Iraqi Casualties
The same people who released the Iraqi casualty study that I've been using in my previous discussions released an updated study that covered until July 2006. In their report, they found that 655,000 Iraqis died as a result of the invasion. To put this number into contrast, let me provide some comparisons:
1. 300,000: Number of Iraqis estmiated to be killed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
2. 800,000: Estimated number of Rwandans killed in the Hutu-Tutsi massacres.
3. 267,000: Number of French civilian casualties during World War II.
4. 2,973: Number of Americans killed on September 11, 2001.
Now it must be decided whether this number is accurate. Keep in mind that the last study that was released covered a year of the war and estimated 100,000 civilian deaths. The new study's tremendous jump in casualties would mean that the death rate has more than doubled since the first year. Furthermore, 34% of respondents (~220,000 deaths) reported that coalition forces were directly responsible for the death reported. These are not light accusations; we are well aware of what happened to those responsible for the other examples listed above.
One way to guess at how high civilian casualties will be in a conflict is to look at the number of military casualties. 2,791 American soldiers have died in the war (as of 10.21.06) in over three years, less than 1,000 a year. This is not a low-intensity conflict, and the vast majority of the fighting takes place in dense urban areas, which are notorious for causing high casualties even among the best trained and equipped forces. So how has the United States' casualty level stayed so low?
One way to make urban fighting easier is to flatten things to reduce the chance of ambushes and to kill enemy soldiers hiding around corners or in buildings and such. Air power is one of the easiest ways to accomplish this. For an example of what the US military does in urban fighting, the two invasions of Fallujah are instructive. In both operations cluster bombs were dropped in residential areas, not only increasing civilian casualties at the time but also serving as killers after the offensive was over (cluster bomblets have a 30% "failure" rate, which means that 30% of them stick into the ground and act as mines to go off when stepped on/picked up/etc. later). For this reason, the use of cluster bombs are considered by many human rights organizations to be a war crime; The US also used white phosphorus in the fighting, a chemical weapon when anyone but the US uses it.
The extensive artillery and air bombardment of the city destroyed 60% of the buildings in the city and have forced 50-70% of the prewar population to settle elsewhere, often in refugee camps outside the city. Through this extensive destruction, the United States was able to keep its casualties to 51 killed. 1200 "insurgents" were declared dead by the United States, but numerous reports of civilians (including children) being killed by American snipers calls into question how many of these were actually insurgents.
So are the numbers accurate? The main criticism of the reports have been that their numbers have been far above the other estimates released. However, this doesn't actually disqualify anything about the report. All the other reports use absurd methods for counting civilian casualties, such as going to morgues and counting bodies there. Since Islamic custom is to bury the body before sunset on the day of the death, most casualties are not going to be sent to the morgue. I cannot say whether this report is accurate, but in light of the total devastation that has been unleased on Iraq, it is not surprising in the least.
P.S. Since Saddam is held up as such a monster (and rightly so), I think a short comparison is in order. In 30 years of rule, he killed 300,000 Iraqis. If the United States were to stay in Iraq for 30 years and Iraqi casualties continued at the current rate, 6.4 million Iraqis (a quarter of the population) would be dead by the time we left.
1. 300,000: Number of Iraqis estmiated to be killed under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
2. 800,000: Estimated number of Rwandans killed in the Hutu-Tutsi massacres.
3. 267,000: Number of French civilian casualties during World War II.
4. 2,973: Number of Americans killed on September 11, 2001.
Now it must be decided whether this number is accurate. Keep in mind that the last study that was released covered a year of the war and estimated 100,000 civilian deaths. The new study's tremendous jump in casualties would mean that the death rate has more than doubled since the first year. Furthermore, 34% of respondents (~220,000 deaths) reported that coalition forces were directly responsible for the death reported. These are not light accusations; we are well aware of what happened to those responsible for the other examples listed above.
One way to guess at how high civilian casualties will be in a conflict is to look at the number of military casualties. 2,791 American soldiers have died in the war (as of 10.21.06) in over three years, less than 1,000 a year. This is not a low-intensity conflict, and the vast majority of the fighting takes place in dense urban areas, which are notorious for causing high casualties even among the best trained and equipped forces. So how has the United States' casualty level stayed so low?
One way to make urban fighting easier is to flatten things to reduce the chance of ambushes and to kill enemy soldiers hiding around corners or in buildings and such. Air power is one of the easiest ways to accomplish this. For an example of what the US military does in urban fighting, the two invasions of Fallujah are instructive. In both operations cluster bombs were dropped in residential areas, not only increasing civilian casualties at the time but also serving as killers after the offensive was over (cluster bomblets have a 30% "failure" rate, which means that 30% of them stick into the ground and act as mines to go off when stepped on/picked up/etc. later). For this reason, the use of cluster bombs are considered by many human rights organizations to be a war crime; The US also used white phosphorus in the fighting, a chemical weapon when anyone but the US uses it.
The extensive artillery and air bombardment of the city destroyed 60% of the buildings in the city and have forced 50-70% of the prewar population to settle elsewhere, often in refugee camps outside the city. Through this extensive destruction, the United States was able to keep its casualties to 51 killed. 1200 "insurgents" were declared dead by the United States, but numerous reports of civilians (including children) being killed by American snipers calls into question how many of these were actually insurgents.
So are the numbers accurate? The main criticism of the reports have been that their numbers have been far above the other estimates released. However, this doesn't actually disqualify anything about the report. All the other reports use absurd methods for counting civilian casualties, such as going to morgues and counting bodies there. Since Islamic custom is to bury the body before sunset on the day of the death, most casualties are not going to be sent to the morgue. I cannot say whether this report is accurate, but in light of the total devastation that has been unleased on Iraq, it is not surprising in the least.
P.S. Since Saddam is held up as such a monster (and rightly so), I think a short comparison is in order. In 30 years of rule, he killed 300,000 Iraqis. If the United States were to stay in Iraq for 30 years and Iraqi casualties continued at the current rate, 6.4 million Iraqis (a quarter of the population) would be dead by the time we left.
posted by Jimmy at 12:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home