[lit-ideas] Re: Civilian casualties in Iraq

  • From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:19:53 EST

 
In a message dated 2/6/2006 3:50:14 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Michael  E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign 
policy studies at the Brookings  Institution who 
compiles a statistical abstract of Iraq to track 
its  progress, or lack of it, under the occupation, 
said the Iraq Body Count  figures were within the 
realm of reason. "We've used their data before,"  
he said. "It's probably not too far off, and it's 
certainly a more  serious work than the Lancet 
report."


HI, Eric,
Thanks for your posts. 
 
Did you read where the IBC people only take numbers listed by the Western  
Press and not from any others?  And how even they agree that because of  that 
their numbers are not quite accurate as much of the Western Press is not  
'there' and thus using Iraqis who are afraid to pass on accurate  information?
 
The information that you provide regarding the placement of schools, etc.  
near where Saddam had his military sites makes me wonder at the thinking that  
the air strikes could be hitting so few civilians. Is this why the those in  
charge of the 'shock and awe' tactics of the US gov't did not want to begin  
counting civilian deaths--they were afraid of what they would find and would 
not  
be able to figure out how else to fight this war (since they disregarded the  
initial advice of how to do it by those who had other alternatives...)  
 
Was this destruction of the infrastructure something that was taken into  
account at all?  (I do recognize that there is a lot of rebuilding going  
on--though some of it has puzzled me--the reports, for example, from some that 
I  
know from various Nat'l Guard units who focused on rebuilding of the zoo versus 
 
homes/water/schools/etc that we destroyed. Though maybe the PETA people were  
instrumental in that...)  
 
The other piece I find intriguing is that the US gov't apparently takes no  
responsibility for the 'breakdown of civil order' by destroying infrastructure, 
 etc.  While I can (perhaps) technically see this as true, it seems that  
there *should* have been contingency plans for this as well--if the goal really 
 
was to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and not to simply destroy a  
nation. (which I am not at all convinced was not really a major goal...no  
judgment, just an evaluation. I can think of lots of [mostly selfish, but that  
is 
not necessarily 'bad' depending on who you are] reasons why to do  that...)
 
Best,
Marlena

Other related posts: