Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

We Are Way Past 4,000 Dead in Iraq

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 3:13 PM on March 24, 2008.


We have become death, the destroyer of worlds. There is nothing we could ever do in Iraq that will be worth these costs.
20080324picsmal
A mosaic of the 4,000 US Troops killed in Iraq.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Whenever one a terrible milestone is reach in Iraq for the number of American soldiers killed, such as 4,000 today, it is necessary to point out that the milestone being focused on was actually reached a long time ago. In addition to the 4,000 dead American soldiers, the following fatalities have also occurred in Iraq over the past five years:

We are way, way past 4,000 deaths in Iraq. The non-civilian death toll, including journalists, all coalition military forces, contractors and Iraqi security forces, currently stands at a minimum of 13,501, or about 15 every two days since the start of the war. The civilian death toll is actually the greatest humanitarian crisis since the Rwanda genocide, and possibly since even before then (I don't want to start ranking genocides). Somewhere between 4% and 5% of the Iraqi population has died what is termed an "excess death" since the start of the Iraq war. For the sake of comparison, Pennsylvania represents just under 4% of the population of the United States.

Also, keep in mind that these are just deaths, and damage has been done in many other ways. Nearly four million living Iraqis are now refugees, roughly 16% of the population, 40% of the middle class, and larger percentages of religious and ethnic minorities. Between 60% and 70% of Iraqi children suffer from psychological trauma. Tens of thousands of American soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, have been injured. And oh yeah, the war will cost more than two trillion dollars.

All of this needs to be pointed out because, whenever one of these milestones are reached, it implies that the only suffering taking place as a result of the Iraq war is to be found within the American military. Such a narrow focus ignores the wide swath of destruction that the Iraq war has wrought. As long as there is a narrow focus on the efforts of the United States military, the war appears to be an honorable, gracious effort on the part of America with costs that, while grave, are ultimately discrete and containable. However, when one considers that the war has either killed or displaced more than 20% of Iraq's pre-war population, that is has resulted in the European Union surpassing the United States as the world's leading economic power, and that it has both caused and revealed significant weakness in our military capacity, the true nature of the Iraq war becomes apparent. In effect, we instigated a genocide in Iraq, and lost our status as the world's sole superpower as a result. At this point, we are about one presidential election away from becoming the Soviet Union after their invasion of Afghanistan, and watching Americans who were ten years old when the war began die in the sands of Mesopotamia.

We are way, way past 4,000 deaths in Iraq. We have become death, the destroyer of worlds. There is nothing we could ever do in Iraq that will be worth these costs. Shantih shantih shantih.  

****

UPDATE

The reason Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her Iraq war vote is because she clearly believes in the American "mission" in Iraq. Here is a statement from her campaign today on the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq:

"In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'

Clinton presents Iraq as a resounding success where a tyrannical regime was removed from power, and freedom was brought to the Iraqi people. From this perspective, withdrawal is justified because the major missions have been accomplished, not because the war itself was a mistake. Also, as has been repeatedly made clear over the past twelve months, a sizable residual force will be left behind to continue some of the secondary missions of the war.

Compare this to Obama's statement on 4,000:

Each death is a tragedy, and we honor every fallen American and send our thoughts and prayers to their families. It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future. As we do, we must serve the memory of all who have died as well as they served our country, by providing support for their families, caring for our troops and veterans, and upholding the American values which our fallen heroes exemplified through their service."

For all the supposed lack of policy differences between Obama and Clinton, even on their Iraq withdrawal plans, this remains a fundamental, deeply ideological discrepancy. As I wrote earlier today, the Iraq war has ended America's brief tenure as the world's only superpower, and effectively instigated a genocide in Iraq. If you still think this was a good idea that was worth the costs, even if it was badly managed, then you simply have a fundamentally different view of the world and America's role in the world than someone who thinks the war was a mistake and not worth the costs. Even though I know it is something no presidential candidate can ever directly say and still hope to remain viable, the fact is that our soldiers in Iraq did not die for a good cause. Quite the opposite has occurred: they died as part of an effort that has eroded America's power faster than any other event since the Civil War, and which has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the past fifty years. It was a mistake of colossal proportions, not "the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being." A candidate's ability or inability to recognize that mistake remains the best possible way to measure how effective a Commander in Chief he or she would be.  

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, us military casualties, iraqi civilians, obama, clinton

Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.


Doesn't McCain Know That "Never Again" Only Applies to White People
A few notes on McCain's cheap shot against Obama.
Post by Joshua Holland. July 24, 2008.
Iraq Update: Missed Deadlines; Sadrists in the Streets; "Security Agreement" Watered Down
John McCain thinks that Iraq borders Pakistan while the troop agreement misses deadline and Mosul, Diyala, and Fallujah experience violence.
Post by Juan Cole. July 24, 2008.
Washington Post Editorial Board Peddles 'U.S. Knows Best' Position on Iraq
The Washington Post still doesn't believe Maliki, Iraqi officials.
Post by Steve Benen. July 23, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The REAL numbers
Posted by: Quannah on Mar 24, 2008 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about time we see some REAL numbers about the casualties of this illegal and immoral war.

Journalists: 135 fatalities
The most of any war in history, including World War II or Viet Nam.

Non-American military coalition forces: 308 fatalities
Coalition of the willing? A 308:4000 ratio doesn't seem like equitable burden-sharing to me... or, it's rather one-sided. (Not that I would wish any more death on anyone else in the world.)

Non-military contractors: At least 1,001 fatalities as of June 30th, 2007
But who really knows, since these statistics are "top secret" and haven't been divulged fully.

Iraqi Security Forces: At least 8,057
And that, too, is just an estimate, because Rumsfeld said in a news conference that he didn't see any point in counting the fatalities of the Iraqis. Guess they're seen as simply "collateral damage."

Iraqi military forces: During the invasion, between 15,000 and 45,000 Iraqi military personnel died.
Once again, just an estimate. Rummy didn't see the point of actually counting.

Civilians: Between 400,000 and 650,000 as of June 2006, and over 1,000,000 now.
Over one million. And for what?

This just sickens me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WORRIED
Posted by: Melvin on Mar 24, 2008 5:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY DID THE SEAN HANNITY/NAZI ARTICLE POSTED EARLIER DISSAPEAR FROM THIS SITE?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» whut? Posted by: hurricane hugo
A War For Israel
Posted by: higginslads on Mar 24, 2008 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel."

Philip Zelikow, Director of the 9/11 Commission and Bush administration official


Because Israel's neighbors opposed the Zionist project of creating an exclusivist Jewish state, the idea of weakening and dissolving those neighbors was not an idea just of the Israeli Right but a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, promoted by David Ben-Gurion himself. As Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Birzeit University in Ramallah, Palestine, writes:

"Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and [Israel's] attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement." [25]

It's by no coincidence that we're seeing the US use the same modus operandi right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. It's via the zionist neocons and their policy institutes and "thinktanks" that the Israeli agenda and the new preemptive war doctrine of post-9/11 USA has become official American foreign policy.

The ziocons made their policy views clear well before 9/11 in the document called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [26], prepared way back in 1996 for Israel's psycho right-wing Likud party, led by then prime minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. It was authored by a group of rabidly zionist neocons including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser on behalf of The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), and proposed a hawkish plan consisting of military preemption, an aggressive new approach to the Palestinian 'problem', the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and the eventual elimination of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, amongst other things. A Clean Break stated, in part:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

Richard Perle (Israeli dual national), Douglas Feith (also an Israeli dual national) and David Wurmser (just an all-out zionist) would all go on to hold powerful positions in the Bush administration where they've worked tirelessly to realise the vision they outlined for Israel in the Clean Break document [27] - Feith as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Wurmser as Middle East Adviser to Dick Cheney, and Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board.

Richard "The Prince of Darkness" Perle is a particularly nasty zionist. Aside from his treasonous role in the US government, he's a member of such pro-Israel thinktanks as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP, which is basically an offshoot organisation of AIPAC), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) [28]. He's also a director of the Jerusalem Post, a personal friend of former Israeli prime minister and arch-zionist Ariel "The Butcher" Sharon, an ex-employee of Soltam, an Israeli weapons manufacturer [29], and a spy for Israel [30].

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A War For Israel (continued)
Posted by: higginslads on Mar 24, 2008 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When prominent ziocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) [31] in 1997, Perle and Feith were right in there, along with a whole host of other ardent zionist neocons such as Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Elliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz et al [32], and the following year in 1998, the PNAC group sent Bill Clinton a letter [33] urging him to attack Iraq and oust Saddam from power, in keeping with the policy advice given to Israel by the same group years earlier in the Clean Break document. From the letter:

"It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat." [34]

By "world", of course, they meant "Israel", since Saddam was never a threat to America, and PNAC knew it. In December of 1998, Clinton went ahead with PNAC's advice and heavily bombed Iraq, citing the security of its neighbours as part of his reason for doing so.

Clinton's attack on Iraq left Saddam in power though, which wasn't good enough for the PNAC ziocons. That was made Kristol clear with the September 2000 publication (just before Bush's non-election) of their infamous 90 page long 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' (RAD) policy document [36.pdf], in which they advocated more of the same aggressive, warmongering strategy proposed earlier in the Clean Break paper. RAD was just a massively beefed up version of Israel's Clean Break dressed up to look as though it had American interests at heart (which of course it didn't - just look at where the US is today). Peter Shaenk put it this way in an article called Once a Company Man, Always a Company Man:

When PNAC was founded, a group of neo-cons wrote a spin-off paper elaborating on "Clean Break". It was entitled "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" or RAD. The title implies that agents of Israel, (Perle and co.) got together and wrote a policy paper that was concerned only with America’s future security and establishment as the preeminent world power. A PAX Americana if you will. They even got Dick Cheney to participate to give it a more "American" look and less of an "Israeli" front group image. [37]

When Bush was not-elected in January 2001 [38], the ziocons' time had come. No less than twelve of PNAC's members scored prominent positions in his administration - Dick Cheney, Vice President; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon [39]; Richard Armitage, Deputy Sec. of State; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff to Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle, Member, Defense Policy Advisory Board; John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Elliot Abrams, Special Asst. to the President; Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Zalmay Kahlilzad, Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq; and James Woolsey, Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board [40]. It was nothing short of an Israeli political takeover of the US government. The pieces had been put in place to implement the ziocon vision outlined in A Clean Break and RAD, and now all that was needed was the false flag attacks of 9/11 [41] [42] [43] to kickstart and justify the neocon wet dream of endless Israeli proxy wars in the middle east in the name of the (oxy)moronic "war on terror."Dying For Zion

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A War For Israel (continued) Posted by: blackie4aces
does anyone have a number
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 24, 2008 8:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for the number of troops who were wounded in Iraq and medevaced out of Iraq, only to die later of their wounds? I do know that, if you died a second after your medevac flight lifted off the runway, you weren't counted as an Iraq casualty.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

zorba1
Posted by: zorba1 on Mar 24, 2008 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over 300 US killed/200+ wounded in Camp Falcon
Publication time: 22 October 2006, 19:42
Massive U.S. military cover up slowly coming to light.
Forward Base Falcon Disaster


Baghdad's sky is illuminated by huge explosions in the Iraqi capital (pic AAP)


Late on the evening of October 10, 2006, Iraqi resistance groups lobbed mortar and rocket rounds into the immense ‘Forward Base Falcon,' the largest American military base in Iraq, located 13 km south of the Green Zone in Baghdad. In addition to accurate mortar fire, Grad and Katyusha rockets were also used.


Falcon base was designed to house a large contingent of American troops, mostly drawn from the 4th Infantry Division, stationed at Fr. Bliss, Texas. At the time of the attack, there were approximately 3000 men inside the camp, which also was filled with ammunition supplies, fuel, tanks and vehicles.


Iraqi contractors had assisted in the construction of the camp, which occupied nearly a square mile and was surrounded with guard tower-studded high concrete walls, and it is now apparent that the Resistance movement had been given important targets from "sources familiar with the layout" of the base.


After the initial shelling, fuel and ammunition stores began to erupt with massive explosions that could be heard, and seen, miles away inside the Green Zone where U.S. military and diplomatic units were heavily guarded.


The explosions, all of them termed "immense" by BBC reporters, continued throughout the night.


