Iraqi civilian body count site

[JCG]

I saw this a couple of days ago...I agree with the need for such a tally (though probably this one isn't going to be the most accurate, it's a start).

Yeah, the numbers will climb up really quick once urban fighting starts in the capital, but Saddam Hussein also carries a fair share of the blame for that....I mean, arming the population, placing SAM batteries in the middle of cities, etc....

[Urban Ranger]

Rufus,

Good link. So you are sticking around...

Originally posted by GePap
Of course Saddam doesn't mid high civilian casualties in the South. He has killed enough of them before, and high civilian casualties will lead to greater anti-US resentment outsie of Iraq, and make it harder within Iraq. That is also why the US is doing evrything it can to keep them low, like not having taken out the electric (and hence perhaps water system) of Baghdad yet.

Not anymore.

Further, AFAIK, they have knocked out power and water supply in Basra.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Further, AFAIK, they have knocked out power and water supply in Basra.

Source?

PS Seems that the civilian revolt everyone has waited on has started. Here's hoping that it gathers steam.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=360492003

[Dis]

Is this kind of thread allowed?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Source?

PS Seems that the civilian revolt everyone has waited on has started. Here's hoping that it gathers steam.

ABC

[Jaguar]

Why wouldn't it be, Diss?

[MichaeltheGreat]

First - power was cut to deny Iraqis air defense and comms assets. Loss of water was incidental, since it has to be pumped. At last word, the allies had water running in some 40 percent of Basra and were working on restoring it.

Second, most of the estimated civilian casualties will be indirect, as a result of interruptions of food and water supplies and medical treatment, so the numbers of direct casualties are low in comparison with the total impact. The effects of this type of deprivation will continue even well after the war is over, for example, kids and old people in particular with compromised immune systems from malnutrition, dying before they otherwise would have, but not from direct action on either side.

Third, the Saddamites bit about the fake surrenders and fedayin in civvies isn't about not caring about civilian life. It's a given that the Saddamites don't care about civilian life, but that in itself isn't a motivation.

The real issue here is military, at least Saddamite style. Two facts the Saddamites know well: We are a lot thinner in ground forces than last time, and his conscripts and militia have a natural desire to surrender. The current tactics address both of those - the fedayin in civilian clothes are part of Saddam's special security services, almost exclusively Tikriti, and personally loyal to Saddam and Qusay Hussein. These are the bastards who went around last time dispensing summary punishment and often summary executions among the regular conscript army. The fact that they're operating in civilian clothes is a danger to the regular Iraqi grunt as much as it is to the allied forces - moreso, in fact, because for the Iraqi grunt who is ill-informed as to who's doing what in this war, these guys have the full power and sadism of the regime behing them.

The fake surrenders fit the same pattern - it makes it harder for the Iraqis to surrender, between fear of the fedayeen, SRG and ISSS detachments, and fear of getting shot by us when they try and surrender. On the flip side, allied forces will have to be much more careful handling prisoners, catch and release is less feasible, and we have to tie up more of our limited manpower on the ground escorting groups of prisoners out to where they can't do any harm.

That's the intent, not a disregard for Iraqi civilians, which is just incidental background for the Saddamite regime.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Rufus,

Good link. So you are sticking around...

Thanks. And yes, we're sticking around. The meeting with the ambassador was mostly reassuring; he even drew a laugh when he said (and you have to imagine this bing said in a government-bureaucrat monotone): "On reason to evacuate would be if the Turkish military and civil forces were no longer able to maintain order in Turkey. We do not envision that happening."

They did go into high dissembling mode about Turkish troops in Iraq, saying something like (and I'm not making this up), "Turkey has promised to co-ordinate any troop movments with us. To date, they have not sought to co-ordinate any troop movemnts with us. Therefore, there have been no troop movements."

But I didn't mean to threadjack my own thread. Back to casualties...

[Gatekeeper]

MtG:

How many actual fighting men and women have we got in Iraq so far? Total numbers I've read say between 250,000 and 300,000, but obviously not all of them are front line troops.

How many bodies and equipment would the 4th Infantry Division add to the field if and when it ever disembarks into Kuwait?

Gatekeeper