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
Advertisement
  • 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.

War on Iraq

Why Numbers Matter

By Marla Ruzicka, AlterNet. Posted April 20, 2005.


Just before her death, Marla Ruzicka wrote about the importance of recording and publicly releasing Iraqi civilian casualty numbers.
Advertisement

BAGHDAD --The writer, a 28-year-old humanitarian aid worker from California, was killed Saturday in Baghdad when a suicide bomber aiming for a convoy of contractors pulled alongside her vehicle and detonated his explosives. Her longtime driver and translator, Faiz Ali Salim, also died. She filed this piece from Baghdad a week before her death.

In my two years in Iraq, the one question I am asked the most is: "How many Iraqi civilians have been killed by American forces?" The American public has a right to know how many Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war and as hostilities continue.

In a news conference at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in March 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks said, "We don't do body counts." His words outraged the Arab world and damaged the U.S. claim that its forces go to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties.

During the Iraq war, as U.S. troops pushed toward Baghdad, counting civilian casualties was not a priority for the military. However, since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared major combat operations over and the U.S. military moved into a phase referred to as "stability operations," most units began to keep track of Iraqi civilians killed at checkpoints or during foot patrols by U.S. soldiers.

Here in Baghdad, a brigadier general commander explained to me that it is standard operating procedure for U.S. troops to file a spot report when they shoot a non-combatant. It is in the military's interest to release these statistics.

Recently, I obtained statistics on civilian casualties from a high-ranking U.S. military official. The numbers were for Baghdad only, for a short period, during a relatively quiet time. Other hot spots, such as the Ramadi and Mosul areas, could prove worse. The statistics showed that 29 civilians were killed by small-arms fire during firefights between U.S. troops and insurgents between Feb. 28 and April 5 -- four times the number of Iraqi police killed in the same period. It is not clear whether the bullets that killed these civilians were fired by U.S. troops or insurgents.

A good place to search for Iraqi civilian death counts is the Iraqi Assistance Center in Baghdad and the General Information Centers set up by the U.S. military across Iraq. Iraqis who have been harmed by Americans have the right to file claims for compensation at these locations, and some claims have been paid. But others have been denied, even when the U.S. forces were in the wrong.

The Marines have also been paying compensation in Fallujah and Najaf. These data serve as a good barometer of the civilian costs of battle in both cities.

These statistics demonstrate that the U.S. military can and does track civilian casualties. Troops on the ground keep these records because they recognize they have a responsibility to review each action taken and that it is in their interest to minimize mistakes, especially since winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis is a key component of their strategy. The military should also want to release this information for the purposes of comparison with reports such as the Lancet study published late last year. It suggested that since the U.S.-led invasion there had been 100,000 deaths in Iraq.

A further step should be taken. In my dealings with U.S. military officials here, they have shown regret and remorse for the deaths and injuries of civilians. Systematically recording and publicly releasing civilian casualty numbers would assist in helping the victims who survive to piece their lives back together.

A number is important not only to quantify the cost of war, but as a reminder of those whose dreams will never be realized in a free and democratic Iraq.

Digg!

Marla Ruzicka was founder of Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC (www.civicworldwide.org). In 2003, she organized surveyors across Iraq to document civilian casualties. Before that, she managed a similar project in Afghanistan that helped to secure assistance from the U.S. government for civilian victims.

This piece originally appeared in USA Today.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

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:
I am at a Loss...
Posted by: morningstar777 on Apr 20, 2005 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And so disappointed...

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

Marla is right.
Posted by: joncee on Apr 20, 2005 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There should be a public outcry for accurate damage assessment by an international team. A nation who attacks another with the philosophy of General Tommy Franks can only be assessed as tyrannical. "We Don't do Bodycounts" should be our new motto stamped on our currency, since currency and bodycounts are so closely linked.

If all the citizens of The US had half the conscience, compassion, and bravery of Marla, what a wonderful country we would be.

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

» RE: Marla is right. Posted by: pedro
Whose bullet?
Posted by: thereader on Apr 20, 2005 6:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't much matter whose bullet may have killed a particular individual. One is neither more or less dead. As to having an accurate count, that is an absolute must. Not only that, the more it is publicized the better. Americans need to have the horrors of 'collateral damage' shown to them as often as possible. If you've not been in (I have) or around a war, you cannot, no matter what you might think, imagine what it and its results are like. The Iraqis are living with this every day. Since the Civil War our country has not had to bear war on our soil. A relatively small percentage of the population has any familiarity with war. The worst of those with no experience are the clowns running the show in D.C. Anyone who's seen the disaster of even 'small' actions would be very hesitant to get involved in any war. Those who've not been directly involved look at it like a video game or another TV show. It's almost like it's not really happening. But it is. Ask any relative of the over 1500 American servicemen killed, or of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who've lost their lives. To all of these people it's all too real.

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

Voltaire on Marla Ruzicka
Posted by: Stabilo on Apr 21, 2005 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ruzicka was truly inspiring in her willingness to take incomprehensible risks to assist some of the victims of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It must be said, however, that her political approach to the war in Iraq was fundamentally misguided, either because, as suggested within this very informative David Corn article [See Full Article For Link], she acquiesced in the inevitability of the occupation, or actually came around to supporting the Occupation Authority against the resistance.

One need only visit the website of the organization that Ruzicka created, CIVIC Worldwide, to recognize the problem. CIVIC, you see, stands for "The Campaign for Innocent Civilians in Conflict". Accordingly, it promotes the pernicious distinction between "innocent" Iraqis, Iraqis who decline to violently resist the occupation, and other, "guilty" Iraqis who do not. Such a perspective, coming from an American organization, is morally myopic, if not morally offensive, given that it condemns Iraqis for violently resisting their own personal and economic victimization by the Occupation Authority. It is indistinguishable from the one continually advanced by the US military.

To read this article in full go to GlobalEcho

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

» Innocent VS. Guilty Posted by: joncee