Online Movie: Out of Iraq
A new online movie/ad (2 min.) went on the web last week and I think you'll find it interesting. Whether you support or oppose the war in Iraq, it's likely a very different picture of the conflict than you've become accustomed to seeing in the mainstream news media.
[In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that I work for the sponsoring organization, a Quaker nonprofit group that works on a a broad range of issues both domestically and internationally]
posted by Carl @ 9:28 AM
7 Comments:
Carl,
You've got it right. Even though newspapers highlight deaths in Iraq every day, they never really give you a chance to feel anything close to the real impact of the war. It amazes me how we choose not to pay attention to the names of soldiers. We care far less about the civilians who have died, even though the civilian death toll is over 10,000. 10,000!!
Studies from respectable research institutions have estimated 10,000-100,000-plus Iraqi deaths (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm). That's insane. How can any liberation be worth 10,000 lives? 100,000? Are you kidding me?!?
I’m not one for arbitrarily picking numbers to establish thresholds, but 10,000 sounds remarkable. But 100,000? Can you even conceptualize how many people that is?
Even if you could justify the deaths—which I challenge anyone here to do—how is this good for stability in the region? 100,000 people have a lot of relatives, friends, colleagues, and countrymen will not soon forget who did this to them.
- Nan
How can any liberation be worth 10,000 lives? 100,000? Are you kidding me?!?What was the cost liberate Europe from Naziism? Was it worth it?
I think accounting for casualties must be the most grim manipulation of numbers ever. Without reliable numbers, I ask you to consider two questions: Who, among the Iraqis, are dying? and Who is doing the killing?
Let's answer the first question (in no particular order).
Soldiers. During the first phase of the war, so-called "major combat operations," a great many Iraqi soldiers were killed in action. Since then, new Iraqi National Guard troops and policemen have been targets for insurgents.
Ba'athists. Subsequent to the liberation, liberated populations (especially Shi'ites) purged their former Ba'athist oppressors.
Insurgents & Terrorists. More than 1000 of Sadr's militamen were killed in Najaf. More than 1200 Sunni insurgents were killed in the Battle of Fallouja. It is rare that a day goes by in which there is not some skirmish between our troops an the insurgents. I suppose, for completeness, I ought to count the insurgents who blow themselves up.
Civilians. I think suffering and loss of life by innocent civilians is the most heart-rending aspect of war. We need to consider who is killing Iraqi civilians. Again, numbers are hard to find, but I think if you sift through enoungh news reports, you would conclude the following.
The greatest number of civilian casualties are Sunnis killed by Sunni extremists. In the run-up to the recent election, most violence was of this type. Get out the vote in reverse, sort of.
The second greatest number of civilian cansualties was ethnic violence between Sunnis and Shi'ites, and to a lesser degree, between Sunnis and Kurds. Zarqawi's early strategy was to foment civil war between the groups. When bin Laden embraced Zarqawi, he pressed him to stop that strategy. As a result, this type of violence appears to be much less today than early last year.
The third, and by far smallest, cause of civilian casualties is US and Coalition military action. The air campaign was more "precise" than any previous one, but many of the leadership targets were in cities and a 2000 lb. bomb is a pretty blunt instrument. The Army and Marines have done a great job, but against an adversary that does not wear uniforms, there are going to be more mistakes.
100,000 people have a lot of relatives, friends, colleagues, and countrymen will not soon forget who did this to them.I think that is right. However, if I am right about the relative causes of civilian casualties, it explains why we cannot simply leave. The resulting vacuum would be filled with blood.
-Chris
Chris,
"What was the cost liberate Europe from Naziism? Was it worth it?" Good question. It's impossible to argue about this. I assume that you're pointing out the difficulty of measuring the value of sacrificing human life, which is a point that is worth considering and I only touched on in my post.
I don't mean to set a threshold or measure, but in my mind, I can't imagine justifying that many deaths. That one sentence, which isn't the main point of my comment, is simply saying that I can't comprehend making any reasonable judgement on the issue when you're talking about so many lives. I have trouble justifying any deaths ever, let alone 10,000-plus.
As usual, your analogy is practical and useful. It's worthy of further discussion--a discussion I'd welcome. In any case, that wasn't the core point I was trying to make, so I'd like to clarify.
Whether those who died were innocent civilians, terrorists, US troops, British troops, Sunnis, Shi'ites, journalists, contractors, insurgents from other nations, peace keepers, activists, volunteers, diplomats, Iraqi security personnel, or politicians, and whether they all killed each other or we killed them all or terrorists killed them all, they were alive before we invaded. All 10,000-plus of them. And regardless of fault or reason, war has produced many deaths. And whether I have trouble justifying these deaths or you think it's easier to justify, they're still all dead. While this point seems trivial and obvious, it has been entirely and actively avoided by this administration, our press, and many supporters and opponents of the war. It requires our attention because, until now, we've done little to understand the severity of the situation. Say what you want about the causes of death and who died. While important to consider, the causes of death for EACH INDIVIDUAL--who have conveniently remained virtually nameless by many--were severe and tragic. THIS is what I tend to forget. The numbers matter to me because they wake me up. At one point, you think, "10,000 is A LOT OF PEOPLE" and you start to imagine what the hell that really means.
I'm really just trying to point out, very simply, that it's too easy for those who support the war to rationalize these deaths and it's too easy for those using these deaths as a means to protest the war while forgetting and actively ignoring the sincere realization that they're dead.
Without subtext or implied editorializing, I offer a seemingly relevant quote, from none other than Joseph Stalin: "One death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic."
I saw the "boot" exhibit in Boston during the DNC and found it to be very moving.
I applaud the AFSC effort to treat these deaths as something other than a statistic.
Gents-
The question at hand is not whether the war was a good idea at the time, or whether it became retrospectively a bad idea when we learned that there were no WMDs. The video that started this thread asserted that we should leave and turn the country over to some (unnamed) international body.
Which international body has volunteered, or might be persuaded, to do the job?
NATO is doing a decent job in Afghanastan, but that is the sort of military occupation that the video decries. And we are still the biggest participant.
We could maybe get the UN to do it. They are doing such a fine job in Darfur.
Colin Powell was right about Pottery Barn rules...we need to stay and fix it.
-Chris
I don’t pretend to have a solution to this part of the discussion. I don’t know what we should do now. I’ve never supported any single course of action since the invasion I don’t see myself being convinced of any of the available arguments. That’s why this war is so troubling—all the options are horrible because the original premise is so screwed up.
But I’ll say this:
The most troubling thing about the post-invasion period, to me, is that we continue to justify it with the “you break it, you fix it” rule. I can’t think of anything more dangerous than this type of rationalization. Just think of the precedent this sets: any time we want to take unpopular action abroad, our government can just plow ahead because, after invading, we’ve got this brilliant rule that magically allows us to justify our actions and fulfill the subsequent commitments.
Conveniently, this “you break it, you fix it” rule has served as an excuse rather than a warning as Powell originally intended.
Nan-
"You break it, you fix it" can be an excuse rather than a warning. But imagine the opposite.
Before we went into Afghanistan, there were people in Washington advising that we boot out the Taleban and leave. Others said that we needed to give the Afghans a shot at some kind of representative govenment. They reasoned that unless the conditions that created the Taleban were changed, we could get an new government that was even worse.
It is not yet clear that what we did will work. Maybe Karzai will become more than the Mayor of Kabul, maybe not.
I think, for me, the crux of Powells argument is that military action under these circumstances is a package deal that is both costly and uncertain.
Guille- Take a look at the 20/20 piece on the UN in the Congo tonight. I think it will make the Darfur fiasco look like a fourth grade play.
-Chris
Post a Comment
<< Home