So, How Bad Are Things in Iraq Really?
We all know that despite news reports of massacre and carnage, the civilian death toll in Iraq has gone down considerably since the war to remove Saddam Hussein began back in March 2003.
Here are more figures on how the Iraq War stacks up historically:
The recorded Iraqi civilian fatalities (including insurgents, military, morgue counts, police, etc.) were down 16% (16% maximum) in 2005... 38% (48% maximum) less than 2003 (via Leftist anti-war site Iraq Body Count). If you take out the numbers from that horrible day in August 2005 when nearly one thousand panicked Iraqis were trampled or drowned near a Muslim shrine, the year shows striking progress compared to 2003 and 2004 with fatalities one third less than in 2004.
Ann Althouse (via Glenn Reynolds) reported this comparison of Iraqi Civilian War casualties with other conflicts in recent history:
Click on picture to enlarge.
This shows how Iraq War Casualties compares to other American Wars:
(2,471 Iraq War Fatalities as of 5/31/2006)
John Hinderaker at Powerline adds this:
A total of 2,471 servicemembers have died in Iraq from 2003 to the present, a period of a little over three years. That total is almost exactly one third of the number of military personnel who died on active duty from 1980 to 1982, a comparable time period when no wars were being fought. Until very recently, our armed forces lost servicemen at a greater rate than we have experienced in Iraq, due solely to accidental death.And, please don't bring up Russian military casualties:
Do you recall that during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s there was any suggestion, from anyone, that our military policies were somehow disastrous due to fatalities among our servicemen--fatalities that nearly always exceeded those we are now experiencing in Iraq? No, neither do I.
In 2004, Russia lost conservatively 1,100 military men and women- no war.Here's more perspective on how the War in Iraq stacks up compared to other US Wars:
In 2004, the US lost 848 military men and women- Iraq War.
Iraq is no Vietnam, or Civil War or War of 1812!
Historically, this war has been a remarkable success.
To further put things in perspective, Newsmax reported yesterday that...
Iraq Is Less Violent than Washington, D.C.
Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.Something to think about when you read the next "Iraq the quagmire" headline!
Appearing with Westwood One radio host Monica Crowley on Saturday, King said that the incessantly negative coverage of the Iraq war prompted him to research the actual death numbers.
"I began to ask myself the question, if you were a civilian in Iraq, how could you tolerate that level of violence," he said. "What really is the level of violence?"
Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.
While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it's significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation's capital.
"It's 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.," King told Crowley.
Other American cities with higher violent civilian death rates than Iraq include:
Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000
Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000
Hat Tip Sugiero
Update: (5:00 PM) Rep. King's numbers appear to be low. The broader point still holds. I stand corrected.
Update 2: (Thursday 4:00 PM) Here is a terrific comment from an anonymous reader:
Something else to take into account when comparing casualty figures for American Wars--the relative size of the US polulation.
For example, there were a little over 2 million Americans in 1776--3,929,214 on the 1790 census. Our population is 100xs as much as it was during the Revolutionary War. In the War of 1812, the population was just over 7 million (7,239,881 on the 1812 census). For the Civil War, our population was right at 30 million--on tenth what it is now. We were at half of our current population during the second World War, and at 183,285,009 on the 1960 census at the eve of Vietnam.
In other words, while every American life is precious, if you what to know the true imact of war casualties as percentage of population--you need to do the following:
If Iraq 2372
Then, Vietnam=98,9723
WWII=816,712
Civil War=5,6300,000
Revolutionary War=2,532,400
The simple fact of the matter is that the anti-war movement, many who, if you look at their histories, had no problems with the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the marxists Sandinistas--both who waged much bloodier wars that what we are currently seeing in Iraq--have FRAMED this argument to fool the American people. It is truly disgusting.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 5/31/2006 03:52:00 AM
72 Comments:
Just wait until they start building an infrastructure (roads) and importing a ton of rice-burners from Japan. Then you'll really start to see civilian casualties from auto accidents. By then the Archaic Media won't care. They will have tainted the public discourse and gone on to bigger things, like pushing the "rights" of pedophiles.
Ha, if you think Iraq is bad, try being a drug addict in Detroit. There have been 48, yes 48, deaths from drug overdoses in Wayne County since May 13. I wonder how many soldiers have been killed in Iraq during that same period.
And I also wonder how many people in the US have died of overdoses since the Iraq war started.
My conclusion is that it is more dangerous being a drug addict in the US than being a citizen in Iraq. I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong. I hope you can, but we'll see.
What is your basis for claiming that "The recorded Iraqi civilian fatalities (including insurgents, military, morgue counts, police, etc.) were down 16% (16% maximum) this year... 38% (48% maximum) less than 2003."???
(1) The numbers do not attempt to include insurgents or military casualties (they do include police and morgue counts).
(2) Can you show your 2006 numbers so that others can verify that casualties are down 16% this year? Based on the bar graph on this page, it appears that civilian casualties have increased meaningfully in 2006 vs. 2005.
Also, your chart says that there have been 2,372 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, but that figure is outdated. The number is now 2,471.
As for King's numbers, I don't know exactly how he gets them (using your fatality numbers, they imply an Iraqi population of somewhere around 29-30 million, which several million too high). One thing worth pointing out is that, whatever the national average, the fatality rate is going to be much higher in parts of Iraq and lower in others (just like it's higher in Baltimore than it is in Greenwich, CT). There are likely parts of Iraq that are much more dangerous than any part of the U.S.
