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.

War on Iraq

Unnamed, Unnoticed

By Judith Coburn, Tomdispatch.com. Posted July 19, 2005.


More than two years into our occupation of Iraq, there is still no official record kept of the civilian dead.
Advertisement

How many Iraqis have died in our war in their country? Is there a better symbol of how the war for Iraq has already been lost than our ignorance about the cost of the war to Iraqis?

"Cost of the war": a cliché to normalize the carnage, like the anaesthetizing term "collateral damage" and that new semantic horror, "torture lite." And yet the "cost of the war" report, by now a hackneyed convention of American journalism, includes only American casualties -- no Iraqis -- itself a violation of the American mainstream media's own professed commitment to "objectivity." Three years of "anniversary" articles in the American media adding up the so-called "cost of the war" in Iraq have focused exclusively on Americans killed, American dollars spent, American hardware destroyed, with barely a mention of the Iraqi dead as part of that "cost."

The dead are counted. But they are Americans. The names are named. But they are Americans. The names and numbers of the dead are intoned aloud or their photographs papered on media "walls" and they are always only American.

Publishing or pronouncing the names of the American dead everyday without ever mentioning the names of the Iraqi dead offers a powerful message that only American dying matters. In Indochina, during the years I covered that war, we counted but didn't name Americans. That wasn't done until after the war was over. We never counted and never named the Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Lao dead. Still today, though the estimates run into the millions, there is no reliable count of how many Indochinese died or were hurt in our war there. Not to mention El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, and the First Gulf War.

But there's no way to count, protest American journalists. What they mean is that the Pentagon doesn't count for them -- "We don't do counts," was the way General Tommy Franks put the matter during our Afghan war. But Iraq Body Count (IBC) counts as does the Brookings Institute among others. As of July 13, IBC estimated Iraqi civilian casualties to be between 22,838 and 25,869, an extremely conservative number. (The range between the two figures represents occasional discrepancies in the number of civilian casualties reported by different media sources about the same incident). So what journalists really mean is that only Pentagon counting counts and that the prosecutor of the war is the only "reliable" source on the magnitude of its own killing. Pentagon casualty figures are rarely questioned. When anyone else counts, these figures are given short shrift.

Who Counts

The alternative media, bloggers included, have seized on Gen. Franks' words with outrage. But the fact is the Pentagon does count. It just doesn't care to add those dead bodies up, let alone tell the American public or the rest of the world how many dead Iraqis there have been or how many more are being killed at this very moment. In Iraq, as in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, every unit of the American military must file "after action" reports about any "contact" with the enemy. Most of these include injuries and deaths to civilians (even if these are often counted as enemy-soldier deaths to cover them up, a practice the media eventually exposed in Vietnam, but has not yet explored in Iraq). Also, any injury or death of a suspected civilian is supposed to be reported in a separate "incident" report. "We do keep records of innocent civilians who are killed accidentally by coalition force soldiers," Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, assistant commander for the First Armored Division, told New York Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman last year. "And, in fact, in every one of those innocent death situations, we conduct internal investigations to determine what happened."

The military also has a compensation program for victims injured or killed by American soldiers under the Foreign Claims Act. The bar for qualifying for this program is absurdly high -- the victim must know and be able to prove which specific military unit injured or killed her or his relative, have a claim form filled out by that unit admitting its responsibility, have two witnesses and produce copies of medical reports, not to mention being willing in the first place to approach the very forces who inflicted the suffering. Compensation is apparently approved for only 50% of those who get up the nerve to file for it. But the military does at least have figures on how many Iraqis have been compensated, which it has refused to release, even to Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who requested them. CNN, Newsday, the Associated Press, and the Christian Science Monitor have managed to ferret out a partial count: the Pentagon doled out $2.2 million to Iraqis between May, 2003 and February, 2004 with 5,700 out of 11,300 cases approved. (But since such compensation includes damage to property and people wounded as well as killed, this figure doesn't translate into numbers of civilian casualties).


Digg!

Journalist Judith Coburn has covered war and its aftermath in Indochina, Central America, and the Middle East for the Village Voice and the New York Times.

