Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iraq's Million
In the Fantasy Middle East, the troop surge is helping plucky Iraq get its act together; and Iran, as serious a threat as ever and still lusting to start World War III, awaits liberation by the superpower known as "Johnny Democracy."
In the reality version, our legacy is bad water, cancer and social chaos. Iraq has, by one scientific extrapolation, surpassed the million mark in war dead and continues to rack up other numbers (4 million internal and external refugees, for instance, but not to worry, only 133 of them got into the U.S. this year) that . . . I dunno, maybe it's just me . . . seem antithetical to the idea of democracy. And of course, as the latest National Intelligence Estimate has just embarrassingly informed the world, Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program four years ago.
But so what? The president and his coterie of "High Nooniacs" want to invade Iran anyway and spread our pretend - and, unavoidably, our real - legacy to that country as well, and if they really set their minds to it, make the right calls, rally the media, pound the fear button, pound it again, they'll do it, reality (and its wide-eyed, stunned adherents) be damned. We won't stop them. We have nothing but our scattered selves.
War has America.
Like it or not, all the war protest in the many forms in which it is currently flowering - from the impeach-a-dope movement to the public rallies to the political dissent to the courageous independent reporting that gives citizens unprecedented access to war-zone reality - does not a nation make. Only war and war culture do that, which means, it's infinitely easier to start a war than it is to stop or prevent one, because going to war, however gratuitously, is just a nation being itself, doing what it was built to do.
And, as we witness these days with the behavior of so many Democratic congressmen, even a politician who has no enthusiasm for or in fact "opposes" a given war will nevertheless support it by default in far more ways than he or she will dare commit the patriotic heresy of attempting to outright thwart it.
Barbara Ehrenreich, in "Blood Rites," her extraordinary 1997 examination of the history of the passions of war, writes of the evolution of the phenomenon: "Meanwhile, war has dug itself into economic systems, where it offers a livelihood to millions, rather than to just a handful of craftsmen and professional soldiers. It has lodged in our souls as a kind of religion, a quick tonic for political malaise and a bracing antidote to the moral torpor of consumerist, market-driven cultures."
Saying this, I return to the figure of a million war dead in Iraq, pause in horrified awe that, one, it could be possible, and two, it hasn't made mainstream headlines, where big, round numbers normally scream with significance.
The estimate, by the U.K. organization Just Foreign Policy and corroborated by the market research firm Opinion Research Business, extrapolates from data published just over a year ago in the respected British medical journal Lancet, which indicated a violent-death toll, as of May 2006, of 650,000. The death rate has been accelerating in the past year, making the current estimate of 1.2 million dead at least feasible.
And I mention this number with the caveat that it refers only to deaths directly attributable to the war: by bomb, missile, bullet, IED, etc. The total indirect war dead, from disease caused by the war's stupendous environmental contamination combined with the destruction of Iraq's medical infrastructure, may be incalculable.
But again, so what? And the fact that the war, in times that are otherwise so tight we have to cut back on actual security expenditures, is running up a tab of, oh, a buck a nanosecond and will tally maybe $2 trillion when all bills are in, gets a double so what. That won't stop it.
Media coverage of this debacle has, admittedly, worn a frowny face of late, but it has stopped short of bringing the wasteland Bush's war on terror is creating into our living rooms. The delicate problem the war-media face is to draw down this disaster with face-saving decorum and dissipate blame to the extent possible so that no high-level people are punished; and, above all, to be protective of future wars so that "Iraq syndrome" doesn't do some sort of permanent damage to military culture or, God forbid, the defense budget.
The Bush presidency has pushed the paradox of nationalism to a crisis. We owe it to Iraq's million dead, and to our own wounded future, to stand for the impossible. The building of human societies that have transcended war begins today.
Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.
© 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
166 Comments so far
Show All"LOGICAL FALLACY"
Jake when you you point your finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing at you!
You would have been one of the Good Germans suffering from LOGICAL FALLACY to conclude [unless evidence or statistics proved otherwise] that the towns incinerated refuse was burning in the Smoke Stacks not the bodies of 6 million Jews..
Like you, they failed to connect the dots; notwithstanding the subjective nature of these dots...
Your LOGICAL FALACY defence, in support of your limited view is denied..
"I will demonstrate that the above statements are false."
