March 20, 2003
The Body Count
A new website is keeping track of the number of civilians killed during the U.S. massacre of Iraq. (See the latest total in the right-hand panel of this blog.)
But why, one wonders, are the counters totting up only civilian casualties? (This question isn't really directed at Iraq Body Count -- whose curators have discussed the matter -- so much as the general public.) Should not Iraqi military casualties, which would otherwise not have occured save for a blatantly illegal U.S. invasion be included as well? A Russian military expert has predicted that the United States, in order to minimise American casualties, is planning to completely wipe out the Iraqi military personnel -- presumably simply burying them with bulldozers, as was done during the first Gulf War. These deaths are no less tragic, no less preventable, and no less criminal than civilian casualties. Furthermore:
• Iraqi soldiers won't even have the option to try to flee the country or otherwise hide from the bombs. • U.S. war planners won't even think twice before destroying their lives (as they, given the world uproar, now might do before bombing civilian infrastructure). • The United States' preferred method of "warfare" -- dropping thousands upon thousands of tonnes of ordnance from high altitude, or launching thousands of missiles from out at sea -- is a supremely cowardly predilection whose intent is to increase the indiscriminate nature of its military destructions while decreasing the number of American military casualties. In other words, the United States' complete dominance of the skies leaves Iraqi military personnel sitting ducks -- with essentially no conceivable way of "fighting back". • The "allied forces" presumably will simply massacre Iraqi soldiers attempting to surrender -- just as during the first Gulf War.
Iraqi military personnel are probably even more sitting ducks than the civilians, yet their deaths are no less criminal. They should be counted as carefully as Iraqi civilian casualties are going to be counted.
Note too that the count doesn't include "indirect" deaths caused by destruction of civilian infrastructure -- though these are likely to be far greater than the number of civilians directly bombed to death. The designers of this study address the issue, and their rationale for not including "indirect" casualties seems reasonable enough. But we should keep it in mind that their tally will far underestimate the total "misery index" brought about by U.S. bombs.
Posted by Eddie Tews at March 20, 2003 02:46 PM
Comments
I am in complete accordance with your perspective that the iraqi military personnel should be included in the bodycounts. I am disturbed by America's self-aggrandizing focus on the families of the deceased US soldiers, most of whom died by accidents, in the face of the rising death count of iraqi people. If we want peace, we must view America as part of the world, not a separate entity. We must view the people of the world as individuals and families, as we do the people of our own nation. I am saddened and sickened that my government says they allow me to participate in making decisions through voting, yet they hired a president who didn't win the popular vote and now is, in my name as an American, invading an already war-torn country. At the least, we have the responsibility to report the numbers, but preferably the names, of the deceased in both countries.
Thank you, MO -- Posted by: MO on March 28, 2003 03:41 PM
Excellent blog. -- Posted by: drublood on March 31, 2003 02:24 AM
I think we should kill them all and let god short it out. Maybe you should go join them. -- Posted by: Jessie Jackson on April 1, 2003 10:31 AM
....the Americans are absolute Barbarians....!!!!!
...I have never seen such savagery.... -- Posted by: Sir Lawrence on April 4, 2003 11:15 AM
When will we finally get over this racist approach to the rest of the world? This shocking war is the most blatant and cynical exercise in state terrorism I have witnessed in my lifetime. I think ALL victims of terrorist atrocities should be remembered, even those perpetrated by America. And yes, conscripted Iraqi soldiers caught up in this onslaught should be counted too, whether or not 'they didnt know what hit them'. One day, when America and its hastily convened 'coalition' come to their senses, re-engage with their public, repent and apologise to the rest of the world, perhaps the people may build a memorial listing the names of all the poor unwitting victims of this blatant act of greed. Let's hope that day is soon. LAW NOT WAR! -- Posted by: ChrisP (UK) on April 4, 2003 03:06 PM
History tells us that the same man who lived in the caves of europe with his beloved dog to keep him warm is the same savage who has exterminated the red man enslaved the black man and dropped weapons of mass destruction on the yellow mans head, Why?? Is it an inferiority complex?? Maybe penis envy?? The population of people of color will continue to rise, the population of those with recessive genes will decrease.... in othert words the first shall be last. If your looking to get your mojo back its too late these caucasoid she-devils cant get enough of black meat wich is helping "color" this euro-pee-on devil's world. Maybe the hole in the ozone will get big enough to the point where those cursed without pigment will catch a dose of skin cancer while they tan in the sun trying to gain the same color they hate so much. White supremecy is dying everyday . Dont hate us 'cause you aint us. Haha, are ya blushing devil?? -- Posted by: OriginalMan on April 5, 2003 03:53 PM
All of you need to keep things in perspective a little better. Yes, we should keep count of their losses. Why not? This, however, is NOT a racist war, and we do not (or should not) have a racist opinion of it. And don't criticize the way the war is being run. You want it to be nicer? Go over there yourself and have at it! Or run for office! The obvious object of US tactics is to minimize losses, period. If we had to take them all out by hand instead of dropping bombs, the death toll on both sides would be much heavier. No one appointed you a military commander for obvious reasons. And no, we do not massacre the prisoners. What kind of crap are you trying to pull? Get your facts right before you go spouting off like that. No wonder Europeans think the Americans are all closed-minded and blind to the goings-on of the world. Your statement is a classic example. -- Posted by: reason on April 5, 2003 06:06 PM
The only thing that justifies any kind of violence is a Catch-22 in itself. Give it a try ...
