Telling Iraq's Whole Story
Published in the Daily Illini on April 4th, 2006.
Recent news has led Americans to believe that Iraq has collapsed into total failure. Our understanding of Iraq has been distorted by the mainstream media's slight liberal bias and its strong profit motivation to feed us violent stories. We should not trivialize the pain of some Iraqis or the poor tactics of Bush. But just as we should reject censorship from the Bush administration, we should also reject the censorship of incomplete stories from the media. The story you haven't been told is brighter than you think.
Establishing democracy among fresh people is often bloody and messy. The greatest country in the world began as a fledgling and loose alliance of states under the Articles of Confederation. The United States took 10 years after the Revolutionary War to forge a stable Constitution. If it took the world's greatest democracy 85 years to establish "domestic tranquility," and then only through a Civil War that killed 618,000 Americans, why do we presume Iraq should be able to create a pristine democracy within a few years?
WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted a survey of 1,150 Iraqis in January 2006. Although Sunnis expressed negative views, they actively participated in the December elections.
The survey found that 68 percent of Iraqis believe the new government is legitimate. Furthermore, 64 percent feel that Iraq is "generally headed in the right direction." An overwhelming 97 percent said that their political leaders should reject terrorism and 99 percent feel that "all groups should participate in the political process."
The survey asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it?" While 44 percent of Americans predicted that Iraqis would have felt it was worth it, a surprising 77 percent of Iraqis actually did believe so. What causes Iraqi optimism and American pessimism?
The Brookings Institute is a major independent, nonpartisan think tank. They publish data on recovery in their Iraq Index.
Even with continual insurgent attacks, free Iraqis have volunteered to protect their new democracy. Today, 272,566 Iraqis actively serve as "trained, effective and equipped" forces. They have read Patrick Henry.
Insurgent attacks are isolated in four of the 18 provinces, where 85 percent of attacks occur. Half of Iraqis "live in areas that experience six percent of all attacks."
Iraqi gross domestic product is 35 percent greater today than under Saddam. Oil production matches pre-war levels. Oil revenue since the war has been $50.7 billion - money that, along with U.S. aid, has gone into the rehabilitation of 3,000 Iraqi schools rather than into palaces for Saddam and Sons.
No independent media existed under Saddam. Today, the number of TV stations has blossomed to 44, radio stations to 72 and newspapers and magazines to 200.
The Economist Intelligence Unit recently ranked Iraq as the fourth freest country in the Middle East based on 15 measures of political and civil liberty.
Americans have about a 55 percent voter turnout rate in friendly neighborhoods. In the December elections, 77 percent of eligible Iraqi voters showed up under threat of death. I dare you to tell those voters that liberty is not worth their risk.
Unfortunately for war opponents, nothing has done more than reconstruction to promote the rights of Iraqi women. Under Saddam, women had limited political participation, but the new constitution guarantees women 25 percent of all assembly seats.
Some of the greatest liberals of last century, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK and RFK, believed that America had a duty to spread democracy as the hammer against human tyranny and misery. Today, many still believe that the U.S. has a duty to intervene in Sudan and Rwanda - that there are definitive instances of evil among humans. Did evil not exist in Iraq? We don’t have the right to impose democracy on Iraqis, but Iraqis do have the right to be free and that is why we fight.
With all said, 35,000 Iraqis have died. But their family, friends and countrymen live at the apex of human achievement: freedom. Iraqis may now freely carve their own personal and political paths. Establishing democracy can be bloody and disturbing, but our ancestors believed that liberty was worth it - the unsung founders of the newly free Iraq agree.
Recent news has led Americans to believe that Iraq has collapsed into total failure. Our understanding of Iraq has been distorted by the mainstream media's slight liberal bias and its strong profit motivation to feed us violent stories. We should not trivialize the pain of some Iraqis or the poor tactics of Bush. But just as we should reject censorship from the Bush administration, we should also reject the censorship of incomplete stories from the media. The story you haven't been told is brighter than you think.
Establishing democracy among fresh people is often bloody and messy. The greatest country in the world began as a fledgling and loose alliance of states under the Articles of Confederation. The United States took 10 years after the Revolutionary War to forge a stable Constitution. If it took the world's greatest democracy 85 years to establish "domestic tranquility," and then only through a Civil War that killed 618,000 Americans, why do we presume Iraq should be able to create a pristine democracy within a few years?
WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted a survey of 1,150 Iraqis in January 2006. Although Sunnis expressed negative views, they actively participated in the December elections.
The survey found that 68 percent of Iraqis believe the new government is legitimate. Furthermore, 64 percent feel that Iraq is "generally headed in the right direction." An overwhelming 97 percent said that their political leaders should reject terrorism and 99 percent feel that "all groups should participate in the political process."
The survey asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it?" While 44 percent of Americans predicted that Iraqis would have felt it was worth it, a surprising 77 percent of Iraqis actually did believe so. What causes Iraqi optimism and American pessimism?
The Brookings Institute is a major independent, nonpartisan think tank. They publish data on recovery in their Iraq Index.
Even with continual insurgent attacks, free Iraqis have volunteered to protect their new democracy. Today, 272,566 Iraqis actively serve as "trained, effective and equipped" forces. They have read Patrick Henry.
Insurgent attacks are isolated in four of the 18 provinces, where 85 percent of attacks occur. Half of Iraqis "live in areas that experience six percent of all attacks."
Iraqi gross domestic product is 35 percent greater today than under Saddam. Oil production matches pre-war levels. Oil revenue since the war has been $50.7 billion - money that, along with U.S. aid, has gone into the rehabilitation of 3,000 Iraqi schools rather than into palaces for Saddam and Sons.
No independent media existed under Saddam. Today, the number of TV stations has blossomed to 44, radio stations to 72 and newspapers and magazines to 200.
The Economist Intelligence Unit recently ranked Iraq as the fourth freest country in the Middle East based on 15 measures of political and civil liberty.
Americans have about a 55 percent voter turnout rate in friendly neighborhoods. In the December elections, 77 percent of eligible Iraqi voters showed up under threat of death. I dare you to tell those voters that liberty is not worth their risk.
Unfortunately for war opponents, nothing has done more than reconstruction to promote the rights of Iraqi women. Under Saddam, women had limited political participation, but the new constitution guarantees women 25 percent of all assembly seats.
Some of the greatest liberals of last century, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK and RFK, believed that America had a duty to spread democracy as the hammer against human tyranny and misery. Today, many still believe that the U.S. has a duty to intervene in Sudan and Rwanda - that there are definitive instances of evil among humans. Did evil not exist in Iraq? We don’t have the right to impose democracy on Iraqis, but Iraqis do have the right to be free and that is why we fight.
With all said, 35,000 Iraqis have died. But their family, friends and countrymen live at the apex of human achievement: freedom. Iraqis may now freely carve their own personal and political paths. Establishing democracy can be bloody and disturbing, but our ancestors believed that liberty was worth it - the unsung founders of the newly free Iraq agree.
posted by Billy Joe Mills at 4:48 PM
37 Comments:
As the officer said to his aide in 1968, "Damn shame we had to destroy that village in order to save it."
35k dead in order to impose a dubious form of government, and you're *defending* the process? You're a lot braver than I.
In a nation with fierce minorities who hate each other, democracy won't work long-term--they'll be worse off than they were before. The only think I can think of that might stand a shot would be the canton system that Switzerland uses.
I see Yugoslavia as a much better model for the future than the United States--there's a fine, recent example of a situation where a country made up of diverse ethnic groups suddenly are without the strong leader or a strong country to enforce peace.
Just watch what happens when we leave.
Wilson was a failure.
Tom
where's your funny by-line?
Hey TC
I love when you Bush-haters get uncomfortable with the facts.
How many Iraqis were being killed before we got there? Seems relevant to me.
I don't understand your point about minorities. Are you saying these weren't the right type of people to try to help?
I too hope we leave Iraq as soon as possible. When we do it becomes the responsibility of the Iraqi people to step up and finish the job. I would bet TC that you criticized Bush Sr. for leaving Iraq too early the first time around.
Maybe they should give you a call next time there's trouble.
Bush hater?
Well, I guess, as long as you realize that I hate Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and every other of the Parliament of Whores that sits presently in Washington or have earlier sold their souls to do so.
The govenment is at best a necessarily evil and at worst The Enemy. Any good that it does do is generally at a hefty cost.
Discounting the soldiers killed during the war with Iran, the average yearly death toll was about 25k under Saddam. Now, this may seem to indicate that we've improved things, right?
While doing as much as we can to facilitate safety, the yearly death rate in Iraq has only been reduced 25% from the situation under a brutal, evil dictator.
THIS IS WITH THE FULL FORCE OF AMERICAN OCCUPIERS ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE ETHNIC PEACE.
How much do you think it will jump when we leave?
Now, as far as minorities go, I am not putting any particular value of one minority over another.
The population breakdown is something like this:
Shiites (in majority)--60%
Kurds (isolated in North)--~20%
Sunnis (former ruling party)--~17%
Others (Turks, Bedouins, remaining southern Christians)--3%
These ethnic groups hate each other to an extent seen only in Yugoslavia. Direct democracy, especially with a high turnout will result in a consistent majority of Shiites in the Iraqi Parliament. In addition, the Shiites and Kurds have 24 years of brutal oppression that they (perhaps rightly) may feel the need to pay back to the Sunnis.
(I expect that the Kurds are sitting quietly in the North waiting for the rest of the country to fall apart after the Americans leave so that they can secede.)
THERE IS NO IRAQI PEOPLE, there are just the three ethnic groups. If there actually WERE an Iraqi people, I'd say that the operation might have some chance of success.
I actually admired George Senior for accomplishing what he did with virtually no loss of American life. Damn shame his son couldn't repeat the feat.
Tom
Addendum to above:
The Kurds, while also being Sunnis, do not identify with the Ba'athist Sunnis that ruled under Saddam.
(The religious division actually comes out to be around 60% Shiites, 37% Sunnis if you break it up that way.)
Tom
Tom,
Again, the point of my article was to tell the side of the story that is not being reported on much at all, they are the positive things. The positive things tend to be filled with boring data and non-sensational events (like 3,000 rehabilitated schools). So I would encourage you to look at the totality of facts there. Obviously Bush made many blunders that he should be scolded for. But I strongly believe that the over all effect of the invasion and creation of democracy will be positive in the long-run. There are many relevant historical analogies including the US, Japan, and Germany. The heterogeneous Iraqi population will make things more difficult, but not impossible...democracy is the one thing that can peacefully hold together different ethnicities, i.e. the United States of America.