WOW... how arrogant and grandiose of you to genuinely think you can demonstrate the full extent of this tragedy... You have no idea at all what goes on in WAR ZONE. When you fail to admit basic evidencary facts that a bare minimum of 12,500 Iraq bodies have disappeared in Falluja alone.
Iraq Doctors working in a hostile War Zone deemed 11% of recorded casualties no death certificates were furnished by relatives; since no bodies were found...
I would humbly suggest this is just the tip of the Iceberg! Oh wiseth one, I beseech thee to be more charitable in thine views...Jake enough of this patronising SHIT.
Think outside the box CONNECT THE DOTS
But alas, Jake you continue to disappoint me with this meager, scant and mendacious argumentative stance. Your 'cherry picking' and 'tangential claims' has escalated to the sophistic depths that only Bu$hCo would be proud...
Didn't you hear? Iraq has only seen, at most, 80 to 90 thousand dead civilians. Just ask the U.S. government and their corporate media parrots.
What are the *very best* reasons to believe the Lancet study and to dismiss the widely held criticisms of that study?
"The death rate has been accelerating in the past year"
A citation for this would be nice.
But the nightly news starts out every night with a weather report.........
It's December and it's snowing!!
the war seemingly subsided a little for a little while..because seemingly everybody was dead or displaced.seemingly new citizens have been recruited to take their places only they are not the good family type of people that used to populate iraq and they are also not sane or reasonable..because who in their 'right' mind would now want to live there ??
I can't think of what a million...of anything...really is. I remember the 15+ million who marched against the war - but I only saw it on TV (besides being in one of those marches). I was once in the Zocalo for Mexico's independence day - that was reported to be over a million people. But I was inside of that mass of people, so I couldn't see it.
I know I've never seen a million dollars.
Elementary teachers often have to figure out how to do show their students the profound greatness of 1,000,000 as a number. Go here to see how one teacher does it.
But...
How long would it take to count to a million? Well, counting once per second (easy at the start, but tough when you reach the hundred thousand mark), eight hours per day, seven days per week (no weekends off), it would take you a little over a month to count to one million!
" can't think of what a million…of anything…really is. "
A common problem. But I had asked a question that should make you wonder why you would have to in this case.
"Elementary teachers often have to figure out how to do show their students the profound greatness of 1,000,000 as a number."
For us adults, brushing up on your scientific notation is a good way to help make sense of large numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation
jakenewton
no serious statistician had questioned the results of the study. as with all such studies,because the full poulation cannot be studied, a random sample of the population was analyzed, and the results extrapolated. do you actually think, when exit polls of election are conducted, or the no of cigarrettes smoked is counted, that the entire population is polled?
the deaths reported in the study were corraborated from additional sources and in depth questioning.
if the population sample is considered small, it affects the possible range if the results. the range was mentioned in the study, but the basic estimate remains unchanged.
you may choose to disbelieve the results, but a lot of the public health statistics in US and UK originate from these instititutions, with similar study technique.
"no serious statistician had questioned the results of the study. "
Nor have they been endorsed.
"the deaths reported in the study were corraborated from additional sources "
Certainly not from records of death certificates issued, nor have there been the expected numbers of wounded seeking medical attention, nor have we been able to find the bodies or graves of so many.
The bottom line is that the one million figure is not the final word on this, not even close, and is grossly out of step with any other source.
"you may choose to disbelieve the results,"
There are good reasons to be skeptical of this study and it's results, yet many seem to just accept it as fact.
"a lot of the public health statistics in US and UK originate from these instititutions, with similar study technique."
Stating that you use a certain methodology is quite different from correctly implementing that methodology.
The raw numbers have not been made public.
The Lancet Study used universally accepted methodology in determining wartime casualties. This was accepted by the British government in another of those famous "internal memos" we were never meant to hear about.
Principles of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950
No. 82
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.
Introductory note: Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the Intemational Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374-378).
Authentic text: English Text published in Report of the International Law Commission Covering its Second Session, 5 June-29 Duly 1950, Document A/1316, pp. 11-14.
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
1. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
3. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
Meanwhile, the Lancet study is never cited within mainstream media, whether with caveats or not, while the laughable "Iraq Body Count": numbers are repeated endlessly in spite of the fact that the methodology used is embarrassingly half-assed, as even the layman can see at a glance.