It's a sick, sick world. -- Posted by: Native on April 6, 2003 05:32 AM
War isn't supposed to be fair. If you have an advantage you exploit that advantage until the enemy no longer has the will to resist. How do you feel about those cowardly Iraqi's using women and children as human-shields while they fire their weapons at US and British troops? Oh yeah, you probably think that's a right-wing lie don't you? Remember, apart from ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism, war has never solved anything. -- Posted by: wyzbok on April 8, 2003 12:06 PM
By the way, ChrisP, if the U.S. military re-engages with it's public they will find that 74% of us support them and their actions. You uninformed peaceniks are in the minority. And when this war is over and the people of Iraq are singing the praises of American and British forces what will you and the other Vietnam re-enactors have to do? Put down the bong and go to class or get a job. Girls won't think you are cool just because you want peace... -- Posted by: wyzbok on April 8, 2003 12:12 PM
How about the last people we "liberated"? Here's what some of them have to say:
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/mar8-02en.htm -- Posted by: rda on April 8, 2003 12:19 PM
I'm sure that many Afghan women and girls have a different view. Not to mention the thousands of Afghans in refugee camps. It's so funny how people can take one minority view and post it as positive proof that America is evil. Ah yes, by leading us to that website you've completely changed our minds. -- Posted by: wyzbok on April 9, 2003 07:41 AM
The author of this blog claims that the US is bad because it tries to kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible without getting its own killed? That's what war means. You kill the opponent and don't let him kill you. It sucks to have to do it but is clearly better than losing thousands of our own. -- Posted by: Scott Tully on April 9, 2003 04:10 PM
should'nt the world have some kind of coalition to counter america's dominance of the world? Especialy with America having a leader with such an obvious napoleinic complex? -- Posted by: canuck on April 10, 2003 06:42 PM
Extremism, be it muslim fundamentalism, oligarchical communism, american do-as-I-say-or-else-ism is never good. Somebody always has to come out the loser, somebody always gets hurt.
What angers many people around the world in the case of Iraq is the apparent lack of consistency in US policy. If this is a question of removing an unquestionably evil man, why isn't the US out getting rid of other unquestionably evil men? Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is just such a tyrant and he's been around for as long as Saddam, but we aren't bombing his palace. If Fidel Castro is really as evil as the Bush administration says he is, why aren't we bombing Havana? What about Burma? The list is long. It boils down to this: why is the suffering of some people more valid than the suffering of others? -- Posted by: Mexico on April 11, 2003 04:55 PM
wyzbok: The justification of this operation is complex. The operation might not be worth the cost. Some people are too easily convinced that the operation is worth any cost, or the cost of a couple thousand allied and civilian lives. You should also not confuse supporting the troops with supporting the war. Each of these two acts are freestanding from each other. You should look into this, before you make any more remarks. -- Posted by: Hampton on April 12, 2003 06:54 AM
Hampy: The 74% support I mentioned was support for President Bush. That entails support for our troops as well as support for the war. And support for everything else Bush is doing. Post 9/11, this operation needed no complex justification. You mention terrorists and weapons of mass destruction together and US citizens are going to want some seriously fast action taken. Just like Iran and their uranium enrichment complex at Natanz. Why does a country with one of the largest oil supplies in the world need nuclear power? Especially a country that is very vocal with their hatred of the US and supports terrorist groups within their borders and abroad. Get ready to feel the heat... -- Posted by: wyzbok on April 15, 2003 12:42 PM
ask the supposed human shields if they would go again after learning about saddam's kindness to his own. .... to m. osborn , do you not know that our gov. does not elect by popular votes so that 2 or 3 cities do not have advantage of electing/bribe our elected .. further , independent group counted every vote in my contested state in every possible way and it still resulted in bush win. so get over it -- Posted by: tom on April 17, 2003 10:11 AM