You said, "Discounting the soldiers killed during the war with Iran, the average yearly death toll was about 25k under Saddam. Now, this may seem to indicate that we've improved things, right?
While doing as much as we can to facilitate safety, the yearly death rate in Iraq has only been reduced 25% from the situation under a brutal, evil dictator."
25,000 people per year multiplied by an indefinite stay for Saddam is a whole lot more people than 35,000. Especially considering that Uday and Qusay would have taken control afterwards, and they were arguably more twisted and vial.
I will state right here that there will be NO civil war in Iraq. The civil war fear is a myth perpetuated by political players out of power in Iraq and by a profit-biased and slightly liberal-biased American media. $20 bet is open on this claim to anyone.
Well said Billy. I refuse to watch any news program because all they are going to show you is who was shot here, who was robbed there, how bad our government is, and so on. No news programs show any good news anymore and its a shame.
9 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq today.
If you believe things are going so well in Iraq, I'm sure you wouldn't mind replacing one of them.
http://www.goarmy.com/
Wally,
I don't think that things are going well, just that they are going better than pundits and the media will admit. I have at times considered joining the military and I do have many friends, including one of my best friends, who serves there. But, my abilities seem better suited to aid America here at home training to become a productive participant in the U.S. economy and hopefully someday within politics. Governments have often decided that some people better help their country as a sophisticated laborer rather than as a soldier.
That said, if I ever were to go it would be as a journalist trying to cover all of the good that has already come and will continue to come from Iraq.
Still with this said, my lack of service did weigh upon me as I wrote this column...whether it was my place at all. I think that, in fact, writing this column was my small service. I am not there as a US soldier, but I am here telling Americans what the US soldiers have accomplished. That is my small role.
Also, I would appreciate that if you disagree with my column that you make serious intellectual assaults upon it, rather than pathetic ad hominem attacks that expose your lack of ability to intelligently refute my claims.
Regardless, thanks for the feedback :)
Oh and Eric, thanks again for the kind comments...they are appreciated.
Billy Joe you were right. Your post/paper is spot on. And filled with more factoids than mine! Great work. Nice meeting you - I'll be back.
Your $20 is covered BJ.
Tom
Dear Billy,
Thank you for the list of excuses. They were very informative.
What I’m saying is that those of us with family in Iraq might argue that the media has been too positive by giving Bush and company a free pass on this disaster of a war. Where's the accountability? Wouldn’t you say that the “liberal media” has let us down in this respect?
I would like to see the media report the name and hometown, along with a short biography, of each and every U.S. soldier who has died in Iraq. This is how to honor their memories. Yet this is rarely done. The young men and women who fight and die in Iraq are nameless, faceless statistics to the media. This is an abhorrent omission on the part of the “liberal media.”
Anyway, keep spin, spin, spinning! I’m sure one day you and your fellow conservatives will find a good reason for why we started this war.
Wally
P.S. http://www.goarmy.com/
Wally,
First, the media has constantly assaulted the war. Much of that is deserved on Bush's part, since he obviously made many big blunders and no one should defend him blindly. I'm not sure how you can credibly argue that the media hasn't attacked the war enough...sounds overly zealous and hopeful that we'll actually lose the war.
Although I would like to believe otherwise, I must seriously question whether anti-war folks would prefer for Iraq to degrade into civil war just so their points are validated or whether they would love to see ~30 million people begin to live under the ever expanding sun of freedom. I now have a bet with Tom where if he desires to win he must root for things to go horribly wrong for Iraqis.
I agree that it is very sad that U.S. soldiers have become statistics...often they are just mentioned in passing now, whereas towards the beginning of the war their names and stories were given. I believe that MSNBC at one point did cover every soldier and I believe they continue to do so.
I'm still waiting for someone to substantively tear asunder my arguments and data. I hear a lot of whining, but little forceful or persuasive critique...
Wally, unfortunately emotional don't sway either myself or the intelligent readers of my blog...So, if you'd like to be taken seriously please refute my factual points. You think you win arguments by making fun of me, when in fact it makes you look weak because you cannot seriously refute me. Stop playing this guilt trip game, which is a debating tactic reserved for politicians, not searchers.
Wally,
How could anybody believe that this article does anything but support the effort our troops are making over there? This article pays homage to their sacrifice. It is an attempt to show evidence that their collective effort is not in vain. It would seem to me that your ire is greatly misplaced here.
No one in their right mind could say that the mainstream media has given the Bush administration a pass on this war. That statement is so laughable that it invalidates any point you are trying to make.
It is true that not enough is done to remember the loss of our soldiers. But, then there is no way to fully mark what they have given. It does seem that as time goes by the American people seem to pay less and less attention. I don't understand why you don't take it out on them instead of the author of this article. Obviously he is paying attention.
If you truely have family in Iraq, then I honor them and I pray for them.
I just don't honor you.
Hi Billy Joe Mills,
In today's DI column, you posed the question: "If it took the world's greatest democracy 85 years to establish "domestic tranquility," and then only through a Civil War that killed 618,000 Americans, why do we presume Iraq should be able to create a pristine democracy within a few years?
