June 01, 2004
A Glass Half Full
Tonight (Tuesday) is one of those evenings where I don't have time to write much, but I would like to highlight this from Andrew Sullivan.
If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out... well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success.I don't want to pretend there aren't any problems. There were always going to be problems in Iraq no matter what we did, whether we invaded or not, whether we invaded and occupied differently or not. But the fact that there are problems (which, again, was inevitable) doesn't mean the project flopped. Imperfection isn't evidence of failure, and it never has been.
Iraq is a better place this year than it was last year. If Iraq is better off next year than it is right now, it will be nice if the media notice. Anyway, if they won't I will.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at June 1, 2004 09:12 PMIs this the same Andrew Sullivan who wrote a post three weeks ago entitled "The Chastening" explaining how, if he had it all to do over again, he'd just barely come down in favor of the war? And now this. Notice also that very few facts on the ground have changed between now and then; the only significant difference has been in the frequency of Bush's speeches on the subject.
Which is not to say that I disagree with you, Michael. On the contrary. I just don't think there's much value in quoting someone who's overcome by the vapors every time the news cycle turns bad or Bush goes too long without giving a press conference.
Posted by: Allah at June 1, 2004 10:11 PMI personally feel alot safer knowing those three Sarin gas shells were captured.
Well worth it.
Posted by: IXLNXS at June 1, 2004 10:19 PMI think Allah's got a point (and just for the record, yes, it DOES feel a little weird writing that). Andrew Sullivan has kind of been all over the map about Iraq, sometimes a little too much so.
I wish he'd stick to writing about domestic concerns, personally. He's so much better at that sort of thing than he is trying to come off like Victor Davis Hanson. When he's writing about what's nearest and dearest to him, gay rights, he's definitely at his best. Diversification isn't exactly his strong suit.
Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 1, 2004 10:20 PMThe binary approach to success or failure in the War on Terror has bothered me since 9/11. (Before then the whole idea of terrorism was theoretical, the first attack on the WTC notwithstanding. That one didn't really work, see?) Every time I hear "We've lost!" or "We've won!" I want to yell at someone. I didn't mind "Mission Accomplished" because I had no clue at the time anyone might believe that this thing was over; I assumed it was a "job well done" thank you to sailors finally going home. Have we become a people who really think history follows the conventions of television seasons? There ain't no clean wrap; Buffy doesn't make the world safe in the last episode, except for that tantalizing hint of a cliffhanger. Agincourt notwhistanding, the lesson of history is just muddling through. IXLNXS, are you listening?
The hardnose approach to Iraq isn't about success or failure; it's whether we are safer or not, and secondarily (for me), whether the world is a better place. I happen to think our current approach brings both into alignment, which gives me a warm happy feeling, but even if it didn't I'd be relatively content with only the first point (assuming it didn't turn us into monsters, which would make point one a short-term gain at best).
Michael, God willing I'll be reading you in a year's time and hoping both Iraq and the rest of the world are better places than they are right now.
Posted by: Mark Poling at June 1, 2004 11:40 PMTotal agreement here, Mark.
And notice that "better" is a relative term, not absolute.
Most people would agree that it's "better", not worse, for them to be tortured in an American rather than a Saddam controled Abu Ghraib. Better is not perfect.
Better than Saddam is not such a high bar; better with real democracy IS a much higher bar. Perfect is a stupidly high bar -- and those who relentless criticize Bush using an unspoken "perfection" are, de facto, supporting Saddam.
America is well on its way to supporting a real Iraq, one that does NOT kowtow to the US, the UN, or, prolly, not even Islamic clerics (not sure yet on this one).
Too bad not more elected Iraqi mayors; still need to watch whether it's local district constituencies, or national party slates (leading to a split).
Posted by: Tom Grey at June 2, 2004 12:31 AMThat's nice, Tom, but the real question is how much better is worth $200 billion and 1,000 American lives.
Posted by: Mork at June 2, 2004 02:21 AMSigh. Mork, you never cease to amaze me. The halfway intelligent dissenting reply would have been to ask, perhaps, how much better could $200 billion dollars of been spent and a thousand lives sacrificed in going after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden rather than Saddam and the Baath Party. Not saying that I totally buy it, but at least there's a halfway sensible case to be made for that. If John Kerry could afford to lose his leftist anti-war flank, he'd probably be saying as much. It's a conservative case, but it would sell well and land the waffle king in the White House.
But, no. You ask us to actually ask ourselves if the liberation of 25 million lives is worth 200 billion dollars and a thousand dead American soldiers. Unequivocally it is. You ask us to ask ourselves whether or not it was worth it to ensure that a guy like Saddam Hussein would never be able to get his hands on a nuclear weapon and do God knows what with it. Again, no question it was. The world's a safer place without Saddam in it. We're safer for it and the Iraqi people are better off. Maybe you could of argued that it was the right war at the wrong time, that more pressing things should have been dealt with first. Instead, you opted for the most foolish anti-war case available. Like I said, you never cease to amaze.
Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 2, 2004 03:09 AMMork, it was costing the US over $50 billion a year to enforce the no fly zone, and, IIRC,that doesn't include the money spent to enforce the sanctions. And we've been spending that for a decade.
Either way, do the math.
Posted by: TomB at June 2, 2004 04:24 AMTomB - cite for your number please? I believe you are over a factor of ten off.
Posted by: Hipocrite at June 2, 2004 05:54 AMThe only problem with Iraq is the American Democrat party.
It is a simple fact.
Posted by: Roark at June 2, 2004 06:22 AMSure Andrew has his moments and can go wobbly sometimes, but in general he quickly recovers and puts things into perspective. He is a wonderful patriot and provides a unique voice.
Mork, one of the hardest things to do is to justify the death of any son or daughter for any war. How parents come to terms with the loss of their own children in war is a subject I would never be willing to touch. I will only respect the opinions of those who have walked in those shoes. Anyone else's opinion is so much hot air.
However, Mork, do you believe that all lives are relatively equal? If so you might review this article. It is written by The Nation, a periodical which you probably respect and quotes a variety of sources which claim that approximately 3,000 children were dieing every month for at least nine years because of U.N. sanctions which have now ended. The article cites at least a quarter of a million children dead.
This is independent of the 300,000+ mass graves, or the 1.5 million Iraqis killed in warfare with Iran.
Posted by: bob at June 2, 2004 06:31 AM(what Grant & TomB said -- though I think the 50 billion depends on what's counted.)
Mork, how many American lives and dollars, if any, would it have been worth to spend/ lose in order to stay in SE Asia and continue fighting the VC and stop Pol Pot from murdering 2 million (2,000,000)?
I think 1,000/year and the avg yearly Vietnam cost would have been, morally, worth it. (And that, in time, the US would learn better how to do nation building, rather than kleptocracy support) I'd guess you wouldn't give numbers -- but it's pretty hypocritical to ask number questions if you're unwilling to answer any.
But I do think it's the right question: how many will die, how much will it cost, what are the benefits.
Posted by: Tom Grey at June 2, 2004 06:35 AMDon't hate on my man Sully. He's hyper-prolific. Follow the twists and turns of every argument. Read every day. It all makes sense in the end. Which is to say of course that I agree with him 90% of the time.