"The Lancet Study used universally accepted methodology "
Stating that you use a certain methodology is quite different from correctly implementing that methodology.
The raw numbers have not been made public.
Nor a detailed explanation of the implementation of the study.
Where are all the bodies? They've found all kinds of *old* mass graves from the old regime. And that was said to be "only" around 350,000.
Jakenewton, I'm not sure what the Iraq death toll is, but there are other polls that suggest a much higher number than the official statistics beloved of Iraq Body Count. For instance, there was a poll conducted early in 2007 by an agency at the request of the BBC, USA Today and a few other news organizations which found that 1 out of 6 households had suffered at least one casualty (dead or wounded) in the previous 3 years. This is not the ORB poll that recently claimed one million dead, but a different one by a different organization. One can't get a precise number out of their household figure (you can get low hundreds or mid hundreds of thousands of deaths, depending on assumptions you make), but it flatly contradicts one of IBC's arguments, which is that we have trustworthy statistics on the number of wounded for the two year period from 2004-2006. The figure they gave for that period (I think about 60,000) was far far lower than this poll would suggest.
You mentioned mass graves. It's not a good time to be looking for those. And anyway, the mass graves from Saddam's era still haven't come close to yielding the number supposedly killed by his forces, so either he didn't kill 300,000 Iraqis or else a civil war is a difficult time to be doing careful historical or sociological research.
Official statistics are highly untrustworthy in any war. Without endorsing the Lancet or ORB numbers, it is probably safe to say that the true death toll is in the hundreds of thousands (though possibly low hundreds rather than high hundreds).
Donald, you make some good points and I am glad to see you don't simply accept the Lancet number.
Crossposted with you jakenewton. Blair and others claimed that the Saddam-era mass graves contained hundreds of thousands of bodies, but of the ones examined when he made that claim, the total was far, far less. I'd have to dig up the old articles to find the numbers.
But it does raise the question--if you're skeptical of the large numbers now, why trust the Saddam-era claims? There's been no body count. I personally suspect Saddam did kill a few hundred thousand, but I also suspect that the number killed since 2003 is comparable or larger.
jakenewton December 6th, 2007 1:05 pm:
"Certainly not from records of death certificates issued, nor have there been the expected numbers of wounded seeking medical attention, nor have we been able to find the bodies or graves of so many."
Er,… right jakenewton and while we are at it let's get those death certificates from My Lai, The Killing Fields and the Rwandan Genocide.
I see...so it's a conspiracy. For anyone who wants to read the report themselves, here it is:
http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf
What raw numbers are missing? I'm admittedly not an expert on mortality studies, but this seems pretty thorough to me.
British government response to the Lancet Study, "The design of the Lancet study and its statistical methodology passed the process of peer review before publication and is similar to that followed in cases where the data are difficult to obtain."
The excess deaths from cancer and birth defects caused by depleted uranium should be added to the death toll. .http://whohijackedourcountry.blogspot.com/2005/04/deaths-from-depleted-uranium.html
Whoops...that was the early study, here's the updated study:
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
We have something called The Government Accountability Office. I think somebody or other changed the name from "Accounting" to "Accountability" and in that moment we stopped counting and started theorizing about laying off government workers who count things, including, of course, people who have died.
You want better counts from your officials. Get some Democrats to replace some Republicans.
"What raw numbers are missing?"
The raw numbers include the responses to each question from each unique household. Yes, that's missing, unless I missed it.
"The design of the Lancet study and its statistical methodology passed the process of peer review before publication and is similar to that followed in cases where the data are difficult to obtain."
Peer review is not endorsement of results or correct execution.
I see. You want the thousands of pages of raw documents to look at and study prior to giving the study the benefit of the doubt? The "peer review" of those documents, which satisfied the British government (who clearly didn't like the final tally, mind you) isn't enough for you to give it some credence? Let's extrapolate that idea....you must then never take medicine prescribed by your doctor, right? After all, you didn't study the numerous raw data tests done by the scientists who developed the medicine, or the FDA which approved it? I could go on and on with similar examples. You see where I'm going here?
Please, enlighten me as to what exactly you think "peer review" accomplishes? Besides opening the study to intense scrutiny among experts within the same field of study, in an effort to strengthen the acceptance of the methodology and execution.
