One of the features of the generally shoddy reporting of Iraqi casualties in the media is the way that if reporters mention the Lancet study they will mention the bogus controversy about it, while the Iraq Body Count number is never given any qualifications, even though it is guaranteed to be too low. The IBC people are at least partly responsible for this presenting a maximum number for deaths, even though the actual number is certainly more than their maximum. Media Lens has
more criticism, including these interesting comments:
One of the world's leading professional epidemiologists, who has chosen to speak anonymously, has this to say:
"IBC is run by amateurs. It is easy to calculate the sensitivity of their surveillance system. They would take another list or independent sample, and see the fraction of that sample that appeared in their data base. I have asked them to do this over a year ago, they have not.
"There are other databases out there (NCCI being the most complete), they could do a capture-recapture analysis (as lots of experts have been calling for) and see how many people have died but they have not.
"Attached is a graph [not included here] of deaths in Guatemala from 1960 to 1995 put together by Patrick Ball at UC Berkeley. Murders are with the black line, the % reported in the press with the dashed line. Note, when violence goes up, reporting in the press goes down. I have calibrated surveillance systems during times of war (always in Africa admittedly) and would be astonished if their system could capture 50% of deaths.
"In Saddam's time, morgues + hospital reports + death certificates reported to the central Gov. only accounted for about 1/3 of the deaths that must have been occurring in Iraq. There have now been 15,000 excess violent deaths just in the Baghdad Morgues! If Baghdad is about 1/5th of the country, and the morgues do not capture all deaths, what does this imply... the UNDP number (more than twice IBC at the time it was done) is known by the authors to be an underestimate and was based on a couple of questions out of a long (88 min.?) interview." (Email to Media Lens, March 23, 2006)
There is more discussion on the Media Lens message board.
Besides their numerous methodology problems the Lancet numbers are worthless in judging the war's effect because they ignore the major periods of death during the Hussein regime: the war with Iran and the Shia rebellion in the 1990s. This is comparable to judging the situation in Germany under the Nazis vs. postwar reconstruction while excluding the Holocaust and WW II.
A very conservative estimate of people killed by Saddam's regime during his 24-year reign is 2 million; I won't even try to calculate the "excess deaths" number. That's about 83,000 per year. Any way you slice it, the war saved lives if you assume the average rate of people killed by Saddam would remain about the same (or I suppose one could argue Saddam was on the verge of becoming a humanitarian).
I don't follow the logic here at all, unless the purpose is to argue that, as bad as the US is, it isn't as bad as Saddam. I think a better comparison would be deaths in Iraq during the "containment" period prior to the US invasion. Even so, it is useful information to know the accurate death rate in Iraq today, regardless of what it was in the past, or do we have to go back to the Black Death to get numbers about modern Europe that aren't "worthless?"
Even so, all that is beside the point. There is no justification for undercounting deaths in Iraq today. That is just bad data and should be corrected.
the "containment" period prior to the US invasion
The problem is that's not a representative sample of deaths caused by the Hussein regime, the removal of which was the war's purpose.
Even so, it is useful information to know the accurate death rate in Iraq today
I don't disagree. It's the comparison that's worthless.
Shorter TallDave: It takes a few hundred thousand eggs to make...scrambled eggs.
Shorter Sven: 2 million deaths? Meh.
First, TallDave, there aren't numerous methodological problems. Second, evaluating Saddam's regime by using the peak killing times (we'll call it the 'Rumsfield level') assumes a lot. This is like justifying an invasion of the USSR in the early 1950's by using the worst years of Stalin as a baseline.
Dash -- you would think so, but sadly no.
Canada is apparently dropping out of Kyoto too.
http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/002122.php
(sorry wrong thread for above)
Barry,
First of all, do you know the 95% CI? That alone speaks volumes about the methodology problems.
Second, I'm not saying they should be judged based on the peak killing times. I'm saying the peak killing times should not be EXCLUDED, any more than you would assume halfway thru Stalin's reign that he was going to stop killing people.
The Hutu killed 800,000 in 100 days in Rwanda. That's 80,000 a day, TallDave. They're still there, they still have machetes. WWGWBD?
Sven, one of your numbers is out of place. Do you mean 8,000 per day? Or is one of the other numbers that you miswrote?
Hold on, I'm consulting Moral Calculus for Dummies. I'll get right back atcha.
Yes, indeed. 8,000.
Ah, I see, the infamous "You didn't save ALL of them, so how can you justify saving ANY of them?" school of logic.
Hold on, I'm asking my local police to disband. Turns out they only stop SOME crime, not ALL crime, therefore by my logic above they shouldn't do any policing. QED.
We can look at any number of sources, IBC, Lancet, etc, but sadly, we'll never know how many people saddam actually killed. Whole familes, there's no one left to even ask questions as to what happened to their family members.
Speaking of Rwanda, unfortunately, I saw the movie "Hotel Rwanda" again this weekend. Gives you a whole new lack of appreciation for the UN.
First of all, do you know the 95% CI? That alone speaks volumes about the methodology problems.
Ye gods! All that swotting I did for my stats exam and never once did the bloody lecturer tell me that a 95% confidence interval could tell me anything at all about methodology problems. Yet it seems it can speak volumes! Pray tell us, TallDave, how does a confidence interval speak to you? When you contemplate it, do you hear voices? Or are there tables you consult, with the lower limit listed down the side and the upper limit along the top, with the number of methodology problems displayed in the cell where the row and column intersect?
Kevin,
Actually, it growls in a deep baritone that sends pets and children scurrying in fright: "Beware my 6,000 to 198,000 interval, for it betrays the statistical meaninglessness of the study's conclusion! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Then it goes into a lengthy rant about biased researchers, faulty polling, bad samples, etc., but I've usually tuned out by then. You can only hear the same speech so often...
But hey, as long as you're comfortable with the fact the study can only say there at least 6,000 excess deaths and no more than 198,000 versus a nonrepresentative period of Hussein's regime, you go ahead and run with that.
Or, if you like:
A very wide interval may indicate that more data should be collected before anything very definite can be said about the parameter.
http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/confidence_intervals.html
Yes, a very wide interval may indicate that more data should be collected before anything very definite can be said about the parameter. Then again it may be possible to draw some quite important conclusions from a study with a wide confidence interval. For example, if a new drug is found to increase the risk of death by 250% (95% CI: +60% to +400%) then I don't need more data to tell me something "very definite". Do you?
TallDave: The confidence interval is quite wide, but the survey still tells us something important: that the level of death has almost certainly gone up since the invasion, and it has quite likely gone up by a very large amount. Since the invasion was supposed to improve the situation in Iraq, I think that's something worth knowing.
Also, muttering darkly about "biased researchers, faulty polling, bad samples", without bothering to provide any supporting evidence isn't very convincing.
Since it was an unrepresentitive period of Saddam's reign doesn't that mean that he was sucessfully contained at the time?
I'm saying the peak killing times should not be EXCLUDED...
Do you think that the Lancet numbers are more accurate if the Fallujah deaths are included?
"Any way you slice it, the war saved lives if you assume the average rate of people killed by Saddam would remain about the same"
Yes if you assuem the rate of peopel killed by Saddam was suddenly going to increase 40-fold from what it was in the 1990's the invasion makes sense.
Similarly, if you assume he was about to spontaneously develop the ability to fire nuclear death rays out of his arse, the invasion made sense.
Saddam WHO WAS A VERY VERY BAD MAN (let's just get that established up-front) WAS probably responsible for around 2 million deaths, true.
However those deatsh were concentrated in four specific periods: the Iran/Iraq war; the Anfal campaign; the invasion of Kuwait and the suppression of the shia uprising after the Gulf War.
Those four periods probably accounted for soemwhere between 65 & 75% of the total. Meaning the "background rate" of killing was around 1/4 to 1/3 of the 83,000 deatsh per annum you cite or roughly 20-25,000 deaths per year.
Of course, had Saddam remained in power, it's possible that overnight sanctions would have been lifted; the incredibly decrepit Iraqi military would have recovered miraculously and Saddam might have decided that having survived ten years in the lion's den the smart thing to do was march straight back in and kick it in the 'nads.
It's possible but so is my atomic death ray theory.
"that the level of death has almost certainly gone up since the invasion"
surely the war has something to do with that
"Since the invasion was supposed to improve the situation in Iraq"
clearly it has. I think you must not be dividing the period of military action from the subsequent occupation.
"I'm not saying they should be judged based on the peak killing times. I'm saying the peak killing times should not be EXCLUDED, any more than you would assume halfway thru Stalin's reign that he was going to stop killing people."
no actually you're arguing that had Stalin lived he would have recommenced killing people at the levels seen during the Ukrainian famine; the Great Purge and World War II.
Is there anything to suggest that Stalin WOULDN'T have done that?
You mean besides the fact that he had ample opportunity to do so in the period between the end of WWII and his death and didn't?
[ I think you must not be dividing the period of military action from the subsequent occupation. ]
jerry: No, look again at the Lancet paper - it covers ~18 post-invasion months. The invasion only really stretched from March to May, but the chart on p5 shows that most of the reported deaths fall outside this period.
[ clearly it has [improved the situation in iraq] ]
It seems likely from news-media reports that Iraq has become more, not less violent since the study period, so I don't know how you think that's 'clear'.
(looking at the news is a pretty rubbish way of judging the entire situation in Iraq, but disgracefully we have very little good data. The coalition has shown no interest in conducting a bigger study on pre- and post-war mortality)
Yes if you assuem the rate of peopel killed by Saddam was suddenly going to increase 40-fold from what it was in the 1990's the invasion makes sense.
Um. The Shia uprising happened in the 1990s.
Of course, had Saddam remained in power, it's possible that overnight sanctions would have been lifted;
In fact that was well on the way to happening. Saddam was systematically bribing Security Council members to that end, which Russia and China didn't need a lot of pushing toward anyway.
the incredibly decrepit Iraqi military would have recovered miraculously
Hello? Trillions in oil? And besides, its decrepitude didn't stop it form slaughtering Shia wholesale.
Saddam might have decided that having survived ten years in the lion's den the smart thing to do was march straight back in and kick it in the 'nads.
Yeah, because Saddam was such a great decision-maker. Hence his decline from Supreme Iraqi Ass-Kicker to Death Row Inmate #1... all over WMD he apparently didn't even have! In fact, your analogy is pretty much exactly what he did.
TallDave: The confidence interval is quite wide, but the survey still tells us something important: that the level of death has almost certainly gone up since the invasion, and it has quite likely gone up by a very large amount. Since the invasion was supposed to improve the situation in Iraq, I think that's something worth knowing.
See, that's precisely the problem: you're basing that conclusion on a sample of life under Hussein that ignores all the major Iraqi wars and democides. (And even then, you can only say at least 6,000 more people died!)
"I'm not saying they should be judged based on the peak killing times. I'm saying the peak killing times should not be EXCLUDED, any more than you would assume halfway thru Stalin's reign that he was going to stop killing people."
no actually you're arguing that had Stalin lived he would have recommenced killing people at the levels seen during the Ukrainian famine; the Great Purge and World War II.
Well sure, when you pick the time where you already know the last major slaughter had happened and predict no more after that, it's easy to pretend you're right (which is exactly what Lancet did, too).
I could just as easily choose a point in time in between those democides and say "See, you would have missed the later ones, because you're predcting no more would happen." See how easy that is?
If you're going to judge the war based on removing the regime it's only sensible to include all the years of the regime, not merely grab a couple toward the end where things were much less bad than average.
TallDave: "If you're going to judge the war based on removing the regime it's only sensible to include all the years of the regime, not merely grab a couple toward the end where things were much less bad than average."
By this argument, the Lancet study should have included Falluja. This has been mentioned earlier. Do you agree?
Kevin,
Yes, a very wide interval may indicate that more data should be collected before anything very definite can be said about the parameter.
Well, I'm glad you've seen the light at last. Huzzah!
Then again it may be possible to draw some quite important conclusions from a study with a wide confidence interval.
Excellent point. If we were trying to conclude whether total Iraqi war casualties and incidental deaths were between 6,000 and 194,000 I think the study answers that question definitively.
broken:
Yes, I do.
The US shares much of the blame for the deaths that occurred when Saddam was in power. I have no opinion on the 2 million figure. I note that recently the NYT carried two conflicting estimates for the number of Kurds killed, with one groups saying 80,000 and others claiming 180,000. There are widely varying estimates for the number of deaths under sanctions also and to a large extent the US intended those deaths as a way of pressuring Saddam.
Talldave is deliberately missing the point. Saddam was not engaged in large scale mass killing in the latter part of his reign and it's clear that violent deaths have skyrocketed since the invasion. And deaths from disease and malnutrition have also apparently gone up, partly from US incompetence and partly because the insurgents are using the same immoral tactic employed by the US during the 90's--make the population suffer as a way to destabilize the government.
it's clear that violent deaths have skyrocketed since the invasion.
No, in fact when compared to the average number of people killed during Saddam's reign, violent deaths have dropped precipitously. Of course, you can pretend that's not true by ignoring the major democides of his era, but again that's as self-evidently absurd as judging Hitler or Stalin's rule by the years in which there were relatively few deaths.
Free democracies are far less likely to commit democide, as Rudy Rummel and others have shown pretty conclusively. Democratizing Iraq was the best way to prevent future mass murder by the Iraqi regime, and looking at the data rationally (that is, without assuming Saddam had become a conscientious humanist/pacifist and would commit no more mass murders, and taking into account the recent history of such regimes (link below)) this is obvious.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.HTM
Excellent point.
Thank you TallDave, I'm glad you've seen the light.
TallDave: "No, in fact when compared to the average number of people killed during Saddam's reign, violent deaths have dropped precipitously. Of course, you can pretend that's not true by ignoring the major democides of his era, but again that's as self-evidently absurd as judging Hitler or Stalin's rule by the years in which there were relatively few deaths."
You're missing the point of the argument. The argument is not that somehow, the invasion of Iraq by the United States is going to be responsible in the long term for more deaths than the Hussein regime accrued over twenty-something years. That argument cannot be made using the Lancet study, or indeed any other.
The argument is solely that a sharp delta in the rate of deaths occurred due to the invasion. This is very easily shown, and you have seemingly concurred with the "6000 to 194,000 excess deaths" number. Similar deltas in the death rate (both negative and positive) occurred during the Hussein regime, due to actions taken by that regime.
"The argument is solely that a sharp delta in the rate of deaths occurred due to the invasion. This is very easily shown, and you have seemingly concurred with the "6000 to 194,000 excess deaths" number. Similar deltas in the death rate (both negative and positive) occurred during the Hussein regime, due to actions taken by that regime."
So, the Saddam regime was planning to kill people for only the length of time it did kill people, (which was pretty much the entire time) and then stop killing people?
Or are you saying that war lasts forever, like war in Europe lasted forever, and killed many, many more thousands than war in Iraq has. That lasted forever and is still going on today?
"Similar deltas in the death rate (both negative and positive) occurred during the Hussein regime, due to actions taken by that regime."
fascinating. killing people, as long as you have an ebb and flow to the killing, is ok? It's only killing at a contant rate that is wrong?
jerry,
The answer to all three of your "questions" is "no". Were you, by any chance, trying to attribute those viewpoints to me? I can't really tell because I made no statements even resembling them, so I must assume that you were legitimately confused and needed clarification.
[ killing people, as long as you have an ebb and flow to the killing, is ok? It's only killing at a contant rate that is wrong? ]
It would really help if you argued against the people posting in this thread rather than the people in your head.
TallDave: I find your argument bizarre. You seem to be saying that the invasion should be judged a success if it killed fewer people than during the worst years of Saddam. My hope was that the invasion would at least make Iraqis better off than they otherwise would have been without an invasion. So far, the results have been disappointing.
TallDave: "Hello? Trillions in oil?"
I see your understanding of resource economics is comparable to your understanding of statistics, ethics and demography.
>Well sure, when you pick the time where you already know the last major slaughter had happened and predict no more after that, it's easy to pretend you're right (which is exactly what Lancet did, too).
Don Bradman was, perhaps the greatest athlete of all time. He was definitely the greatest cricketer, famously averaging an average score of just under 100 in his Test career.
Many years after he retired, The don was asked by a young journalist if he thought he woudl have doen as well if facing the greatest speed bowlers of the 1970's such as Viv Richards.
The conversation went soemthing like this:
"Tell me Sir Donald, if you were playing cricket today do you think you could average 100 runs per innings?"
