It is easy to base one's opposition to the war on conspiracy theories, hyper-inflated statistics and a kit bag of clichés from the 1960s about giving peace a chance.
Amid reports of declining civilian casualties in Iraq, a British polling and market research company called Opinion Research Business has come forward with the claim that over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the American-led invasion of Iraq. (Actually, the official press release is titled "More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered" — a rather telling turn of phrase.) ORB surveyed 1,499 adults and inquired about household deaths. Taking into account the poll's margin of error, ORB concluded that the body count could be as low as 733,158 or as high as 1,446,063. The high-end figure would mean that roughly 900 civilians have been "murdered" each day since the invasion.
Curiously, ORB’s numbers conflict with my own independent, but equally rigorous, research involving a dartboard and a Magic Eight Ball. Taking into account the margin for error (missing the dartboard altogether and the Eight Ball turning up “Reply hazy, try again” followed by “Better not tell you now”), I’ve concluded that between 37 and 41 Iraqi civilians have been killed since March 2003.
Want to bet my numbers are closer to the actual civilian body count than ORB’s numbers?
All right, I know it’s wrong, even obscene, to treat the subject of civilian deaths lightly. But it is arguably even more wrong to troll for absurd, can-you-top-this casualty figures, as is the wont of commentators on the political Left, in order to justify their opposition to the war in Iraq. That’s why the ORB poll is destined to replace the 2006 Lancet study as the new ghoulish gospel in the hearts and minds of war critics.
You remember the Lancet study, don't you? Researchers from the British medical journal conducted a survey of 1,849 randomly selected households across Iraq, inquiring about family fatalities immediately before and after the March 2003 start of the war. They then tallied the responses, gauged the differentials, multiplied out their results by the entire Iraqi population, and concluded that there had been roughly 600,000 "excess deaths" as a result of violence associated with the war. But how, you might ask, did the researchers know their respondents weren't exaggerating the death toll? Because, they assured us, over 90% of the respondents who claimed that a family member had died were able to produce a death certificate.
Except if you multiply out the death certificate numbers, that means over 90% of those 600,000 violent deaths would have accompanying death certificates — i.e., more than 540,000 death certificates.
Who issued them?
Certainly not the Iraqi government, which is currently still reporting roughly 75,000 civilian fatalities due to the violence of the war.
The actual civilian death toll in Iraq may never be known with great accuracy. For what it's worth, the left-of-center researchers at the Iraq Body Count website, who shun the dubious survey and projection methodology employed by both ORB and Lancet, put the current tally between 74,000 and 82,000 — a range which feels more realistic and seems to jibe with high-end estimates by responsible media sources. But that proves little since IBC includes in its total only “individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals and morgues) and subsequently reported in the media.” Thus, you've got a circularity problem: IBC relies on media reports for its tally, so it's no coincidence its tally would more or less match up with media reports.
Still, there is a larger point to make here. Even though the final verdict on George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein is not yet in, is indeed years away — except perhaps in the drooling precincts of protest rallies, faculty lounges, and Bill Maher's studio audience — there is already enough solid, verifiable evidence to argue plausibly either that the project was a strategic blunder from its conception, or that it was conducted in such an ineffective way as to become a blunder. Such arguments are difficult to construct however; they require facts and logic, as well as a grasp of counterarguments. How much easier, for folks on the Left, to base their opposition to the war on conspiracy theories, hyper-inflated statistics and a kit bag of clichés from the 1960s about giving peace a chance. (Is there a more definitive sign of intellectual cowardice than to oppose a war on the grounds that you are "for peace"?) Such is the cutting edge of their rhetoric. Such is the depth of their desperation to be right.
So let them rant.
The rest of us can grieve, quietly, for the civilian casualties, whatever their true number, give thanks that they’re trending down, and hope for a resolution in Iraq that ends them.
The world average death rate is 8.37 per 1,000. That would place deaths in a country of 25 million during the last 4.5 years at 900,000. There is no doubt that some Iraqis have died from military action, but a death certificate proves nothing regarding who was responsible for the death, nor does it prove the innocence of those who died. Remember that this list of “murdered” includes Saddam, Uday, and Husay. During this same period over 200,000 people have died on America’s highways. Let’s keep our perspective.