Also, the civilian death rate reflects the country when there are over 150,000 coalition troops deployed there. If we deployed a comparable level of troops to patrol DC or Baltimore, the murder rate would probably go down significantly. That is why many reasonable people are concerned about what will happen in Iraq if we pull our troops out.
I noticed in that Newsmax article that St. Louis is another city that is supposedly more dangerous than Iraq. Be careful, Jim!
You're darned right, Dave. The first time I went through St. Louis on my way to Milwaukee, Wi. I noticed that all the utility poles had a phone of them. I said to myself, "What the hell"? When I got to Belleville, Il., I asked a guy at a service station why phones were on all the utility poles along the interstate in E. St. Louis and he said, "Well, if your car breaks down, you can hopefully call for help before you are attacked". What a wakeup call that was for a guy who came from a small town in Texas. The next time I came through I brought my .44 magnum. Better to be tried by twelve than buried by six, if you know what I mean. And that damn state of Illinois has some harsh laws on handguns.
I just noticed that the post says "(2,471 Iraq War Fatalities as of 5/31/2006)".
Not sure if that was there before I made my post.
"My conclusion is that it is more dangerous being a drug addict in the US than being a citizen in Iraq."
I don't understand the comparison. It's dangerous being a drug addict no matter where you live, and you can make a simple choice to avoid addiction...get help or keep your use to a casual level. In other words, the means to get out of this predicament is in your hands.
That's not the case for an Iraqi citizen. For example, the Sunni who is being approached by a Shiite death squad...he doesn't have many simple choices available. So comparing a death rate with people on one side who do violence to themselves to others who have no control on the events unfurling around them doesn't make much sense to me.
Frank, I was being facetious. And the point GP was making is that it is not as dangerous in Iraq as you would think if your only source of information was the MSM.
Just like in Iraq, there are places in every American city that is unsafe for you to be caught in. I'm not discounting the dangers in Iraq, nor do I wish to say that Bagdad and some other cities are safe even by our standards, just saying that the media hardly ever tell the whole story. That is why bloggers are doing so well.
There are so many statistical facts wrong with this it is difficult to know where to start.
Let me just point out 1. On average we have had around 150,000 U.S. troop levels in iraq. Clearly these cycle in and out of Iraq but this is a fair average. We have in excess of 2,400 dead, so on a per 100,000 basis (which is used in your argument) the U.S. forces in Iraq have suffered a 1,800 per 100,000 death rate which is higher than even Washington by a huge margin.
Sounds like Dave in NYC is reading too many Vietnam books by authors like Kerry and Ho Chi Minh!
Don't worry Dave in NYC! We're going to win this war, so you don't have to worry about dark-skinned refugees moving into your Upper East Side neighborhood!
Umm it seems you are very blase about the amount of civilians killed. On a per capita basis the amount of civilians killed in 2005 would be equal to 32 times the amount killed on 9/11 in the US.
Of course I will check back to see how your vactation in Iraq was. Don't forget to send photos after all it is the MSM that is making it so 'bad' there.
As usual, James Chen can be counted on to play the race card. You know nothing about me. Stop pretending that you do.
While I agree that MSM harps on casualties in Iraq, giving an impression of a quagmire (I'd love to see MSM start reporting daily deaths in major American cities, just to see the way people react), one figure nobody seems to talk about is non-fatal casualties.
How many servicemen were maimed between 1980 and 1982? How many servicemen were maimed between 2003 and the present?
While I agree that MSM harps on casualties in Iraq, giving an impression of a quagmire (I'd love to see MSM start reporting daily deaths in major American cities, just to see the way people react),
Have you never watched a local news program? Violent crime and fires in the cities are their lifeblood.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Have you never watched a local news program? Violent crime and fires in the cities are their lifeblood.
True, but I was thinking of daily death tolls and the like. I was imagining the news anchor saying, "Twelve people died violently in Washington D.C. today". Do that every day for a year and see what people start thinking about Washington D.C.
Dave in NYC,
Your name is Dave. You live in NYC.
It is therefore likely that:
You are white, since
a)Few Latinos are named Dave
b) Few Asians are against the Iraq War and named "Dave"
c) Few Black folks in NYC are named "Dave"
d) Few Arabs are named "Dave"
Since you are white, it is likely that you live in a white neighborhood because:
a) NYC is liberal
b) Liberal cities are highly segregated
c) You do not refute what I have said about you
Since you are white and live in a white neighborhood, it is likely you would:
a) Oppose non-whites moving into your neighborhood
b) Move out if too many non-whites move into your neighborhood
c) Support racial quotas that would allow your schools to retain a majority white population for as long as possible.
Since you are white, live in a white neighborhood, and would like your 'hood to stay that way, you support the Olympia anti-war protestors, who like the SF anti-war protestors, are almost all white.
You are therefore, a white liberal.
Pictures, please.
On the otherhand, you could start signing your comments as "anonymous" or "Rajiv".
Some commenters are overanalyzing. The key here is perspective- and that is why the Washington DC comparison is helpful.
To boil it down to one number (courtesy of John Hinderaker), there were about as many US active duty military killed in the non-war year of 1983 (2.486) than have been killed in Iraq, combined, since 2003.
War is bad for living things, and to be avoided wherever possible. But the international threat from outlaw states, fueled by religious fundamentalist murdering terrorist radicals is worse.
We kicked the ball as far down the road as possible for several decades. If we do so again, it will cost us far more next time- because there will be a next time. It will be much worse if we don't put them out of business now.
Good work, James! You read me like a book!
Hilarious.
Dave in NYC, you are a book. Very predictable.
Great article! I'm sending it to all my family, and taking it to my social science professors personally.
The dipwad above who claimed an 1800 per 100,000 death rate in Iraq obviously can't divide by three (for the number of years). Giving an idiot a short course in statistics is like giving a loaded gun to a three year old.
... he also can't account for the total number of troops that have cycled in and out as various companies go on and off tour. All told, there have been something like a million soldiers who have had a turn in Iraq at some point or another since 2003. That would drive the numbers even lower.
But that's only if we wanted to be intellectually honest.
"Have you never watched a local news program? Violent crime and fires in the cities are their lifeblood."
Yeah, Dave, so what should that tell you about the reports of violent crime that come in from over there? Do you similarly assume that reports of violent crimes and fires in our cities somehow indicates that the United States is an unlivable cesspool of death? I would hope not.
- w0rf
King's numbers and analysis were discredited by the ultra-conservative Wall Street Journal. Nuf said?
Yeah, Dave, so what should that tell you about the reports of violent crime that come in from over there? Do you similarly assume that reports of violent crimes and fires in our cities somehow indicates that the United States is an unlivable cesspool of death? I would hope not.
No, but who said that Iraq was an unlivable cesspool of death? You're the only one to use those words.
On December 12, President Bush estimated that 30,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war. That by itself amounts to a rate of 40 per 100,000.
IraqBodyCount.org puts the current number at about 40,000, which translates to a rate of closer to 50 per 100,000.
So now we know that the ENTIRE country of Iraq is as safe, on the average, as inner city Washington DC, or New Orleans before the flood!
Not so comforting...
On December 12, President Bush estimated that 30,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war.
Andy, I agree with your larger point, but it should be noted that your numbers are only Iraqi civilians. If you included Iraqi soldiers the numbers would be much higher.
Besides, let's suppose the statistics given are actually correct, and even that the interpretations are correct (though we know both are filled with lies)...
Gateway argues, in bold letters, that "Historically, this war has been a remarkable success". But what does any of this have to do with "success"? Does less deaths than the average war make this war a success?
Success, according to the President's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq", is defined principally as "an Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country".
Does anybody really believe that's where things are going?
* Peaceful - by the numbers, the whole country is more dangerous than the worst American inner city.
* United - they can't even appoint cabinet ministers!
* Stable - as long as 150,000 American soldiers are there to hold it together.
* Democratic - it's one thing to vote, but quite another to have the popular will translated into action by a sovereign government.
* Secure - thanks to Iran!
Come on guys! This thing's a failure!
Dave -- that's my point! Even using numbers the wingnuts would agree are unimpeachable, the statistics in this article are obviously wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it should be clear that they're not minor math mistakes or simple differences of interpretation -- they are willfully deceptive.
It's also worth responding to Hideraker's silliness, as quoted by kurmudge. Follow the link in Hinderaker's own article to see the statistics.
The overall death rate in the US military was 110.7 per 100,000 in 1980. In 2004, it was 110.2 -- almost unchanged.
However, in 2004, the death rate due to hostile action was 43.1 (with another 9.4 pending categorization), while in 1980 it was 0.0.
So here's the real story: the Army has done a superb job, managing to improve operational safety by almost 50% since 1980. Unfortunately, deaths due to the Iraq war have almost entirely offset this success.
While it may not be 1,800 per 100,000 if you divide by 3 that would still be 600 per 100,000 which is more than 10 times worse than the worst city in America. The cycling of soldiers does not make a difference if you have an average of 154,500 soldiers since the start of the war.
Whichever way you look at it, the war is not going great and trying to spin it so does not make it so.
And of course the carnage is so bad... over 140 killed a day! Over 9,500 wounded in the conflict per day! Just so very awful...
Until you realize it is US traffic numbers for the worst years for those numbers... we are running a bit below those the past decade though not by much. But, still, you would think there was a Civil War on or something! And the death toll just keeps mounting since the automobile was INVENTED!
End this carnage!
Stay at home!
Quiver under your blankets!
The bad drivers are coming to get you!!
And yes, Iraq is a ballpark 1/10 the US population. Point being? The MSM feels absolutely free to play with numbers out of context... when they start giving real context to their stories they might win back some viewership. And they might try ditching the idea that everything is a *story* and many things are just *events* taking place and report that just as it is.
Only 55 KIA's per month in the Revolutionay War? That can't possibly be right.
Jacksonian -- I can't figure out what you are trying to say. How, exactly, are aggregate US traffic fatalities relevant to this question?
First of all, US traffic fatalities occur at the rate of about 14 per 100,000. The death rate for Iraqi civilians, due solely to the war, is about 3 times that -- and the death rate for American servicemen in Iraq is several times greater still.
But, more to the point, we've all accepted a nominal rate of traffic fatalities as a cost of civilized life. The additional deaths created by the war don't fall into that category.