The only way "peer reviewing" ISN'T an endorsement of results or execution is when you can produce a "peer" who publishes a finding that reveals a fatal flaw within the study. Can you?
"You want the thousands of pages of raw documents to look at and study prior to giving the study the benefit of the doubt? "
That's "raw data". You can put it in a spreadsheet.
"Please, enlighten me as to what exactly you think "peer review" accomplishes?"
Generally it only says that a work is worthy of publication.
"The only way "peer reviewing" ISN'T an endorsement of results or execution is when you can produce a "peer" who publishes a finding that reveals a fatal flaw within the study. "
Total BS.
jake newton
perhaps you can give us a nonpolitical link to the 'incorrect' execution of the lancet study. as to peer review not being an endorsement of results- it is a misleading statement. peer review is never meant to endorse the result. it implies that several peers have not been able to detect a flaw in the study.
Peer review means to put a study up to intense scrutiny by ones peers in a specific field. The goal is to give it more credibility, if those peers find no flaws. Conversely, if flaws are found, it can kill a study. Please show me the peer reviewed finding that find fatal flaws. As far as I know, there are none. Which tells me the results and execution were, for all intent and purpose, endorsed. No?
"Peer review means to put a study up to intense scrutiny by ones peers in a specific field. "
Not true.
jakenewton--so you read the whole of the Lancet report, composed your reply, and clicked publish in under 30 minutes? I suppose you also doubt the numbers arrived at to determine the sanctions regime were genocidal, that well over 500,000 child deaths were "worth it."
The policy pursued by the US government since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait is one of promoting/facilitating a genocidal holocaust. That is THE REALITY, and it's a reality that people like you wholeheartedly support.
You only have admittedly "political" sources for your criticism? Not a single scientific source? Anywhere?
I'm curious, can you hit us with a link of what you consider the best argument against the Lancet study? I'd like to read it.
From IBC:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/
karlof1,
Yes, let's take a stroll down memory lane...
"A reaction might take place as a result of the US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians." Osama Bin Laden on CNN, 1997
On May 11, 1996 Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl about the reported 500,000+ Iraqi children who died in Iraq as a direct result of U.S. imposed sanctions. Her reply stunned many, "I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price was worth it."
The history of the sanctions (rarely, if ever discussed in mainstream media) begins with the strategic bombings of critical infrastructure within Iraq during the 1st Gulf War. The U.S. dropped over 90,000 tons of bombs, intentionally destroying civilian infrastructure, including 18 of 20 electricity-generating plants and the water-pumping and sanitation systems. The bombings themselves were a direct violation of the Geneva Convention against the specific targeting of infrastructure "indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," thus making them a war crime.
Recently released de-classified documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed that the U.S. knew full well that Iraqi water needed purification with chlorine in order to avoid "epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis and typhoid." Later documents revealed that the U.S.-imposed sanctions SPECIFICALLY embargoed the import of chlorine needed to purify the water systems. Additionally, the U.S. sanctions forbade the import of the parts needed to repair the damaged purification and sanitation systems.
The results of these actions are well documented. Colonel John A. Warner III wrote in Airpower Journal, "…as a result (of the destruction of these facilities), epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps 100,000 civilian deaths and doubling the infant mortality rate." Anupama Rao Singh, the United Nations Children's Fund Representative in Baghdad observed that food shortages were virtually unknown in Iraq prior to what the State department admitted were the "toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history." Richard Garfield's universally accepted mortality studies put the number of Iraq children killed because of the sanctions at 350,000. The Lancet study, for the British Medical Society, estimated it at 550,000. Denis Halliday, the U.N. coordinator in Iraq called the sanctions, "a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq," calling their implementation "genocide." His resignation in 1998 in protest received little if any coverage by the U.S. corporate media.
Makes you proud, eh?
"perhaps you can give us a nonpolitical link to the 'incorrect' execution of the lancet study. "
"nonpolitical"? Of course not. The criticisms are widely known though, and should be evaluated on their own merits.
I didn't mean that link to be the best example, just one.
I'll read it anyway.... ;)
Though Iraq Body Counts methodology is laughable on its face, in my humble opinion. But I'm curious as to their response to the Lancet.