Posted by: Eric Deamer at June 2, 2004 06:41 AMThe problem is, we expect a zero defects war. It's not going to happen. It's like stressing over the fact that you gave up 20 points in a 100-20 Basketball game.
Posted by: billhedrick at June 2, 2004 06:43 AMbillhedrick,
No, that is not the problem. Where have you seen someone say that they expect a zero defects war?
Also, war is not a sport. By "defects" I assume you mean things like dead, wounded, and captured Americans, dead or wounded innocent Iraqis, torture, being 95% wrong about WMDs, etc. Trying to avoid or fix such "defects" is not that same as stressing over runs scored by the opposing team.
Posted by: Oberon at June 2, 2004 07:07 AMHello Michael.
It is not just Iraq that is a better place than it just recently was. Haiti is better, now that Aristede is gone. Liberia is better, now that Charles Taylor has seen the light. Afghanistan is better, now that the Taliban has been deposed. Iraq is better, as you mention. With the help of Colin Powell, Sudan is better as a peace treaty has been signed ending a 21 year civil war. And with Qaddafi suddenly deciding that he was on the wrong side of things, Libya is better.
Gerry
Posted by: Gerry at June 2, 2004 07:07 AMEr, darn it. Now that Charles Taylor is gone (he didn't see the light other than knowing he had to leave or die).
Posted by: Gerry at June 2, 2004 07:08 AMJust an aside, I notice that the figure of 1,000 dead is being thrown around a lot. Make that about 12,000 dead. A few Iraqis bought the farm also. Don't they count for anything?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 07:45 AMIf you mean the Iraqis who were fighting us, no, they don't, other than each one dead being one less problem for the world.
If you mean innocent Iraqis, then yes, they do. But compared to estimates of how many Iraqis died as a result of Hussein's regime's violence and its propensity for starving its people and the result of sanctions against Iraq for various international offenses, then there has been a tremendous net savings of Iraqi lives by our toppling of the Hussein regime.
Posted by: Gerry at June 2, 2004 07:50 AMWE DON'T CARE ABOUT IRAQ DUMMIES! It is all about LOSING this war, so we can get rid of capitalism, racism, Bush, neocons, etc. It is called DEFEATISM, and it works. If are against it, you are obviously for racism, imperialism, capitalism, etc. But go back to listening to Rush, like the dummies you are!
Posted by: Leftliberal at June 2, 2004 08:17 AM>>If you mean the Iraqis who were fighting us, no, they don't, other than each one dead being one less problem for the world.
At this point I feel obligated to mention that much of the Iraqi army was made up of conscripts i.e. slave soldiers. If they refused to fight, they were likely to end up in Abu Gharib.
In fact, at least one of the innocent people the USG tortured in Abu Gharib had been there before. It seems he had been tortured there three years ago for refusing military service.
(That's right, the USG was torturing a CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR who had refused to participate in the enemy army.)
So I'm going to strongly recommend that much of the body count in the Iraqi military "counts" as well -- though it should certainly be added to Saddam's total, not the USG's.
Posted by: T. J. Madison at June 2, 2004 08:24 AM>>If you mean innocent Iraqis, then yes, they do. But compared to estimates of how many Iraqis died as a result of Hussein's regime's violence and its propensity for starving its people and the result of sanctions against Iraq for various international offenses, then there has been a tremendous net savings of Iraqi lives by our toppling of the Hussein regime.
IdahoEv had an interesting analysis of this situation about two weeks ago on Winds of Change. He came to some surprising conclusions.
Posted by: T. J. Madison at June 2, 2004 08:27 AMThe 10,000+ figure doesn't include military casualties. Add another 5,000 or so of them.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 08:43 AMIdahoEv had an interesting analysis of this situation about two weeks ago on Winds of Change. He came to some surprising conclusions
... which were what?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 08:50 AMMJT,
speaking of troll-repellant, can you do something about the guy that keeps pretending to be a leftist from IndyMedia?
Posted by: Oberon at June 2, 2004 08:58 AMSource, please, Ungood? Someone other than "Iraqbodycount.org." Personally, I think that if our military killed twice as many civilians as they did actual combatants, then we have more problems than we're letting on. I for one want my money back for all those precision weapons we've been buying, since they don't seem to have worked.
That's IF I believed your figures for a second.
Which I don't.
(Gotta hand it to you, Ungood, you've got the Minitrue patter down pat. Why tell a small lie when a big one will do better?)
Posted by: Evil Otto at June 2, 2004 09:12 AMGerry: If you mean the Iraqis who were fighting us, no, they don't, other than each one dead being one less problem for the world.
Hang on, there. That was a slave army. They fought us with guns pointed at the back of their heads.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 09:19 AMThe right-wing troll who is pretending to be a left-liberal, who goes by the handle "leftliberal," is banned.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 09:22 AMhow much better could $200 billion dollars of been spent and a thousand lives sacrificed in going after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden rather than Saddam and the Baath Party
There's an interesting assumption built into the opportunity cost argument against the war in Iraq. I'll put it this way: would it have been worth spending $200 billion dollars and a thousand American lives sacrificed to fail in an attempt at going after al Qaeda and Bin Laden? We know for a certainty the cost of removing Saddam Hussein. I'll get back to you on the final cost of removing the Ba'athists. The burden of proof on anyone who advocates prosecuting the War on Terror solely by pursuing al Qaeda and Bin Laden and argues against the war in Iraq for that reason is that they must provide adequate proof that the task could have been accomplished at that cost. Good luck.
Posted by: Dave Schuler at June 2, 2004 09:34 AMEvil Otto, what's wrong with Iraq Body Count? They have a fairly extensive listing of their sources. If you have other sources for the number of civilian casualties, I for one would be eager to see it.
Gotta hand it to you, Ungood, you've got the Minitrue patter down pat. Why tell a small lie when a big one will do better?
Kind of a passive-aggressive way to call me a liar, doncha think? Why not just try "You're a liar"? More honest, if just as rude.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 09:39 AMA puppet gov. set up. And MJT is as happy as a puppy with two peters. HUUge step buddy. The place is in shambles. And I love your latest kick of throwing people off your site to protect your precious club of people with like minds. If we truly want representative government in that region we would let them decide. Now that's a novel idea. The people of their own land deciding who should run their country. But we only have to look in the mirror to see that this does not happen.
Posted by: bob at June 2, 2004 09:47 AMBob,
The guy I just kicked out was a right-winger, not a liberal. (I can see that you're insinuating I like to kick liberals out.) You're next if you don't watch it, not because you're left but because of your mouth.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 09:52 AMWell, call me silly, but I read these posts and wondered at the claim of dead civillians. So I started googling, sure to find some references on Iraq's body count.
Bizzarely, there is only one source that discusses it. The source is run by academics, they list their sources and appear to have at least an estimate of whats going on (though I fully believe they would 'tweak' the estimate as much as possible). Strangely, its the one source that Evil Otto felt unworthy of attention:
"Source, please, Ungood? Someone other than "Iraqbodycount.org."`"
There is nowhere else. Not anywhere I could find on the web. No opposing estimate saying it was only 2000 or 3000, nothing. Our government hasn't seen fit to document civillian casualties, other governments don't appear to be keen on it... so one must use the available information as their starting point. I would state it as:
According to available sources (iraqbodycount.org) Iraqi civillian death may be as high as 7000 or even 10,000.