I think many of you show a great deal of naivity if you belive that the US is up to any good in Iraq. They have just murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, most of the male population between 15-35. They have littered the entire country with atomic waste for a second time, which will further increase the already ridiculous levels of cancer and child birth deformaties. (Increased by 700 percent since 1st gulf war)They have destroyed the infrastructure of the country, and colluded in the pillaging of its cultural heritage, and burning of its art. The have murdered 1.5 million Iraqi's with sanctions alone. They have stolen the wealth of Iraq and parceled it off amongst their zionist friends in business. They are in the process of deconstructing what is lef tof the infrastructure before they install another puppet (Saddam was their first) and start the story all over again. It is a continuation of the British policy in the region, which also furhtered zionist interests. Indeed its funny how all the politicians and the so called Neo-Conservatives are all jewish. And dont start with the usual anti-semite line, its just a fuking fact. Wolfowitz was also the advisor to another far right facist Israeli Government under Benjamin Netunyaho. The press in the US is complete and utter bullshit brainwashing. And its spreading to the rest of the world too now. Our news has become some kind of Nazi propaganda instrument and we call it freedom of the press?!!? Journalists who voice opposition are murdered. Scores in Iraq, including prominant British journalist 'falling off buildings'. Its worse than fucking Orwellian its genocide wrapped in silk wrapping. Bush is a fuking crazy fundamentalist himself who thinks hes on some kind of crusade. He now installing evangelists to run the aid programs to iraq which they give them...menial food in return for the wealth of the world. They are going to try to 'christianise' iraq!! The absurdity of it...like iraq doesnt already have christians. Indeed there are large christian communities in all the arab countries who live quite happily with their neighbours. Jews too lived here happily and were never persecuted, unlike in europe. Islam belives in the same god as the jews and the christians, one God the GOd. Allah is just arabic for God. So get educated and you might not sound like such a muppet to the rest of the world you poor brainwashed yanki FOOLS! -- Posted by: StuffU on April 20, 2003 07:21 PM
StuffU: The pollution of US weapons can't compare to Saddam's burning of oil wells. The genius of American "colonialism" was recognizing that it's cheaper to simply pay the natives than send an army to occupy and steal as the Europeans did for centuries. If that had been the goal, Kuwait had all the oil we needed. Fact: the Baath party was founded in the 1940s and was modeled on the Nazi party of the then occupying Germans. And yes, Jews and Christians still live in the middle east in apparent "peace" just like black people lived peacefully in the American south during the Jim Crow years - just ask any who have left. -- Posted by: Mike on April 23, 2003 03:22 PM
Afghan civilian death toll at over 3,000, Iraqi civilian death toll at over 2,000.
Why do almost NO war supporters even bother to find out the numbers?
Because they are selfish, pathologically self-interested, short sided, egotistical, materialistic imperialists, just like Dad said conservatives were. Bill Clinton's lie about a blow job is a much bigger deal to them than Bush's lies about Iraqi nuclear weapons shopping, because Bush's lies killed people in the name of patriotic fervor and Clinton's lies killed no one, but offered them no group psychological sugar-tit to soothe their materialistic insecurity. What they become offended at speaks volumes about value systems.
If you are watching, you know what I just wrote makes much more sense than George Bush working for a nuclear free world at the same time he's pushing for 6 megaton precision weapons development. -- Posted by: Joe on May 10, 2003 05:54 PM
George W reminds me of a spoiled, rich white kid, let loose in the world's largest toy store and told to take anything and everything he wants, including the employees. Thousands and thousands, perhaps millions, of Iraqi protest daily against American occupation but alas, has this changed the little man's mind? Hell no? Has anyone ever, ever intervened with our government? HEll NO! Who made us world police? Peace. -- Posted by: Ginger Grant on July 7, 2003 01:30 PM
I noticed a lot of pro-war comments on this blog, before the "peace" that Bush declared started. One even said that the Iraqi people would sing the praises of the US and British Liberators. Now, it's nearing the end of July. Over 220 US soldiers, whether from grenade attacks, or according to the military, "non-combat gunshot wounds," are dead. Where are the Iraqis singing praises of US soldiers? I don't see them splashed across CNN... where are they? It's only one thing that the occupied ever have in mind for the occupiers: GET THE F*CK OUT! -- Posted by: Jim on July 20, 2003 01:42 PM