Wow! I never realized that the Civil War was about establishing "domestic tranquility." I've never read any historians who held that view. In fact, there are a lot of folks south of the Mason-Dixon line who don't even call it the Civil War; they call it the War of Northern Aggression. I thought the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression, whatever, was about preserving the union? Are they teaching U.S. History differently down there in Champaign-Urbana these days?
Actually, I just returned from a visit to the Republic of Croatia, where they refer to the war there during the early 90's as the "War of Yugoslav Aggression." Interesting parallel, except that the Croatians (and Slovenes and Bosnians) were fighting then for independence from the Serb-dominated Yugoslavia just as the Southerners had once fought for independence from the North-dominated United States. Note that the Croats won and the South lost.
I guess I'm taking issue with your view of American history and trying to apply it to the situation in Iraq today. Are you suggesting that an Iraqi democracy would be more tranquil than splitting the country into three democracies, one for the Shiites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds? Are you suggesting that the deaths of 35,000 Iraqis (and counting) is a necessary thing? Or are you just simply suggesting that the war is a good thing, despite the thousands of lives lost?
Frankly, I don't know that "we," meaning the United States, have ever created any kind of democracy anywhere in the world, pristine or not, except here at home. Presuming that we can create one in Iraq, or anywhere else, within a few years or within many years, is a stretch. You pro-war, pro-killing folks absolutely amaze me with your lust for the blood of others. Of course, you can print your convoluted analysis in the DI all you want without fear that you'll be drafted into the military and have to back up your words with your own life.
George Peternel
LAS '69
Billy Joe, I am not "rooting" for horrible things to occur in Iraq. I just figure that taking your $20 will help to set in your mind that I am right and you need to listen more closely to me. Simply because I accept the currents of history and economics does not mean that I necessarily approve of them--they'll occur whether you or I like it or not.
Let me explain to you why Germany and Japan are not good precedents to use in your arguments about the establishment of democracy by the United States.
WHY POST WW2 GERMANY IS NOT A GOOD COMPARISON:
1) There existed a "German" national identity that took precedence over the local identity for about three generations before 1945.
2) Although the Nazis did persecute some Catholics, there was not the religious divisiveness that exists in Iraq.
3) The most militant German state and its neighbors (Prussia) were not democratic after the war at all, but were occupied for 35 years afterwards by a Communist army fully as brutal as Saddam.
Not even close to the situation in Iraq.
WHY JAPAN IS NOT A GOOD COMPARISON TO IRAQ:
1) The Japanese identity as a nation was centuries old in 1945.
2) Religion, again, was not a divisive issue in Japan.
3) The Code of Bushido calls for a person who surrenders to act as if they are the "property" of the conquerer. This made it very, very easy for MacArthur and the rest of the American rulers of Japan to write exactly the kind of Constitution it wanted for the country.
4) As noted above, the Japanese did NOT write their constitution, the American occupiers did.
I reiterate that Yugoslavia following the fall of the Soviet Union is a much better example than the ones you gave.
Can you give me an example of a country that was conquered that had the divisions in religion and ethnicity that Iraq has and successfully transitioned to a democracy?
Tom
Interesting note:
It appears that, according to Israeli intelligence sources that a half-dozen of the members of the new Iraqi parliament are high-level members of the Iranian intelligence apparatus.
There are some detailed notes at the DEBKA site. (This is a very good source for terrorist intel, as long as you keep in mind its inherent biases.)
There should be information on this hitting the MSM in a week or so, I imagine, they're usually about that far behind.
Yet another reason why civil war in Iraq is virtually inevitable after American withdrawl--a radical nearby nation with political interests in the future of the nation.
Tom
So TC,
Let me get this straight - you really are saying that we shouldn't be trying to help this type of people?
You seem to be quite upset that there are successes over there. I haven't once heard you say why these successes are bad for the people of Iraq. I have heard you say often enough that these people are not capable of self-governance. Please say it no more.
The entire article was about hearing the full story out of Iraq. You, and now Peternel, are somehow upset by this. You are both going to great effort (and tremendous distortion) to make the case that censorship is good, especially when it can be used against an administration that you don't like.
TC, by the way you seem to be a little obsessed with Billy Joe Mills. You might want to get a life.
To Mr. Peternel,
The comparison used regarding our Civil War should be easy enough to understand, even with such a slanted intellect as yours. Perhaps the author did not have enough room to explain it slowly enough for you. Not many would refer to that struggle as the "War of Northern Aggression" as you have.
Apparently, history is not your strong point, I really hope you are not a history teacher, I fear that you are. How many democracies existed in the world prior to 1976? How many exist today? Most were created by example, some by our help, and regrettably a few were created through war.
By the way, I do feel that Iraq may eventually split into three seperate entities. Perhaps you and TC are right, perhaps these people aren't worth it. But, if they do split, it should be their decision and not ours. They now have that power.
As to your absolute ridiculous assertion that the author of this article has a "lust for blood" - I can't find anywhere suggested by him that all this killing is a good thing. You, sir, made this up. I guess it makes you feel superior. Those who wish to control information always feel superior.
It's just that they so rarely are. Thanks for proving that once again.
Mugs, where on earth are you getting the impression that I do not think that the people of Iraq are worthy of good things?
This has never been my intention. I am pointing out some problems that are due not to any inherent sinfulness or inferiority, but due to economics, religion and the movement of history.
Let me put forth the concept of a government that WOULD most likely work for Iraq. It is modelled on the Swiss Canton system.
Divide the country into three parts. The area from Baghdad to Fallujah would be the Arab Sunni country. The north would belong to the Kurds and the rest of the country to the Shi'ites.
Each of the areas would be free to choose their own government and the extent to which religion would rule their lives. ( I would expect that the Shi'ite region would go to Sharia pretty quickly.)
The Federal Iraqi government would be severly limited in its scope. It would be allowed to govern transporation between the cantons and would insure that the oil revenues would be split according to population and that there would be no tariffs on trade between the cantons. A defense-only military would be the responsibility of the Federal Government.
In addition, the individual cantons would be forbidden from making alliances with other nations--this would be the provenance of the Federal Government.
Billy Joe and I are friends, mugs. We enjoy the exchange of ideas here--there's no animosity between the two of us.
I'm not a big believer in the use of personal insults, therefore I will restrain myself from answering those contained in your post.
As far as democracy goes, I do not limit my desire to deny it just to the Iraqi people. I suspect that real democracy becomes a fatal form of government as soon as the populace finds that it can vote itself bread and circuses, which is why the Founders of the United States attempted to keep it from taking root here.
The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Federal Republic in which the elected representatives of the people enact laws and the other two brances see that they are enforced and interpreted. It is a rule of law, not of people.
The extent to which democratic ideals have subverted this system of checks and balances may yet spell the doom of the country--political polls being a prime example of such nonsense.
Tom
Hey Billy,
What facts am I supposed to argue with? We both agree.
There are small, infrequent good things in Iraq and the media doesn't cover them.
However, where we disagree is why the media doesn't cover these rare and infrequent events. I do not believe it is a conspiracy on the part of the "liberal media" as you do. I believe the media does not report these events because they are miniscule compared to the vast sea of human suffering that this invasion has created.
At this point, even given the BEST possible outcome (your fantasy of a free and democratic Iraq), does this justify in your mind the 2342 dead U.S. soldiers who were told they were going to Iraq to protect America from WMDs? The 17269 injured U.S. soldiers? The 30,000 dead Iraqis? The countless number of Iraqis who have lost property or limbs? The billions of dollars of our money spent on the welfare of the Iraqi people instead of on the welfare of Americans? Does it justify our current inability to address real threats like Iran? Does it justify the current animosity of the world towards the U.S.?
If you honestly believe that this war based on lies and stupidity is justified by not just the ends, the potential ends (that one day, sometime in the far, distant future Iraq MIGHT be a democracy), perhaps the Orange and Blue Observer is a better forum for your column.
Wally
TC
Had the gist of the article been about dividing Iraq into three parts, I would be agreeing with you. I too think this is the future. I have thought so for three years now. My only problem is that when I brought this up in a conversation with a friend from Lebanon he became greatly offended that Americans would manipulate the region in such a way. Seems we can't win. If this is going to happen, Iraqis must decide for themselves.
I do like how you explain how this might work. It sounds plausible and I have not heard it explained better. Perhaps Billy Joe would consider doing an article on the topic.
Such talk as this is worthy, but a far cry from the attitude taken here that the author is somehow insensitive to the plight of the people involved in this war and is somehow responsible for 35K dead (Damn shame we had to destroy that village in order to save it). There are many subtle ways to be personally insulting. Once again, the author is merely trying to call for "all the news" to be shared. I see nothing wrong in that.
I happen to agree with you that Billy Joe may be wrong in the end about our chances for success. Civil war may result, the country may split, and Billy may owe you $20. He may suffer from youthful optimism, whereas I no longer have that luxury. But, I agree with him that news of the effort, good and bad, should be told.
And that Iraqis deserve the chance they now have.
Wally,
From a purely utilitarian perspective, which you seem to favor, we were certainly justified. As Tom, who is on your side, said earlier, it is estimated that 25,000 Iraqis died each year under Saddam either because he killed them, he stole too many of the profits from international trade, or from sanctions. Tom can you provide the citation for that statistic, I would like to ensure its validity? If that is true, then we have actually saved lives! We invaded in (March?) 2003, which roughly means that 20,000 Iraqis would have died in the remainder of that year, 25,000 would have died in 2004, 25,000 would have died in 2005, and about 5,000 thus far in 2006. That is a total of 75,000 lives!
Plus, do not forget that Saddam would have lived for at least around 15 more years. That is 375,000 more lives. Plus, Uday and Qusay were more wicked by some accounts and they could have ruled for about another 15-50 years. At the minimum of the range that's 375,000 lives saved and at the maximum that's 1.25 million lives saved from the hands of the dead sons.
Assuming Uday and Qusay's heirs were not allowed to rule, that is a grand total of 825,000 at the min. or 1.7 million at the max.
If I generously assume the death totals double by the end to 70,000 then that still means at the min. 1178% increase in death and a 2428% increase at the max. had we not invaded. Plus we cannot forget that under the new Iraq those who are alive are free, whereas even those alive under Saddam would live in a constant nightmare.
The war has been horrible in many ways. Bush has blundered many times. But before criticizing a course it is important to look at the rationally expected alternatives. Would you have preferred 1 million or so more deaths, so long as the US didn't do something that got messy and difficult? Establishing democracy among fresh people is not supposed to be easy, that's why we value it.
My only regret with this column is that I did not have more space to make additional points. I specifically neglected to say something like "I honor those living and dead, Allied and Iraqi, who believe as our Founders did, that freedom among humans is not easily gained and that often the blood of the brave is necessary. Those brave understand that some things in this world are greater than their own lives - that freedom for millions forever is worth their sacrifice and they make that sacrifice without hesitation."
I suspect that the reason many of you don't understand my position on Iraq is because you have forgotten how difficult it is to become free. We have always had freedom, both of my grandfathers fought so that I would not have to, they suspended their freedoms with the belief that Evil does exist among men, but that Good can only lose if it remains passive. That Good they fought for was freedom - the instinct of every person to carve their unique paths towards happiness. There are remnants of this great war in the world, but they have at least been eradicated from Iraq. For me, a spoiled suburban white boy, I cannot fully understand the pain endured by my friends, countrymen and women, and Iraqis who have a "fighting faith," but I can understand the reasons why they wish for us to remain free and for Iraqis to be reborn into freedom.
(Thanks to Mugs and Jimbo for the backup here, much appreciated.)
Billy Joe, I got the 25k/year figure from Jim Dunnigan's Strategy Page, the one-stop shop for all of your military intel needs. Since blogger munges web addresses, just type in StrategyPage.com and it'll take you there. I highly recommend this as a source, his research is near-flawless.
Jim Dunnigan has been an expert in conflict simulation and resolution since 1975 and is the author of The Quick and Dirty Guide to War, How to Make War and a number of other books.
His partner in info is Steve Cole, the owner of the Amarillo Design Bureau and the man who created "For Your Eyes Only" a much loved military affairs newsletter some time before the First Gulf War.
His exact number was around 100 deaths per 100,000, which comes out to around 26k yearly.
One interesting point that Dunnigan makes is that that rate of death is STILL the rule in the Ba'athist regions of Iraq. The reduction in the overall death rate comes from lower values in the Kurdish and Sunni areas of the country. (This measure is a bit old--my guess is that the death rates in those areas have now risen somewhat with the incorportation of old Ba'athists into the police and security forces.)
Tom
Dear Billy,
I see that this is going nowhere.
I still don't see why you believe that we had to waste thousands of U.S. lives and billions of U.S. dollars on a political change that should have been the responsibility of the Iraqi people. We fought our own revolution, and democracy took hold because it was a movement from within.
If the point of this invasion was humanitarian, why didn't was start in Darfur? Really, what was the real reason for this invasion? You still haven't provided a valid justification.
You justify the 30,000 dead as the result of the occupation by saying, hey, at least we're not as bad as Saddam. Well, you can get away with a hell of a lot with this type of moral relativism. I don't buy it.
Good luck with your spin.
Wally
Wally,
Ummm I don't think you know the definition of moral relativism, you might want to look that up before using it publicly again.
It would have been nice to wait for an internal Iraqi revolution. However, Saddam killed any one who even whispered about revolution...it was a difficult place to get a revolution started.
We went in mostly for our own security, which coincides with the desires of the Iraqi people to be free. Spreading democracy is a tool (hammer) of national security, our selfish motivations happen to coincide with the humanitarian mission of freeing the Iraqis from Saddam's grip.
George Peternel,
You wrote, “Wow! I never realized that the Civil War was about establishing "domestic tranquility." I've never read any historians who held that view.”
I’m not quite sure what you even mean by this line. I think it is clear that there existed “domestic” problems. And so, the goal was to restore “tranquility.” My dictionary defines it as “a state of peace and calm.” Isn’t restoring domestic tranquility the exact same thing as “preserving the union”? I’m not quite sure why you accuse me of ignorance in simple American history when we agree entirely…seems quite zealous, odd, and a cheap means to take a shot at me that makes no sense.
I guess I'm taking issue with your view of American history and trying to apply it to the situation in Iraq today. Are you suggesting that an Iraqi democracy would be more tranquil than splitting the country into three democracies, one for the Shiites, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds?
Frankly, I don't know that "we," meaning the United States, have ever created any kind of democracy anywhere in the world, pristine or not, except here at home.
Um, Japan, Germany, and many others. As the first modern democracy we have arguably been the catalyst for all others. There are currently 122 by my count.
“You pro-war, pro-killing folks absolutely amaze me with your lust for the blood of others.”
I am pro-war when it means saving more lives in the long run and improving the lives of millions others.
“Of course, you can print your convoluted analysis in the DI all you want without fear that you'll be drafted into the military and have to back up your words with your own life.”
Those more brave than I currently serve. But if the military called upon me I would readily go.
“Are you suggesting that the deaths of 35,000 Iraqis (and counting) is a necessary thing? Or are you just simply suggesting that the war is a good thing, despite the thousands of lives lost?”
Was it necessary for the 13 colonies to create a war with the world’s greatest power for freedom? Was it necessary that thousands of our Founders died? They believed it was - why do we doubt them now? Iraq’s founders believe it is - why do we doubt them now? Democracy is not supposed to be easy. It is much easier, as we know from our Cold War activities, to prop up dictatorships or to leave them in place. Things seem a lot calmer and less messy. We don’t have to get involved…sure, that’s nice, our hands are free. We don’t have to hear about the daily deaths (Tom notes 25,000 per year under Saddam). But the people still die, they still hear the midnight knock from the government licensed murderers upon their doors, they still live in fear.
It might be true that the U.S. is totally wrong about democracy. That it is a failed institution. But the majority of the world does not think so. Our greatest weapon against terrorists, just as it was against Communists, is the allure of freedom. Every man, every woman, has an instinct to be free. Someday, as Francis Fukuyama used to believe, democracy will blanket the earth as the realization of human nature – it is the one form of human governance that does not try to change human nature, rather it builds institutions that accept it and check its greed. It does not think of greed as an evil, but an asset.
The day when freedom and prosperity cover all humans is not far away. But it grows further with sentiments that run counter to entire foundation of this country. When we in the free world begin to sit back and relax, seeing that our fight is over and our leather couches too comfortable to move from, we then slow the wave of democracy. Is it necessary for people to die in the Middle East? It isn’t necessary if we wish to leave them dangling in tyranny, but if we wish for them to join us in knowing the liberty and creativity of democracy then I say yes it is necessary, and it is worth it, the Iraqis think it is worth it (remember the polling data?), you go tell them that the lives of their family and our soldiers are not worth their lasting freedom…you go tell them.
Billy Joe,
That was a most eloquent response. I can't imagine it better put.
I'm afraid it is wasted here on one such as Peternel. Better to place it in the Daily Illini for all to see (especially the second half). Not many in the university setting will understand it, or will even try, but it should be printed into the public record for the few who still have a mind not made of mush.
It seems you need no help from me. You are fully capable, and are well prepared to defend yourself from your critics.
I am now - a fan.
Wally,
Even the United States, considered by many to be the most powerful country in the world, was unable to become free on its own. I suggest you open a history book. Without the aid of the French, we would have perhaps never become the country we are today. The French people saw a just cause, and fought the good fight. They lost many lives in order to promote freedom.
You mention that we've lost thousands of lives as if this is Vietnam all over again. We've lost less than 3,000 lives at this point, which is a feat of modern technology. In the past, to achieve the things that Billy Joe's article mentions would have required the lives of 30,000 soldiers or more. Those heros that have sacraficed their lives in the name of freedom did so knowing that death was a possibility. They were not hoodwinked into some scheme by the President or military. These people fight for the same reason that the French fought for us, to promote freedom.
I say we because even though we all disagree on what has occurred in Iraq, we still have the ability to change our government; this is an ability that Iraqis have not had for quite some time.
Hello back,
I did check out the response in your blog. Your responses suggest
that our world views are less divergent than one might guess; many of
the apparent disagreements can be attributed to semantics (I would
argue that we did not create a democracy in Germany, but transformed
one that already existed but had been cleverly and ruthlessly taken
over by Hitler and his Nazi Party) or have different views of the
world based on life experiences as well as academic learning.
No, I am not an historian. I currently coordinate a long-term
research project with significant educational and social
implications. And at the mature age of 59, my thinking has many more
questions than answers. But I just returned from a trip to
Dubrovnik, now a part of Croatia but for many years an independent
city-state with a tradition of democracy that existed long before the
establishment of democracy in the United States. And it is a proud
tradition; the people there take pride that they were not ruled by
princes and dukes in times when most of Europe was.
I climbed a mountain overlooking the city to visit the ruins of a
Napoleonic fort. What I remember is not the panoramic view of the
city, nor the spectacle of the fort, but the grim faces of the
Croatian military personnel who were at work near the fort sweeping
for mines buried there over ten years ago by the Yugoslav Army. And I
remember the ambulance that was nearby, just in case. I took a side
trip to Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and saw bombed out and bullet
riddled ruins that still need to be demolished and restored, and
learned how that city is now uneasily separated into Croats, Serbs
and Muslims. When I ask the question about whether or not war (in
Iraq or anywhere else) is necessary, it is because my recent trip has
reminded me how "messy" war can be, and how animosities and divisions
between people never seem to be permanently settled by wars and the
military occupations that often follow. The people I talked to there,
for the most part educated people who do not think highly of George
W. Bush and his way of conducting foreign policy, were in agreement
that the war there during the 90's wasn't necessary. But it happened.
You write with a passion, in your column and in your blog. I don't
know how you do it, being a student as well as a columnist and
finding the time, courage and energy to take on your critics. Allow
me to make one suggestion. Visit Dubrovnik some day. Or Mostar, or
Sarajevo. Perhaps then you'll be less defensive when a curmudgeon
like me suggests that you and others of your ilk have a "blood lust."
Instead of lashing out at a critic like myself, make an effort to
understand, first. I used the words "blood lust" to provoke you to
think, not to respond as you did. My mistake.
Keep at it.
George Peternel
Billy,
I am honestly trying to understand this….so please, provide me with your best answer. How does destabilizing Iraq help the security of the United States? How does creating a new hotbed of terrorism in the Middle East help the U.S.? How does wasting our military on a non-threat help when there are real threats out there?
Please, provide some real answers instead of Fox News talking points. I realize that you may be still supporting this war to avoid the shame of admitting to yourself and others that you were initially wrong about this invasion and that your mistake is partly responsible for thousands of lost human lives in addition to billions of wasted dollars. A lot of conservatives have come around, but apparently you haven’t. For every American soldier that comes home in a coffin, you played a minuscule, but real part in that soldier’s death. I know that must embarrass the hell out of you, as it should (especially since you are not willing to make the same sacrifice yourself)…but now is your chance to redeem yourself. There are two ways: You can either speak out against the war now, or go to Iraq and do what you can to fix the problem that you are partly responsible. By saying that things in Iraq aren’t as bad as the media portrays it, you’re helping to prolong a war that has already cost too much and killed too many.
Wally
I've said all that I can to you Wally, if you don't understand the sentiments I tried to convey then I'm afraid I can do no better or be more precise as to persuade you as to at least he reasonableness of my side...that I don't just want to see people killed without reason.
This entire thread of encouragement and distaste has inspired me to write again next Monday on this same topic. So, thanks to all who contributed to either side. Except I will be making mostly philosophical and historical arguments, rather than relying on data, which apparently isn't taken seriously. Best of all, we are trying to work something out so that Brian Pierce, a liberal who also favors the war, and I will write on the same day...a one-two, left-right combination to beat back the mobilization of impatience and pessimism...should be fun.
Billy,
Please, in your column, don't forget to mention all the reasons why you support this war, but not enough to actually fight it. You owe that to your audience.
Wally
P.S. http://www.goarmy.com/
Billy Joe
I have one criticism: You care far too much for the opinions of fools such as Wally.
Go on to the next article. There have been smart, well-informed combatants on this thread, but Wally is not one of them. He has yet to say one thing worthy or constructive.
He seems to suggest that only soldiers have a right to support soldiers. That unless you are a soldier you have no right to an opinion on this world event. Yet I find no evidence that he himself ever stood on the line for his country. He is not the type, he hasn't got it in him, that much is plain.
Wally, once in a while TC and Peternel will take a shot that I think is uncalled for, but for the most part I think you would do well to re-read their posts.
Perhaps, in that way you might be able to decipher what an intelligent opposing opinion would sound like.
Billy Joe, lest I completely come off as Dora Downer, let me give you some real "good news" from Iraq.
It looks like the Sunni part of the insurgency is ending at a pretty good rate.
There are a number of reasons for this:
1) The insurgents underestimated American willingness to take casualties--they expected the Americans to react in a hysterical manner to losing troops (as several other nations have done in the past, including the initial Japanese intelligence reports prior to Pearl Harbor) and withdraw early.
2) Evolution--when superior firepower destroys everything within 100 feet of the spot where a mortar or rifle shot came from, the insurgent is dead. This is why Suicide bombing and buried roadside munitions are now the weapon of choice.
3) Political problems with imported terrorists--because the bad tactics used earlier by the immigrant terrorists have gotten so many of them killed, the Sunnis have, for the most part, declared them "persona non grata"--as in "get out of my damn neighborhood or I'll kill you."
4) Because they're outnumbered 5 to 1 and expect a civil war to happen in which the Shi'ites kill them, the Sunnis have finally realized that it is in their best interests for the Americans to stick around for a while.
A lot of this information comes from Jim Dunnigan, as well as numerous soldiers' blogs on the front.
I figured you'd appreciate some good news this morning.
Tom
Mugs,
I wish it were not the case, but every day I'm proven right. Every day, we see more death and destruction and more money wasted.
When and if you and your conservative buddies are ever proven right, I'll admit it. But I doubt it will be any time soon. The main mistake you make is assuming that my opinion is the minority opinion. I look forward to the day you and Billy join the majority and begin to face the reality in Iraq. Five more years into this invasion, I hope you're not spouting the same Fox News talking points.
Wally
P.S. I would refer you as well to:
P.S. http://www.goarmy.com/
Wally,
Although Blogger has given me unlimited space, I feel that you are continually wasting it by making the exact same argument over and over. It isn't that we didn't read your argument the first 5 times you stated it, rather we disagree with you, so what does one do when his current line is unpersuasive? He changes his tactics and uses logic from a different angle...I don't think you quite understand this.
"Every day, we see more death and destruction and more money wasted."
Those lives and that money (a small fraction of our robust $11.75 trillion GDP) will only be wasted if freedom does not endure in Iraq. As TC has proposed, even a canton-like system would be entirely fine by me...let the Iraqis choose their own style of democracy. That is the other point, democracy is malleable which allows it to adapt to diverse cultures. Japanese democracy is different than U.S. democracy is different than French democracy, etc.
TC,
Thank you for that good news. I had read some similar things in my favorite crazy neo-con newspaper, the Wall Street Journal. Also, thank you for all of your contribution to this thread, many good points...I apologize for not having the time to respond to each of them.
I think people mistakenly assume that all sunnis were baathist. That is not the case. In fact, most probably hated the Saddam regime. At the very least, the educated sunnis hated him.
Second, there were shi'ites in the baath party. A good number in that deck of cards were shi'i.
The ethnic hatred you see today is several times worse than it was under the saddam regime.
It is easy for Billy to support the war. He is uninformed and has no loved ones in Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< Home