Now, if someone has good evidence that Iraq Body Count is intentionally falsifying information, or that they are using known bad source material, then by all means lets discuss. But, Otto, just because you don't like the numbers, doesn't make them wrong.
Of course, they could be made up and the numbers could be higher or lower... unfortunately we have no data to support either notion at this point.
Anyone care to have a rational discussion on the value of iraqbodycount.org and the methodology by which it came up with these estimates? Or would we rather call them Left-Wing Bush-Haters and rant about Michael Moore?
Tosk
Posted by: Ratatosk at June 2, 2004 09:52 AMbob: And I love your latest kick of throwing people off your site to protect your precious club of people with like minds.
Umm, bob? I am seriously not of a "like mind" with MJT, and I'm still here. I think the policy is based on tone of commenary, not of politics.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 10:01 AMThere is nowhere else. Not anywhere I could find on the web. No opposing estimate saying it was only 2000 or 3000, nothing.
There was an Iraqi-based project to count casualties by getting figures from Iraqi hospitals. The CPA essentially shut it down by forbidding hospitals to co-operate. I'll see if I can find a reference, assuming it wasn't a dream I had or something. I may have read about it on Salam Pax's blog.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 10:07 AMRatatosk,
You don't think that a web site entitled "Iraq Body Count" might just be a little bit biased? Just because something is "run by academics" does not mean it is an unbiased OR trustworthy source, especially when the academics have a pretty obvious axe to grind.
How many of those included in their numbers were combatants who were not in uniform? Since quite a few of the people our soldiers were (and are) fighting were not part of any organized, uniformed military force, it can be EXTREMELY difficult to tell who was a civilian and who was not after the bombs go off.
In any case, IBC is NOT the only source out there; you just didn't look very hard.
Try this:
http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html
Their estimates:
Total Iraqi fatalities: 12,950 plus or minus 2,150 (16.5 percent) Iraqi non-combat fatalities: 3,750 plus/minus 550 (15 percent)
Iraqi combatant fatalities: 9,200 plus/minus 1,600 (17.5 percent)
From their website:
A central issue in estimating civilian dead is separating combatants from noncombatants within this category. The conventional concern with civilian casualties stems from the presumed status of civilians as noncombatants. But the noncombatant status of civilians cannot be simply assumed. In the Iraq war, militias and other combatants not in uniform played a major role. Hospitals tended to classify the dead as civilian as long as they had no form of military identification or clothing and there was no other evidence to the contrary. This might have allowed proper classification of the dead and injured in most cases, but not all. This is made clear in the Knight Ridder survey with regard to some of the dead at hospitals.
You may agree, you may disagree, but IBC is not the only source for numbers.
Ratatosk, just because you don't like the numbers doesn't make them wrong. And just because you (and presumably Orwellboy here) DO like the numbers doesn't make them right.
Posted by: Evil Otto at June 2, 2004 10:07 AMThe ministry began its survey at the end of July, when shaky nationwide communication links began to improve. It sent letters to all hospitals and clinics in Iraq, asking them to send back details of civilians killed or wounded in the war.
Many hospitals responded with statistics, Mohsen said, but last month Shabander summoned her and told her that Abbas wanted the count halted. He also told her not to release the partial information she had already collected, she said.
"He told me, `You should move far away from this subject,"' Mohsen said. "I don't know why." Abbas, the minister, said he had nothing to do with the order, and suggested the study wouldn't be feasible anyway.
"It would be almost impossible to conduct such a survey, because hospitals cannot distinguish between deaths that resulted from the coalition's efforts in the war, common crime among Iraqis, or deaths resulting from Saddam's brutal regime," he wrote.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 10:17 AMDouble-plus-ungood: Umm, bob? I am seriously not of a "like mind" with MJT, and I'm still here. I think the policy is based on tone of commenary, not of politics.
Thank you. I'm tempted to ban Bob for sheer stupidity on this one, but there's a chance he isn't actually familiar with these threads and only scanned this one so maybe he really doesn't know. I'll let him either figure it out or hang himself.
You're lucky you got a warning, Bob. Today's imposter troll did not.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 10:20 AMNow, if someone has good evidence that Iraq Body Count is intentionally falsifying information, or that they are using known bad source material, then by all means lets discuss
According to Iraqibodycount.org, they are using the “earlier work of Professor Marc Herold who produced the most comprehensive tabulation of civilian deaths in the war on Afghanistan from October 2001 to the present, and the data extraction
methodology has been designed in close consultation with him.”
Professor Marc Herold, possessor of one of the world’s worst combovers is also one of the most thoroughly discredited academics in the nation. According to Time Magazine, Human Rights watch and many other organizations, Herold severely overinflated the civilian death toll in Afghanistan.
Since they’re using his methodology, iraqibodycount is doing the same thing now.
It would be interesting to keep a record of the number of people murdered in the name of Islamic law, worldwide - the Islamic law that the ‘insurgents’ are hoping to install in Iraq. If you counted current deaths in the Sudan, the number would be well over a million. And that count is done without using Herold’s cheesy methodology
Posted by: mary at June 2, 2004 10:22 AMeo Ratatosk, just because you don't like the numbers doesn't make them wrong. And just because you (and presumably Orwellboy here) DO like the numbers doesn't make them right.
Wow, EO, the old mindreading skills are really coming in hand, aren't they? Thank goodness that someone at last is able to see though my obvious schadenfreude at civilians being killed.
As I said, I am interested in other sources of this info. Thanks for the link. And BTW, IraqBodyCount isn't simply counting civilians killed by allied forces, they're counting all casualties, no matter which side killed them.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 10:24 AMI love Sully (Glad to see he wasn;t knocked out by the stomach flu) but come on. What he's neglecting to mention here is the tenous grip we have on every one of those listed accomplishments. It's one thing to say, "I have a nice house." It's another to then add, "And there's a tornado headed right for it."
I'm ultimately pretty optimistic about Iraq - it's think they're a different group of Arabs who really do want a (mostly) non-religious democratic government, but there's no way to gloss over the disasters of the past year.
Posted by: wil at June 2, 2004 10:36 AMWil,
I hear ya. It isn't so much a matter of glossing over the problems, but pointing out the positive aspects which are just as real and not nearly as widely reported.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 10:53 AMThe Iraq Body Count site lists these people as being part of their effort:
Hamit Dardagan (principal researcher and site manager). "He has written for Counterpunch and undertaken research for a number of organizations, including Greenpeace."
John Sloboda. Since September 11th 2001 he has been responsible for the daily peaceuk.net mailing list disseminating critical non-violent perspectives on "the war on terror". He is a founder member of the Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations (Naspir), and a local delegate to the Stop the War Coalition.
Nope, no axes to grind there! ;)
Posted by: Brainster at June 2, 2004 10:57 AMWhoa, EO, those figures you linked to are from more than six months ago? October '03?
IraqBodyCount had similar figures as of that time. The difference was the methodology of screening for non-combatants, which seems to be a debatable statistics point. At any rate, if you go with that study's methodology, that would put the current non-combatant casualties at around 9,000 or so.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 11:00 AMThe stats at Iraqbodycount are highly dubious. They rely upon published totals from a host of unreliable and/or overtly biased sources (e.g. Al Jazeera), which are mixed in with more reliable information. As we have seen repeatedly, the Arab media deliberately conflates fatal accidents, crimes and terrorism with U.S. military actions.
Having said that, even the number of deaths that the "Counterpuncher" calculates are orders of magnitude lower than what the hand-wringing NGOs were predicting prior to the war. I won't even get into the amount of lives saved, which make the whole exercise pointless.
Posted by: Fresh Air at June 2, 2004 11:17 AMI fully believe that IBC are biased.As I said in my first post I'm sure they tweak the information as much as possible. I don't like or not like the numbers, I'd hoped for a discussion about IBC and their methodologies, as well as other sources for body count information (I thought that was clear in my first post). But, that apparently doesn't stop Otto from making assumptions.
Otto did however, provide a second source for numbers, (one probably baised slightly the other direction) which is good.
We have two studies now, one high which puts fatalities at 9-11 thousand, and one that puts it (as of Oct. 2003) at 3-4 thousand. I would guess the actual numbers are somewhere between those. But it would be nice to have additional sources, particularly ones from an unbiased source (though I wonder if they exist).
Mary, you're statement that Herold has been completely discredited is a bit overblown. I agreed with some of your links that he has an agenda, and certainly his methodology is open for debate (which was what I was hoping to generate here). However, most of your links were to other media pundits (with their own agendas).
While I doubt IBC is correct, I would like actual discussion of perhaps better methodologies, other sites (which at least Otto gave us) and perhaps a discussion about why neither government is very interested in finding out the actual numbers.
As I stated recently on Roger Simon's blog, I'm not about to trust any media outlet (including IBC) but I am interested in discussing the data and perhaps comming to our own conclusions.
Tosk
Posted by: Ratatosk at June 2, 2004 11:36 AMFresh Air,
Nice post and a very valid point. IBC relies heavily on media reports for their numbers. I find this a questionable source for any scientific study.
However, I disagree that its pointless. If the aim of our current Administration is pre-emptive strikes, invasion, control and regime change in other Arab nations (or Pro-Terror nations), we would be best served to learn from our mistakes. Killing civilians will happen in any war. Discussions to minimize those casualities can do nothing but help the innocents we liberate.
Posted by: Ratatosk at June 2, 2004 11:40 AMThree U of Chicago Economics professors produced this study that shows war as being a less expensive option than containment.
This article references UNICEF in stating that per month, containment was costing 5,000 Iraqi children under five, their lives.
Posted by: crionna at June 2, 2004 11:43 AMThe source that EO pointed to states that the casualty figures that IBC gathered was pretty much in accordance with their numbers. They say that the differences are in the screening of who is and is not a combatant.
I too am wary of partisanship in producing these figures. IBC states in their methodology page:We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources.Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 11:48 AM
RE: Iraqi Body Count
1. If memory serves, on their about page they explicitly state that the reason they are undertaking the project is to debunk the notion that smart bombs minimize civilian casualties. In other words, they are assuming a certain outcome and trying to find data to prove that outcome. So, it's inarguable that they are extremely biased and are simply out to find the greatest number of casualties possible in order to prove their pre-ordained thesis, this beyond the fact that they are also obviously extremely anti-war. This doesn't speak to methodology, and of course no study is undertaken from an entirely unbiased perspective, but this is such an extreme and transparent bias that, for me at least, it's enough to dismiss their numbers out of hand and place them in the same category as Chomsky's claim that bombing the aspiring factory in the Sudan led to the death of a million people or whatever.
2. Methodology: I remember less about this then about their mission statement, but I think that all they look for is 2 corroborating witness and, as someone said above, that they accept, unvarnished, the reports of highly biased anti-US media such as Al Jazeera. Also, ludicrously they try to blame any death in Iraq, for virtually any reason, on the coalition. For instance, if a bunch of Al Qaeda scum massacre a group of Shia worshipping peacefully at their Mosque, that's somehow the Americans' fault.
3. This is all beyond, of course, the fact, as was stated above, that even the highest possible estimate by the most biased outfit around is still far lower than the number of people killed in the same time period during any part of Saddam's regime.
4. And, of course, the people who run the damn thing are very-super-ultra-far-left. I'm not saying that only a staunch Republican should be trusted with these numbers, but again this is a case of extreme and obvious inherent bias.
Now can we move on? (to coin a phrase)
Posted by: Eric Deamer at June 2, 2004 11:53 AMEric,
Good and valid points. As I've said before, this is the sort of discussion I wanted.
Do you consider their 'low' number to be at all close, or do you assume that are completely out of whack?
My personal thinking after reading and poking at their site, is that they're hoping to maintain a spin, while holding to some aspect of truth. I would guess that the number they truly believe to be correct (without spin) is somewhere near (probably just under) their low number. That follows standard spin and 'statistical' rules.
Do you think that the US made any mistakes that cost unnecessary civilians? If so, what do you think we can do in the next invasion to minimize these numbers?
Yay! Discourse!
Ratatosk
Posted by: Ratatosk at June 2, 2004 12:07 PMSquirrel of Discord--
I accept your nit. Perhaps the IBC data isn't pointless, though without knowing the other side of the equation (i.e. benefits of the war), there is no way for a reader to gain any value out of a body count--even if it is accurate.
As an aside, with all the focus on things that go boom, the anti-war types have missed (or more probably, ignored) the enormous humanitarian efforts. Thanks largely to the United States, millions of Iraqi children will not die from the measles, mumps, tuberculosis, etc.
Posted by: Fresh Air at June 2, 2004 12:08 PMMary, you're statement that Herold has been completely discredited is a bit overblown.
But I wasn’t being overblown when I said he had the world’s worst combover.
This article, 2+2=5, say antiwar groups,
describes the methodology used:
"The project's methodology is roughly this: An incident is recorded if two or more news sources from a list of "reputable" media outlets reports on it. Two numbers are kept - a minimum and a maximum. Both numbers are revised as more reports of a given event come in. The maximum and minimum numbers can be the same if only one casualty count (reported by two media outlets) has been found for a given event.
Under Herold's system, the Iraqi minister of information, now known as "Baghdad Bob," could say that American bombers blew up a school or a hospital, killing 400 people. Suppose this figure was picked up by the Arab satellite news channel Al Jazeera - a station that has been known to unquestioningly air Iraqi propaganda - and then was broadcast by just one other news organization. The number would then be entered into the maximum column, and in the absence of other reports, the minimum column as well.
The kicker is that if the U.S. military could not confirm that whether or not the bombing had taken place, Herold's system would do nothing to the figures: Only if the military stated a specific number of casualties would the statistics change. Moreover, if nothing is ever again said about that event - a very real possibility in the fast-paced world of American and international media - the minimum number will never be revised. The minimum number is subject to egregious inflation, and the maximum number is little more than the outrageous claims of the Iraqi government. Therefore, these studies are useless to anyone interested in the actual truth.
...
Herold didn’t use his figures to find ways of avoiding civilian deaths in the future. He used the figures to assert that racism motivated the US to intentionally kill the greatest number of civilians possible.
In his words: "the Afghanis are not "white," whereas the overwhelming majority of pilots and elite ground troops are. This "fact" serves to amplify the positive benefit-cost ratio of sacrificing the darker-skinned Afghanis today (like the Indochinese and Iraqis of former wars) so that "white" American soldiers may be saved tomorrow."
