Another version of this story has this:About 151,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the three years after the U.S.-led invasion of their country, according to World Health Organization research published Wednesday.
The study, the most comprehensive since the war started in March 2003, drew on an Iraqi Health Ministry survey of nearly 10,000 households, five times the number of those interviewed in a disputed 2006 Johns Hopkins University study that estimated more than 600,000 Iraqis had died over the period.
Although the United Nations agency's estimate is much lower than that figure, it exceeds the widely cited 80,000 to 87,000 death toll from the rights group Iraq Body Count, which uses media reports and hospital and morgue records for its tally.
Limiting the study to the time since the invasion in March 2003, and extrapolating results to the whole country, researchers arrived at the 151,000 estimate. The study authors say they are 95 percent certain that the true number is between 104,000 and 223,000. Iraq's population is roughly 26 million.I guess that whole "Shock and Awe" thing didn't turn out the way dubya planned.
12 comments:
John K. says: Actually the war in Iraq comes close to the orginal plan. Has the US been attacked since 9-11? Can Saddam threaten any mideast countries? Is al queda on the run and being killed? Is Israel being bombed by terrorists being paid $25,000 an inicdent by Saddam Hussein? You focus on casualties, as if armed conflict is not supposed to have casualties. Sad to think you measure success in war with dead people. We are winning and this is the latest attempt to nullify the success prior to March when Gen. Petreaus testifies.
This is going to be a big task for you, John K., but I'm going to see if you're up to it. Can you answer, without going off on some other tangent about Limbaugh or Medals of Honor, etc., this ONE question:
Without any political progress appearing likely on the horizon, what do you think is going to be the result of this underreported component of the surge:
"Petraeus seems to have concluded that it was essential to cut deals with the Sunni insurgents if he was going to succeed in reducing U.S. casualties," Macgregor says.
The military now calls those "deals" the Concerned Local Citizens program or simply, CLCs.
It's a somewhat abstract euphemism. The CLC program turns groups of former insurgents, including fighters for al-Qaida in Iraq, into paid, temporary allies of the U.S. military.
[snip]
Some 70,000 former insurgents are now being paid $10 a day by the U.S. military. It costs about a quarter billion dollars a year.
It's a controversial strategy, and Macgregor warns that it's creating a parallel military force in Iraq that is made up almost entirely of Sunni Muslims.
"We need to understand that buying off your enemy is a good short-term solution to gain a respite from violence," he says, "but it's not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order inside a country that, quite frankly, is recovering from the worst sort of civil war."
Again, I am just asking this ONE TIME for an answer, your opinion, to this one question, with no other sidebars. You can save those for another comment in the post. I just want to hear what you think will happen.
John K. says: Would answer the question if there were a question. The statement "Without any political progress..." is not a question. It is your opinion. Which proves another point, liberals like stating opinions in the form of a question so they can then ridicule the person who responds because they did not give the answer the liberal wanted. LOL LOL Try again. This entire article you quote from is an attempt to smear Gen Petreaus prior to his March tesitmony.
Here we go again...
You fanatics really like this stuff, don't you? Unfortunately, your obsession with death and destruction fails to realize what could happen if we "got the hell out of there" and left the Iraqis at the mercy of Al-Qaeda, Iran, and the Mahdi Army.
Do you guys recall the genocide in Rwanda? During that time, almost 1,000,000 people were slaughtered in the streets in just three months. What if the Iranian backed Shiite militiamen released that kind of blooshed on innocent Sunnis and Al-Qaeda and the Saddam loyalists responded with the same tactics. Just look at what happened in Gaza last June, when a terrorist group seized control in a bloody power struggle. Is it that crazy to suggest that the Jaish al-mahdi or Sunni militant groups could do the same thing in Iraq? But what do you people care, because all that matters to you is making Bush look bad.
My wife must have slipped something into my coffee this morning. Should have known better. Nearly every non-Bush Administration analysis of the situation in Iraq has concluded that little to no real political progress has been made and there are little indications of any in the near future. So it's not my opinion.
Even then, you can't even speculate, in some sort of general way, what the result of paying and arming insurgents who had previously killed American troops and who oppose the Shiite-led government will likely be.
Heck, you won't even acknowledge that this little deal that's been struck with the Sunni insurgents is an important part of the reason that there has been some reduction in overall violence, despite the recent uptick and despite 2007 being the deadliest year for U.S. troops since the invasion.
It's that darn liberally infused reality always getting in the way.
BTW, C.H., I'm not a proponent of an immediate pullout. It would be too dangerous and the ensuing chaos would probably just mean troops would end up going back in.
Fellipelli,
To say that there has been "no political progress" is incorrect. The Iraqi people themselves have done a hell of a job reconciling. Just look at the Christmas day celebrations in Baghdad, where Sunni and Shiite leaders from nearby mosques attended services with the Christian minority in a rather symbolic show of unity. Just recently, the rival Shiite parties that had been threatening to send southern Iraq up in flames reached an agreement and have pledged to work together for the unity of Iraq. Karabala, Najaf, and even Basra have stabilized and the Iraqi security forces have done an excellent job maintaining law and order in that part of the country.
Look at what's happening in Anbar province, a place the left had written off as the prime example for why the war was a lost cause only a year ago. Today, because of heroic actions implmented by the tribal sheikhs, Al-Qaeda, terrorism, and destruction have been routed from the region.
Yes, Fellipelli, there are still some problems. Diyala is still a mess and terrorists will continue to try and wreck as much havoc as they possibly can. But to say no progress has been made is absurd. There has been tremendous military success and yes, even political progress.
I would not characterize the military progress as "tremendous," particularly given the number of soldiers that continue to die and be injured. The political progress you cite really has little to do with the major political issues that have to be settled. So how long do we have to wait for substantial progress on the 18 or so benchmarks or whatever they've been called before we can start drawing down troops? Another Friedman? Two? What if the violence starts to seriously escalate again? Then what? More money. More dead soldiers? More dead civilians? We're just doing the work for the alleged terrorists in Iraq who your so scared of.
The impact this war is having on the homeland is tremendous and nobody seems to be able to answer these questions. In one way or another, it's linked to the tanking economy, the disintegrating health care system and infrastructure, the disintegrating armed forces, the disintegrating education system, just to name a few.
Meanwhile, people like you just keep saying "There's progress" and "Give it a little more time" and "If we pull out now..."
At what point can the U.S. stop bleeding for the lies and mistakes of this administration? Because it seems fairly obvious to me at least that this "surge" is only a band aid on a gaping wound.
Give it up, Fill. This guy (now on his THIRD name on this blog) has already announced his willingness to have thousands more Americans die -- presumably along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- to "save" Iraq from itself. There is no argument anyone could present that he wouldn't answer with "we have to destroy the country to save the country."
He's a 100-year man. There were many, many people who used the same kinds of arguments about the war in Vietnam. You can't ever change their minds.
John K. says: Ah yes, Vietnam. The North ready to call it quits after Tet only to have one newsman determine our Vietnamese policy. The North on two other occassions were ready to pack it in just due to our bombing but a weak willed President, more worried about his poll ratings than winning, backed off allowing them to regroup. How do I know this? Read the words of the heads of the polit bureaus and that of Gen Giap himself. Bush has learned from history and Matthews and Olbermouth are not determining US Iraqi policy on this one.
Ah yes, Vietnam. Ten years and 50,000 American dead was not enough for the chickenhawks. Getting out of Iraq so soon would spoil all the fun.
More blood, Igor! More guts! More bodybags!
If there is anything more reprehensible than a chickenhawk, would someone point it out for me?
Thanks, guys.
c.h.? Military success? Political progress? Don't stop now, you're on a roll.
They've done a hell of a job, alright. Yeah, just look at that Christmas Day celebration.
Are you serious with this crap?
Get a grip!
Post a Comment