"You only have admittedly "political" sources for your criticism? Not a single scientific source? "
I wasn't clear. The most "scientific" source would be seen as political by someone. It's probably impossible to be completely devoid of politics on something like this.
"Though Iraq Body Counts methodology is laughable on its face, in my humble opinion."
Do you understand thier stated mission? In light of that, what is the matter with their methodology?
solrak
A few years ago I helped a kid named Charlie who was working in our warehouse to imagine how many people Lyndon Johnson killed in Vietnam. The figure was around a million. So. What do a million dead people look like? Take 30 Wall Street Journal pages and carpet the floor of your house with them. Pretend that every character of type on those pages, every "p" and "q" and "r" and comma is a dead person, and that you are high above them in a helicopter looking down. It looks like that.
Of course my point was lost on Charlie. He said: They would've died anyway.
I understand the mission statement. The problem is the mission statement serves very little positive purpose, practically speaking. First of all, it relies on Iraqi government records, which immediately loses all credibility, especially when the Iraqi government officials are under the very large thumb of Washington. Secondly, and most absurdly, it relies on "media" reports of deaths, as though the majority of "media" aren't locked safely in the green zone, if in the country at all.
With that being said, the biggest problem I have with the IBC numbers is the fact that the admittedly low body count numbers have been essentially hijacked by pro-war advocates, in an effort to give the impression that the number of dead civilians isn't very high. The very existence of the IBC has proven to be a counterproductive propaganda tool for imperial hawks and their media parrots. IBC is cited more than any other study, but without making the "mission statement" clear. The numbers are put forth as "estimates of civilian deaths" as opposed to "confirmed civilian deaths," with an actual number being MUCH higher. How much higher? That's the debate. But either way, IBC might as well be a Bush administration invention, considering how often it's a go-to source for neo-cons and their supporters.
I'm still reading the IBC rebuttal to the Lancet...
"But either way, IBC might as well be a Bush administration invention, considering how often it's a go-to source for neo-cons and their supporters."
What statements on their website would lead you to believe that?
Nothing on their website.
You misunderstood my point. They are BEING USED by pro-war advocates to fool the public. That's why they "may as well be a Bush administration invention." Get it? They may or may not have a noble purpose, but practically speaking, they have become a tool of pro-war propaganda. Recently, IBC numbers were put forth on "The McClaughlin Goup" as "maximum numbers of dead civilians." Propaganda. Period.
I read the IBC rebuttal, and while it makes some interesting points on it's face, it still bases it's criticisms on "media" reports and Iraqi Ministry of Health and Morgue statistics etc, which seems dubious to me.
Lancet's low estimate of 495,000 seems realistic to me...but what do I know. We'll find out decades from now a more accurate number. Let's remember that lowball numbers were tossed around during Vietnam also, and we now know the horrific reality was much different. Government endorsed numbers have been historically low, significantly so, for obvious reasons.
IBC only reports deaths documented by at least three reports from media or NGO's. In the chaos of Iraq and the near total US control of information getting out of iraq, and the near absense of NGO observers, it is obvious that IBC considerably undercounts the death toll.
As far as the Lancet study, as was pointed out, if you believe that it is flawed, than you are effectively claiming that:
1. The theorems of statistical mathematics itself are flawed; or,
2. The scientists created phoney raw data for their study - at risk of likely complete destruction of their careers and livlihoods, and possible criminal penalties.
BTW, I've never heard of a scientific paper containing the authors raw data and calculations. They no doubt were made available to reviewers on request.
so, your extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. So far every criticism of the Lancet study were ignorant statements from was from politicians and pundits who had no knowlege of statistical mathematics and methods.
One dead Iraqi as a result of our illegal actions is one too many!!!
Quibbling over any higher number is meaningless by any standard.
There is a verse from the Holy Qur'an:
"...to kill one person is like killing the whole of mankind...And to give life to one person is like giving life to the whole of mankind"
The Holy Quran (5:32)
tommybones,
Statistics are always reported along with their confidence intervals. If you are going to give more "belief" in the low confidence interval, then, you must also give equal "belief" to the upper confidence interval. The 2006 Lancet study reported 654,965 (95%CI 392,979–942,636) excess Iraqi deaths. The probability that it is actually the lower limit is EXACTLY the same as the probability that it is the upper limit.