The Real "WMD"
A story that got a bit of newsplay today, but clearly not enough, was about a recent study, funded mostly by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in part by the Johns Hopkins Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, and conducted by a group of independent researchers, which aimed to estimate the total number of Iraqi deaths attributed to the U.S. invasion and it's continuous aftermath. They came up with the number 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths, as a result of the war, as of June 2006.
What made the news is that it is said to be controversial and President Bush, today, basicially said it was a bunch of hooey. Since the Pentagon does not keep records of civilian deaths, and passive observation (noticing bodies in the street) historically accounts for only about 20% of a wartime death toll, one can only conclude that the adminstration's quick dismissal of this report is an attempt to get it out of the way as quickly as possible.
We've seen, in so many cases, that the Bush adminstration has very little interest in the findings of the scientific community whether it be the effects of global warming, economic policy or now the real cost of an elective war.
The study is a cross-section cluster sample survey, which is basically a carefully selected statistical sample of the population, clusters of people, if you will, in various parts of the country. The sampling takes into account things like population densities, empirical data and many other factors that allow the researchers to study a statistical group, in this case 1849 households spread across 47 clusters, and to scale their results up to the total population figures to arrive at their final estimate. It's not some hammerhead with a spreadsheet. This is real science.
This technique is used all the time by many different organizations including census takers, political pollsters, public health agencies and corporate marketing professionals, for all types of demographic analysis. It is a scientifically sound and highly effective method, and may be the only way to conduct a survey like this, particularly under the current conditions in Iraq.
The study looked at typical mortality rates nationally and among the sample group (data which can be substantiated), then looked at the increase in mortality rates due to the war. This was then extrapolated to the entire population.
The study concluded that 2.5% of the Iraqi population has perished as a result of the invasion and occupation and the majority of deaths are attributed to gun shot wounds, car bomb explosions and other war-related trauma. 2.5 percent. If this was happening in the U.S., it would mean about 7.5 million dead. But not to dimish the Iraq results by comparision. 654,965 is a very big number, and growing daily.
In Bush's comments today, downplaying the report and refuting the death toll, he also stated that he understood that there were innocent lives being lost but that the Iraqis seemed to be tolerating it well. Tolerating it?! I don't see anyone tolerating anything. I see Iraqis in a hellish situation trying to deal with it and hopefully survive it. I see anguish and pain, fear and abject misery.
I can't say that this raises to the standard of genocide, because while the numbers are staggering, genocide has a more specific definition beyond just numbers, but it is certainly in the realm of war crimes to have allowed, through willful negligence, a disaster of this magnitude, considering that most of the deaths have occured during the post-invasion period where there was clearly no adequate planning.
Once again, we've seen science discarded for political expediency. Only after the dust settles might we ever know the true numbers of dead, but I'll always put my money on the academics, because more often than not, they turn out to be correct.
2 comments:
The scientific data concerning war-related deaths in Iraq are the result of hard science, no doubt at all. But other factors that need to be considered are the Sunni-Shia acts of violence, and the general belief that life is cheap in that culture. Neither of these factors will change when Americans leave.
There have been a few atrocities perpetrated by (and covered up by) the American military. I'm sure there are more of those than we know about. But in general the military people who have been sent there (and to Afghanistan, Sudan, Korea etc) are honorable people, whose hearts hurt for the pain and suffering they witness in Iraq. Our military people go where they are sent and do what they are told.
I have a strong feeling that when they return, and some time has passed, we will learn the truth about what they witnessed and what they thought about our involvement in Iraq. But not until then, I believe.
Along with the honorable men and women that make up our forces, there are those less honorable Americans, those who seem to love violence and suffering. And then there are those who gain satisfaction in the destruction they cause. Such people can be found in any group. Those are the ones who are guilty of the American-induced atrocities.
I strongly believe there would be many more Americans prone to extremes if such a thing were encouraged in our nation as it is in Iraq and other nations that encourage Muslim extremism.
What if our armies were made up of peacemakers? What if our soldiers' orders were to distribute food and medicine, social services, and construction assitance? Some Muslim extremists might still choose to shoot back and enlist suicide bombers, but they certainly would not have the hearts of the Iraqi population.
I remember during the Vietnam conflict there was a saying going around, something like this: "I dreamed that the government funded peace efforts and the pentagon had to put on bake sales to buy weapons." Something like that.
Some in the administration say that the Iraqis are accustomed to death and violence. It's probably true, but when I see the faces of the grief-stricken Iraqi relatives and friends on TV, they may be accustomed to death, but they certainly feel it no less intensely than we do.
If our government leaders spent as much effort to understand the Iraqi people as they do in providing war, our whole military emphasis might change.
So, what if Americans just pulled out of Iraq (and that is to be greatly desired), would the death toll decrease? Probably not, at least not among Iraqis. Americans would feel less responsible for the destruction over there, but it would go on.
What's the answer then? It's not an easy question, is it? God have mercy on us all.
Thanks for that very thought-provoking comment.
I read the entire study and it is really geared toward estimating the additional mortality rates as they have increased from a baseline since the invasion. The baseline mortality rate was 5.5 per 1000 per year, which is somewhat striking considering the accepted view that the previous regime was a bloodbath. It was most certainly an awful place to live before the war but the study looked at the increased death toll as raw data, and certainly one would factor in sectarian violence, basic terrorism, death as a result of diminished infrastructure (health care, water supply, lack of air conditioning), in addition to direct combat-related carnage. The sudy showed a sharp increase as a result of our involvement but it is easy to conclude that the genie is out of the bottle and even if we leave, it's not going to qwell the violence or magically return to normal.
As a veteran myself, I understand the position our soldiers are in. It's their job to kill people and break things, ideally though, in defense of our nation, and only as a last resort. But our troops are honorable people and the grim nature of their job does not come easily to them. Those that do go astray and commit atrocities are, in many cases, a product of their environment who have been deeply affected by their violent circumstances, to a point at which somthing breaks in them. The psychological trauma as a result of persistent exposure to war conditions can be severe. What constitues a war crime, in my mind, is a decision made by those who are not directly exposed to the traumatic conditions, but whose calculated decisions result in predictable yet preventable casualty. There's a reason they call it "collateral damage" because it dehumanizes the reality of human suffering. An Iraqi mother who loses her child to sectarian violence is no less tormented than an American mother whose child comes home in box.
Post a Comment