You express concern for the use of "numbers out of context" but you are very guilty of this yourself!
Anonymous: the Revolution went on for quite a while; it was fought by relatively small armies; significant engagements occurred infrequently. I don't know the source of the 55 per month number but it seems reasonable to me.
Another posse of right wing cowards comparing warfare to traffic accidents. God, how sad...
Happy Memorial Day.
The current Iraq war has been one of the most dangerous (casualties) and deadly (fatalities) for journalists covering it.
If you don't belive that fact, you really should go cover the war and prove everyone else wrong.
Go on! It's safer than St Louis!
No really. You should go.
AndyS - And so we are in a media in which you can legitimately respond and be heard. Yes, indeed, I do use this very and exact same tactic to point out the problem.
A bit of rhetorical flourish.
Perhaps a dash of sardonic humor.
A smidgen of contempt for those trying to say the US is only all bad and that the death toll proves it.
And maybe, just maybe, to get one to realize that the average death toll under Saddam, yes including his wars of aggression, were in the average of 120 per day. For a Nation 1/10 the population of the US. Nearly equal to our annual death toll on the roads. With the MSM not looking to report context, an entire order of magnitude difference between now and then are being papered over.
If you think what is going on *now* is bad... it was much, much, much worse under Saddam. So that threat has been ended, but no good ever accrues to those that helped end it. No good ever accrues to those that stopped this dictator from waging wars of aggression and using his own people as cannon fodder. No good ever accrues to stopping the disappearances of entire families because one family member committed the crime of not liking Saddam or his boys or his cronies or his military.
The deaths in Iraq are reported fully and completely out of context. Now you are saying that the death rate is 3 times that in the conflict and that we do not value human life. I will turn around that and say under Saddam it was 10 times worse and there is no credit given to saving those that would be killed by the normal grinding and killing and disappearances that happened with that regime.
Upset over numbers? Not valuing human life? You must decide for yourself where your conscience lay in that. If this death toll be bad or evil... then what was it *before* we stepped in?
As one vet said looking at the death toll in Iraq he said that that was about what happened training for D-Day. Just a tad off, but the point was made.
And as to these being additional deaths, above and beyond the everyday: correct. The US Military is all-volunteer and that is the risk one takes in going into it. And the people of Iraq? Perhaps thinking of the lives being *saved* by not having a power hungry dictator willing to kill his way to power and keep it that same way over them.
And the people who died on 9/11 were also above and beyond the normal.
And they did *not* volunteer for the duty of target.
What the hell dude??? Didn't I read that over 1,000 bodies were recovered in Baghdad in April? I'm pretty sure I did. Which U.S. city has a comparable murder rate to that?
You must have access to that good weed.
Ain't Hindrocket a peach?
I think it would be more instructive to compare the death rate in Iraq (you can include US and Iraqis as you see fit) w/ a comparable US geography. We heard frequently that Iraq was the size of California, so why not compare the fatality rate of CA to Iraq, and see if the "Pundits" declare CA a quagmire and failure?
This whole game nonsensical, demonstrably false, and deeply depraved.
What if America really were like Iraq? Would you feel safe?
The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.
Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.
And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?
What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?
What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?
There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?
What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?
I've got an idea...how about we forget all of the essentially meaningless statistics regarding casualties coming from both sides of this argument and come to the common understanding that this campaign will be won or lost in the minds of the Iraqi people. There are areas within Iraq that have seen great success - they are much safer than they were earlier in the war and likely safer than during Saddam's regime - from a security and stability standpoint that transcends body count. There are also areas in Iraq (most notably Baghdad) where it is dangerous for large portions of the population - as well as for Coalition forces. To deny this is foolishness...just as to deny progress in other areas is foolishness. The bottom line is this: if we (and I include the Iraqi government in that "we") cannot create enough stability to allow the political process to advance, then we have lost regardless of any casualty figures we bandy about.
Or an even simpler idea: why let some Iraqis describe the safe haven their country has become.
From Iraq The Model (a supporter of the war):
"One friend told me the other day that "Iraq is no longer a place for civilians like us, let politicians, militias and soldiers settle their accounts but I am leaving indefinitely". I don't know what to tell these people; I can't advise them to stay and risk their lives with all the violence happening around and I feel sorry they are leaving, sorry for them and for the country; it's never easy for them to leave the place where they were born and had lived their entire life to go start from zero in a place where they'll be total strangers and at it's not possible to build a country without people but at the same time, you can't help your country when you are dead or living in fear all the time."
From "Healing Iraq"...
"Sorry for the unannounced absence. I had some troubles getting online (still have actually) and, now that summer is here, the electricity situation is worse than ever with less than 4 hours of power a day - and only 2 per day for the last 3 days or so. The deteriorating situation in my neighbourhood is always a very convenient excuse for local generator owners to provide less hours of power (but heaven forbid if someone is late on paying their monthly subscription fee).
It hasn't been very pretty in Adhamiya since my last post. The district looks deserted most of the time, with random gunfire here and there. American Apache helicopters circle the area almost non-stop, and residents are whispering to each other about an imminent assault, as part of the American plan to 'liberate' Baghdad again. But to liberate it from whom? Its residents?