In their enthusiasm to condemn America, these organizations have inadvertently demonstrated the need for enforcement of the Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC), which they have been demanding the US to ignore:
“Armed conflict places large numbers of civilians [and other protected non-combatants] on all sides of a conflict in grave situations where the risks of death, suffering, loss, and other depredations are extremely high. This is especially so when combatants disguise themselves unlawfully as protected noncombatant civilians. LOAC has long been designed to mitigate the risks to civilians by clearly distinguishing lawful combatants (such as uniformed military personnel under a responsible chain of command, who carry arms openly, and who are obliged to, and do, follow international law) from unlawful combatants (such as members of the Taliban who en masse do not meet the four criteria of lawful belligerency and who en masse have willfully and continually failed to follow LOAC, and al-Qaeda who en masse are stateless and whose right to take up arms is not recognized under international law); [and who all correctly deserve the name ‘hostes humani generis,’ the common enemies of mankind].” (Emphasis added) – “Al-Qaeda and Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the international laws of armed conflict,” Air Force Law Review, Spring, 2004, by Joseph P. Bialke
The inescapable conclusion is that it is not the US that is responsible for however many deaths that have occurred because of the war, but that of the unlawful combatants; and they are responsible for every last one of them – on both sides.
Since LOAC also covers the treatment of unlawful combatants, by extension, these organizations have also inadvertently justified the need for the Guantanamo detention facility and even “torture” to extract information from these “stateless” terrorists.
Sedonaman,
Interesting proposition. However, as I understand it, LOAC is policy, not law in the strict sense. UCMJ is U.S. law, the Geneva Conventions are International Law, and both of these are incorporated within LOAC. In the strict sense, LOAC is the directive our government gives to our military to adhere to these laws, including many situational specifications. Is this correct, or have I missed something?
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/gwlr/issues/pdf/GWLR75_5-6_Detter.pdf
Interesting link on how little jurist know of the Law or War, and how that is, itself a violation of these laws. According to this source, "There is an obligation under all the 1949 Geneva Conventions to teach the law of war so that the “entire population” is aware of the rules."
Bob Stapler, #3:
Thank you for the reference. The statement, "…exaggerated, well-meaning
attitudes are perilous to the survival of the law of war, as they germinate seeds which undermine the legal system to the detriment of those who deserve to enjoy traditional privileges, such as regular soldiers and civilians," and the subsequent sentences, capture the essence of what I understand the purpose of the LOAC.
Bob Stapler:
“In the strict sense, LOAC is the directive our government gives to our military to adhere to these laws, including many situational specifications. Is this correct, or have I missed something?”
I went to officers training school during the Vietnam war, and I cannot remember anything being taught about the laws of war except that I was obligated to provide only name, rank, and serial number if captured, and was given a “capture card” that identified me as a member of the armed forces of a country that had signed the Geneva Convention (this at least identified me as a legitimate combatant). IOW, I was not given any training at all on the laws of war.
The US has always exceeded the laws in its treatment of enemy combatants. At the end of WW-II, as part of the repatriation process, the government asked EPWs (enemy prisoners of war) to write a statement on how they were treated. One German prisoner who was interned in the US wrote that his advice to anyone in the next war was to join the side opposite the US, get captured, and spend the duration in one of its EPW camps. Other things from my own research are, for example, the capturing nation must feed its prisoners at least at the same level as it feeds its own troops in the field, and it must hold them in an area with a climate similar to that where they were captured. Have you heard of our troops getting fed as well as the terrorist captives? Also from my own research, the US teaches its own “rules of engagement” (ROE) in the academies. Here again, the ROE go far beyond what is required by Geneva. For example, hiding among the civilian population and buildings is against the laws of war. If you as an American soldier are receiving fire from an enemy combatant (legitimate or not) in an otherwise protected building, such as a church, you can legitimately return fire as long as your target is the enemy and not the building. If the building is damaged in the process, that’s just unfortunate … and the reason for the law prohibiting hiding in a protected building. Under the ROE, you cannot return fire. In my opinion, this is a mistake for several reasons; the main one is the more America does to correct its faults, the worse (not better) the remaining imperfections appear. (I notice that Israel has gotten itself in the same predicament during the war against Hammas last year.)
And I think that is precisely why we got to where we are in the whole Guantanamo debacle.
Thanks for the good info. I had no idea that Geneva required the whole population to be taught the laws of war.