Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[Par]

Sure. But there are of course good analogies and bad analogies.

You, if you’ll remember, attempted to dismiss the analogy by stating that “Other wars have nothing to do with this.” Dismissal on those grounds evidently misses the point of analogies entirely.

If you think the analogy is a poor one (in other words, if you think it fails to show that comparing death tolls alone is not a useful calculus on which to base moral conclusions), then by all means explain why.

 

[brumsen]

Obviously, the death toll is an element of a given situation. However, you were initially espousing comparing death tolls alone in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict. That, quite clearly, is what I took issue with.

Quite clearly? Well, glad we've got that clear now, anyway.

I endorsed Stout's idea that comparing death tolls would tell us something about whether the US army had adequately protected Iraqi civilians, yes.

How would you propose to make a judgement on that issue, then?

 

[Par]

Quite clearly? Well, glad we've got that clear now, anyway.

You espoused simply comparing death tolls. I then presented an analogy which showed that comparing death tolls would not be useful. That is why it is quite clear that comparing death tolls is what I took issue with.

 

[Par]

I endorsed Stout's idea that comparing death tolls would tell us something about whether the US army had adequately protected Iraqi civilians, yes.

No. You were espousing comparing death tolls in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict.

Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime. Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.

However.... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that Stout's point about the exact body count needs to be adressed: "What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?"

 

[brumsen]

If you think the analogy is a poor one (in other words, if you think it fails to show that comparing death tolls alone is not a useful calculus on which to base moral conclusions), then by all means explain why.

The number of innocents killed by the Allied war on Nazism doubtless exceeds – by orders of magnitude – the number killed by al-Qaeda. It would seem decidedly dubious, however, to start basing moral conclusions on that disparity.

Well - where do I start?!

You compare two conflicts, in different times, rather than the real and a hypothetical situation concerning one conflict.
How is comparing a real and a hypothetical situation analogous to comparing two different conflicts?

My comparison (or again, it was rather Stout's) was aimed to get some handle on whether the invasion force has been better or worse at protecting civilians, and therefore, whether it was a good thing or not that the invasion had taken place in this form.

How does your "analogy" aim at something similar? It seems simply designed to imply,
"here are two different situations, one on which the Good guys actions caused the deaths of X civilians, and in the other, Bad guys cause the deaths of far fewer than X civilians. So surely this shows that the number of civilians caused to die is not morally significant, since we stand by our judgment about who are the Good guys and the Bad guys."

In short: your analogy is bad because it makes a comparison between different conflicts. Or yet shorter: other wars have nothing to do with it.

 

[brumsen]

No. You were espousing comparing death tolls in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict.

Well, it's very nice of you to quote the relevant passage of my earlier post, but I would fail at expressing more clearly and succinctly what I did there; and yet you take issue with my formulation.
I'm at a loss to understand what you're trying to say, quite frankly.

ETA: OK, I'll try just once more, probably in vain.
I was proposing comparing death tolls, between the actual situation and the hypothetical situation in which no invasion had taken place, in order to substantiate the judgement that the US government bears responsibility for the innocent Iraqi civilian deaths.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

OK. Thanks for clarifying that up

 

[Par]

My comparison (or again, it was rather Stout's) was aimed to get some handle on whether the invasion force has been better or worse at protecting civilians...

You never once mentioned an assessment of how well or badly the invasion force had protected civilians. Quite clearly, you were espousing comparing death tolls in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict – as a way of assigning moral blame.

...the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that... the exact body count needs to be adressed

 

[Par]

Well - where do I start?! You compare two conflicts, in different times... In short: your analogy is bad because it makes a comparison between different conflicts.

The analogy sought to show that comparing death tolls alone cannot result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. If you wish to show that the analogy is a poor one, you need to show that it fails to do this. Simply highlighting the fact that the two conflicts occurred at different times and suchlike obviously does not meet this condition.

 

[Par]

In short: your analogy is bad because it makes a comparison between different conflicts. Or yet shorter: other wars have nothing to do with it.

So, any analogy that compares different conflicts is by definition invalid. I see. It seems that you wish to arbitrarily banish analogies from the argument altogether. I wonder why that might be.

 

[brumsen]

The analogy sought to show that comparing death tolls alone cannot result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. If you wish to show that the analogy is a poor one, you need to show that it fails to do this. Simply highlighting the fact that the two conflicts occurred at different times and suchlike obviously does not meet this condition.

Neither does simply affirming your position make it any more true.

Until you actually engage with my argument, I'll just make the following remark:
Have you ever heard of utilitarian calculus? You know - where one compares alternative lines of action and attempts to establish which maximizes overall utility? What I did was like that; your analogy was not.

ETA:

So, any analogy that compares different conflicts is by definition invalid.

I did not argue that and you know it.

 

[Par]

OK, I'll try just once more, probably in vain...

I know full well what you are now claiming that you wish to use the death toll to asses.

 

[brumsen]

You never once mentioned an assessment of how well or badly the invasion force had protected civilians. Quite clearly, you were espousing comparing death tolls in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict – as a way of assigning moral blame.

In my first post in this thread, just before the paragraph where I propose making such a comparison, I said:

Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime.

I went on to say that to substantiate this position (to assess to what extent it holds water, if you like)- the position according to which the Americans are in part blamed for the civilian deaths - one needed to make said comparison.

Even if I didn't actually use the word assessment - what else is it that I proposed to do?

Come on, Par. Don't play thick.

 

[brumsen]

OK. Thanks for clarifying that up

You're being a bit cryptic...

Does that mean that you now accept that inadequate protection of civilians - such as in Iraq by US troops - counts as a war crime?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

No. I'm agreeing that not providing any protection is. Whether or not the US is knowingly providing inadequate protection is another topic.

 

[brumsen]

No. I'm agreeing that not providing any protection is. Whether or not the US is knowingly providing inadequate protection is another topic.

Not providing any protection or not providing adequate protection?

Knowingly...
Well, I guess the situation is that the US have the resources to better protect the Iraqi civilian population, but that politically the circle of sending more troops cannot be squared.

Of course the better is the enemy of the good... but would you really want to argue that currently they receive adequate protection? And, that they have received adequate protection from the start of the invasion?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

.... Considering all major forces are apparoaching overdeployment, they probably do not have adequete resources.

 

[brumsen]

.... Considering all major forces are apparoaching overdeployment, they probably do not have adequete resources.

The US started the war. Given the duty to protect Iraqi civilians, the resources needed to do so therefore have to be provided.

Surely you're not suggesting that the US are currently making the biggest war effort they are capable of.
But of course, the resources at the disposal of the US Army, that's a matter for politics...

 

[gumboot]

Actually given that the coalition forces are not an occupying power, and have not been since June 28, 2004, they are not responsible under the laws of war for providing protection to Iraqi civilians. That is the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

-Gumboot

 

[brumsen]

Actually given that the coalition forces are not an occupying power, and have not been since June 28, 2004, they are not responsible under the laws of war for providing protection to Iraqi civilians. That is the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

-Gumboot

I am pretty sure that formally you are right, so I stand corrected.

But they're still there, and I think this does not change all that much to the assessment on whether they're morally responsible.