Apr. 19th, 2004 04:52 pm
Do the math
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muckefuckAccording to figures compiled by Iraqbodycount.net, there have been between 8,875 and 10,725 reported "non-combatant" deaths in Iraq since coalition military intervention began a little over a year ago.
According to figures compiled by the (Iraqi-run!) Human Rights Centre in Kadhimiya (as reported in this article ganked from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lhn), the number of people who would've died over the past year if Saddam had remained in power would've been 70,000. ("Not [due to]sanctions," the author hastens to add, "Saddam's tyranny alone.")
For those of you having a little trouble with your long division, the second figure is seven times the midpoint of the range for the first. I know it's simplistic to compare body counts--there's more to morality than just how many corpses you end up with. On the other hand, it's not a bad place to start.
In an interview on the radio, an Iraqi army officier, part of the battalion that refused to support the Marines in Fallujah, was quoted as saying, "We will not fire on our countrymen." It's hard to see how you can run a security force in a country with endemic insurgency if that's your attitude, but it's a refreshing change from Baathism, isn't it? Not to mention an interesting rejoinder to predictions of a bloody civil war. I wonder if one of the occupation's most important contributions won't end up being providing a common target for Iraqi hatred and resistence, thus solidifying feelings of Iraqi solidarity. That much of a contribution to nation-building would be an important accomplishment in itself.
According to figures compiled by the (Iraqi-run!) Human Rights Centre in Kadhimiya (as reported in this article ganked from
lhn), the number of people who would've died over the past year if Saddam had remained in power would've been 70,000. ("Not [due to]sanctions," the author hastens to add, "Saddam's tyranny alone.")For those of you having a little trouble with your long division, the second figure is seven times the midpoint of the range for the first. I know it's simplistic to compare body counts--there's more to morality than just how many corpses you end up with. On the other hand, it's not a bad place to start.
In an interview on the radio, an Iraqi army officier, part of the battalion that refused to support the Marines in Fallujah, was quoted as saying, "We will not fire on our countrymen." It's hard to see how you can run a security force in a country with endemic insurgency if that's your attitude, but it's a refreshing change from Baathism, isn't it? Not to mention an interesting rejoinder to predictions of a bloody civil war. I wonder if one of the occupation's most important contributions won't end up being providing a common target for Iraqi hatred and resistence, thus solidifying feelings of Iraqi solidarity. That much of a contribution to nation-building would be an important accomplishment in itself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
For those of you having a little trouble with your long division, the second figure is seven times the midpoint of the range for the first.
It's also, apropos previous discussions, seven to twenty times the number of Kosovar deaths that were deemed sufficient to justify NATO intervention there, and of approximately the same order of magnitude as the total number of deaths predicted if we didn't intervene in Kosovo.