If you question sources like al Jazeera or Baghdad Bob, Herold and his followers will accuse you of racism & pro-western bias.
The facts, according to the New York Times, are the
According to the New York Times are that Herolds estimates were in the 3,000-4,000 range. Confirmed estimates were more in the 1,000 – 1,500 range. Herold’s methodology was used to inflate civilian death tolls by at least 200%.
They’re using his methodology for iraqbodycount.
These are the non-overblown facts that prove that Iraqibodycount is inaccurate.
Posted by: mary at June 2, 2004 12:13 PMsorry about the goofy NY Times link.
if you read the 2+2=5, say antiwar groups article, you'll see that even the minimum count is inflated. Accuracy is not their goal.
Posted by: mary at June 2, 2004 12:18 PMAside for the suppositions about the biasednessosity of left-wingers gathering statistics that would support their predetermined political views, the only two source of information we have about this are in accordance. As of October 2003, they both had similar casualty counts. What was different was the interpretation of whether they were non-combatant casualties. Which would lead to to believe that IBC's count is accurate, biased or not, but that they may be including non-uniformed insugents in their counts.
If we go with the PDA's contention that the IBC's methodology is off by 38% in October, and we extrapolate that to a value halfway between IBC's min and max (just over 1,000), then estimated civilian casualties are around 7,000 (killed, not injured).
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 12:24 PMMary,
Thank you for the well thought out and insightful post. I agree that IBC is biased and very likely to inflate numbers.I don't think that they're so far overblown that their lower number is off by much... but certainly the higher number of 11k is pure spin.
d-p-ungood has pointed out a couple times that both data sets we have available to us concurred in October 2003. Perhaps they have inflated things like crazy since then... or perhaps they're spinning the 'out-of-uniform' combatants... we don't know.
Perhaps we would be safe to say that the numbers are "above 5000". Now, the question is, how can we reduce that number the next time we have to deal with an invasion? Is 5000 perhaps the best we can expect in a time when the enemy no longer wears a uniform and hides among the innocent?
Tosk
Posted by: Ratatosk at June 2, 2004 12:36 PMdpu:
It's bizarre that you refer to "suppositions" when this is all stuff that is blatantly stated if you look at the site. (Or at least it was the last time I did), but whatever.
Anyway as far as the questions as to what casualties could have been avoided and what went wrong. I haven't the faintest idea. I don't know. I'd be far out of my depth opining about that. Frankly, I'd be somewhat surprised if there was anyone reading this who is remotely qualified to look at war plans etc. in detail and give an informed answer to those kind of questions.
The only opinion I have formed on the subject comes from an excellent but little noticed series of articles about (mostly) the purely military aspects of the war written by Caleb Carr for the New York Observer. He said that every liberal's favorite, Colin Powell, wanted to do a lot more aerial bombardment and have a much more overwhelming force, in essence, to use conventional tactics similar to the way the first Gulf War was fought. This had been the doctrine in the American military for a long time, which in effect led to more civilian casualties in exchange for fewer casualties amongst our troops. This, I believe, was actually the exact way that the policy was promoted.
Ironically, it was the evil, Satanic, prisoner-abusing Donald Rumsfeld who took a lot of heat for wanting to go with less bombing and leaner forces so there were fewer civilian casualties; which would lead to a greater likelihood of us actually be seen as liberators.
I don't know how it is that such a liberal humanitarian as Colin Powell would seem to take a more callous attitude towards civilian casualties than a warmongering fascist who should be fired and then executed but then, stranger things have happened.
Posted by: Eric Deamer at June 2, 2004 12:41 PMthey may be including non-uniformed insurgents in their counts
There is no such thing as a uniformed insurgent. The IBC is deliberately including all combatants in its non-combatant death count. This makes their results worthless.
We’ve already determined that the IBC minimums and maximums are inaccurate. Readjusting bad data produces more bad data.
Posted by: mary at June 2, 2004 12:42 PMOne of the things I enjoy most about Andrew Sullivan (and Den Beste, fwiw) is that they think out loud, so that, agree or disagree, one can follow their lines of reasoning. A common partisan attack is to attack their motives (R's as greedcreeps/fundamentalists, D's as Trotskyists, etc.). I think the self examination (and doubt that comes from honest introspection) only strengthens the credibility of their ultimate conclusions.
During the build up to Gulf II, I guesstimated that Hussein had killed ~25,000 Iraqis/year on average using casualty figures from Iran-Iraq & Kuwait, estimated costs of non-compliance with UN sanction terms, etc. It was an underestimate, as the mass graves attest, and I'm not sure that one should argue that the person standing on the smallest pile of corpses "wins" the morality contest, but nevertheless, I feel we (as Americans) were right to depose a democidal fascist, and liberation/national security issues aside, a lot more Iraqi lives were and are spared as a result of our actions. I have no doubt about that. Of course we aren't perfect, we're human. But any classical liberal should be proud.
Posted by: Gene Thug at June 2, 2004 12:42 PMThe body count in Iraq could have been nil if Iraqis had not impeded the U.S. advance to Baghdad and put away their weapons. Most probably reasoned that they couldn't stop U.S. forces from their military mission, so choosing to fight may have cost their life. Maybe they should have taken a lesson from the French and just surrendered on day 1.
Posted by: sammy small at June 2, 2004 12:45 PMmary The IBC is deliberately including all combatants in its non-combatant death count.
Source please?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 12:47 PMSullivan hit the nail right on the head.
I think at this time next year Iraq will scarcely be in the news, and of course that will mean Iraq is doing great.
Posted by: mnm at June 2, 2004 12:54 PMThe body count in Iraq could have been nil if Iraqis had not impeded the U.S. advance to Baghdad and put away their weapons.
The same reasoning applies to any invasion - EG Japan invading Manchuria. If this logic held true, then the burden of civilian casualties always lies with the defending military. I'm not about to accept that line of logic, and I suspect that most people wouldn't either.
Just an aside to everyone who's getting defensive about the casualties -- my original point was that I amost never see that figure (whether 12,000 or 5,000) included in the "costs" of the Iraq invasion, and I think that Iraqi lives are worth as much as any other life.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 12:54 PMdpu - the source was your statement. If the IBC is counting all non-uniformed insurgents in their death count, they are in fact counting all insurgents in their death count
Posted by: mary at June 2, 2004 12:56 PMDouble-plus-good,
Do you find your pesonnal level of frustration or anxiety increase when positive reports come out of Iraq? Or for that matter do you feel frustrated anytime someone posts something positive about Iraq?
Posted by: mnm at June 2, 2004 01:00 PMthe question is, how can we reduce that number the next time we have to deal with an invasion? Is 5000 perhaps the best we can expect in a time when the enemy no longer wears a uniform and hides among the innocent?
If we have to deal with another large-scale military invasion, we should target the uniformed soldiers of the states that support terrorism. Financing terrorist paramilitaries is how these states fight their wars – they finance groups like al Qaeda and Hamas, and they finance ‘insurgents’ like Sadr’s Army.
Of course, targeting state support doesn’t eliminate all terrorism. It’s difficult for a large, official military force to effectively fight an enemy that uses civilians as shields. When we’re involved in that sort of war, the Geneva convention starts to look like a suicide pact. In that sort of urban warfare, the tactics used by resistance fighters, if they were organized and well-informed, would be more effective.