In response, US aircraft indiscriminately rocketed and bombed various parts of the city, BBC and AFP correspondents reported, trying to knock out the launch sites of the rockets, they were unsuccessful but in so doing killed hundreds of old men, women, children and babies.


The BBC's Andrew North, in Baghdad, said the explosions started at about 2300 (2100 BST) and were becoming "ever more frequent" as the huge fires spread throughout the base, punctuated by tremendous explosions as more fuel and ammunition dumps ignited.


"Intelligence indicates that civilians aligned with a militia organization were responsible for last night's mortar attack," said Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Withington, spokesman for the U.S. 4th Infantry Division.


An after action report, issued by the Department of Defense, stated that: "On October 10, 2006, at approximately 10:40 p.m., an 82mm mortar round, fired by militia forces from a residential area in Abu T-Shir, caused a fire at an Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) at FOB Falcon. The ASP, containing tank and artillery rounds, in addition to smaller caliber ammunition, set off a series of large explosions. About 100 troops from the 4th Infantry Division were reported to be stationed at the base at the time, but no injuries were reported." (Emphasis added.) "The damage to the area will not degrade the operational capability of MND-B (Multinational Division Baghdad),"


When the flames had been brought under control on the morning of the 11th of October, primarily because the entire camp had been gutted, nine large American military transports with prominent Red Cross markings were observed by members of the foreign media taking off, laded with the dead and the wounded.


Over 300 American troops, including U.S. Army and Marines, CIA agents and U.S. translators were casualties and there also were 165 seriously injured requiring major medical attention and 39 suffering lesser injuries. 122 members of the Iraqi armed forces were killed and 90 seriously injured members of same, were also evacuated to the U.S. military hospital at al-Habbaniyah located some 70km west of Baghdad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

zorba1
Posted by: zorba1 on Mar 24, 2008 9:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A continuation of previous post which was to long.
Satellite pictures and aerial photographs from Google earth, CNN and neutral sources showed that Camp Falcon suffered major structural damage and almost all the U.S. military's supply of small arms ammunition, artillery and rocket rounds, tons of fuel, six Apache helicopters, an uncounted but large number of soft-skinned vehicles such as Humvees and supply trucks were damaged or totally destroyed. Foreign press observers noted "an endless parade" of military vehicle recovery units dragging burnt-out heavy tanks and armored personnel carriers to another base outside Baghdad.


Many of the walls and towers of the camp were damaged or leveled as were many of the barracks, maintenance depots, and there was considerable damage to the huge mess halls that could hold 3000 soldiers, the huge recreation center with its basketball courts and indoor swimming pools and all the administration buildings


Although official U.S. DoD statements indicated that there were no deaths; that only a hundred men were inside the base guarding billions of dollars of vital military equipment and that there were "only two minor injuries to personnel," passes belief and certainly reality is more painful than propaganda.


Not only has the U.S. military machine lost much of its armor and transport, and its entire reserves of ammunition and special fuel, but the casualty list for only the first day is over 300..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

zorba1
Posted by: zorba1 on Mar 24, 2008 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, you are being lied to by our government.
The above is just one of a huge number of cover ups.
Just like the prisons and the CIA, no more reports of prisoner abuse right?
The military simply does not allow cameras or cellphone cameras in prisons-problem solved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obuairy of The United States.
Posted by: williameon on Mar 25, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 2000 America died
An unholy death.
It was bludgeoned to death by
The Corpirates
Rest in Peace
There will be no Peace for us or The World
Until we right this Terrible Wrong.
A Corpirate Plague unleashed against Humanity!
In the name of GREED.
World domination.
War and Depression.
Bail out the BANKERS and Funk the Little Guy.
Grog Bless Americo.
Bass-turds gone wild.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congo crisis
Posted by: Pip Wilson on Mar 25, 2008 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer calls Iraq the worst humanitarian crisis since Rwanda. While I agree that the Iraq toll is appalling, I've seen figures that more than 3.5 million have died so far in the Congo war. Worth checking, perhaps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reader
Posted by: justgreenleaf on Mar 25, 2008 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, for what it's worth, I did write a letter to Alternet about 6 months ago calling George Bush the "destroyer of worlds."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]