I'm on the verge of quitting my job. I haven't been to work for about a month now and I told my boss flat out on the phone that I wouldn't dare make the 20-30 kms trip to work for the time being. I can't even put my nose out of my doorstep for fuck's sake. Sometimes I'm really amazed that the state still continues to function at all.
Here is a nice shot of yesterday's car bomb explosion between the Ibn Al-Haitham college and Saddam's former palace in Adhamiya: (photo here)
And this is a blurry shot of the Oil ministry fire that broke out about a week ago. Funny that the event did not even register in the news. The fire actually engulfed two floors, the accounts and records floors to be exact. Rumour among Oil ministry employees is that the fire - which went on for over 2 hours - was intentional, apparently to cover up some major corruption scandal. Hardly surprising to hear that. The employees were also told that they should not expect their salaries for some time, since all records were puff, gone. (photo here)"
From Hammorabi...
"Iraq is dying and sinking in a bath of blood, killing, corruption and mischief. This is not conspiracy but reality existed every day and night."
Andy S:
Hmmm, a failure?
The following was predicted:
- Civil War,
- Splitting up of country starting with Kurdistan,
- Wider regional conflict embroiling Turkey,
- "Arab Street" rising up causing mass instability in the region,
- Shia's joining Iran,
- Mass humanitarian disaster characterized by most wars: refugees, starvation, disease etc.,
- U.S. "bloodbath" as they try to enter Baghdad,
None of the above occured, none.
Instead within a couple of years Iraq held a referendum, national elections, drafted a constitution, and yes formed a government, including a cabinet: by consensus of the parties that were at that point supposed to be embroiled in a civil war.
Oh, yeah on your "can't even form a cabinet" point: I understand two positions (out of dozens) are currently vacant and still being negotiated.
Yes, quite the failure. Keep shifting those goal posts. Perhaps next year you'll be saying: "yeah, but their president is having trouble getting its high court judge nominee through the upper parliament"
The regime used to take women off the street so Uday could rape them on the weekends, but now....they're having trouble negotiating the final two cabinet posts......what a disaster!!
Andy,
Are you willing to concede any good coming from Saddam being deposed?
We're all well aware of the daily "quagmire" reports. I'm also aware of many, many, many positive developments that never get reported (but are featured on numerous blogs). Are all of these blogs making those things up?
It's sad that the desire to look for the bad in Iraq is so obviously manifested from a desire for failure there.
It's not unpatriotic to honestly critique one's government. It is unpatriotic to desire a military failure.
Sad, so sad.
Nothing compares to the 49 million American lives extermined by vacumn cleaners and sea weed sticks.
Dave in NYC, abortion capital of the world.
Ha, the point about Washington and other American cities having higher death tolls makes you wonder why we want to bring our democracy to Iraq.
Obviously, it's to make things worse, LIKE THEY ARE HERE.
The body count in New Orleans isn't even complete. How can they even attempt to have accurate numbers from Iraq?
Yes I'm convinced...of nothing.
I happened across this, and I had to chime in. I'm a member of Iraq Body Count, and the following is a lie:
"The recorded Iraqi civilian fatalities (including insurgents, military, morgue counts, police, etc.) were down 16% (16% maximum) in 2005... 38% (48% maximum) less than 2003 (via Leftist anti-war site Iraq Body Count)."
It's two lies actually. First, the IBC count explicitly does not include insurgents or military.
The second lie, or misleading distortion anyway, is the claim that 2005 was lower than 2003. That's only true if you include the March-April invasion itself in 2003, which obviously caused the most extreme fatalities, and more than any period since.
If you exclude the invasion, and speak about post-Saddam Iraq, then 2004 was more deadly than 2003, and 2005 was more deadly than 2004. Every year has gotten worse. And it appears 2006 is going to be more deadly than 2005, as incidents keep coming at a faster and faster pace.
All of this is described in IBC's Dossier:
http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf
Right now I posted on my blog about East Timor, where the UN just pulled out it's peacekeepers!...and the Aussies are back to rescue the place.
Right now, they have an estimated 100 000 refugees from the fighting. COmpare this to the NYTimes complaints about Iraqi Bathist refugees...
joshd,
you may want to check out the update. It's acknowleged.
Also, mistakes aren't "lies", particularily when someone points it out and it's immediately acknowleged.
Funny....your allegation that it was a "lie" is actually more of a lie than the subject of your allegation.
Gotta love the multiple layers of liberal hypocracy.
anonymous,
Gatewaypundit recycles this same post every few months and he always uses misleading or outdated numbers. From the very beginning when he claimed that there were virtually no civilian casualties in Iraq in the first half of 2005, and then refused to change the text of his post even after his error was pointed out and his numbers changed.
At some point, it goes beyond carelessness and becomes dishonesty (including making changes to your post and not acknowledging that it was changed).
I think anyone who works at IBC has no right to complain about others who might use statistics incorrectly to prove their point or out-right lie.
The left has been begging for a quagmire in Iraq since Day One. Its finally starting to be one and they either can't contain their delight, or they say its been that way all along. Now they have another opportunity to denigrate the US Army/Marines/Navy/Air Force and their Pavlovian reaction is disgusting...
In hindsight, maybe if someone had warned them to "Be careful what you wish for - cause you just might get it" they wouldn't have begged for chaos, but I doubt it. To them it appears to be much more important that America/Bush/Republicans look bad.
