Lazarus Long]

>>There will never be an end to state-sponsored terrorism.>There will always be states that terrorize their own popluations, as well as their neighbors.>I smell the stink of war profiteering>there is a conflict of interest here so big you can drive a semi through it.

[Anonymous]

>

No.

[Sean]

You know, I must agree with Xrlq in all of this. And no, I don't feel bad for his rudeness, as the characteristic seems to prevail here.

Jesse, your report leaves a lot out. I'm not sure I like what it implies (being pro-war and all). I suspect that a succinct reply to the question "So what?" would be "Nuthin', I'm jus' sayin' is all."

You post this as if it were reason not to invade. You imply that the hawks didn't know what the true cost would be, and that YOU knew, and that's why you were against the war and that THEY would be, too if only they knew what you knew. Well, most of us hawks did know. I, for one, was surprised (and continue to be!) by how low these numbers have been.

To reduce the conversation back into ad hominem, your post is the equivalent of a pouting child saying "See!?" Yes, dear. We knew, dear. We still had to, dear.

[McFaul Sean]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 203.162.3.147
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/21/2004 06:47:38
He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare,And he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere.