|
|||||||||
Posted June 14, 2003
Mike Ewens Replies
I teach history in the state of Washington, USA. I have been unsuccessful in my search for a death tally in Iraq. More specifically, I want to see and show my students how many died during the war and now as occupiers. Can you help me?
Student Coordinator Mike Ewens replies:
Check out:
They also tried to categorize the localities ("The holes in the map") and now they are working on names: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial.htm.
And finally, their extensive database...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm#db
In terms of the numbers of military dead during occupation, those numbers are difficult to gather. However, I do spend a lot of time reading the news (that's part of my job), and I would estimate that the number of Allied soldiers killed (accidental and in combat) since the fighting ended is around two dozen. We are searching for a listing of the exact number.
If you purchase a New York Times from June 10th, 2003, they have a good chart of all the casualties (it's on page A10). Here are the numbers: 179 total, 41 after war was declared over (up to 6/10/03).
Last week, Jim Rogers, author of the recent book Adventure Capitalist, spoke at the Junto meeting and said in the Q&A that the U.S. has troops in 142 countries (if I heard him correctly). Can anyone out there in Antiwar.com land confirm this? Does anyone know what the correct number is, if 142 is incorrect?
Mike Ewens replies:
I am skeptical of that number, and here's why: For the tally of US troops I understand (from Stephen Carson, writer of LewRockwell.com) that the "number of countries with US troops" is inflated because they count the security at US embassies! In this map it is 156: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downloads/military_map.pdf.
Therefore, I think that the more revealing number is "63 with US bases" and 7 new countries since 9/11.
Lester Lee: Do you care that if you had your way the mass graves in Iraq would still be filling?
Mike
Ewens: Do you care that American intervention has created more
than 3200 more graves? Ah, you were ready for that question:
LL: Lets make a ratio of those that died in our bombing campaign
and those that were freed.
ME: Let's not! That is simply called "playing God." You have decided that, say, it is ok to kill 3000 innocent Iraqis to save a larger number of innocent Iraqis. This is called utilitarianism, where the ends (supposedly) justify the means. Jacob Hornberger writes:
"Consider the plight of Saad and Sindous Abbas, 34 and 30 years old, who lost three daughters in the war. What moral right do we have to say to them, 'The loss of your daughters was worth it because you and other Iraqis are now free'?
"Or consider 12-year-old Ali Ismaeel Abbas, who lost not only his family but also both of his arms as a result of a missile that hit his home. He cried out that if he couldn’t get his arms back, he’d rather die. What moral right do we have to say to him, 'Losing your family and your arms was worth it because you and other Iraqis are now free'?"
LL: If you changed your T.V. station to fair and balanced coverage (Fox News Channel) you would see the good we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.
ME: OH NO YOU DIDN'T! Better off in Afghanistan???? What?? See this:
http://www.antiwar.com/afghan
oh and this:
http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/meanwhile.html.
Take 15 minutes and read these. See if you can make the same argument after you are done. What's more, you think you are holy enough to tell Iraqis and Afghanis when they are better off. You bomb some villages and wedding parties, but you say that overall they are better off. I think that your position would change dramatically if Canada determined that your city would be better off without its mayor. So, they bomb city hall and a few errant missiles land in your yard...ooops! Oh well, the mayor is gone...you...I mean those left alive are better off...Wait, they are better off according to those dropping the bombs! Just the calculation you made.
Oh, and better off in Iraq? I wrote a little something on that too: http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/e051903.html.
Once again, you must agree that it is you that determines whether Iraqis are better off. Once you admit that, your "moral" crusade to "liberate" Iraqis falls on its face.
LL: Your anti-America comments disgust me...
ME: Um, which ones? The ones that question the government's rhetoric? The comments that suggest we should deliberate about the decision to go to war? The comments that contend that we should put America first, not worry about the plight of other nations? The comments that demand the government follow the Constitution? The comments that worried that war would bring high taxes and bigger government? The comments that doubt politicians? The comments that demand we heed George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances"? Wait, these are things that conservatives do...why should I tell you?
If these are "anti-America" comments, then you – the "patriot" – should brush up on what being American truly means. I love this country, and my opposition to this war was firmly rooted in the idea that it would ruin all that is good about it.
LL: ...then you have the audacity to say that it is free speech you can say what you want when there are men and women dying in Iraq to give you that freedom.
ME: The men and women who fought in Iraq were not fighting for our freedom. Fighting for our freedom does not involve invading a non-threat such as Iraq, that didn't have the resources to shoot a SCUD more than 10 miles or get a plane off the ground. I supported the troops with respect to maintaining their safety, which simply involved America withdrawing them from Iraq.
The real threat to my freedoms is the government that has increased its role in my life (probably reading this...Hi NSA!), taken more of my money and decreased my security. Governments don't create rights or freedoms, they threaten them. Conservatives and libertarians such as myself know that. The audacity of your blind allegiance to the government and its rhetoric saddens and frightens me. Thank you for reinforcing the fervor I have in opposing the movements and ideologies you support.
Jon D: I've got an idea.
Millions marched when war was imminent. Isn't it time to organize and march again – for the truth?
What is the truth about the WMD that supposedly led the U.S. to war? Where is an independent commission on 9/11 (or even a congressional report)? What went on behind closed doors to set energy policy? What's in the presidential papers the Bush administration won't release?
They say sunshine is the best disinfectant (kills vampires too). It looks as though the only way to crack administration secrecy and silence, lies and propaganda, is for people to get out and say without freedom of information, there is no freedom; without an informed public, there is no democracy; without credibility, there is no legitimacy.
Writing the legislature is all well and good. But do we honestly expect the Dems to act? The Republicans learned from Enron and a multitude of other scandals: In a few weeks they can change the subject, and the media will follow along.
How can we not let that happen? I'm not an activist, but it seems to me if we protested to stop a war, we surely ought to protest to uncover the lies that led to it.
It might even give the media and Dems the intestinal fortitude (or plain old cover) they need to keep the essential questions of truth and secrecy alive and in the news. Ultimately, whatever Dem (or Green) you support, I submit that only hitting the pavement en masse can keep Bush & Co. uncomfortable, even uncharacteristically on the defensive, up through November 2004.
Yes, demonstrate against Bechtel, by all means. But we need an action network with the antiwar movement's broad appeal and resonance. The demand for truth and openness might be the answer.
Mike Ewens: I agree on one of your points: the 9/11 information will probably be the most effective tactic to weaken the administration (I assume that they aren't releasing it because it shows they did a lot wrong). I am a little hesitant push the WMD discussion, however. Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute warns us that this overt attention to WMD may backfire:
“The press’s intense focus on finding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction may have an undesirable outcome. If weapons are eventually found, the issue of the administration’s deception could evaporate. No one will focus on Bush’s larger deception of the American people in his effort to sell his military adventure.”
Recall that there were many other arguments – with or without WMD – that peaceniks used to demonstrate that war was unnecessary and unjust. Matt Barganier writes:
"Instead of lending undue significance to weapons possession, we must reiterate our original arguments against the war: it didn't serve our national interests, it was immoral, and it could have awful repercussions. Because as weeks become months with nothing to show for the last invasion, the warmongers are already humming a new tune: 'You want WMDs? We'll give you WMDs. On to Tehran!'"
This has got me thinkin…this is a wonderful strategy for the war hawks. They get all the antiwar types screaming “Told you so!” forgetting the real arguments against this war…then BAM, they find a dirty bomb in Baghdad. Who looks bad? The peaceniks, who are stuck with nothing: they got what they asked for, and the war is now justified. So, I suggest de-emphasizing WMD, and maintain arguments that the war was unconstitutional, wasn’t beneficial to America, and that most important one…Blowback. Remember, a call for the "truth" implicitly concedes the War Hawks point, i.e. that the war would be just if Saddam had WMD.
Now, of course, it is always good to show that politicians lied...but I suspect that the general public really doesn't care because politicians always lie. Moreover, the war is over, Saddam is gone and a threat seems vanquished, so the general public is fairly apathetic. Pressuring the administration to reveal the truth does have a chance of "cleaning house" but it is less likely with a Republic House and Senate.
Jon D: Are any organizers in the peace movement working with this idea? Would they be interested? I m not sure how to pass it along. Perhaps you can help.
ME: I checked out some of the bigger peace groups, and many are unfocused. One is running a "Anti-Corporate" protest (someone say "off-topic"?). Their other event is an explicit "anti-Bush" protest...unfortunately, that attitude will never change the minds of the majority of America, rather it will reinforce their sentiments about the antiwar movement ("You are anti-Bush, not anti-War"). There may be something at these sites that could facilitate you idea:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
http://pax.protest.net/
http://www.peace-action.org/
Sorry
that I am not as much of a help with your march idea, but I hope that
this helps. If you do organize such a march, keep us updated!
Imported from England
It occurred to me that Tony Blair deserves more credit than he now receives.
By bringing England on board, Blair injected the British conscience into an otherwise entirely corrupt war effort. Why was this necessary? Because unlike the Americans, the British public does have a clue. Because unlike the American politicians, bought and paid for on either side of the aisle, the British parliamentarians do speak their mind. Slowly, the criticism leveled at Blair will filter through to the US media. America may have led the attack. But the all important introspective effort was made in Britain. It will be the downfall of the Bush administration. Thank you, Tony Blair.
Regarding "Iraq's WMD Intelligence: Where is the Outrage?" by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV):
I am amazed by Sen. Byrd's credulity. He actually believed that Iraq had WMD and now believes they may have fallen into terrorist hands? I told coworkers a month or more before the invasion that I thought it possible that 1) Iraq had no WMD at the time and 2) Saddam was doing all he could to cooperate. But in my heart of hearts, I didn't just think it was possible. I was convinced it was the case. If we "knew" he had weapons and had intelligence about where to look, why was it every clue we gave the inspectors came up empty? Why did our media make such a big thing of 13 or 15 rusted old artillery warheads with nothing inside them? Why did we make a big deal of a makeshift drone made of balsa wood and duct tape? Why did Saddam do everything he could top cooperate, allowing U-2 overflights and even destroying missiles that were arguably NOT in violation? So some scientists refused to be interviewed without recording devices? Even a bloody, sadistic dictator like Saddam Hussein or Josef Stalin does not have 100% control of his people.
~ William
J. Rood, Rochester, Minnesota
Regarding "Question of the Day: 'Would You Have Left Saddam in Power?'" by Whiskey Bar:
The most effective response, I think, is that the ends don't justify the means.
Killers
I compiled this interesting list of key U.S. killers:
Killer :
Deaths/year:
Data source:
Tobacco
440,000
US Office on Smoking & health, April 12, 2002 report.
Average over six years.
Alcohol
111,000
National |Inst. On Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism Database, February 12,
2001,
Automobiles
42,000
US Dept. of Transportation, DOT report, March 2002.
Self (Suicides)
29,000
National Institute of Mental Health 2000 data
Other people
(Homicides)
17,000
National Institute of Mental Health. 2000 data
Drugs
17,000
US Center for Disease Control, Final Data for 1998. (Includes legal and
Illegal drugs)
HIV/AIDS
14,000
National Institute of Mental Health. 2000 data
Occupational
Workplace
6,000
US Dept. of Labor Census; Fatal Occupational Injuries to private sector,
government, and self employed wage and salary workers. Average over six
years.
Aircraft
Hijacking
3000
September 11, 2001.
Weapons
of Mass Destruction
0
Data has been rounded to the nearest 1000.
If stopping US killers is our main concern, our pursuit after Weapons of Mass Destruction may be a bit off focus. At the very least, if war on terror is what we are going to be doing, maybe we should be out looking for box cutters instead.
~ Robert
Stumm, Hampton, Virginia
Regarding "Bush Upset at Israel for Trying to Kill Hamas Chief":
Bush sends cruise missiles into the middle of Baghdad trying to take out Saddam, which only results in the killing & maiming civilians, and now he is "upset" because Israel follows in kind? This truly shows how deluded Bush and his pack of "preemptive" nutballs really are. They have opened Pandora's Box with their "we're going to attack you before you can attack us" policy. What do they think other nations are going to learn from what they have done and do they really think that they are the only ones with enough cajones to try it? "Quagmire" is a term often used to describe the mess that Bush has created by invading Iraq. I think "Global Chaos" is a better description.
Regarding "Behind the Lies" by Justin Raimondo:
Justin Raimondo has demonstrated yet again why he is the premier investigative journalist on the Internet. His latest article, "Behind the Lies," brilliantly deconstructs, once more, the deceptive veneer behind Neoconservatism, in particular its Straussian patrimony.
Neoconservatism is merely an ideological mask or rationale for elitist manipulation of subject peoples, here and abroad. It is – as in all political doctrines based on the seizure, retention, and projection of power – based on lies and falsification.
But as he alludes to in his terrific article, these observations are a follow-up to his outstanding 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right, which remains the classic source on the birth of this Neocon contagion which has infested the American body-politic for five decades. Raimondo focuses there upon the central figure of James Burnham – the leading Trotskyist intellectual follower of the heretical Russian Communist – who discarded the crimson apparel of a proletarian revolutionist in order to serve new masters – the CIA and the National Security State – and its synthetic offspring, Conservatism.
Burnham earlier, before totally emerging out of his ideological closet, had written one of the most important works for understanding his view of the nature of political power ... The Machiavellians....
Regarding Nadja Z.'s letter posted June 10:
Those Jews who protest against Israel are the Neturei Karta group of Jews who are theologically opposed to a sovereign state of Israel, claiming that Jews must wait patiently for the Messiah before assuming political leadership in the Land of Israel. They believe the state of Israel is blasphemous because it was created by men (Zionists), not God. This group believes that Jews must await the Messiah before returning to the land of Israel.
The fundamentalist Christians you asked about believe that Old Testament prophecies tell of Jews return from the four corners of the planet to Israel in the final days. They see the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 as evidence of this prophecy. This return is mentioned in numerous places in the Old Testament. Also, in Zechariah it also talks about how “Judah” (the Jews) fight against the “nations” (non-Jewish countries) in the “last day”, and the coming of the Messiah. So some Christians view this, and other text in Genesis granting the land of Israel to the descendants of Isaac, as support for Jewish claims in Israel. There’s more, but that’s just some of it.
Both Jews and Christians (some) see the nations lining up against Israel (except the U.S.) as evidence of biblical prophecy. Basically, Jews are waiting for the first coming of the Messiah, and Christians are waiting for the second coming of the Messiah, which will happen on that "last day."
Thanks
I have been an active user of Antiwar.com since the Kosovo war and have found your site invaluable. I wanted to take a few minutes just to express my appreciation.
If forced to describe my politics, I would say they are left-progressive. What has impressed me so much about your site is the range of antiwar views you feature, although the site is unmistakable rooted in a (true) conservative-libertarian perspective. I have been pleasantly surprised more than once by the common elements of your conservatism and my leftism. It gives me hope that the two movements will be able to learn from each other and join their efforts, at least on some major issues.
Regarding Michael O.'s letter posted June 10:
Michael O. asks whether Antiwar.com supports 'actions of Serbia'. Mike Ewens reasonably concentrates on nonintervention – even by argument! Nonetheless, citizens of all countries may take a legitimate interest as to e.g. whether there was an orchestrated massacre at Srebrenica (I mean by Serb para/military forces – there certainly were systematic massacres by the Islamist forces led by Nasir Oric who reputedly made a video of his anti-Serb atrocities).
By a massacre I now mean rapid, militarily or paramilitary organised and orchestrated killings of more than 3,000 persons within a period of forty-eight hours, committed against persons rendered helpless by disarmament, lack of their own administrative/ political structure, perhaps bound wrists etc. (By this token McCaffrey's 24th division 1991 massive slaughter of surrendered or surrendering Iraqi soldiers, though indubitably a war crime, was a massacre only in metaphorical terms. Debatable, I know.)
The number may seem arbitrary, but it is the minimum figure proposed that I have seen – it started at 6,000 and rapidly rose to 8,000, where it has stayed. The time figure of 48 hours is also arbitrary, but borrowed from the 'sources' (allegations). My main source for this as for other points is The Emperor's New Clothes (www.tenc.net), cross checked by references to 'official' sites such as Human Rights Watch, OSCE, NATO and indeed Kofi Annan's official 100+ page report – and the Dutchbat inquiry.
I have made many google searches for reliable evidence that there was, and have come up only with secondary and tertiary – if not quinary – reports. Also General Michael Rose's book Fighting for Peace, Harvill 1998 and Pierre-Henri Bunel's Crimes de Guerre a L'OTAN (Editions 1, 2000). Both Rose and Bunel confirm that some alleged Serb atrocities, such as the mortaring of Markale, were in fact provocations self-inflicted by Islamist forces answering to Izetbegovic and aimed at UN/world opinion. (British Cymbeline radar tracked the path of the mortar shells). One source on tenc.net argues that this was the case with the Srebrenica allegations also.
These allegations of course relate to Serb forces within Bosnia, not to the province Serbia or its government, let alone to President Milosevic, who I suspect is the main target of Michael O's concern. Slobodan Milosevic while maintaining a 'multinational' Yugoslavist, not a Serbian nationalist, ideology, showed more reserve towards Serb organisations in Bosnia – led largely by Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic – than for a long time did, for example, Zoran Djindjic, for whom see Nebojsa Malic on this website and the latest post on bhhrg.org.
For a general ideological statement on the part of Slobodan Milosevic you can find the text of his 1989 speech at Kosovo Polje (Gazimestan), which tenc.net commentators prove to be about the most misrepresented speech in the history of the human race. It rates with Martin Luther Kings's 'I have a dream' speech in terms of liberal and humanist values, though it has more direct political content. It was within a Yugoslav framework that most Serbs had the best chance of living in relative peace with their neighbours – Milosevic's evaluation and my own.
It is worth noting that Milosevic frequently put himself up for election within (increasingly rump) Yugoslavia, and Kostunica replaced not as a result of the (aborted) second round of presidential elections October 2000, but as a result of a coup orchestrated and largely paid for by George Soros (who thereby profited by getting his hands of the $5 trillion valued mineral resources of the Trepca mining complex in Kosovo) and the US and German governments, assisted by other EU governments.
Djindjic's long-standing tobacco-smuggling activities probably account for his rise and, when Philip Morris etc. perceived that legal tobacco trading would be more profitable, his fall.
Serbia received an enormous number of refugees mainly from Croatia, where long-standing populations were ethnically cleansed mainly in 1995 by Croat forces and US air cover,and also from Kosovo. It is and remains a very ethnically mixed republic.
I imagine the other main 'action of Serbia' Michael O. is concerned with is the alleged Serbian ethnic cleansing of Kosovo in 1998-9. There is very little evidence for this, as distinct from a heavy-handed repression of KLA terrorists, who themselves were heavily armed and engaged in systematic murder not only of Yugoslav police and non-Albanian ethnic civilians, but also of ethnic Albanians who cooperated with other ethnic groups (Jews, Roma, Turks etc. as well as Serbs) in Kosovo – these groups have now been ruthlessly cleansed under NATO/UN supervision by the so-called Kosovo Protection Force which is the KLA renamed, from all Kosovo except Mitrovica, where remnant Serbs remain under siege.
It is argued tat this is 'understandable revenge' but no massacres took place for which revenge could be exacted. The only example is the alleged murder of civilians by Serb paramilitary police and the Yugoslav Third Army at Racak in January 14/15 1999. These forces invited Serbian and Associated Press Television teams in to record their anti-terrorist operation, and Finnish and Spanish investigators have failed to discover serious evidence of anything other than the results of an unequal military struggle. Indeed, Spanish military-medical investigators went away after discovering only 187 corpses clearly related to recent military or ethnic strife. Many of these were the result of a NATO bombing of the prison in Pristina.
My conclusion is that the tissue of propagandistic lies created mainly by the angloAmerican media, governmental and private, about the former Yugoslavia still, though perhaps not for long, dwarfs even the tissue of lies about Iraq.
This is a partial and ad hoc answer to Michael O's query, but he is not very specific in defining which 'actions of Serbia' he is concerned about Brits and US citizens, as well as Aussies, and Poles, should look very carefully indeed at the actions and propaganda of their own governments.
~ Ben Cosin