Luckily, its only war & terror in the middle east. Not like the situation has changed any over the last 4000 years....
JAFAC:
Its finally starting to be one (a quagmire)
Did you just call Iraq a quagmire?!?
Why do you hate America???
its only war & terror in the middle east. Not like the situation has changed any over the last 4000 years
And why do you hate our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, a member of a revolutionary religious sect in an occupied Middle Eastern country??
How long do you expect your anti-American, anti-Christian propaganda to be accepted in this Nation?
biff:
The following was predicted:
Predicted by who? Your cute little invisible straw man? Whatever. Let's see what you have here:
- Civil War
Check.
Exactly how many death squads do you need?
- Splitting up of country starting with Kurdistan
Check.
The Kurds are quite direct about being an independent entity, while Shiia and Sunni death squads are rapidly dividing the population. Have fun with that.
- Wider regional conflict embroiling Turkey
Check.
Turkey is *pissed* about Kurdistan. They had already officially declared the Kurds to be terrorist scum. Greater Kurdistan includes Kirkuk, and extends into Iran and Turkey. Welcome to the next 20 years of blowback fun...
- "Arab Street" rising up causing mass instability in the region
Check.
Iran sure has calmed down, haven't they? How's that Afganistan treatin' ya? Got any friends in Pakistan these days? Hey, is there democracy in Egypt yet? Wasn't the Syrian regime on the verge of collapse? What's Dubai been investing in lately? Theocracy been stamped out in Saudi Arabia? Finally got that whole Palestinian issue worked out?
- Shia's joining Iran
Check.
[see: Shiia death squad, nuclear division]
- Mass humanitarian disaster characterized by most wars: refugees, starvation, disease etc.
Check.
Oh wait. I guess there aren't hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis if you don't care about dead Iraqis...
- U.S. "bloodbath" as they try to enter Baghdad
Check.
[see: insurgency, ongoing]
And if you're still feeling gung ho, "biff," why don't you check out Baghdad E.R.? You can enjoy it from the safety and comfort of your couch. I'm sure it's a very manly couch. But manly in a totally non-homoerotic way, so you can really relax into it.
Baghdad ER? Why yes of course, Hollywood's useful idiocy has a profound effect on the braindead.
anon,
Are you kidding? You didn't hear those same predictions prior to the invasion???
Oh right, I forgot, revising the immediate past is part of liberal dogma.
Are you kidding? You didn't hear those same predictions prior to the invasion???
Oh right, I forgot, revising the immediate past is part of liberal dogma.
I heard how it would be a "cakewalk" and we'd be greeted with flowers.
Gateway,
Something else to take into account when comparing casualty figures for American Wars--the relative size of the US polulation.
For example, there were a little over 2 million Americans in 1776--3,929,214 on the 1790 census. Our population is 100xs as much as it was during the Revolutionary War. In the War of 1812, the population was just over 7 million (7,239,881 on the 1812 census). For the Civil War, our population was right at 30 million--on tenth what it is now. We were at half of our current population during the second World War, and at 183,285,009 on the 1960 census at the eve of Vietnam.
In other words, while every American life is precious, if you what to know the true imact of war casualties as percentage of population--you need to do the following:
If Iraq 2372
Then Vietnam=98,9723
WWII=816,712
Civil War=5,6300,000
Revolutionary War=2,532,400
The simple fact of the matter is that the anti-war movement, many who, if you look at their histories, had no problems with the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the marxists Sandinistas--both who waged much bloodier wars that what we are currently seeing in Iraq--have FRAMED this argument to fool the American people. It is truly disgusting.
anonymous;
if you what to know the true imact of war casualties as percentage of population
How cute.
Now do the same thing for the Iraqi population.
The simple fact of the matter is that the anti-war movement, many who, if you look at their histories, had no problems with the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the marxists Sandinistas--both who waged much bloodier wars that what we are currently seeing in Iraq--have FRAMED this argument to fool the American people. It is truly disgusting.
The numbers are simply the numbers. They are not an argument. And when people like Gatewaypundit Jim misrepresent the numbers, they should be corrected.
How many people died in WW2 or the Civil War is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The question is, how many U.S. troops have died unnecessarily? How many of them died because of poor planning or leadership by this administration?
If we win in Iraq, the mistakes that may have led to those deaths will ultimately be forgotten for the most part. If we lose, then all of those deaths will likely be viewed as unnecessary. I still hope the former will be true.
Zota, they are still digging up Saddam's mass graves in Iraq, so I wouldn't go there if I were you.
As for the rest, Iraq is a failure only in the minds of democrats and isolationist republicans. Just go ask the Kurds.
Anonymous:
If you want to extrapolate statistics based on relative population, then I think we should definitely go there.
Multiply every death in Iraq by the scale of America's population (roughly x11), and tell me how you'd feel if it were happening in your city on a relative scale.
What if truck bombings the size of Oklahoma City were happening every couple days? What if death on the scale of 9/11 happened on a monthly basis?
Insurgent attacks in Iraq at highest level in 2 years
Militants exploiting political uncertainty, Pentagon says
By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe Staff | May 31, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon reported yesterday that the frequency of insurgent attacks against troops and civilians is at its highest level since American commanders began tracking such figures two years ago, an ominous sign that, despite three years of combat, the US-led coalition forces haven't significantly weakened the Iraq insurgency.
In its quarterly update to Congress, the Pentagon reported that from Feb. 11 to May 12, as the new Iraqi unity government was being established, insurgents staged an average of more than 600 attacks per week nationwide. From August 2005 to early February, when Iraqis elected a parliament, insurgent attacks averaged about 550 per week; at its lowest point, before the United States handed over sovereignty in the spring of 2004, the attacks averaged about 400 per week.
The vast majority of the attacks -- from crude bombing attempts and shootings to more sophisticated, military-style assaults and suicide attacks -- were targeted at US-led coalition military forces, but the majority of deaths have been of civilians, who are far more vulnerable to insurgent tactics.
``Overall, average weekly attacks during this `Government Transition' period were higher than any of the previous periods," the report states. ``Reasons for the high level of attacks may include terrorist and insurgent attempts to exploit a perceived inability of the Iraqi government to constitute itself effectively, the rise of ethno sectarian attacks . . . and enemy efforts to derail the political process leading to a new government."
As if to underscore the grim report, a spate of violence swept Iraq yesterday. Bombs and other attacks killed 54 people, including an American soldier, according to wire reports. The deadliest bombing, in a popular market in a town about 20 miles north of Baghdad, killed at least 25 people and wounded 65.
Biff:
Some of those things were in fact predicted; others predicted a warm welcome from the Iraqi public. The fact that bad prognosticators on both sides of the debate have been shown to be wrong has little to do with the success of the venture.
As to "moving the goalposts": I think the definition of success that President Bush proposed in his "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq", is a fair one, which is why I quoted it:
"an Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country".
Against that standard, your list of successes (referendum, elections, constitution), sadly, involves events that have had NO discernible impact on the level of peace, unity, stability, or security of Iraq. Don't take my word for it -- read the quotes I posted from prominent, right-leaning Iraqi bloggers.
I'm very sorry to say that the Iraqi government appears to be a sort of show, orchestrated by us to demonstrate progress, rather than a solid foundation for a stable democratic country.
Reagarding the good aspects of Saddam's departure -- most Iraqi bloggers seem to say that, bad as things are now, they prefer to see Saddam gone. Those Iraqis that are untouched by the violence may be marginally better off.
I would remind you, however, that there are a lot of opportunities for us to do immeasurable good with a couple of hundred billion dollars and a couple of hundred thousand US troops that wouldn't involve killing anybody! Nobody from the right seems to be clamoring for any us to take advantage of these opportunities to do good and "spread democracy". So, frankly, I can't buy your suggestion that your support for the war reflects your goodwill towards mankind!
I would also remind you that the talk about spreading democracy didn't begin until, literally, the day the war began. Until Bush's speech of that night, the gist of the selling of the war involved talk of "regime change" and "grave and gathering threats" (which, you will remember, is different from "imminent threats" somehow). The retitling of the war as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was done for PR effect, and you guys clearly bought it, but to lean on the idea that making the lives of Iraqis better by eliminating Saddam was the principal motivation for the war is just hogwash!
More to the point: are WE better off with Saddam gone? I don't think we are. The threat described before the war -- the "mushroom cloud" Dr. Rice warned us of -- turned out to be not much of a threat. Meanwhile, today's world is much more dangerous for America and Americans, and much less favorably disposed to our leadership. Our interests in the Middle East and elsewhere have been hardmed, not helped. And we're poorer by 2,500 fine Americans and several hundred billion dollars!
So... while some Iraqis may be better off without Saddam, making them better off was never your objective. WE are NOT better off. And, most importantly, the trend for both Iraqis and Americans is negative. While you guys talk about the Iraqi government as if it could actually govern (even with us propping it up), and while you're busy working up comparisons of Iraqi death rates to American traffic statistics, the situation on the ground gets farther and farther from the President's stated objective.
AndyS,
You might want to check out the U.S. resolution that was voted on in congress, authorizing force.
It goes over in detail the reasons for invading.
Democracy in the region is one. There were also numerous speeches given prior to the war about the benefits of democracy to the region.
But because no WMD stockpiles were found, after the fact, that became the only factor listed in the resolution. The liberal media essentially erased from history all of the other stuff. It also erased from history the fact that Saddam had a clear plan to reconstitute/evade ect.
It's like saying Jack the Ripper should have never been arrested, because when the went to his house, there was no knife in his possession. Saddam used WMD's in the past, and would have been just like Iran trying to get nukes if we'd left his regime in power.
As for your tossing aside the democratic developments, you completely ignore the fact that the terrorist activities are not having the political impact that they are intended to have.
Also check out Kurdistan or the Marsh Arabs (who've repatriated in droves after fleeing to Iran under Saddam) or the hundreds of thousands of sqare miles where day to day life is coming back to Iraq (rather than on the half a block and a burning car which is the only site the U.S. public sees of Iraq).
If the terrorists "win" it will be because of people like you. You are their target audience. You and others like you who, out of ideological blindness, refuse to see anything other than the daily news accounts of bombings.
Tell me, if Chicago was a city you had never heard of, new nothing about, was half way across the globe, and all you saw of it were daily accounts of every single violent murder, I suspect you'd think it was hell on Earth.
