Iraqi Civilian Casualties At 25,000+
The Guardian - The number of Iraqi civilians who met violent deaths in the two years after the US-led invasion was today put at 24,865 by an independent research team.
The figures, compiled from Iraqi and international media reports, found US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and insurgents responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence.
Civilian deaths attributed to US and coalition military forces peaked in the invasion period from March to May 2003 - which accounts for 30% of all civilian deaths in the two-year period - but the longer-term trend has been for increasing numbers to die at the hands of insurgents.
Figures obtained last week from the Iraqi interior ministry put the average civilian and police officer death toll in insurgent attacks from August 2004 to March 2005 at 800 a month.
John Sloboda of the Iraq Body Count project, which co-authored the report with Oxford Research Group, said the Iraqi civilian death toll was the "forgotten cost" of the decision to go to war in Iraq.
"On average, 34 Iraqis every day have met violent deaths since the invasion of March 2003," he said at the launch of the report in London.
"Our data shows that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope this research will help to inform decision makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country."
I'll wait until some independent experts analyze these findings and weigh in with their opinions on the methods used before I say much, but I'm certainly more inclined to believe the numbers quoted above than those put forth by the Lancet study (which had civilian casualties at around 100,000) put out last year. Will the hysterical, anti-war left set aside their support of the previous report in favor of these numbers which, as of right now, look far more reasonable or will they continue to try and hype the outrageous findings of the Lancet report?
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
As for the numbers quoted above, I think some of the terms they're using are a bit confusing. For instance, what does "criminal violence" entail? Are some of the actions of the "insurgency" being lumped into that category? And if so, doesn't that give a skewed view of the number of deaths the terrorists are responsible for?
The article also indicates that the majority of U.S.-caused deaths occurred back during the invasion of Iraq. How did they can an accurate accounting of those deaths? And, for that matter, how are the defining who is and is not a civilian? In a war where our enemies wear no uniforms and routinely hide behind their women and children isn't the civilian/soldier distinction and difficult one to make?
And wouldn't the U.S. totals also be inflated by the fact that these monsters do use women and children as human shields? We've all heard the stories about weapon drops being hidden in schools and convoys being attacked after they stopped to avoid running over a child in the road. What part did these tactics play in the civilian death toll?
Whatever the answers to these questions, I don't think we can allow numbers like these to deter us from our goal. We are the good guys. We're not the ones targeting civilians (and even children) with suicide attacks. We are fighting for peace and democracy. The blame for high civilian body counts should go, primarily, to our enemies, not to us.
likwidshoe
robert108
global warrior
RebTex
Hannitized