"No, if I were plsying today I expect I'd be lucky to average 50 per inning."
"Really?"
"Well, I am 72."
Its obvious that TallDave's memory goes back no farther than last night's FoxNews broadcast. What I'd like to ask him is how many tears he was spilling for Iranian and Iraqi civilian victims of Saddam Hussein's atrocities during the 1980's as his government was providing military, economic and logistic support for the slaughter in full knowledge of it. After all, this was the period during which Saddam committed his worst crimes. In 1982, the Reagan administraton even managed to remove Iraq from the list of nations "sponsoring terrorism" because it was eager to bolster the Saddam regime in its aggressive war against Iran. Why is it that this important information somehow always goes down TD's rather inflated memory hole?
TallDave is also the apologist for US-sponsored state terror and aggression who actually once wrote on another blog that the US support of vile, repressive regimes in Guatemala following the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, which have led to an estimated 300,000 civilian deaths, was "unfortunate". Not a vast crime, but "unfortunate". You see, TallDave's twisted logic is that the US does not commit crimes. Forget the past century of evidence. There is piles of it. But this evidence is forever self-effacing: it is not a part of history because most of it never officially entered history. Only officially designated enemies commit crimes in TD's warped lexicon.
What's worse, is he is now trying to invoke 'triage' as a means of defending US agression against Iraq. Whatever one wants to say in defense of it, this aggression violated the UN Charter, the Nuremburg Code and a number of aspects of the Geneva Conventions. TD then argues that Saddam has overseen the murder to about 2 million people since he came to power (a figure that is debatable but let's for arguments sake accept it). Again, he expunges the fact that the US/UK provided all kinds of support, in full knowledge of Saddam's crimes, during the period in which perhaps 80% of these people died. Does this make the civilian leadership of the US/UK complicit in the slaughter? Damned right it does. But TD wishes to wash this all away.
Let's get something straight here. FACT: The US civilian leadership (now and in past administratons) didn't give a hoot about Iranian and Iraq civilian deaths then, they didn't give a hoot about civilian deaths under the US-UK imposed sanctions in Iraq in the 1990's that resembled a medievel siege, and they didn't give a hoot about Iraqi civilian lives when they invaded in 2003. So, TD, you can cut out all of your hollow pontificating about how the US cares about human rights and freedom and liberty and other such nonsense. When I hear the constant refrain of the "basic benevolence" of US and UK governments, I feel physically sick. As they are bombing the lives of countless civilians to another world, we are forever drip fed the myth that the intentions of our governments are noble. FACT: Terrorism, mass murder and barbarism are standard practices on 'our side', only the technology is different.
The argument is solely that a sharp delta in the rate of deaths occurred due to the invasion.
I don't think anyone ever argued that.
Ian,
Basic math and history apparently escape you.
Jeff,
As always, your comments merit nothing more than a snicker.
TallDave: I find your argument bizarre. You seem to be saying that the invasion should be judged a success if it killed fewer people than during the worst years of Saddam.
Well, first off that's not the argument. The argument is that the Lancet study cannot be used to judge the effect of the war unless it recognizes the democides committed by the regime it was intended to remove as part of the average prewar conditions it supposes to judge the war's aftermath against. Why is saving lives a bizarre justification?
The total value of Saddam's foreign contract awards could reach $1.1 trillion, according to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2001.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,805530,00.html
Not a very US-friendly article, I might note. But I'm sure Jeff will enjoy it, and possibly even favor us with another Chomskyish screed for our amusement.
http://poli.vub.ac.be/publi/pole-papers/pole0105.htm
Note especially the table on military expenditures as a % of GDP.
Speaking of Rwanda, unfortunately, I saw the movie "Hotel Rwanda" again this weekend. Gives you a whole new lack of appreciation for the UN.
I agree, that movie was disturbing and heartrending, as was the documentary on Saddam's brutality. It's too bad more people in the U.S. didn't see them, as it might have galvanized public opinion for more humanitarian interventions, which they've been loathe to support since that video of dead American Rangers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
It would be nice if we had a world pseudo-government that conferred legitimacy only on those countries that demonstrate some minimal commitment to human rights and democracy. Sadly, under the present system it's entirely possible Rwanda will chair the next UN Human Rights Commission.
TallDave:
Well, that's the argument made by the Lancet study itself. Its conclusions are very specific:
The definition of "preinvasion period" is this (emphasis mine):
The Lancet's findings are simply this: compared to the period between 01-01-2002 and 03-18-2003, the period from 03-19-2003 to 09-08-2004 had a measurably higher death rate among the Iraqi population, and this change can be directly attributed to the invasion of Iraq by the United States.
This does not address Iraqi death rates prior to 01-01-2002. It makes no judgment as to whether the invasion of Iraq was "worth it" by any given metric. It solely measures the delta between the immediate preinvasion and postinvasion periods. You are welcome to make your own interpretations of this data, you are welcome to criticize their methods, and you are even welcome to argue that this study is irrelevant, but please do not mis-state the actual formal conclusions of the Lancet study.
Well, that's the argument made by the Lancet study itself.
No, I mean no one argued AGAINST that. Sorry for the confusion.
TallDave:
Well, this is what you said earlier.
It certainly appears that you are criticizing the Lancet study for not including the deaths caused by the Hussein regime all the way back to 1979. Am I reading you wrong? If so, I apologize.
and you are even welcome to argue that this study is irrelevant
Yes, that was my point. Of course there was a spike in casualties; there was a war after all. And even then the study can only say that spike was at least 6,000 deaths, and I'm not sure anyone was claiming there were fewer than that.
And again, if you compare the rate of death postwar to the overall rate of death in the Hussein years, it's clear there's quite a drop-off.
To clarify
The argument is solely that a sharp delta in the rate of deaths occurred due to the invasion.
I don't think anyone ever argued [AGAINST] that.
TallDave,
My comments get a snicker from you because you can't answer them. Why not? Don't like history? Bad case of amnesia? I repeat, and if you have any kind of guts, you'll try to answer my question. To repeat:
How many tears did you spill for Iranian and Iraqi civilian victims of Saddam Hussein's atrocities during the 1980's as the US government was providing military, economic and logistic support for the slaughter in full knowledge of it?
Re: Rwanda, you ought to learn some basc facts about that, too. It was Britain's then ambassador to the UN, Sir David Hannay, who proposed that the UN pull out its force, and the US ambassador (Madeline Albright) agreed. Britain and the US also refused to provide military airlift capability for the African states who were offering troops for this force. Britain went out of its way to ensure that the UN did not use the word 'genocide' to describe the slaughter. Accepting that genocide was occurring would have obliged states to 'prevent and punish' those guilty under the terms of the Geneva Convention. In late April (look it up, TD) Britain, along with the US and China secured a security council resolution tha rejected use of the term 'genocide'. The resolution was drafted by the British.
Journalist Linda Melvern was told by then UN secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali that during the genocide he had had individual private meetings with the British and American ambassadors to the UN. Boutros-Ghali urged both of them to help stop the killing but said that their reaction was, "Come on, Boutros, relax... Don't put us in a difficult position... the mood is not for intervention, you will obtain nothing... we will not move".
All of this information is publicly available, should you bother to check it up. But, of course, TD's lame response will be dismissal, because he can't respond.
Jeff,
No, I snicker because they're hilariously lacking in perspective.
You might want to read this, though I have to warn you it may shatter your worldview.
TallDave: Basic math and history apparently escape you.
Well, Dave, let's try a basic math exercise.
Iraq currently pumps aroudn 1.5 million barrels of oil per day.
It's peak production pre-Gulf War was around 3 million barrels.
So how long would it take Iraq to pump trillions (sic) of dollars worth of oil?
Let's see 3 million barrels of oil per day at US70 is $210 million dollars per day.(Those are pretty heroic assumption btw.)
How long would it take Iraq to pump "trillions" of dollars worth of oil?
> agree, that movie was disturbing and heartrending, as was the documentary on Saddam's brutality. It's too bad more people in the U.S. didn't see them, as it might have galvanized public opinion for more humanitarian interventions, which they've been loathe to support since that video of dead American Rangers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
I'm a big supporter of humanitarian intervention too. That's why I'm outraged that Bush's cretinous killing spree has probably ensured that the whole concept will be anathema to Americans for a generation or more.
For those interested in actual facts on the Rwanda tragedy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Despite intelligence provided before the killing began, and international news media coverage reflecting the true scale of violence as the genocide unfolded, virtually all first-world countries declined to intervene.
Jeff, how about if we just stipulate that you think everything bad that has ever happened anywhere is somehow the US' fault, either by commission or omission? That would save you a lot of typing.
Ian,
Well...
http://www.economist.com/theworldin/middleeastafrica/displayStory.cfm?s…
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/04/middle-east-authoritarianism-…
How long would it take Iraq to pump "trillions" of dollars worth of oil?
How long was the regime going to be in power? (Hint: see Cuba)
TallDave:
broken,
Well, since the purpose of the war was to remove the Hussein regime, the proper context to compare rates of death is the time the regime was in power, 1979-2003.
TallDave:
You do not consider it worthwhile to consider the highly variable death rates within Iraq during that time frame?
Here's a theoretical scenario. Let's say that within two years, the violence in Iraq settles down, and the country remains intact. There may be some external force that caused this, maybe not. Purely theoretical.
Ten years from now, someone looks back at the post-Hussein period, and wants to make an argument regarding the violence that followed. They treat the transfer of power (such as it was) to Alawi's interim government on 06-28-2004 as the start point for "post-Husssin democratic Iraq".
In this theoretical study made in 2016, the highly violent period from June 2004 to the theoretical settling of hostilities in early 2008 is included with the more peaceful theoretical period from mid-2008 onward. Therefore, although the death rate in Iraq in this theoretical 2016 is not unusually high, the average death rate for the complete period from 2004 to 2016 is very large due to the violent 2004-2008 period.
In this theoretical situation, would you consider it fair to use this average (read "arithmetic mean") to judge the success of post-Hussein democratic Iraq in reducing violence?
broken,
Yes, that's a good point. The answer is that, yes, I think you would include all postwar political/military violence in calculating the mean. In fact, in judging the war I would go somewhat further than you and include the war itself rather than starting in 2004.
Of course, I should note that even during this fairly violent current period, since only the first month of the war came anywhere close to the 83,000 per month average under Hussein it's unlikely that addition of ANY postwar time period would affect a comparison to the Hussein days much, unless we see a mass democide comparable to those that occurred in the Hussein era, which (as Rummel etc. have noted) would be very unusual for a democracy to experience.
TallDave:
While I believe we have a fundamental disagreement on what should be considered useful statistics, it's at least nice to see that you're consistent.
However, I have to assume that you mean 83,000 a year. 83,000 a month would make Hussein responsible for a number of deaths equal to the current population of Iraq. Am I correct?
[ The argument is that the Lancet study cannot be used to judge the effect of the war unless it recognizes the democides committed by the regime it was intended to remove as part of the average prewar conditions it supposes to judge the war's aftermath against. ]
In other words, the rise or fall of post-invasion the death-rate should be calculated against the average for the entire 1979-2004 period? No, that's not sensible at all. Iraq in 2004 wasn't Iraq in 1979 or 1991, and it wasn't killing people by the hundreds of thousands. There wasn't a reason to think that the situation would get much worse in the immediate future, so we can reasonably compare the invasion to a hypothetical 2004-2006 period where we didn't invade.
It's important to remember that not invading in 2004 doesn't mean never invading. As Daniel Davies has pointed out, we could have waited and invaded later if the situation had in fact got much worse. Meanwhile, we could have used the blood and treasure expended in Iraq to do other things, like attack Iran, or police Darfur, or whatever you consider a worthy military aim.
Also, all the way through this thread you've been arguing as if it's certain that Iraq will emerge as a stable democracy. Iraq could degenerate into a full civil war, or it could break up into smaller states along ethnic lines, or the insurgency could continue indefinately. All of those are looking quite possible at the moment, and any of them could substantially raise the death-rate for normal Iraqis. It's dishonest to argue as if the best possible outcome is guarenteed.
"Well, first off that's not the argument. The argument is that the Lancet study cannot be used to judge the effect of the war unless it recognizes the democides committed by the regime it was intended to remove as part of the average prewar conditions it supposes to judge the war's aftermath against. Why is saving lives a bizarre justification?"
If you factor in the lives lost due to the Black Plague, it's quite likely the period since the invasion has a lower death rate, and that ought to silence the critics!
[ Sadly, under the present system it's entirely possible Rwanda will chair the next UN Human Rights Commission. ]
What's wrong with that? The current Rwandan government isn't the same one which chopped up all those people.
"It would be nice if we had a world pseudo-government that conferred legitimacy only on those countries that demonstrate some minimal commitment to human rights and democracy. Sadly, under the present system it's entirely possible Rwanda will chair the next UN Human Rights Commission."
I rather think the UN "HR" Commission is on it's way to extinction. The US isn't even trying to get on as a member. I believe we'll pull funding soon, I doubt we're going to pay to watch Rwanda chair the HR Commission. My understanding is that the US will likely form a HR Commission outside of the UN, made up of only democracies. That would be more effective than the new UN HR Commission, which won't be able to do a thing.
TallDave: Well, since the purpose of the war was to remove the Hussein regime, the proper context to compare rates of death is the time the regime was in power, 1979-2003.
ah, here we come to the crux of our difference.
You see, I thought the "purpose" of the war was
a. to remove the threat of Saddam's arse-mounted nuclear death rays; and
b. to save Iraqi lives.
The first of these purported purposes has of course been exposed as a delusional fantasy to all except a few true believers such as youtself.
The second purported purpose would require an analaysis of the LIKELY future death toll resulting from Saddam clinging to power compared with the LIKELY death toll resultign from his removal.
You on the other hand seem to take the view that the whole point was to get rid of Saddam and any and all collateral damage incurred along the way is perfectly acceptable provided that endresult is achieved regardless of any other consequences.
I suppsoe we should be grateful you weren't acutally in a positon ot inlfuence Uspolicy since the easiest, fastest and cheapest way to achieve YOUR purpose woud dprobably have been a nuclear strike on the four or five largest cities in Iraq.
Or maybe you're saving that for Plan B.
Dave: It's important to remember that not invading in 2004 doesn't mean never invading. As Daniel Davies has pointed out, we could have waited and invaded later if the situation had in fact got much worse.
Response: it's also worth noting that the much-revelied French (who according to some were simulataneously actively campaigning for an end to sanctions so they coudl trade with their old mate Saddam AND actively campaigning for their retention so they could profit from sanction-busting - silly Frenchies)actually came up with a proposal for a much stricter sanctions regime which would have included:
1. placing armed UN inspectors on all the major border crossing to stop oil smuggling;
2. requiring virtually all Iraqi weapons heavier than machine-guns to be catnonised in bases also under constant UN supervision;
3. totally removing the Iraqi government from the sale of Iraqi oil and distributing the proceeds of the sales directly to NGOs and aid agences; and
4. The return of weapons inspectors under a mandate that provided for immediate airstrikes on any site to which they they were denied access.
"My understanding is that the US will likely form a HR Commission outside of the UN, made up of only democracies. That would be more effective than the new UN HR Commission, which won't be able to do a thing."
Yeah it'll be effective for the month or so it takes for the majority of democracies to expel the US for its application of the death penalty.
Mike D:What's wrong with that? The current Rwandan government isn't the same one which chopped up all those people.
But mike if you follow that line of reasoning you'd end up letting in the countries responsible for The Trail of Tears; the Highland Clearances; the Rape of Nanking; the Reign of Terror; the Holocaust and "the Stolen Generation".
TallDave (your views, for the most part, are vile and ignorant. Its a testament to the integrity of most of those writing here that your mindset can be stomached, let alone tolerated).
I suppose smearing Noam Chomsky is a daily ritual for TD. Too bad Chomsky was voted the world's leading intellectual last year by a margin of more than two to one over his nearest rival (Umberto Eco). Paul Bogdanor, another unknown apologist for US state terror and aggression must be equally envious of Chomsky's status. Chomsky's work is a beacon of light in these dark times. Comments like TD's, with little substance, would depress me more if I didn't know that most of the world thinks his kinds of views are absurd, to say the least. Even in America, times are changing. The wacko civilian leadership of the US can't do what it was able to even as recently as thirty years ago. Populist based change now occurring in South America should provide a glimmer of hope to everyone of sane mind and integrity. Once upon a time the US would have instigated bloody coups in South America, ostensibly killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, in order to push ever more for empire (fulfilling the Monroe Doctrine) and to ensure that these countries fulflled their service function to US (and western) elites in addition to their counterparts in the south. But the 270 billion dollars blown on crushing Iraq means that the crazies in DC can't do this anymore. The current changes underway across much of Latin America must be terrifying the US planners, who see this as signficantly deviating from the script.
Writing in the 1980's, Thomas Carothers, who served in the Reagasn State Department on 'democracy enhancement', observed that US foreign polcy is based on a 'strong line of continuity' in pursuit of self-interest and 'downplaying democracy'. He said that the Reagan and Bush I administrations had reluctantly adopted 'prodemocracy' policies as a means of relieving pressure for more radical change' in Latin America, 'but inevitably sought only limited, top-down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United States has long been allied'. He described these 'democracy assistance projects' as being to maintain 'the basic order of ... quite undemocratic societies' and to avoid 'populist-based change' that might upset 'established economic and political orders' and open a 'leftist direction' (quoted, Neil A. Leiws, What can the United States do about Haiti?' New York Times, December 6, 1987). For Haiti, read Iraq, present day, and US historical interventions in Latin America and SE Asia up to the present day. And this coming from a former senior offical in the Reagan administration.
There's plenty more from where that came from:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=10082
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10059
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9910
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney03212006.html
Jeff, I wouldn't bother responding to Chomsky criticism. The fact is, whether one likes Noam or not, the bulk of what he says about US atrocities is easily verified from other sources. That's the relevant point--I started to click on TallDave's link and saw what it was going to be and stopped. There's just no point to it. If Chomsky had never written a word, the US would still be responsible for supporting death squads in Central America, carpetbombing Cambodia, supporting Indonesia's mass murder in the 60's and again in East Timor starting in 1975, etc., etc.
"Yes, that was my point. Of course there was a spike in casualties; there was a war after all. And even then the study can only say that spike was at least 6,000 deaths, and I'm not sure anyone was claiming there were fewer than that."
After the fact goalpost moving. The prewar PR was quite clear that we were going to save the Iraqis from this murderous monster. No allowance for a spike in casualties because there would be a war. And indeed there would be fewer than 6,000 excess casualties; the implication was that there would be fewer than 0 excess casualties.
Why do we still enable TallDave's hate fetishes on this site?
Best,
D
"Yeah it'll be effective for the month or so it takes for the majority of democracies to expel the US for its application of the death penalty."
oh, yeah, we can all expect that to happen.
Jerry,
virtually the only devleoped countries which practice the death penalty are the US, Japan and south Korea.
You may not consider it a violation of human rights but most of the developed world does.
Then we can talk abotu matters like the international ban on land-mines and America's failure to ratify all of the Geneva Conventions.
Jeff,
Too bad Chomsky is an apologist for mass murder. The fact he's popular just shows there a lot of gullible people out there.
Mike D,
The sensible thing is to compare the REGIME, since the war's purpose was to remove the regime.
You can pick any other arbitrary period based on your reasoning, but the result doesn't apply to whether the war's purpose was justified.
Jeff,
My favorite recent example of Chomsky's stupidity is that the U.S. wouldn't allow Iraq to hold elections. He's quite the prognosticator! I am burning with envy, let me tell you.
I'm guessing that prediction won't be widely cited.
Ian,
French actually came up with a proposal for a much stricter sanctions regime
Yeah, and I'm sure they were very serious about that, what with signing that sweetheart oil deal and all. Also, I bet Russia and China were champing at the bit to sign on.
That's the relevant point--I started to click on TallDave's link and saw what it was going to be and stopped.
Yep, that's how Jeff deals with criticism of Chomsky too. Oh, except he calls me "vile" too, which always makes me laugh evilly and twirl my mustache.
Anyone who bothers to read just the Communist mass murder portion of this link cannot help but conclude Chomsky is not just a fool, but an apologist for the greatest mass murderers in human history.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/100chomskylies.pdf
The United States is not moral perfection, but people like Jeff and Noam will dwell myopically on its faults while not just ignoring but praising the far greater crimes committed by others, ironically able to do so only because they live here in the West under the umbrella of U.S. military power, protected from the oppression of those others they blithely issue apologia for.
They are the epitomy of Lenin's "useful idiots," and of course they have always infested our intellectual class.
Iraq could degenerate into a full civil war, or it could break up into smaller states along ethnic lines, or the insurgency could continue indefinately. All of those are looking quite possible at the moment, and any of them could substantially raise the death-rate for normal Iraqis. It's dishonest to argue as if the best possible outcome is guarenteed.
That would be true, if I were arguing that. Of course I'm not; I made no predictions about future death tolls in post-Saddam Iraq. And if those do happen it would affect the postwar death rate and you can judge that if it happens.
But the democides committed by Saddam are not speculative. They happened, and they should be included in the estimate of pre-war life in Iraq, and compared to the actual postwar death toll.
TallDave:
I assume you'll be providing a quote, with full context, to support this accusation.
Could you do us a favor and read the IIC report? It really doesn't support the standard talking points very much; this is a pretty decent summary of the actual findings if you're in a hurry.
Ah, you provided a Chomsky source. Let's see. Here's the first attributed quote:
Well, here's the original source of the quote, with context. I think it's plain to see that Dave's source is engaged in deliberately out-of-context quotations.
Going through the other quotes, most of them are to materials for which the original context is not available online. Let's try this one:
The first part of this quote comes from this piece (apologies for having to use Google's cache). The part after the ellipses does not appear in the original.