But you do have access to other information about Iraq....which you choose to ignore or belittle. You're internet saavy, and not dependent on the twenty second sound bites to be informed.
Pretty sad indeed.
Oh and with all the stats going around, how bout this one:
60%
The percentage of Iraqi's who went out and voted notwithstanding that Zarqawi pleged death to those who went to the polls.
You think the terrorists are accomplishing their objectives in Iraq?
Are the terrorists accomplishing their objectives with the U.S. media, and Bush's political opponents in the U.S.?
Suggesting yes would have been unfathomable a half century ago. Today, sadly its patently obvious.
Biff:
I've just read through the AUMF of 2002 and the idea of establishing "democracy in the region" is nowhere mentioned -- not in any of the 23 "whereas" clauses, nor in the body of the resolution.
Read the blog entries I posted above from Iraqis (Right-leaning Iraqis, at that!) and tell me again about the half-block of violence.
Face it, Biff -- you guys are getting increasingly irrational in the face of the obvious. The attack on Iraq was a bad idea from the start -- events are proving it, and the trend points to a very unsatisfactory outcome.
You can try to make up statistics like the ones that start this thread, but ultimately you'll be forced to admit the obvious.
At that point, you'll blame people like me. What you'll say is "if only the media and the anti-war lefties hadn't prevented us, we could have won". I suspect you won't know in your hearts that this is a lie... your pattern of self-deception is already well-established.
Your civilian casualty figures, if taken from Iraq Body Count, are just wrong. I think this is because somehow you counted them on Jan 1st, before full data was available.
They have 2004 - 10,480 and 2005 - 14,089.
But you do have access to other information about Iraq...
Yes indeed, biff.
Personally, I read extensive first-hand accounts by Iraqis and on-site witnesses. According to people actually in Iraq, it's deadly, degenerating chaos.
So where exactly are you getting your first-hand accounts about the Chicago style good times in Iraq? (Hey, did you know that more journalists have been killed in Iraq than were killed covering WWII?)
More importantly, if you don't believe the lying "facts", you should go and prove the Em Es Em wrong. Really. Go! The pay rate for contractors in Iraq is astronomical! (I have no idea why the pay is so high, since it's safer than St Louis over there....) You could drive a truck for a few months, deliver some first-hand truth about the Happy Days in Baghdad, and come back a wealthily and respected citizen journalist!
You know, this is such a fantastic opportunity, it's kind of weird that more pro-war bloggers don't do this. It's almost as if most of them are scared of something....
How many of you were actually in the Revolutionary War, Cival War, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, Iraq...? I'm willing to bet none of you. Your arguments are stupid, unthought, and unrelated. If we had the body armor today in WWII I bet there'd be less deaths. What about if we had the medical treatment of today during the Civil War? Would as many soldiers have died? What if we had the strategies and tactics and capabilities of today during the revolutionary war? Would it have been as bloody. NO. Compare apples to apples. And since Iraq and Afganistan are the only apples, quit comparing them to oranges.
Oh yeah, I've been to Iraq. Its not that violent. Except that the people there have a sick and twisted view. I saw a Iraqi boy get rewarded with candy and hugs for deciding to blow himself up near one of our CPs. (Captured video). It only takes a small number of violent people willing to go any distance to make a whole society look out of control.
A scientific sampling of Iraqi opinion confirms the benefits of the US-led regime change.
To give one relevant example implicit in the Brookings Institute's latest report on Iraq, the majority (yes, that means more than 50%) of Iraqis are living fairly safe and secure lives,
"Insurgent attacks tended to be concentrated (85%) in 4 of 18 provinces.
These provinces contain less than 42% of the Iraqi population. Half of the Iraqi population (12 provinces) lives in areas that experience 6%
of all attacks. 6 provinces listed a statistically insignificant number of attacks based on population size. 80% of all attacks are directed
towards Coalition Forces. 80% of all casualties are suffered by the Iraqi population.39"
Moreover, that same report shows most Iraqis still say that they are better off now than before the invasion.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
If that's not enough for you, most Iraqis in 2004 thought the US invasion of Iraq was "right or absolutely right," and most thought that the war was better characterized as "liberation" than "humilation" or something else.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf
This 2006 survey also shows quite a bit of optimism for the near future, even though it was taken before the government was established and Zarqawi was eliminated.
http://www.iri.org/pdfs/04-27-06%20Iraq%20poll%20presentation.ppt#428,10,TREND
The death rate by homicide in the USA is 5.5 per 100,000 [Source: CDC report for 2003, latest year for such stats].
The death rate by homicide in Iraq is 27.5 per 100,000 [Source: Rep. Pete King, C-Span yesterday].
By my count, that makes Iraq 5 times more dangerous than "a random place in the USA".
...so how does this make Iraq safer?...
I think the key to all this statistical mishmash is the inverse relationship between reports of casualties and actual numbers over time.
As our wars become less intense the corresponding media coverage has increased the intensity, proximity, and frequency of its depictions of them.
Someone who remembers WWII coverage might be forgiven for watching todays news and concluding that the Battle for Bagdad has outpaced the Battle for Berlin in carnage.
Folks here know Falluja was not Stalingrad, but they feel the MSM has distorted the American Public's perceptions in that direction, making what historically would be a tolerable war into a quagmire of disastrous proportions.
Post a Comment
Links to this post: