Don't Underestimate Iraq
Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 12:26PM Bottom Line Up Front: To underestimate Iraq is to underestimate Iraqis.
Here's a part of the war in Iraq you don't usually see thanks to the Main Stream Media. Why is a school opening in Iraq so important? Under Saddam, schools were dilapidated and run down (except for the ones of Saddam's choosing) and religious schools, built with private funds from church goers or fundraisers, were frequently confiscated by Saddam and turned into Islamic or secular schools.
Three years after the invasion of Iraq, critics continue to try to pull the rug out from the feet of ordinary Iraqis like these school children. The United States has struggled for hundreds of years with everything from a revolutionary and civil war, slavery, giving the right to vote to blacks and women, and creating equal opportunity for education for the sexes and races together. Critics demand Iraq do this in all in 3 years. Unrealistic, anyone?
Considering that Saddam ruled with a sword for decades as a Sunni, which made up 35% of the population, it should be expected that the oppressed majority, the Shiites, who made up 65% of the population, will be settling the score, particularly since social justice is a corner stone of Islam. Iraq's internal struggle, which has been met with offerings of peace and non-violence by Iraqi Muslim clerics, is resolving itself while being complicated by external interference. Iran is a chief foiler in Iraq's plan for peace by supplying militias and IEDs to terrorists. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani warned in September 2006 that Iraq can "make trouble" for its neighbors if they do not stop interfering in Iraq's internal affairs.
Iraqis are not typical people; they have endured suffering for decades and centuries) and are a brave and resilient people. They are an educated people, an advantage many Muslim countries do not afford its people. Lack of education contributes to barbarism. In the past 3 years they have voted in several elections to determine their future despite risk of personal security to procure a life for their children that would be better than the one they have had to endure in the past. Iraqis have joined together time and time again to combat the insurgency and terrorist attacks, with Imams and religious leaders of all sects praying in solidarity against the violence. Iraq is progressing.
Surely we can give Iraq longer than 3 and a half years to become self sufficient and iron out internal, religious and social problems. The reality is that if critics of the war would put political ambitions aside and focus on supporting the US and Iraq, unrest would be a hurdle already jumped in Iraq. Enemies from Osama Bin Laden to Ayman Al-Zawahiri to the terrorist formerly known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have parroted Democratic talking points. If America were unified with Iraq instead of providing the enemy with their talking points, Iraq would be ready to sustain itself. Our enemy follows the American media. They get their strength from Democrats who disrespect US troops and the war effort like:
JOHN KERRY: "But there is no excuse three and a half years later for American troops to be driving by IEDs and getting blown up. Are you telling me that they can’t drive a truck?"
"And there is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the—of—the historical customs, religious customs. Iraqis should be doing that."
JOHN MURTHA: "There’s no question we can’t win this militarily."
HOWARD DEAN: “The idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that is unfortunately wrong.”
JOHN KERRY: “Americans have a right and an obligation to criticize the Bush administration for the way it is handling the Iraq occupation.
This war is being carried out by incompetents and ideologues whose actions are killing American troops.” whose actions are killing American troops.”
TED KENNEDY: “Iraqis are using the U.S. military as a crutch and we need a substantial troop withdrawal. It’s time for them (Iraqis) to do it.”
“The people that are cutting and running are the administration, when it comes to truth about Iraq and their policies in Iraq.”
NANCY PELOSI: “This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer.”
It might also interest critics to know that if the United States fought in Iraq as they did in past World Wars, Iraq would be settled. When the United States dropped the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945, it ended the war. Today, a kinder, gentler US military puts soldiers in the line of fire to protect innocents and prevent civilian casualties. The painstaking care with which US troops do this has elongated the war. It is the difference between running across the street or stopping to look both ways before crossing. One simply takes longer than the other, but that one is safer.
Let's review US history: the Civil War of 1861-1865 lasted longer and was far bloodier war than Operation Iraqi Freedom, yet we were able to see our way through and work through our deeply intense problems, successfully carrying on as one country. One might even suggest the US of the 1800's succumbed to "sectarian violence". It was a process of reuniting the north and south which took a century, yet Iraq war critics would have us forget the luxury of time which we have been afforded and pronounce 3 years too long for Iraq.
Iraqi blogger Sooni in Baghdad said,
"It was like a dream to be freed by the US Army and the chance is very big right now for us to be a real free and democratic country and this is the only way for Iraq to evolve."
and
"We know and appreciate what the Americans have done and still doing in Iraq and if you hear some of the Iraqis saying (Leave) let me tell you that there are millions of the Iraqis saying (Stay) and you will see them tomorrow when they will march to defend the democracy you brought to this country"
and
"I saw you (Pres. Bush) defending your decision saying ‘As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq’ well Mr. President let me tell you that your decision will change the world as we know it. You gave Iraqis freedom that they wouldn’t have gotten in a thousand years, and the ‘Iraqi effect’ started to affect the region and this is why everyone around us is trying to ‘kill’ this young born democracy."
All Americans should stand behind the war effort, abandoning politics, for the sake of the beautiful Iraqi people who have made more progress in the past 3 years than the United States did in decades during it's infancy. Thank God US soldiers are willing to do the hard work for the US and Iraqis.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/721402
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (49)
A more realisitic number, 50,000 (mitlitary commander's own guesstimation) is 1/10 the Iran - Iraq war and 1/4 the number of people estimated to have been killed by Saddam in his entire US initiated reign as dictator.
It amazes me that anyone would consider US involvement in the middle east as productive towards any end, save the violation of human life and the escalation of the seeds of future terrorism.
Good job, Amy.
It amazes me that people think that killing terrorists in the Middle East somehow advance the cause of terrorism.
Do you suggest that there were 50,000 terrorists in Saddam's Iraq? How the heck did he stay in power all those years if there were so many people capable of marshalling so much force?
Oh, I see. We should just drop the whole war on terror then. THAT will save their lives. lol.
>>>"IF we were killing only terrorists, maybe you would have a point Tim.
Do you suggest that there were 50,000 terrorists in Saddam's Iraq? How the heck did he stay in power all those years if there were so many people capable of marshalling so much force?"
You see, Irony...you're using LOGIC. You're being a CRITICAL THINKER. You're ASKING QUESTIONS of the policy.
Those are three things you CANNOT DO and still support the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq.
Take this line for example by Amy:
>>>"The United States has struggled for hundreds of years with everything from a revolutionary and civil war, slavery, giving the right to vote to blacks and women, and creating equal opportunity for education for the sexes and races together."
The LOGICAL question would be HOW LONG do we expect to keep American troops in Iraq to try to accomplish something that took HUNDREDS OF YEARS for the United States?
But of course, that question isn't asked by those who support the Bush Administration. Oh no, that would be "coddling the terrorists".
Take these conflicting statements by Tim and CalPatriot who both apparently support the Bush Policy:
Tim writes:
>>>"It amazes me that people think that killing terrorists in the Middle East somehow advance the cause of terrorism."
Cal writes:
>>>"Terrorism is an old military process, and no one has (except the Mongols, and Bush) understood how to combat it. The only way to win is to control their interests, because killing them is out of the question. They live within a civilian population’s camouflaged in street clothing. The only way to defeat them is ideology and taking away their interests."
Now, Cal seems to believe that Bush is "creating less terrorism" by his policies. That's not supported by the reports, such as the declassified snippets of the National Intelligence Estimate from April 2006:
>>>"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fuelling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this estimate.
Four underlying factors are fuelling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq .jihad;. (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims, all of which jihadists exploit."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5383614.stm
Now, the neo-con talking points on this cherry-picked declassified snippet on Iraq is the conflation of this line...
"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
...into something akin to "victory in Iraq will defeat terrorism". Of course, what did Sen. John Warner (R) say about the progress in Iraq recently?
>>>"Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said the U.S. should consider a ``change of course'' in Iraq if the government there can't stabilize the country in the next two to three months.
Senator John Warner's comments, after returning from a one- day visit to Iraq, were the most critical assessments yet from a top congressional Republican about the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who President George W. Bush has championed as a strong leader. They also may serve notice to the president that even his strongest allies in Congress may be running out of patience.
Warner, a former Navy secretary and longtime Republican leader on defense issues, didn't outline what changes to U.S. strategy should be made and whether that includes withdrawing or redeploying U.S. troops.
``I wouldn't take any option off the table,'' he said during a news conference today at the Capitol...
...Still, he described Iraq as ``drifting sideways,'' with sectarian violence so bad that he was unable to tour the country as he had in eight previous visits. He said many areas of the country still are without basic, including food and fresh water and that many regions aren't getting ``a fair share'' of government services.
``The various departments and agencies of that government are simply not living up or not able to meet just the fundamental responsibilities of a government,'' he said.
Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, who also is on the Armed Services panel, has said the U.S. may need to send as many as 30,000 more troops to Iraq to get the violence under control. Warner said that isn't the answer, nor is it to set a timetable for the U.S. presence there. What that answer will be has yet to be determined.
``For the moment, I'm putting some faith into what Maliki told us: We're going to work this thing out, give us time,'' Warner said. ``In two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's the responsibility of our government, internally, to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take?''"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8IeOA2_ir4U&refer=home
Now, Sen. Warner is not totally against the policy of creating a democracy in Iraq. He believes a stable, democratic Iraq would be in the best interests of the US and its allies, but he's ASKING QUESTIONS NOW about the implementation of the policy. He's ASKING QUESTIONS NOW about how this war is being fought, and whether this open-ended "stay the course" mentality is effective.
Of course, we know from neo-cons, right winged media, and this blog that anybody who questions Bush policies on Iraq is...
You fill in the blank.
--Cobra
It purely and utterly stinks!
That's funny, because the PIPA report says that Iraqis don't blame the American military for the high level of sectarian violence. Try again Cobra. Thanks for sucking up so much blog space to regurgitate the same totally baseless statements you and your fellow liberal ilk or such masters at.
A teenage democrat girl posted up on myspeace a website showing Bush being stabbed on his body and a sign that said Kill Bush. So when the secret service shows up she lies and says this: "I wasn't dangerous. I mean, look at what's (stenciled) on my backpack - it's a heart. I'm a very peace-loving person,"
Of course the AP (Advocacy Press [ for democrats] motive for the story is to blame the secret service of going immediately to check-out who was totally involved with the website. The secret service had no way of knowing if it was only her. The leftycrat of the AP made sure to point out the villain as the secret service and not the anti-Iraq-war-death-to-Bush-promoter 14yo girl on myspace.
Her claimed to fame. The secret service raised their voice at me. The’re mean.
typical leftist propaganda.
You are right to point out that, despite the setbacks, mistakes and unforeseen internal conflicts, the struggle for a Democratic Iraq is still important and worthy of our citizenry to shun political games. I would argue that the difficulties we are facing in Iraq and the greater War on Terror have been exacerbated by those on the left who have done their best to politicize each and every setback, and have fought hard to take away the very tools we need to fight terrorism.
Frankly, given their arguments and platitudes, I would not want to have folks like Cobra or Irony in my foxhole, on my sports team or running my business. A realist sees conflict and tries to deal with it as it comes; a champion is determined to overcome any and all obstacles to win; a proactive partner sees the bigger picture and keeps his/her focus on the objective.
Thanks for reminding us of what is at stake, and how far we have actually come.
>>>"That's funny, because the PIPA report says that Iraqis don't blame the American military for the high level of sectarian violence. Try again Cobra. Thanks for sucking up so much blog space to regurgitate the same totally baseless statements you and your fellow liberal ilk or such masters at."
You must mean THIS PIPA report:
>>>"WASHINGTON — About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.
The Iraqis also have negative views of Usama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.
The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:
— Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.
— About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216237,00.html
The link above is correct. Those lefty, MSM cut-and-run liberals at Fox News are at it again.
--Cobra
"Thanks for sucking up so much blog space to regurgitate the same totally baseless statements you and your fellow liberal ilk or such masters at."
Warner and McCain are liberals?
You're asking me if McCain is a liberal? Is that suppose to be funny? Just because he has one or two issues he agrees with conservatives on, and has an "R" in front of his name, doesn't mean he's conservative.
Cobra: That PIPA report you selectively quote states that Iraqis blame the militias, not the Americans for the high level of sectarian violence.
>>>"Cobra: That PIPA report you selectively quote states that Iraqis blame the militias, not the Americans for the high level of sectarian violence."
First, I posted Fox News' "selective quotes" on the PIPA report. Second, 6 in 10 Iraqis APPROVE OF ATTACKS ON US FORCES.
Spin that, Timmy.
Timmer writes:
>>>"Frankly, given their arguments and platitudes, I would not want to have folks like Cobra or Irony in my foxhole, on my sports team or running my business. A realist sees conflict and tries to deal with it as it comes; a champion is determined to overcome any and all obstacles to win; a proactive partner sees the bigger picture and keeps his/her focus on the objective."
So Timmer, I take it that you're the kind of guy who crosses the street without looking both ways, writes checks without balancing, and takes long distance trips without reviewing a map or asking direction.
That's the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq.
You talk about team sports and champions...there is PREPARATION in making a team a champion. There is strategy, planning, practice, and if need be, ADJUSTMENT if the game plan isn't working. Dedicated coaches and managers work tirelessly to not only provide the team the resources they need, but put them in the best position for victory, through scouting reports, film reviews, etc.
None of this describes what the miserble failures of the Bush Administration in Iraq, and for that matter, Afghanistan.
But hey, you have every right to cheer for your favorites. Even the Chicago Cubs have fans.
--Cobra
According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Report, 15,412 total Iraqi deaths have occurred since Jan. 2005. That includes 10,527 civilians and the remainder Iraqi security and military forces. Keep in mind that terrorists are targeting civilians as a tactical exercise, not George W. Bush. Even that number were doubled in 2003-04, it would be a maximum Iraqi civilian death toll of 45,000. Since the death rate was at its lowest in 2003, the more accurate estimate is approximately 37,000-40,000 Iraqi deaths. Add the 2540 America deaths and the total is probably 42,540 at its maximum. Not exactly 100,000 dead. Maybe Cindy factored in her friends the terrorists.
Iraqis were better off and safer under Saddam Hussein.
Human Rights Watch:
• "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living."
• Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds with chemical agents.
• Senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south.
White House
• For over 20 years, the greatest threat to Iraqis has been Saddam Hussein's regime -- he has killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades.
• According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
• Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.
• Allegations of prostitution used to intimidate opponents of the regime, have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women.
• Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
• Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.
• The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."
Executions:
• Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including: 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998
• 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign"
• 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000
• 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001
• At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001
Iraqis are far better off today, even in a war zone, than under Saddam.
Regardless of what political party anyone is, the children should be a very high consideration.
Good job ignoring the rest of the report. I wish I had the devious nature you seem to possess that would allow me to pick and choose what parts of various sources I'll cite.
( Note that this is from the founder of the democratic party.)
The largest number Amy lists in her bullet pointed story is 50,000.
So what will you say when the US has caused more deaths than Saddam?
If you include the first Iraq war "we" are getting close.
This is not a party issue -- it strikes me as odd that some folks can't see past the party. This is a issue of the death that our country is causing on foreign soil. You don't have to be very consistent to reject the concept: we are creating a peaceful environment.
If all you can offer in response to this statement is name calling and party BS, I really don't know how you hawks ever got into power. It seems that you would want a modicum of thought to go into a process which kills between 50,000 and 655,000 people (good luck figuring out the real number).
These Christian suffered, died and lost everything as the Democratic Party’s focus was on blaming the republicans for everything under the sun, including the leaves falling off the trees in the northern hemisphere in autumn. Clinton was the paragon of riotousness to these tools. Tools continue to this day as we see here harping on Christianity and champion dhimmitude. In addition, as of April 20, 1999, over a half million refugees have been forced out of Kosovo. That was 500,000 people that had their lives destroyed by the Democratic Party in 1999. Not a tear shed by these liberal hacks, not in Congress and not on the Internet, till this day.
However, the main theme and we cannot forget is that Clinton sided with the Muslims against the Christians in this war of genocide of his. That tells us a lot about how the propaganda in the media supports Saddam and the insurgents, and only blames the republicans. The republicans try to free a people from terrorism and horrific subjugation and what they get is dhimmicrat consternation.
Because the Democratic tools never cried foul, we know why? They have Hypocrititis. Therefore their arguments are invalid when they call themselves moral and vent their views of this war on terrorism. For the last note: The Kosovo 1999 war was the first war to be in American history a preemptive strike and it came at the hands of a Democratic who is widely regarded as the spiritual head of the modern Democratic American party.
I addressed this under the entry about my trip to NY for the Montel Williams show. Cobra brought up that poll of Iraqis to discredit the mission. I'll repost my comments here:
*************
Cobra,
As per the poll, obviously Iraqis think the US is provoking "more conflict than it is preventing". Al-Qaeda has been quite open with its tactics and strategy to conquer and divide Iraq to foil progress the US has made there. Common sense tells us that if the US had not intervened, this would not be happening. But it is WRONG TO ASSUME THAT THIS MEANS THEY WOULD RATHER LIVE UNDER SADDAM. I have only heard the opposite from most Iraqis.
And you forgot to mention this in the poll:
"A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be ONE STATE five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds ALSO believed that would be the case."
Also, the increased support for attacks on US forces, as horrible as that sounds, is because they're tired of Iraqi civilians being targeted BY TERRORISTS and would rather COMBATANTS like US soldiers, who wear body armour and ride in Hum-V's, be the target. That makes total sense.
Also, you might want to consider that, if you really think that Iraqis just hate us, that perhaps it has something more to do with the disgusting rhetoric coming from the Democratic side of the aisle for the last 3 years condemning Bush and calling our troops "Nazis" and "torturers" than the benevolent conduct of our troops. Remember, even Osama bin Laden reads American papers.
There was a poll earlier this year that stated the vast majority of Iraqis do NOT want the US to leave now. It was something like 85%. I'll try to find it.
Many of these polls are misleading without the context. I try to track down the polls so I can read the ENTIRE thing.
>>>"According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Report, 15,412 total Iraqi deaths have occurred since Jan. 2005. That includes 10,527 civilians and the remainder Iraqi security and military forces. Keep in mind that terrorists are targeting civilians as a tactical exercise, not George W. Bush. Even that number were doubled in 2003-04, it would be a maximum Iraqi civilian death toll of 45,000. Since the death rate was at its lowest in 2003, the more accurate estimate is approximately 37,000-40,000 Iraqi deaths. Add the 2540 America deaths and the total is probably 42,540 at its maximum. Not exactly 100,000 dead. Maybe Cindy factored in her friends the terrorists."
What methodology does the "Iraqi Coalition Casualty Report" use?
What methodology does Human Rights Watch use when determining the deaths during the Saddam era you post?
How is that compared to the methodolgy of Johns Hopkins and Lancet:
>>>"• Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006
• Majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) caused by violence
• Males aged 15-44 years accounted for 59 percent of post-invasion violent deaths
• About half of the households surveyed were uncertain who was responsible for the death of a household member
• The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition
• Mortality data from the 2006 study reaffirms 2004 estimates by Hopkins researchers and mirrors upward trends measured by other organizations
• Researchers recommend establishment of an international body to calculate mortality and monitor health of people living in all regions affected by conflict
The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These SAME SURVEY METHODS were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions. For the Iraq study, data were collected from 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. At each household selected, trained Iraqi surveyors collected data on the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006. To be considered a household member, the deceased had to have lived in the home at least three months prior to death. When interviewers asked to see a death certificate at households reporting a death, it was presented in 92 percent of instances. The survey recorded 1,474 births and 629 deaths among 12,801 people surveyed. The data were then applied to the 26.1 million Iraqis living in the survey area."
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
Just because studies and statistical survey methods produce results that aren't helpful to the Bush Administration doesn't mean they are invalid. Plus it defies LOGIC to believe a low ball estimate of deaths in a nation where the infrastructure has been totally destroyed--access to clean water, health care and nutrition extremely limited and a sectarian war raging.
--Cobra
Irony, keep your day job. The 655,000 estimate as war fatalities is totally bogus. Let's say, again, for the sake of argument, that it is correct: there is no way in hell they can be attributed to US forces. Do you not get this yet? We have an enemy who is trying to kill us and it will kill other Muslims/children/women so that people like you can quote the figures and persuade the US to exit Iraq now. You must feel proud aligning yourself with Osama.
At least we're clear about that.
Cobra and Irony are wildy out of touch with reality. Talk to a commander whose been to Iraq recently. Talk to an Iraqi or two. OR.. better yet, join the military and see for yourself.
Your blessed survey said this, which you of course left out:
"While the survey collected information on the manner of death, the study did not examine the circumstances of the death, such as whether the deceased was actively involved in armed combat, terrorism, criminal activity or caught in the middle of the conflict. The study outlines other limitations of the survey method, including the hazards of collecting data during a conflict."
WHETHER THE DECEASED WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ARMED COMBAT, TERRORISM, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY....
Duh! There's your figure. These are not civilian deaths. How many terrorists are we killing? All legit sources say 50,000 civilians. You do the math, Cobra and Irony. Ask yourselves why you're so concerned that there are 600,000 less evil idiots in the world who want to kill you.
That would immediately raised the question of why they didn't rise up and crush our military personnel stationed there by sheer strength of numbers.
They haven't done that because that 650k figure isn't true. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis recognize the good that has been and is being done in their midst.
I do think it would be interesting to know (1) the true death figure (2) the affiliations of the persons killed and (3) who is responsible for their deaths. Those questions are, to me, of greater significance than the raw number (if it's even true) itself.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
655,000 War Dead?
A bogus study on Iraq casualties.
BY STEVEN E. MOORE
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.
The group--associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health--employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.
However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.
Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.
What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.
The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically suspect--and the one they just published even more so.
Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are.
Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.
When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.
With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.
Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.
And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.
Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.
Public-policy decisions based on this survey will impact millions of Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's important that voters and policy makers have accurate information. When the question matters this much, it is worth taking the time to get the answer right.
Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International, trained Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to 2006.
You two should be ashamed of yourselves, Cobra and Irony. Do you really hate Iraqis this much that you're willing to adhere to such misinformation? How many people do YOU tell this to as fact? I've just lost what little bit of respect I had for either of you.
The Survey:
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Here's Michael E. O'Hanlon's opinion (of the Brookings Institution, which also tracks Iraqi deaths):
"I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off," he said.
Other research methods on the ground, like body counts, forensic analysis and taking eyewitness reports, have produced numbers only about one-tenth as high, he said. "I have a hard time seeing how all the direct evidence could be that far off ... therefore I think the survey data is probably what's wrong."
ONE-TENTH. This is consistent with military figures as well.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/10/responding-to-lancet-lies.html
Pajamas Media Middle East Editor Omar Fadil of Iraq the Model responds to the Lancet published study alleging that 655,000 Iraqi deaths are attributable to the war: “This fake research is an insult to every man, woman and child who lost their lives. Behind every drop of blood is a noble story of sacrifice for a just cause that is struggling for living safe in freedom and prosperity.”
* * * * * * * * *
by Omar Fadil
Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I’m talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.
Human flesh is abundant and all they have to do is call this hospital or that office to get the count of casualties, even more they can knock on doors and ask us one by one and we would answer because we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.
We believe in what we’re struggling for and we are proud of our sacrifices.
I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime.
No, they would’ve shit their pants the moment they set foot in Iraq and they would find themselves surrounded by the Mukhabarat men counting their breaths. However, maybe they would have the chance to receive a gift from the tyrant in exchange for painting a rosy picture about his rule.
They shamelessly made an auction of our blood, and it didn’t make a difference if the blood was shed by a bomb or a bullet or a heart attack because the bigger the count the more useful it becomes to attack this or that policy in a political race and the more useful it becomes in cheerleading for murderous tyrannical regimes.
When the statistics announced by hospitals and military here, or even by the UN, did not satisfy their lust for more deaths, they resorted to mathematics to get a fake number that satisfies their sadistic urges.
When I read the report I can only feel apathy and inhumanity from those who did the count towards the victims and towards our suffering as a whole. I can tell they were so pleased when the equations their twisted minds designed led to those numbers and nothing can convince me that they did their so called research out of compassion or care.
To me their motives are clear, all they want is to prove that our struggle for freedom was the wrong thing to do. And they shamelessly use lies to do this…when they did not find the death they wanted to see on the ground, they faked it on paper! They disgust me…
This fake research is an insult to every man, woman and child who lost their lives.
Behind every drop of blood is a noble story of sacrifice for a just cause that is struggling for living safe in freedom and prosperity.
Let those fools know that nothing will stop us from walking this road and nothing will stop our friends and allies from helping us reach safe shores. There’s simply no going back even if it cost us more and their fake statistics will not frighten us…our sacrifices, like I said, make us proud because our bloods are not digits in those ugly papers. Our sacrifices are paving the way for future generations to live the better life we couldn’t live.
A real response? I see, a man who actually lives in Iraq can not be trusted but this nonsensical report can.
According to this report about 770 people have died every day. Every day. Where are they? They do not say. According to this report 14% of the 655,000 people died as a result of suicide bombers, that would be about 91,700 people. When and where were these people killed? They don't have a clue.
A bad month in Iraq is about 2600 casualties, but according to this socalled survey, 22,800 people have died every single month.
A third, or more than 200,000 would have died in air raids. That is more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
According to this report 57% were killed by gunfire, that would be about 373,000 people.
Where are the bodies? When and where they buried? Did the BBC and AP, UPI, Reuters, AlJazeera all conspire to help hide the truth? Are the US and the Iraqi government together with all the doctors and mayors part of the plot ot hide these hundreds of thousands of dead people?
They took the deaths of a few hundred people and exptrapolated them into more than 600,000 and they compared numbers to the preinvasion Iraq saying there had been virtually no violent deaths in Iraq the 14 months before the invasion. Think about how absurd that is.
Oh yes, Iraq was just a paradise of kite flying children.
This study is absurd on its face and it is not even close the figures that everyone from the Iraq Body Count, to the UN, to the Iraqis themselves have come up with.
1) Real numbers for Iraqi casualities:
Through April 2006:
18,961-33,334
SOURCES:
-Iraq Body Count
-British Foreign Minister
-Amnesty International
-Human Rights Organization, Iraq
etc.
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/Iraqi_casualties.jpg
2) Iraqis say personal hardships since the US intervention in Iraq and toppling of Saddam was worth it:
OVERALL: 77%
SHIA: 98%
KURDS: 91%
SUNNI: 13%
(Sunnis brought the overall % down; they're Saddam's party/sect and make up about 30% of the population)
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/Iraqis_say_its_worth_it.jpg
3) Percentage of Iraqis who believe Iraq is going in the right direction:
OVERALL: 64%
SHIA: 84%
KURDS: 76%
SUNNI: 6%
(again, note Sunnis bring the average way down)
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/Iraq_right_direction_poll.jpg
SOURCE FOR POLL:
www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Again...what is the methodology used in the sources you cite?
What is the methodology behind the numbers you claim Saddam Hussein was responsible for?
Amy writes:
>>>"Duh! There's your figure. These are not civilian deaths. How many terrorists are we killing? All legit sources say 50,000 civilians. You do the math, Cobra and Irony. Ask yourselves why you're so concerned that there are 600,000 less evil idiots in the world who want to kill you."
Are you so BLIND in your devotion to Bush that you would believe that Iraqis wanted to kill me before this silly war, when Saddam Hussein's Iraq NEVER DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES?
Maybe I'll repeat this one for those who say I pack too much information in my posts.
Are you so BLIND in your devotion to Bush that you would believe that Iraqis wanted to kill me before this silly war, when Saddam Hussein's Iraq NEVER DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES?
And if you think that every brown-skinned Third Worlder wants to swim across the ocean and kill you, you have issues that I can't possibly help you with on a blog post.
Second, let's examine what the US policy on counting Iraqi Civilian Casualties was:
>>>"The Pentagon said on Monday that it has no plans to determine how many Iraqi civilians may have been killed or injured or suffered property damage as a result of U.S. military operations in Iraq.
The statement followed passage Saturday of a congressional measure calling on the Bush administration to identify and provide "appropriate assistance" to Iraqi civilians for war losses."
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=84438
Amy writes:
>>>"1) Real numbers for Iraqi casualities:
Through April 2006:
18,961-33,334
SOURCES:
-Iraq Body Count
-British Foreign Minister
-Amnesty International
-Human Rights Organization, Iraq
etc."
Well, first, I must say that given your previous UTTER CONTEMPT for international human rights organizations when it comes to American use of TORTURE, I can't help but giggle when you use some of them as SOURCES for your Iraqi casualty counts. British Foreign ministers are no better than propagandists due to the fact that they're involved in the war. And Iraq Body Count? Since you REFUSE to tell us what their methodology is for getting figures, why don't I just answer it for you?
From the IRAQ BODY COUNT SITE:
>>>"Overview
Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.
2. Sources
Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).
ABC - ABC News (USA)--(Liberal MSM, right?)
AFP - Agence France-Presse--(The FRENCH??!? ROTFLMAO!)
AP - Associated Press (More Liberal MSM)
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology (You'd laugh at me if I posted a quote from them)
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network (Come on, Amy...I can't get off the floor from the ironic laughter)
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation (Limey Liberals?)
BG - Boston Globe (Bush hatin'Liberal MSM?)
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun (Another Liberal MSM)
CT - Chicago Tribune (Hates Bush even worse, right Amy?)
CO - Commondreams.org (Do you even want to go there, Amy? LOL!)
CSM - Christian Science Monitor (At least their cartoons are good, right?)
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur (The Germans are "old Europe" according to your hero, Rumsfeld)
FOX - Fox News (Well, hey...at least IBC got something "right", huh?)
GUA - The Guardian (London) (So far left they walk in circles)
HRW - Human Rights Watch (You HATE these people, Amy. Remember Gitmo? Abu Ghraib? Waterboarding?)
HT - Hindustan Times (You'd probably call the Feds on me for posting information from them.)
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross (Again, you despise these people)
IND - The Independent (London) (so far left their clocks wind backwards)
IO - Intellnet.org (Specious at best)
JT - Jordan Times (A fine SUNNI ARAB PAPER, right Amy?)
LAT - Los Angeles Times (King of the West Coast Bush haters)
MEN - Middle East Newsline (Come on, now)
MEO - Middle East Online (More of the same)
MER - Middle East Report (There you go again)
MH - Miami Herald (The same folks who called the 2000 election for Gore in the recount? PFFPT!)
NT - Nando Times (Huh?)
NYT - New York Times (Now, if THESE folks are credible to YOU, Amy..of ALL PEOPLE, then you need to apologize here and now just on PRINCIPLE.)
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet) (More liberal MSM)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation (You know that Apartheid's over, and black folks run this country now, right? )
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald (Oi!)
Sg.News - The Singapore News (Oh please)
Tel- The Telegraph (London) (You know how many anti-Bush quotes I get from these guys?)
Times - The Times (London) (You think NYT is out there)
TOI - Times of India (Bush bashing with an Eastern flavor)
TS - Toronto Star (Bush doesn't poll well in Canada, either)
UPI - United Press International (Sun Yun Moon's crew?)
WNN - World News Network (Sounds new world order-ish)
WP - Washington Post (Now, how many times have I been criticized on this site for using these guys as a source?)
For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources)."
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php (not including Cobra commentary in parenthesis)
The KEY PARAGRAPH IS THE LAST ONE. The Iraq Body Count is NOT ON THE GROUND in IRAQ doing this research. They rely on the same LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA that you hate so much on OTHER topics.
The Johns Hopkins/Lancet research, however was done ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ...physical interviews and verification with death certificates. In fact, the irony grows even more with your statements like THIS:
>>>"Liberal wars: Claimed: 250,000- 150,000 genocide by Milosevic issued by Bill Clinton’s liberal hacks in white house. To this day there was never one iota of proof. U.N. estimates in November, 1999, cited only 2001 deaths were positively accredited Milosevic in a ten year period."
First of all, I distinctly remember you and several posters claiming to have SUPPORTED the war in Kosovo when I demonstrated GOP and conservative hypocrisy on the issue. Second, you of ALL PEOPLE, are quoting 'U.N. estimates?!!?"
U.N. estimates?
Kofi Anan's U.N. estimates?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Third, just so you get some perspective on MORE Irony:
>>>"The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These SAME SURVEY METHODS were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, KOSOVO, Sudan and other regions."
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
That's right. The SAME PEOPLE you discredit for the casualty figures in IRAQ, are the ones you choose to endorse from KOSOVO.
I get it, Amy. And you know what? I have some fun posting here, and have vigorous, lively debates, but I want to tell you something.
I hope Bush appreciates that he has people like you out there, Amy. People who would follow that man to ends of the Earth, unquestioning, obeisant, and loyal.
You're so loyal, you would even go as far as DEFENDING Slobodan Milosovic...the innovator of ETHNIC CLENSING, RAPE HOTELS and MASS GRAVES. But you'll do it, because three weeks out of an election, with news this grim, the "true believers" will say darn near ANYTHING to get some traction for the GOP.
What will you say NEXT?
--Cobra
The methodology of the poll I posted internally describes the sources, which are many (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Int., Iraq Body Count....). These groups describe their methodology on their websites in detail. Go there for "methodology".
So the best any Right-winger can come up with is quoting the Democrats while completely ignoring the quotes of James Baker III, William F. Buckley, Richard Armey and various other Conservatives who are saying the exact same things about this unnecessary, piss-poorly planned and even more poorly executed war. The four or five Right-wing opinions on this blog are by far more educated and experienced and matter so much more than the other 299,999,996 people in this nation. By golly, YOU FIVE MUST BE THE MAJORITY!
not
"Victory is not an option and needs to be taken off the table." James Baker stated after forming a panel of bi-partisan statesmen to evaluate the Iraq war at George HW Bush's request. Once again, Daddy has to bail junior out of trouble but this time with one big difference, he's not doing it for junior, he's doing it for our nation.
Amy, you show us fabricated polls of how much its such a "Disney World" over there but then if that was the case, why can't we win? The latest polls show that a majority of Americans refuse to be this stupid anymore.
Did I mention the GOP has released a commercial called "The Stakes" which quotes threats from terrorist leaders responsible for 9/11 that are still alive, free as birds and not in nor have they ever been in Iraq? 92% of the World's opium/heroin supply is coming from Afghanistan at pre-9/11 levels but we should all suck our thumbs over the SWIFT program. So not only are they still alive, free as birds and not in nor have they ever been in Iraq, they have all their financing back at higher than pre-9/11 levels. SWEET! I feel safer, how 'bout you? Why didn't anybody ever say "stay the course" with Afghanistan?
This President is an idiot! This Administration is filled with a bunch of arrogant, draft-dodging pink team pansies who couldn't guard a lemonade stand. $1.7 trillion invading a country that couldn't defend itself and three years later, we still can't win! And it wasn't even the right country as if any of you honestly cared about the Iraqi people prior to your leaders telling you to. You still don't care about them so stop lying! Is America really supposed to be this stupid? The majority of you five or six compared to how many hundred million people living in this country? This ain't a blog, its a denial support group!
You make some good points throughout your blog here Amy. Keep up the good work. I'm glad I found it and I will return to read it periodically.
Please thank your husband for his service to our nation it is greatly appreciated by the majority of Americans. We also thank you for the courage to blog your thoughts as well. We pray for your husbands speedy and safe return.
Thanks
J.R.
Here is an interesting article which supports the idea that the 655,000 Iraqi death toll poll is BOGUS:
http://www.talkshowamerica.com/2006/10/bogus-study-on-iraq-casualties.html
Very good article. Recommended reading.
Keep up the great work.
J.R.
Surveys are surveys -- there is no truth there. You pull out an outrageous survey to support your point, I can do the same. You bash my survey, I can do the same -- we are no closer to any "truth."
It is easier to simply bash me without reading what I wrote, I guess.
I don't have much patience for the knee-jerk reaction, but as long as you are satisfied being your own choir, the sermon will always have someone listening to it.