I don't like Chomsky. I think he serves a good purpose but I don't like his politics; anarcho-syndicalists make my hair stand on end. But this source is utter crap.
Here's the whole paragraph. I'm not sure how it changes the context:
I don't mean to equate a Vietnamese villager to Vaclav Havel. For one thing, I doubt that the former would have had the supreme hypocrisy and audacity to clothe his praise for the defenders of freedom with gushing about responsibility for the human race. It's also unnecessary to point out to the half a dozen or so sane people who remain that in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise. Furthermore, one can easily understand why an oppressed Third World victim would have little access to any information (or would care little about anything) beyond the narrow struggle for survival against a terrorist superpower and its clients. And the Pravda hack, unlike his US clones, would have faced a harsh response if he told the obvious truths. So by every conceivable standard, the performance of Havel, Congress, the media, and (we may safely predict, without what will soon appear) the Western intellectual community at large are on a moral and intellectual level that is vastly below that of Third World peasants and Stalinist hacks -- not an unusual discovery.
I just find it endlessly entertaining that Jeff will excoriate me for using an insufficiently negative description of "unfortunate" for the death of 400,000 people in a Guatemalan civil war, yet Chomsky describes similar atrocities as "practically paradise," and calls the Great Leap Forward, largest democide in history, "largely successful."
Broken,
Yes, I have many links, as always.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13021
"Through my sources, I obtained a copy of one of these contracts. It spans 154 pages, and grants the French exclusive right to exploit one of Iraq's largest oil fields at Nahr al-Umar for a period of twenty years. Under the deal, the French were given 75% of the revenue from every barril of oil they extracted - 75%! That is absolutely stunning. Not even during the pre-OPEC days were foreign oil operators granted such extravagant terms.
I discussed the contract with an independent oil analyst, Gerald Hillman, who estimated that during the first seven years alone, it would earn the French around $50 billion. Elf-Aquitaine negotiated a virtually identical deal with Saddam to expand the gigantic Majnoon oil field as well. Put together, those two deals were worth $100 billion to the French. That's 100 billion good reasons for Mr. Chirac to keep Saddam in power."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/22/wirq222…
Documents emerging from Baghdad appear to show how Russian and French politicians and businessmen were bribed by Saddam, using money skimmed off the oil-for-food programme.
In the build-up to last year's invasion, the two countries were accused of opposing American action in order to preserve lucrative contracts with Iraq. After the invasion succeeded, they tried to gain control over Iraq's rebuilding by briefly refusing to lift pre-war United Nations sanctions.
The IIC report you linked says much the same thing, btw:
http://www.iic-offp.org/documents/Final%20Report%2027Oct05/IIC%20Final%…
p10
"If Iraq was dissatisfied with the political positions of a country, it stopped selling oil to that country's companies"
"Iraq awarded "special" allocations not only to companies, but also to individuals... These individuals were influential in their respective countries..."
You're missing the point. Chomsky is comparing Vaclav Havel's speech in front of Congress to a theoretical Vietnamese communist speaking in front of the Supreme Soviet. Given his obvious contempt for Havel and his description of the United States as the "defender of freedom", it is plainly obvious that he also has contempt for the Communist who describes the Soviet Union as the "hope for the oppressed".
He describes Eastern Europe (where Vaclav Havel rose to fame) under the Soviets as being "practically a paradise" when compared to Vietnam during the war and other similar third-world locations catastrophically influenced by American foreign policy. If you are unable to see the sarcasm in his use of the word "paradise" then I really don't know what to say.
broken,
It's not clear whether he's referring to the Third World or to Eastern Europe in the other side of the comparison, so I'll acknowledge its possible you're correct.
But regardless, "East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise" is egregious.
Here, consider some more context:
"More interesting are the phrases that really captured the imagination and aroused the passions of Congress, editorial writers, and columnists -- and, doubtless, soon the commentators in the weeklies and monthlies: that we should assume responsibility not only for ourselves, our families, and our nations, but for others who are suffering and persecuted. This remarkable and novel insight was followed by the key phrase of the speech: the cold war, now thankfully put to rest, was a conflict between two superpowers: one, a nightmare, the other, the defender of freedom (great applause). "
So clearly his point IS to minimize Soviet atrocities.
Dave:
First, quoting FrontPageMag is like putting a sign on your head saying "I AM A LOON". I am not sure if you are aware of this.
Second:
Are you having trouble reading your own sources? Assuming that this "hundred lies" collection isn't just making it up, he calls China's attempts at collectivization "more successful" than the Soviet attempts, and they were, if you measure success based on how many farms were converted into collectives. He uses the words "force and terror" to describe the Chinese methods of collectivization, and somehow we're supposed to think that he approves of those methods?
Third, your quote from the IIC is followed by this:
and later on
Fourth:
He's quoting Vaclav Havel.
Goodnight, Dave. I'm tired of correcting out-of-context nonsense. You can keep posting it if you like, but I don't care anymore. You've worn my patience down to a little nub, and I need to use whatever I have left for people who deserve it.
A correction on my part:
I am not trying to imply that companies and politicians from France and other countries did not participate in various illicit deals with Iraq. The point is that you cannot make simplistic claims like "Iraq bribed France with oil" because the situation was far, more complicated than that, and a detailed reading of the reports will show this.
Bandwidth-eating TallDave returns with his factless, uncomprehending style, to test even the nun-like patience of bl! Back after this news from our sponsor!
I shall, in the future, wield my warning **Klaxon** for TD, shut off after Seixon, refreshed with a new compressed air canister.
Best,
D