March, 17 2013, 01:23pm EDT
The War in Iraq; 10 Years and Counting
IRAQ
The US/UK-led invasion of March 2003 has brought a decade of high and low intensity armed conflict to Iraq. But this conflict is not yet history. It remains entrenched and pervasive, with a clear beginning but no foreseeable end, and very much a part of the present in Iraq. In major regions of the country armed violence continues to exact a remorseless toll on human life, young and old, male and female, across society.
Since the beginning of 2003 the Iraq Body Count project (IBC) has been continuously tracking, analysing and maintaining a public record of civilian deaths on its website iraqbodycount.org.
The figures below provide a statistical overview of the conflict which outlines its human toll. Numbers are derived from over 31,500 deadly incidents analysed for information including time and location, perpetrators and weapons used, with demographic records for those victims (around 40% of the total) for whom such information could be obtained.
IN SUM:
IBC has documented 112,017 - 122,438 civilian deaths from violence between 20 March 2003 and 14 March 2013.
A complete account of violent deaths that includes Iraqi and foreign combatants (including coalition forces), as well as previously unreported civilian deaths still being extracted by IBC from the Iraq War Logs released by WikiLeaks, would include:
+ 39,900 (combatants killed of all nationalities);
+ 11,500 civilians (likely to be added from the Iraq War Logs); yielding about 174,000 as the number of people documented killed in violence in Iraq since 2003.
IBC has recorded an additional 135,089 civilians injured, along with incident and demographic details where known. However IBC only records injured in incidents where there were also deaths, and (unlike for deaths) official Iraqi figures are consistently higher than IBC's. In May 2012 the Iraqi Ministry of Health reported that there had been 250,000 injured since 2003. (See https://aknews.com/en/aknews/3/306941)
IN DETAIL:
The most intense period for civilian deaths was at the war's very beginning, when more than 6,700 were killed in just 3 weeks of 'Shock and Awe' (from 20th March to the seizure of Baghdad on 9th April: a rate of 320 per day for 21 days).
The most violent month after the invasion was July 2006, with 3,266 violent deaths. The most sustained period for high-level violence was during the fourth and fifth years from March 2006 to March 2008, when 'sectarian' killings peaked and some 52,000 died.
Annual civilian deaths since 2003 (counting from 20 March-19 March each year):
- 14,007 in year one
- 12,001 in year two
- 17,026 in year three
- 31,418 in year four
- 20,930 in year five
- 7,829 in year six
- 4,747 in year seven
- 4,133 in year eight
- 4,433 in year nine
- ~4250 in year ten
The majority of civilian deaths during the first year (at least 55%) were directly caused by US/Coalition forces, who were reported as directly causing around 7% of all deaths in the subsequent period until their formal withdrawal on 31st December 2011.
Current deaths per year for civilians in Iraq (at between 4 and 5 thousand) are still of the same order as the total number of US and Coalition military killed over the entire 10 year period (now 4,804 according to https://icasualties.org). Overall there have been 25 Iraqi civilian deaths for every one US and coalition forces death.
Iraqi victims of the war come from all walks of life. IBC was able to determine the occupation of nearly 23,600 victims, covering some 700 professions. By far the greatest number were police who, along with journalists, are also most likely to have their profession mentioned, and hence to have been most completely recorded.
IBC's documented occupational groupings, and the number of deaths reported for each, include:
- 10,238 police (excluding paramilitaries)
- 2,783 neighbourhood and private security
- 1,605 officials and public sector workers
- 751 community and religious leaders
- 288 journalists and media workers
- 265 medics and health care workers
Among slightly more than 50,000 victims about whom IBC could obtain demographic information, men numbered 38,441 (77%), women 4,373 (8.7%), and children 4,191 (8.4%). The weapons that kill women and children tend to be different from those used to kill adult males, who are more often directly or even individually targeted. (For a detailed account of the demographics of victims and the weapons that killed them, see IBC co-authored articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, PLoS Medicine, and Lancet - see Note 3)
During these ten years 41,636 civilians were killed by explosives (including in 13,441 suicide attacks), and a further 5,725 by air attacks (usually also involving explosive munitions), and 64,226 by gunfire. There were 81 very large-scale bomb attacks over the post-invasion period, each claiming on average 85 lives and leaving about 200 wounded (from 6,879 killed, 16,340 wounded). The worst year for these events was 2007, with 20 such incidents, half of them in Baghdad. (For a review of these incidents up to Oct 2007, see https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/biggest-bombs/)
Baghdad, the country's capital and its political and administrative centre, and also by far its most populous city, has seen the greatest loss of life overall, with 58,252 lives lost (48% of all deaths), and continues to see the largest number of deaths year on year. But when measured against the size of its population, it takes second place to the province of Diyala (capital: Baquba), with civilian violent death rates of 8 per thousand against Diyala's 9 per thousand. Other highly-affected provinces include Anbar (which includes the city of Fallujah) with 6 deaths per thousand and Salah al-Din (capital: Tikrit) with 5 per thousand. Moreover, these last three were the areas with the highest rates of violence (measured against population size) in 2012.
There has been an underlying anti-occupation / anti-government conflict throughout the period, identifiable both by the weapons it uses and its targets, with civilians caught either in the crossfire or targeted for their connection to the government. While deaths generally attributed to sectarian conflict have dropped 10-fold since their height during 2006-2008, deaths linked to anti-government actors have remained roughly steady at around 1,000--3,000 per year throughout, in recent years accounting for around a quarter of deaths (many of these being police).
This anti-government conflict forms a significant part of the violence now entrenched in Iraq, which has shown no diminution in recent years. While military forces were able to bring war to Iraq, it has not left with them.
A proper understanding of the war's human consequences, both past and present, remains to be established. This human question cannot be stated only in terms of numbers. When people die, it is not enough merely to establish how many died but to know who died. This knowledge is taken as a given for coalition soldiers killed, but as far as Iraqi civilian victims are concerned, only a tiny minority of their names or identities are part of the public record.
Of IBC's current total of 122,438 documented civilian deaths, only 8,647 (7%) are even nominally identified. Each has their own page on the IBC website, but the identification of the vast majority is a task for the future, one which will require much broader participation, including from within the Iraqi population.
Iraq Body Count (IBC) is a citizens' initiative devoted to recording the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others. The project was founded in January 2003 by volunteers from the UK and USA who felt a responsibility to ensure that the human consequences of military intervention in Iraq were not neglected.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular