Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

well i dont know about most people - there were plenty of people saying that even if regime change were good, it wasnt worth the 500,000 or so civilian casualties that would result from war. I think that was a big part, explicitly or implicitly of most "cost benefit" calculations that were against the war.

That's a fair comment. I don't think that most people could have predicted that the Iraqui armed forces just wouldn't fight. I certainly thought that casualties would be higher. But that doesn't prevent us from noticing the renewed vgour of terrorist attacks and the simmering ethnic problems in Iraq.

After all, most of those who opposed the war said that they would support Saddams overthrow, if it was done by the Iraqi people and not by coalition forces. If it had been done by the Iraqi people most of the postwar problems would still exist.

Any revolution is going to create problems. However, an overthrow of Saddam by the Iraqui people would have created very little in the way of political problems compared to foreign occupation.

That said, it is certainly to early to do a final "cost benefit" on the war - both the political situation in Iraq, and the longer term impact on international relations are still too unclear.

That's true. But at the moment it doesn't look too good. The usual complaint is that the US is lousy at dealing with the aftermath of war.

Nonetheless the claims of 500,000 to a million civilian casualties were wildly wrong. Even if the LA Times' s number is correct, and is not just copied from the Herrold website, and even if you double it for the rest of the country, that is still low compared to the annual murders committed by the regime.

I suspect it's probably too low. But then again it is never going to get up to 500 thousand.

[Dinner]

On a more upbeat note the BBC is reporting that all Iraqi government employees are now getting paid again. Only now their getting paid in dollars and Uncle Sam is footing the bill. The explination is that the old Saddam currency is nearly worthless and if we're going to pay the Iraqi policeman, hospital workers, and what not then we should atleast give them money which isn't worthless.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Oerdin
if we're going to pay the Iraqi policeman, hospital workers, and what not then we should atleast give them money which isn't worthless.

Then why are we paying them in US Dollars?

[Sandman]

Why the misconception that if facilities are not working, people will immediately die? humans are pretty reselient creatures, really.

Infectious diseases are most deadly towards children, who compose a substantial part of the Iraqi population. Delivering a baby in Iraq must be a blast for the mother, as well.

[Agathon]

Let me add that the left's cynicism about the motives for the war is looking more correct every day.

There seem to be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no real evidence that they had significant amounts. Any justification of the war from that angle is rightly now seen as ridiculous. Add to that, that sensible people don't believe for a minute that the US was interested in liberating the Iraqui people and you have a good case for cynicism.

Add to that the semi-withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and this can be seen as what it is - an attempt by the United States to consolidate its military control over this strategically important region (they can now pressure the Saudis much more effectively) - which is what I and others have been saying all along.

[Az]

Should've used pills or condoms, then.

Look, I am not saying this is good. But when I see a figure like 500,000...

[Dinner]

These death toll figures can only be seen as the best possible out come. Also I don't share Agathon's belief that a native revolt against Saddam would have resulted in a better situation; much more likely it would have been long and blood resulting in many more deaths and most likely the creation of another evil repressive state like Iran.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's a fair comment. I don't think that most people could have predicted that the Iraqui armed forces just wouldn't fight.

A lot of prowar people did predict precisely that. I believe I did, right here on this forum. We were told that we were naive and were underestimating Iraqi "nationalism". That we were right reflects not just luck, i think, but that our view of what it means to live under this kind of regime was more accurate than the view of those who expected bitter resistance from the people of Baghdad.

I certainly thought that casualties would be higher. But that doesn't prevent us from noticing the renewed vgour of terrorist attacks and the simmering ethnic problems in Iraq.

Its far from clear if there is any connection between the AQ attacks and the war in Iraq. Certainly theres been no flow of millions of new recruits. The simmering ethnic problems were not predicted by most making the antiwar case. Instead an ethnic bloodbath was predicted. The simmering problems are far less.

Any revolution is going to create problems. However, an overthrow of Saddam by the Iraqui people would have created very little in the way of political problems compared to foreign occupation.

I dont see that. Looting, infrastructure problems, insecurity, Iranian intervention, ethnic rivalries, violence by regime holdouts would all have been just as bad, if not worse.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Let me add that the left's cynicism about the motives for the war is looking more correct every day.

There seem to be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no real evidence that they had significant amounts. Any justification of the war from that angle is rightly now seen as ridiculous. Add to that, that sensible people don't believe for a minute that the US was interested in liberating the Iraqui people and you have a good case for cynicism.

Add to that the semi-withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and this can be seen as what it is - an attempt by the United States to consolidate its military control over this strategically important region (they can now pressure the Saudis much more effectively) - which is what I and others have been saying all along.

if you're losing the argument, change the subject. If we had found lots of WMD right away, and we had more civilian casualties, we would have been told that the only thing that mattered was the extent of civilian casualties. So naturally in a thread about civilian casualties, which were low, it is necessary to bring up WMD.

Well, OK. You are confusing the prudential and legal cases for the war. The prudential case for war certainly included the prospect of being better situated to bring pressure on Saudi Arabia. need I remind you that 3000 of my fellow citizens were murdered on 9/11 by a terrorist group that received financial (and probably other) assistance from within the Saudi kingdom, and that the Saudi kingdom is the center for radical wahabi incitement? WMD where the casus belli - and let us recall, UNSC 1441 required Saddam to prove that he DID not have WMD - there is no evidence he was not in violation of that - if he had really destroyed all WMD prior to 2002 (which i do not believe) why didnt he encourage his scientists to cooperate? Was it to keep the IMPRESSION he had WMD, which would give him the same regional leverage but at less expense? If so then we were certainly right to go after him, even if no WMD are found.

As for democracy, we certainly intend to do that, its essential to our grand strategy against terrorism in the region.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
Should've used pills or condoms, then.

Look, I am not saying this is good. But when I see a figure like 500,000...

The only poster on this site I know of you used that figure of expected deaths from this latest war was paiktis, and he claims it came from the UN, which is as legitimate a source as any.

The US is now putting off Iraqi self-rule "indefinately."

[Arrian]

I'm glad somebody went in and tried to count. Of course it can't be 100% accurate, but it at least provides a basis for rational discussion of the human cost of the war.

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Che, This is great news. Such low casualties are a credit to the planning of the US military and the American Government. Obviously many times this were saved, if the mass graves we are uncovering are any indication. I think it is right big of you to step up with something that so obviously justifies the Administration policy!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The US is now putting off Iraqi self-rule "indefinately."

No, we're arguing about whether it will be called an Iraqi Interim Authority, an Iraqi Interim Government, or an Iraqi Interim Administration. Iraqi politicians got all hot and bothered that we were gonna call it an "authority" - they wanted to call it a "government" we want to save that for the eventual elected government (1 to 2 years, not indefinitely). Compromise is will call it "administration" and oh yeah, we wont have it in place by end of May, as Garner had promised. Largely because while progress on self-rule has been good in south and north, its been almost non-existent in Baghdad, the area supervised by the now fired Barbara Bodine. Bremer will need some more time to get Baghdad in order, and to clean up ex-Baathists.

Some of the delay has apparently been caused by internal squabbling between DoD and CIA, which favored the ex-Baathists. Hopefully the appointment of Bremer means thats done for.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The US is now putting off Iraqi self-rule "indefinately."

No, we're arguing about whether it will be called an Iraqi Interim Authority, an Iraqi Interim Government, or an Iraqi Interim Administration. Iraqi politicians got all hot and bothered that we were gonna call it an "authority" - they wanted to call it a "government" we want to save that for the eventual elected government (1 to 2 years, not indefinitely). Compromise is will call it "administration" and oh yeah, we wont have it in place by end of May, as Garner had promised. Largely because while progress on self-rule has been good in south and north, its been almost non-existent in Baghdad, the area supervised by the now fired Barbara Bodine. Bremer will need some more time to get Baghdad in order, and to clean up ex-Baathists.

Some of the delay has apparently been caused by internal squabbling between DoD and CIA, which favored the ex-Baathists. Hopefully the appointment of Bremer means thats done for.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The US is now putting off Iraqi self-rule "indefinately."

No, we're arguing about whether it will be called an Iraqi Interim Authority, an Iraqi Interim Government, or an Iraqi Interim Administration. Iraqi politicians got all hot and bothered that we were gonna call it an "authority" - they wanted to call it a "government" we want to save that for the eventual elected government (1 to 2 years, not indefinitely). Compromise is will call it "administration" and oh yeah, we wont have it in place by end of May, as Garner had promised. Largely because while progress on self-rule has been good in south and north, its been almost non-existent in Baghdad, the area supervised by the now fired Barbara Bodine. Bremer will need some more time to get Baghdad in order, and to clean up ex-Baathists.

Some of the delay has apparently been caused by internal squabbling between DoD and CIA, which favored the ex-Baathists. Hopefully the appointment of Bremer means thats done for.