Do the math

[muckefuck]

According 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 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.

Comments

[zompist.livejournal.com]

I've made a very similar argument myself; but I wonder at the 70,000 figure. Based on figures from Human Rights Watch I got 14,500 a year, and that was arguably misleading because much of the total was confined to a few worse than usual campaigns (e.g. against the Marsh Arabs).

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

There's every reason to question that figure, given that we have, AFAICT, no access to the methodology that produced it. According to the same blogger, the HRC has processed only 200,000 files out of 6 million. But it is worth noting that they have access to the actual records of the regime, which Human Rights Watch didn't when they produced their estimates. Also, even many Iraqis assumed that hundreds of thousands of prisoners would be liberated when Saddam's jails were opened. This didn't happen and most of those taken prisoner must now be presumed dead (something the HRC hopes to document). I'm not sure to what HRW assumed when they compiled their figures, but it's possible that the final death toll for Baathism might have to be revised upward.

I think the point you made in that commentary needs to be reemphasised in light of recent events. Yes, wars kill people. But when demicidal regimes are in power, so does "peace". Is it terrible that so many--both civilians and combatants--have died in Iraq in recent weeks? Absolutely. But at least their deaths are connected to attempts to make conditions better rather than consolidate the hold of an absolute dictator. That may be no comfort to the victims and their survivors, but I would hope that others in Iraq would feel differently.