85,000 Iraqis killed, 150,000 wounded from 2004-2008

[Pardalis]

If the resident JREF conservatives want to derail it and mix it up about how dumb DEMONcraps are, go ahead.

Derail?

You're the one who brings up Reagan, Afghanistan and North Korea and we're the ones derailing?

 

[Brainster]

Hey, according to Lesley Stahl, 500,000 Iraqi children died because of the sanctions, and Madelaine Albright thought it was "worth it."

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

So if you buy Stahl's number, then far fewer Iraqis died during the Bush Administration than did during the Clinton Administration.

 

[Region Rat]

Try reading the OP with the link to the AP article.

If the resident JREF conservatives want to derail it and mix it up about how dumb DEMONcraps are, go ahead.

OK, and you expect to learn exactly what from any replies?

Other than left-right flame wars, of course. You didn't intend that at all, did you? You actually expect to hear a new answer that would satisfy you, don't you? You're not going to just lob back the standard rebuttals, and get in a few snide remarks in the process, are you?

Let's find out together.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I've heard this accusation plenty of times. What I have never heard is any details about what, specifically, should have been done to prevent this. The armchair generals simply say we shouldn't have let it happen, but have no clue about how, let alone any concept of why Bush should have been making the calls that would have changed this.

Bush deferred operational decisions to the military, and rightly so. If you want to find the most incompetent C-in-C, you should look elsewhere.

Zigg, a key member of the JCS did his due diligence before the war, and revised Zinni's old force requirements (a bit under 300,000) in the CENTCOM Oplan for Rummy, to 220,000+ for the operation. (One source I read had Shinseki's number as 240,000 ... nvm) The Army's Title X responsibilities sort of demand that their planning estimates tend to dominate a campaign of that nature, given the inherent post conflict operations of such a war.

We can consult the historical record on what Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld actually did with competent military advice, in that case. (General Franks, of course, also disagreed with General Shinseki's staff estimate, depending on what account you refer to. Most of this is a few years old for me).

DR

 

[Pardalis]

Especially when the invasion proved that containment was working (read Cobra II and the docs from inside the Hussein regime uncovered after the war). Likely I would have dramatically changed the sanctions regime to be less of a burden on the Iraqi people, because as always, the dictator can skirt the sanctions and the public can't. So they were counterproductive and almost a form of collective punishment - if not in intent than in effect.

I would likely have still looked at supporting internal groups and their efforts to overthrow the regime, even if the West's track record on that score was somewhat marred (see Bob Baer's "See no Evil" for a particularly good account of the failings of post Iraq War I intelligence policy in this respect).

I would not have abused the public's trust and become like the boy who cried wolf by declaring a war for reasons that turned out to be false. What will happen the next time a war is on the horizon? Will the public be skeptical no matter how well I make the case? I would certainly enjoy less of a chance of involving allies who have also become more skeptical of me after the 2003 invasion.

I would not have committed so much blood and treasure to: involve a minimum of a quarter million Iraqis in death or injury, cause a refugee crisis in neighbouring countries as millions of civilians fled, empower Iran and a Shiite resurgence (which my helpful Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia and others did not like).

One point that is not often made and is a crucial one, if we're really talking about "The Iraqi People" and not American national prestige, is just what kind of world have we exchanged for the one of Saddam?

As an Iraqi civilian under Saddam, I knew where the red lines were. If I kept my head down I could be a classical violinist, a tradesman, an accountant - if I didn't agitate against Saddam I could be pretty well guaranteed a normal life. I'd have to put up with policies I didnt like cause I had no input. I'd have to put up with curtailment of my freedoms, which of course, some found untenable. But the point was that I knew what actions would lead to violence directed against me. While the situation in Iraq has improved there are still kidnapping rings, random bombs and attacks by various groups, and collateral damage from American operations. And there is no defence possible from such a multi-directional, and random series of threats. So while life under Saddam was no panacea - and let me be clear I'm sure that our distaste for his authoritarian rule is similar in both of us - what the invasion did from the point of view of a normal civilian is exchange a known threat environment for a random one. I could be killed getting a tomato in 2004, not so much in 1995. Dropping my girl off at school could result in neither of us getting home in 2005. Doing so in 1996 was no issue.

This is a real and important point and I don't think that getting rid of Saddam in the manner done in 2003 has actually been a benefit to the Iraqi people. The blood cost to them was nearly unimaginable (could you imagine 900 000 American civilian deaths from violence in a 4 year period - or 85 thousand Canadians? I can't!), the money cost is absolutely off the charts, their infrastructure has been rolled back decades and they can't buy a toothbrush with an assurance of safety.

The Kurds were mentioned above - but after the 1st invasion they were well protected by a no-fly zone and an international presence. And of course, the chaos of the war nearly involved Turkey at one point in cross-border raids on a newly assertive Kurdish military.

So in short, no the cost has not been worth it, and the cost is not yet even known given that we still cannot say that things are over there. Thats the other thing, given that there actually is no final stability over there, no large national reconciliation - how could one even ask the question "was it worth it"?

What's the first "it"? We haven't even got there yet. Perhaps, one day in the future Iraq will turn out ok, and then war supporters can say: "it took us 15 years, was it worth it?"

But we're not there yet, so it could even conceivably get worse. What do we have to show for it so far, really?

Now there's an answer. Thank you.

I'll take a closer look when I come back.

 

[Praktik]

So what would you have done with Hussein?

Six years, and I've never seen a left winger answer that question.

