According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…
It's incorrect to say the evidence on WMD was flimsy, it was very solid. That is to say that it was almost certain that Iraq had no usable WMD. The "evidence" to the contrary were fabrications, obvious at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. As was widely pointed out then.
Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
11–20 of 91 posts
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#12According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…
As a country, it would appear that we lost our minds in the wake of 9/11.
Widespread government surveillance. Armed drones. Massive bills passing through Congress without being completely read. Amazingly intrusive security at airports, now filtering down to train and bus stations. Indefinite suspension of prisoners of war.
Yes, we have gone astray. For those of you old enough, could you imagine such things happening in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s?
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#13"95% uncertainty interval 48,000–751,000" I understand the value in trying to quantify this, but it's difficult to really conclude anything useful when your upper and lower confidence intervals vary by 15x
I agree, although I feel like it gives a slightly better feel of the uncertainties to look where that figure came from:
> The wartime crude death rate in Iraq was 4.55 per 1,000 PY (95% UI 3.74–5.27), more than 0.5 times higher than the 2.89 ((95% UI 1.56–4.04) death rate during the 26-mo period preceding the war. By multiplying those rates by the annual Iraq population [43], we estimate total excess Iraqi deaths attributable to the war through mid-2011 as about 405,000 (95% UI 48,000–751,000).
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#14According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…
Well, Western responsibility for the slaughter is less direct than Saddam's killings (although that doesn't help the victims much). Yes, Iraq seemed to have been selected as a military target for reasons not disclosed to the public.
Actually, the reasons were disclosed:
[1] http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
[2] http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses...
[3] http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
You might find the signatories of [1] particularly interesting.
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's incorrect to say the evidence on WMD was flimsy, it was very solid. That is to say that it was almost certain that Iraq had no usable WMD. The "evidence" to the contrary were fabrications, obvious at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. As was widely pointed out then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
I clearly remember how all that WMD stuff was obvious propaganda at the time. Some of it ("we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud") was even laughable.
Nor did the US or other Western intelligence agencies believe it. Analysts tried to submit good reports, but they were overridden. People have often spoken of an "intelligence failure", but there wasn't such a failure; what there was was a success in politicizing intelligence on the part of political leaders. That of course did not stop them from blaming the analysts later for "failure".
Careful observers have noted signs of significant pushback from the intelligence community in response to political pressure since then.
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#16It's nice to see some scientific work going into the causality count in the Iraq war. Most of the surveys/official estimations are way off, the Opinion Research Business survey reported over a million deaths while most US sources stated around 100k mark. This report is somewhere in the middle, which is most realistic.
There have been very serious studies done on Iraqi war mortality for quite some time, starting with Roberts and Burnham, who did two very credible epidemiological surveys of mortality in 2004 and 2006 (published in the Lancet) using a similar approach as the study referenced above. The later study estimated somewhere around 600,000+ (95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636) had already died by 2006 (and this be…
I remember that This American Life did a piece on the Lancet studies when they came out. They focused on how the widespread reaction (in the West) to their numbers was one of stubborn disbelief, despite the fact that these were the most credible researchers in the field and that they used standard techniques.
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#17I haven't read the whole thing, but is this missing anyone who died in Iraq whose family lives elsewhere?
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#18According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…
There were over two dozen foreign intelligence agencies that agreed that Saddam either had or was attempting to build or purchase weapons of destruction. Nuclear weapons are extremely difficult to hide anywhere on earth, but many other types of weapons of mass destruction aren't difficult to dispose of.
That's not to say that the invasion turned out to be a good idea, or that we were justified in the attempt, but those agencies represent thousands of really smart people in positions of authority around the world agreeing that Iraq had them or was attempting to develop them, so its hard to argue that anyone with half a brain could have known the truth. If we were wrong, its because a good percentage of all western civilizations were wrong, not just the United States.
You also have to factor in the theory that Saddam himself wanted the world to think that he had them, in an attempt to dissuade Iran from thinking Iraq was vulnerable. Iraq's strange behavior that lead to the invasion can really only be explained in two ways: either he was pretending to hide weapons that didn't exist, or he successfully hid real weapons.
Finally, half a million people were killed in Iraq. Clearly every combatant on the battlefield shares a part of the blame, but that includes the enemy combatants. The overwhelming majority of American Soldiers attempt to avoid civilian casualties, often to their own detriment, yet the organizations we have been fighting against in Iraq deliberately target anyone they can. The larger the body count, the better. They view their fellow Muslims as traitors for failing to take up arms against the United States, and so they target them just the same as Americans.
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#19According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…
There were over two dozen foreign intelligence agencies that agreed that Saddam either had or was attempting to build or purchase weapons of destruction. Nuclear weapons are extremely difficult to hide anywhere on earth, but many other types of weapons of mass destruction aren't difficult to dispose of. That's not to say that the invasion turned out to be a good idea, or that we were justified in the attempt, but tho…
"had or was attempting to build or purchase" is a pretty weak standard. Do I qualify if I put an ad on craigslist asking if anyone has some spare anthrax? How about if I doodle a nuclear weapon design on a napkin?
I don't doubt Saddam was trying to develop or purchase WMD. But absent the capability of doing so, such attempts mean nothing.
Regardless, it was obvious that Iraq was not a threat to the US. Even if Iraq had had a hundred nuclear bombs, there was no way to deliver them. If you're on the other side of the planet, WMD doesn't matter without ICBMs or long-range bombers to take them to the target.
Did two dozen foreign intelligence agencies go so far as to agree that Iraq was an imminent threat that needed to be stopped by overwhelming force? Somehow, I'm guessing they did not.
One can debate the specific details, but one can't really debate the question of whether Iraq was a threat to the United States in 2003. They were not, and it was patently obvious to anyone paying the least bit attention.
Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation
#20I still remember the chill that ran through relations between Canada and the U.S. after Paul Martin refused to join the war in Iraq (despite still be embroiled in the war in Afghanistan). U.S. pop culture mostly ignored Canada, as per usual, but what few mentions there were soon lumped Canada into the same boat as "French surrender-monkeys", again in spite of the fact that Canadian troops were fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Bush pursued a policy of economic protectionism that could easily be confused for retaliation against Martin's government if it wasn't that in fact. This is how the U.S. treated its closest ally and biggest trading partner. A decade of madness indeed! The continued expansion of the TSA and homeland security as well as the NSA scandals indicate the insanity has dug itself in deep.