Posted by: mary at June 2, 2004 01:06 PMMJT, I thought i would get back. I read your site every day and have for at least a year. I did not stumble upon this thread. I only write when needed. Ban me if you must. But i will still keep reading. The banter on this blog either fires me up or is just plain laughable. Looks as though you lit a fire this morning. This thread is exhausted.
Posted by: bob at June 2, 2004 01:12 PM
Ratatosk said:
"Discussions to minimize those casualities can do nothing but help the innocents we liberate."
That's just funny. You aren't doing any liberating. Nor is anyone else posting here on this blog. They're all over in Iraq or Afghanistan.
MJT said:
"Hang on, there. That was a slave army. They fought us with guns pointed at the back of their heads."
The German Army in WWII was a conscript Army. I don't see any great sympathy for them out of you. The point is, they fought. They and the rest kept Hussein in power.
And ++UG is correct when he says he doesn't see those casualty figures listed as a cost. That means one of two things really; either nobody knows how many died (and that seems to be the case around here) or, nobody really cares. (Which I suspect is the real reason). It ain't about the casualties.
Posted by: Eric Blair at June 2, 2004 01:19 PMBob, I don't want to ban you. You caught me in a mood, right after I kicked out a right-winger in leftist clothing. I have no patience for that crap, which is why I blocked his IP address wihtout warning.
Anyway, if you've been around you ought to know better than to say I only ban people because I disagree with their opinions. You insinuated that I want a right-wing echo chamber in here. Yesterday someone on a thread at Winds of Change accused me of wanting a left-wing echo chamber in here. I can't be doing both of these things at the same time, obviously, and the fact that I get accused of both within 24 hours tells me I'm doing something right.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 01:19 PMMary,
Thanks for the discussion, I'll have to consider your osts more carefully, apparently you do use that brain ;-).
Eric,
I used the royal 'we'. Thanks for correcting me, no matter how much I try to clean up my writing, I find that little nasties like that sneak in from time to time. Thanks for pointing it out... I hadn't caught it.
Tosk
So what did we decide... Either no one knows or no one cares how many civillians died? Any other options?
Posted by: Ratatosk at June 2, 2004 01:26 PMYou are, and that's why i continue to read. I like to see a fellow P-towner making it. This is definitely not an echo chamber. I just returned a little of the fire that i was refering to. Those flames are extiguished.
Posted by: Bob at June 2, 2004 01:30 PMI want to take issue with this repeated mentioning of the "sanctions" or "containment" costing lives. Saying the sanctions costed lives is implicitly blaming the rest of the Western world for it. It totally avoids any discussion of why they were necessarily put into place to begin with and blames America for what was clearly Saddam's fault. We weren't starving and killing the Iraqi people. Saddam was. And if there weren't any sanctions in place, it's not like Saddam would have used the money to invest in his country's infrastructure or fed his people with it.
There. I said my peace. Continue with the discussion.
Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 2, 2004 01:32 PMmary If the IBC is counting all non-uniformed insurgents in their death count, they are in fact counting all insurgents in their death count
Where did I say that?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 01:37 PMThis is the other "bob". Gonna have to change my moniker.
--This article references UNICEF in stating that per month, --containment was costing 5,000 Iraqi children under five, their --lives.
Crionna, thanks! I remember seeing this figure but I didn't remember where, so I went with the Nations article which sets the figure at approximate 3500 children per month.
Maybe you guys know a different math than I do but we could conservatively argue that the past year has saved the lives of tens of thousands of children.
Two random questions: Where did Mork go? He did his troll thing and then vanished. He should come back and clean up this mess.
Do you get the feeling that if Al Gore and company (e.g. Mork) were around in 1942, they would be asking the U.S. to call it quits once parity in body counts was achieved after the attack at Pearl?
Posted by: bob (The Original Lowercase "bob") at June 2, 2004 01:41 PMmnm Do you find your pesonnal level of frustration or anxiety increase when positive reports come out of Iraq? Or for that matter do you feel frustrated anytime someone posts something positive about Iraq?
That's a pretty leading question, mnm. Do have possibly have a preconcieved notion about what I might be thinking?
When I read some of the trgic stuff coming out of Iraq, I literally want to weep, especially some of the stories about kids and stuff happening to their their families. Any news good news out of Iraq is welcome, an end to the strife and bloodshed is well overdue for these people. I strongly hope that it all concludes well. If this goes down in history as an accomplishment for George W. Bush and his presidency, I'll tip my hat to the guy and say that I was mistaken in my beliefs that it was ill-conceived and would result in more bad than good.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at June 2, 2004 01:44 PMEric Blair, a point; the folks doing the liberating and/or being liberated need our support. We who care one way or another argue here and in the real world in hopes that our arguments will make a difference.
Granted, what we armchair generals do isn't dangerous. And God knows most of our arguments produce more noise than light. Still, I feel it's my duty to at least have an opinion and be able to defend it. So yeah, I feel I have some part to play in the War on Terror.
Better a walk on part in the war than a lead role in a cage.
Posted by: Mark Poling at June 2, 2004 01:47 PMI agree with Grant that the U.S. doesn't deserve blame for "killing" Iraqis with sanctions. Kurdistan was also sanctioned (although it should not have been) and that part of Iraq doesn't have a body count attached to the embargo. That's because Saddam didn't controal that part of the country. Either way, the status quo in Iraq throughout the 1990s was, in fact, deadly. A lot fewer people are dying there today, and that's what matters.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 01:48 PM"Better a walk on part in the war than a lead role in a cage."
I've always loved that line. Did Pink Floyd write it or borrow it?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 01:50 PMI've always assumed it was original to Pink Floyd. (I probably should have attributed the quote for the younger readers. Sigh.)
The lyrics in the whole album are uniformly great. I don't think they needed to borrow from anyone.
http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/lyrics/wywh.html
Posted by: Mark Poling at June 2, 2004 01:58 PM"possibly have a preconcieved notion about what I might be thinking?"
Yes.
"If this goes down in history as an accomplishment for George W. Bush and his presidency, I'll tip my hat to the guy and say that I was mistaken in my beliefs that it was ill-conceived and would result in more bad than good."
Well, that's great.
Posted by: mnm at June 2, 2004 02:00 PMOliver Kamm does a good job of exposing Iraq Body Count's poor methodology. Follow the links:
Original article and Followup
double-plus-ungood,
I believe you, but the crux of the matter is that with history it is really difficult to speculate about the body counts that would have occured for the path not taken. Suppose France had intervened in 1936 and kicked the Nazi's off their bicycles when they invaded the Rhineland. How many Nazi's would have died? Would there have been a minor war of 50,000 to a 100,000 casualties? Had there been what would have been the outcry of pacifists, unaware that the non-intervention path would have led to the death of 55 million people?
Bottom line is none of us can precisely predict the future and body counts caused by unintended consequences We can only know what has really happened, in the past based on one of a thousand different choices we could have made. For any choice in history, there will be bodies and innocents to cry about. We can flagellate ourselves, put on our hair shirts, bemoan the human condition and slip into a fetal state, shirking responsibility and making non-decisions. Some of us believe this will eventually result in huge body counts including those of people I know and love.
Now that Saddam has been pulled out of a spider hole and will be tried by his own people, I can never conclusively prove to you or others that had we refrained from invading Iraq that there would have been horrific consequences. We simply have to make educated guesses and extrapolate from the past using crude metrics. Saddam told us where he was going based on his past. He loved WMDs, was delusional, hated the United States, and had active ties to Islamist terrorists.
We didn't have a smoking gun, but what we did have is probable cause. That was enough for me.
Posted by: bob at June 2, 2004 02:44 PMYeah, bob's right...this thread is getting a little old.
They're hosting another "Opinion Duel" between the folks at The New Republic and those at The National Review over at opinionduel.com. This one asks the question, "Who would best serve as John Kerry's running mate?" Michael Crowley represents from TNR and John Miller from the National Review. So far it's pretty good. Unexpectedly a little funny, even.
Maybe you oughta post a link to it, Michael. Throw in your thoughts on the debate, if you want...Crowley's a big Johnny Edwards fan.
Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 2, 2004 04:40 PMOr, hey, have you seen factcheck.org yet, MJT? It's an awesome website for nailing down alot of the bullshit that both Kerry and Bush are saying. Totally fair and bipartisan, too.
Write something about that, maybe.
Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 2, 2004 04:42 PMOh, oh, oh...
Or maybe something about how hot Stephanie Herseth is. If you can post about The Day After Tomorrow, you can post about this. :)
Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 2, 2004 04:49 PMThere is no "good" war. The only thing that matters is: Is it is necessary? If it is necessary, then body counts do not matter. There is no "tipping point" in a necessary war.
There is no question of morality in total war. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Yes, they were terrible - and some say - unnecessary. There is a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. Guilt. Remorse. We won. Millions died.
Will this war be proven to be necessary? Only time will tell. This president is not FDR, he is no Churchill. I wish that I was thoroughly convinced. There was no question (aside from die-hard pacifists) about Germany and Japan.
Sullivan can say that things are "better". How relatively positive of him. I want to know if this is necessary, and if we have the resolve to win... despite the body counts.
Posted by: volareus at June 2, 2004 04:54 PMbeing 95% wrong about WMDs??????????????????
Posted by Oberon at June 2, 2004 07:07 AM
*************************************************
Have you considered that when it comes to WMDs you could be 99.9999999% wrong but the
0.0000001% would be all that is needed for you
to be 100% dead?
Or post something about the nascent rise and return of "Realism" on the Right, Michael...
"We need to restrain what are growing US messianic instincts, a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy, by force if necessary."
Pat Roberts said this, Michael, Pat Roberts being a Republican Senator and rock-solid heartland-conservative from Kansas. I've been wondering when this sort of thing would really start manifesting itself again, on the Right. The Wilsonian idealism of the neo-cons is really more liberal than conservative, after all. I always figured it was only a matter of time.
Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 2, 2004 05:09 PMVolareus,
I'd say fighting in Iraq is not strictly necessary. But fighting somewhere in the Middle East is. The status quo is deadly and the UN ain't gonna change it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 05:37 PMGood topics, Grant. I already pounded one out for today before I saw them, though...
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 05:38 PMHey, man, you went with a Michael Crowley article at least. Close enough (and a little eerie, perhaps).
I need my own blog. I know.
Posted by: Grant McEntire at June 2, 2004 05:46 PM1. If memory serves, on their about page they (IBC) explicitly state that the reason they are undertaking the project is to debunk the notion that smart bombs minimize civilian casualties.
Posted by Eric Deamer at June 2, 2004 11:53 AM
************************************************
The brutal truth is the purpose of smart bomb technology is NOT to minimise civilian casualties, but to HIT military targets.
Pilots and aircraft are valuable assets, smart bombs increase the odds that their mission will be accomplished with lessened risk.
Now it is true that less civilian casualties is a side effect, but that is not the purpose.
Wonder if the idiots at IBC could answer these simple questions?
Which will result in greater civilian casualties?
Massive saturation bombings or targeted smart bomb raids?
DUH!
Since they can't, they simply try to cook some numbers to validate their position.
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at June 2, 2004 06:03 PMMuch of the criticism of the Iraq war exposes the fundamental selfishness of the modern Left. I hear more concern for spending "$200 billion" and "1,000 dead Americans" than I do about liberating 25 million people. The old-line liberals would be shocked!
Posted by: Ben at June 2, 2004 06:48 PMGrant: I need my own blog. I know
I would read it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 2, 2004 07:11 PMMuch of the criticism of the Iraq war exposes the fundamental selfishness of the modern Left. I hear more concern for spending "$200 billion" and "1,000 dead Americans" than I do about liberating 25 million people. The old-line liberals would be shocked!
Posted by Ben at June 2, 2004 06:48 PM
**************************************************
Kinda leave out the ~3000 dead at the WTC the FORGOTTEN American dead at the hands of Islmofacism before that, and while few were Americans those who get so picky about the counting? Should factor in the ~7000 dead and ~10000 wounded SINCE 9/11 by terrorist attacks.
Man do I wish I could create a virtual universe for them to inhabit, in which all their agendas were sucessful?
Talk about unintended consequences.
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at June 2, 2004 07:14 PMGrant,
Count me in on the Herseth bandwagon. An actual cute politician! From South Dakota no less! And she's close to my age.
Swoon
Posted by: Dave at June 2, 2004 08:31 PMMJT,
Yesterday someone on a thread at Winds of Change accused me of wanting a left-wing echo chamber in here.
If you're referring to my comment over there, I don't believe that is your INTENT. I just think that will be a side effect of your policy that people's allegiance is not to be challenged. You are creating a safe haven for Americans who hate their own country more than they hate terrorists.
Back to lurking...
Posted by: HA at June 3, 2004 04:09 AMcrionna points to a 2003 Chicago study on Iraq, in an attempt to show the war is less expensive than the not-war.
Of course, the study concludes it's second paragraph with - "To be conservative, put the U.S. cost of war at $125 billion." Is comment necessary?
Of course, the study also uses an annual discount rate of 2%, with a regime change possibility of 3%. The 10 year treasury currently trades at 4.73%.
This is the kind of GIGO research one can expect when you use the adminstrations lienalysis of costs, and you try to us a short-term discount rate on a long term problem.
Posted by: Hipocrite at June 3, 2004 05:21 AMI would like to pose the following question to our friends on the Left:
You wake up tomorrow and are presented with two options; you are told that you must choose one of them.
Option A -- You will live for the rest of your life in a free (or at least partly free) society where you can elect your leaders. If you choose this option, there is a 1 in 2000 chance you will be stricken dead immediately.
Option B -- You live for the rest of your life in a country controlled by Saddam Hussein & the Ba'ath party.
Is there a sane person (not connected with the Ba'ath party) who would choose Option B?
Posted by: Ben at June 3, 2004 07:12 AMAt the risk of bringing up a dead topic, IXLNXS's 1st comment "I personally feel alot safer knowing those three Sarin gas shells were captured" perfectly illustrates my point about Leftist selfishness.
Posted by: Ben at June 3, 2004 07:14 AM"Imperfection isn't evidence of failure, and it never has been."
True and it's good that Sadddam is gone but there is simply no excuse for the incompetent decisions that have been made followed his removal. The glass wasn't empty at fall of the Baath it was full in terms of potential. That it is now half empty reveals a trend line that can't continue.