Ah there's the problem. The labelling mentality, and therefore I can see why your first post directed at me seemed directed at a cardboard cut-out of "left-winger", rather than Praktik the person.

I answered above, but the short-form: continue containment (it was working), ease sanctions from a humanitarian perspective, keep the surveillance and inspections going, see what I could do to help internal resistors when possible.

 

[Pardalis]

Ah there's the problem. The labelling mentality, and therefore I can see why your first post directed at me seemed directed at a cardboard cut-out of "left-winger", rather than Praktik the person.

I'm sorry about that, the OP kind of set an antagonistic mood.

 

[Praktik]

[@that chart]:I don't think arms sales were a particularly important reason why those members of the Security Council opposed the invasion. Diplomatic balancing against US unipolarity post-cold war is much more reasonable.

Yes, and I'm surprised he posted it again here because it was very clearly questioned in this thread.

Additionally, NWO's graph in the link he cited can only tangentially be described as relevant, since it covers a 29 year period of which only 9 are particularly concerned with any U.S.military support of Iraq, and leaves unanswered the question of what support other than "weapons importations" were forthcoming from the U.S., and what involvement the U.S. had in sanctioning (or even aiding) weapons sales from other nations.

It's really a very disingenuous sort of graph.

Read the full quadraginta post here, and note particularly the US strategy of "bear spares".

 

[WildCat]

Only six months after the slaughter at Halabja

You forgot to mention that was made possible by you Swiss building his chemical weapons plant for some reason...

 

[Ziggurat]

Zigg, a key member of the JCS did his due diligence before the war, and revised Zinni's old force requirements (a bit under 300,000) in the CENTCOM Oplan for Rummy, to 220,000+ for the operation.

Try reading a book, I did.

http://www.amazon.com/Cobra-II-Inside-Invasion-Occupation/dp/0375422625

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?isbn=9780425207871

Let me remind you both of the claim I was questioning:

Bush who pussed out and let OBL get away in Tora Bora

Your numbers are for Iraq, Darth, not for Afghanistan. And oldhat, same goes for your first link. Only the second link has any bearing on your claim, and since I do not own the book, well, you'll have to give me more than that link if you want to claim that it attributes the failure to Bush, and not to someone lower down the chain of command.

 

[DC]

You forgot to mention that was made possible by you Swiss building his chemical weapons plant for some reason...

the swiss? the swiss goverment?

 

[WildCat]

the swiss? the swiss goverment?

Do you think the US government sold anything to Saddam? Or was it private companies?

eta: did the Swiss government ever take action against the Swiss company supplying Saddam with chemical weapons? Why do you think a Dutch man formed a company in Switzerland to manufacture chemicals in Iraq?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Your numbers are for Iraq, Darth, not for Afghanistan.

OK. Got it.

FWIW: As somebody lower in the chain of command for a while, very lower I will take a small exception to your giving the CinC a free pass when we had to polish the various piles of policy turd he left on the side of various roads here and there.

There was a plan, yes, and there were some holes in it, holes left in there by the suits, not by the folks under arms. (I will not digress on which I felt were most egregious, as some of what went on in Iraq back then still gets me into a foul mood.)

DR

 

[oldhat]

And oldhat, same goes for your first link. Only the second link has any bearing on your claim, and since I do not own the book, well, you'll have to give me more than that link if you want to claim that it attributes the failure to Bush, and not to someone lower down the chain of command.

LOL, you obviously didn't read Cobra II very closely.

 

[DC]

Do you think the US government sold anything to Saddam? Or was it private companies?

eta: did the Swiss government ever take action against the Swiss company supplying Saddam with chemical weapons? Why do you think a Dutch man formed a company in Switzerland to manufacture chemicals in Iraq?

we are working on that

http://www.kriegsmaterial.ch/site/

 

[Darth Rotor]

LOL, you obviously didn't read Cobra II very closely.

Did you notice that Zigg advised you that he doesn't own the book? ( I do, but I don't have it memorized.)

 

[Wolrab]

Before the war, some were touting that the sanctions were killing 5,000 a month. Using those numbers, 720,000 people would have died to date. The war saved over 600,000 lives!
George W. Bush, Defender of the Undefendenable.

 

[Leif Roar]

What would you have done with Saddam Hussein?

What have you done about Than Shwe?

 

[Ziggurat]

LOL, you obviously didn't read Cobra II very closely.

Indeed, I have not read it at all. I never claimed otherwise. But unless the description on Amazon is very much mistaken, the book is about the invasion of Iraq, not about what happened in Tora Bora, Afghanistan. If Amazon's description is wrong, then perhaps you could point to a better source for summarizing its contents. Or just describe what the book says about that operation, since you seem to be suggesting you have read it closely. Quotes are appreciated.

 

[MikeMangum]

Remind me, what the **** are we supposed to be doing there?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/14/world/AP-ML-Iraq.html

So, between 2004 and 2008 there were roughly 85,000 deaths due to the war, the vast majority of them caused by insurgents. That comes out to ~58 deaths per day, averaged over 4 years.

Before the war, an average of between 70 and 125 Iraqis were killed each day by their own government during the reign of Saddam Hussein.

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Using the language of the Lancet study on Iraqi civilian deaths, that is a 17% - 54% reduction of "excess deaths" because of the war.

What we are doing there now is basically doing strategic overwatch; giving the Iraqis logistical support, fire support (artillery and air support), and intelligence while our combat troops sit in bases outside of the cities ready to respond in case of a new campaign by AQI.