Posted by: alan aronson at June 3, 2004 07:38 AMAlan --
Perhaps if the President's critics spent time offering helpful suggestions instead of knee-jerk criticism fewer mistakes would have been made. But then there's the 2004 Election. . . .
Posted by: Ben at June 3, 2004 07:46 AMPerhaps if the President didn't rely on his critics to come up with all the good ideas to ignore, fewer mistakes would have been made. But then there's the 2004 Election.
Ben - What's that logical fallacy called again? False Dicotomy? Yeah, that's it.
Posted by: Hipocrite at June 3, 2004 10:58 AMSince you obviously missed the point, Hipocrite, I'll spell it out more clearly: If you are not willing to step up to the plate with a practical alternative to the policy you are criticizing, be quiet. The Left has criticized virtually everything the Administration has done in Iraq, while advancing no practical, substantive alternative. Accordingly, their criticism is entitled to ZERO consideration.
Posted by: Ben at June 3, 2004 11:39 AMHipocrite scoffs at U. of Chicago professors' 2003 estimates of containment’s cost because 1) they use a discount rate of 2% which they call “a reasonable rate of real interest facing the US government” rather than the 10-year Treasury’s current 4.73% as identified by Hipocrite, 2) they discount the containment cost by a 3% probability of regime change and then compare the cost against a $125B cost of war.
Fine. First let’s assume that U. of Chicago professors are clueless with regard to expected real interest facing the US government and that Hipocrite is not. So, we’ll go ahead and use Hipocrite’s 4.73% rate.
Second, we’ll assume, since Hipocrite doesn’t offer a percentage of his own, that the professors’ guess at the probability of containment related regime change 3% is valid (I think it would be closer to 0% given the zeal with which other UNSC members worked to keep that regime in place, but hey I won’t argue with U. of Chicago professors).
My figures show that the NPV of a 33-year containment would be $270B. Just as FYI, it would $329B without the regime change percentage.
Now, I’ve read that The Congressional budget office estimates the cost of the war in Iraq will reach $200 billion* if we're there another nine years. So, using Hipocrite’s numbers we’re still $70B to the good**.
*This is a non-TVoM discounted figure AFAICT, the NPV at Hipocrite's rate would be closer to $175B, but we'll ignore that too, just to prop up his argument.
**Leaving out, of course, the “soft” benefits of saving lives, removing a tyrant, etc. etc.
Posted by: crionna at June 3, 2004 12:03 PMNow, I’ve read that The Congressional budget office estimates the cost of the war in Iraq will reach $200 billion* if we're there another nine years.
GIGO. This figure is from late 2002. If you may have realized, things aren't going quite as swimmingly as expected.
Secondly, $20MM a year for the containment included, and I quote - "depreciation of ships and planes." Do you propose we sell the used ships and planes to get their depreciation off the income statement without incuring a loss? That's a new one - Conservatives propose auctioning our national security off to the highest bidder.
I can keep finding the GI in that Chicago piece all day - it's an ancient piece of political coverwork, but, at the end of the day, you know, and I know, and everyone reading this knows that the invasion had costs above and beyond the containment. The question is what the benefits were.
Ben - we're providing a viable alternative now. John Kerry has a perfectly reasonable alternative - one you don't like - http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/
Since the current group has bobbled it all up, perhaps it's best to let someone else take the wheel.
Posted by: Hipocrite at June 3, 2004 12:48 PMHipocrite, come now, you're clearly intelligent enough to know that the DoD has to figure depreciation of military assets without figuring them as "for sale". What, the stuff just stays good as new forever, never needs maintenance or upgrading huh?
And no, I won't just agree cause you say so, that invasion wasn't cheaper than containment in a strictly financial viewpoint.
As for the benefits, to me they're obvious, but hey, I didn't know that "Let's leave dictators in place cause its cheaper." was the new liberal mantra.*
*I know that its not, but if you're going to drop a ridiculous charge like auctioning our national security off to the highest bidder on conservatives, I'll pull out the old "liberals as Saddam-lovers" charge to hang on you.
Posted by: crionna at June 3, 2004 01:37 PMHipocrite --
I called for a "practical, substantive alternative." Your link only shows me a bunch of feel-good nonsense utterly devoid of specifics. For example, what specific steps does Kerry intend to get NATO to add Iraq to its mission? What does he intend to do if France, Germany, et al. refuse to participate? How does he intend to speed to creation of Iraqi forces? Specifically what authority does he intned to give to the UN? What if the UN refuses to come on board? etc., etc., etc.
Posted by: Ben at June 3, 2004 02:32 PM++(-), Rata, Hip and others...
Every poster here has an innate, God-given capacity to generate hypotheses; to create 'what-if' scenarios, even when they run counter to experiential, observable reality.
"What if America uses stunners, flash-grenades, tear-gas, Adamsite (vomit/tear gas which incapacitates without killing) and foam-blaster tanks and sonic discombobulators and NO bombs and NO machine guns... even if they tried to kill us, we'd be able to stop them with nearly ZERO innocent civilian deaths..."
Yeah. I can do it.
But I also watched the reality unfold, after months of preparations, as the Allies went in. There WERE some firefights, and there WERE some RPG attacks, but there were also huge numbers of Iraqi 'soldiers' who threw up the two-handed French greeting of 'war's over for me! Don't shoot!' And they were not killed, tortured, maimed, tattooed/disfigured or incarcerated.
And I also watched and read as the gutless thugs battling insanely against American/Brit troops HERDED WOMEN AND CHILDREN before themselves, relying on the moral superiority of their enemy to provide some protection to them.
And while these events were unfolding, I pondered deeply and over quite some time, the concept of 'innocent civilians'. That Saddam and his ilk PURPOSELY placed military targets into civilian areas was enough for me to recognize and acknowledge the Saddamite corruption that their national-socialist (yup, Nazi) mindset so blithely invoked upon their own people. I began to question whether there can be, in this day of informed choices and international Googling, such a thing as 'innocent civilians'.
Nevertheless, when I got to the question about smart bombs causing the same damage as carpet bombing (Dresden) or nuclear devices (Nagasaki) I knew someone had a hidden agenda, since smart BunkerBusters, for example, have NO explosive content. They are laser/GSM guidable devices which have 2.5 TONS of cement in their upper half and controller-fins on their lower half, and slice down through floor after floor of housing to get to the bottom of things. And they do it without breaking windows in the house next door.
So I choose to believe Iraq IS a better place to be, and much more of an addition to the good of humanity worldwide, since the courage and skill of America's troops and freedom's allies went in and removed a poisonous, suppurating, chronic and disease-ridden government.
Posted by: Sharps Shooter at June 3, 2004 09:42 PMBen sez:
If you are not willing to step up to the plate with a practical alternative to the policy you are criticizing, be quiet.
This is a popular argument, which is mystifying, because it's ridiculous.
I have no idea what the solution is to curing or treat cancer. Why am I then ineligible to offer the opinion that the application of leeches and regular bleedings are bad ways to go about it? The best way to turn yourself around towards success, is to recognize and stop those strategies that are failing.
Posted by: Torridjoe at June 4, 2004 09:17 AMTorridjoe --
Your argument is not apt. You are comparing a human activity with a science. Obviously they are worlds apart.
Posted by: Ben at June 4, 2004 02:28 PM