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:
Outrageous
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 19, 2005 2:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the civilians don't count? Well it makes perfect sense doesn't it? It's a very easy way to muddy the record, making the eventual prosecution of George W. Bush for war crimes (don't laugh - it's going to happen) all the more difficult.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

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

» RE: Outrageous Posted by: monkeywrench
My Respects
Posted by: Pepe on Jul 19, 2005 3:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to say that this is one of the best articles on the war that I have read in quite a while. I was wondering when somebody would do a report on the lack of coverage of civilian casualties. I am happy its been done so eloquently and profesionally. The numbers are impresive, the lack of interest by mainstream media shocking. Congratulations to the author on a great piece of work!

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

» RE: My Respects Posted by: WhatNow?
Most americans probably do not want to know.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jul 19, 2005 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost every time I mention casualties from the war, I get a response like, " Yeah, it's sad we've lost over 1000,1500 or whatever number of soldiers" Then I'll say "What about the possible 100,000+ Iraqi dead?" Their reply is often, "Oh yeah, that's terrible." Some almost seem shocked I'd have the gall to think about an Iraqi.
It seems alot of people I've talked to about this stuff do not even have a second thought about civilian casualties much less any thought.

Also, how many have died from starvation, disease, and DU pollution?

I feel more for the civilian casualties than I do our soldiers. The US has a choice about doing this. The poor citizens of Iraq did not have any choice.

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

who does the body count?
Posted by: jcutler9 on Jul 19, 2005 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How is it our govt is able to say precisely how many Iraqis Saddam Hussein killed, (who did the body count?) but can't even approximate how many have died since we invaded their country?

windy

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

By the numbers
Posted by: 42Years on Jul 19, 2005 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's terrible but there have been for thousands of years and will continue to be unmarked graves and unrecorded deaths around the world.

Although recordkeeping is essential, I do not need to know how many zeros are in the number to understand that this military activity in Iraq is no different from other campaigns the US of A has conducted in other foreign nations to "protect our freedom, liberty, and happiness" as the chosen ones.

Behind the numbers are the suffering families of those who are killed or horribly wounded. That is the real story. The story that is being concealed from a majority of Americans.

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

Long Past Time
Posted by: fleetstreet on Jul 19, 2005 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you to Judith Coburn. Now let's help her disseminate this story. I wish I had the financial capability to have ads or even bumper stickers made stating "Unnamed, Unnoticed . . . Uncounted: Iraqi Civilian Deaths." Instead, I will do what I can by e-mailing Ms. Coburn's piece to senators and representatives around the country, friends, celebrities, media outlets, anyone at all who can help and those who are keeping their heads in the sand or making money off the deaths of the innocent. Join me in doing the same, please. Never stop hearing the sobs of the bereaved in Iraq, America, Spain, Great Britain and every other nation that has been touched by this insanity which could have been prevented.

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

The new Check and Balance of the Online Blog/Article
Posted by: Media_max on Jul 19, 2005 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was hands down, one of the best articles I have read. Through my scholarly life I have been critued by my professors as have a harsh tone, or not being un-bias. Truth be told, that fineline of being un-bias is too dynamic for me to determine. I don't watch any American media because of censorship. Except for NPR and other such non-profit media. This article is written with such great skill, and integridy, that you should be proud beyond any monetary means. Our new world still has hope. You and many others bring us that hope. As a soldier I salute you..

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

mistery509
Posted by: mistery509 on Jul 19, 2005 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is George W. Bush really born again?

If he is, then he must realize that he must account
for every death of every child, every Iraq adult and
every American soldier's death when he goes to meet
his Maker.

This does not seem to bother him. Even if it was
his administration that caused this war, which was
obviously a mistake.

WHAT A WASTE OF LIVES !

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

» RE: mistery509 Posted by: monkeywrench
Food for thought
Posted by: kmj on Jul 19, 2005 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article. Any reader should ask him/herself this question: "If I were an Iraqi, who would I have seen as the terrorists?"

After 9/11 the USA had the unquestioned sympathy and support the world, with the exclusion of extremists. Then came the Iraq invasion. With that action the leaders have exhausted and expended any sympathy that the common citizens of other countries have felt for the USA. No sensible person wishes it upon the USA, but if there were a catastrophic attack on USA soil today with thousands killed, people around the world will shrug their shoulders and say, "It's terrible, but they went looking for it and probably deserve it."

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

» RE: Food for thought Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Food for thought Posted by: justthefacts
» RE: Food for thought Posted by: justthefacts
» RE: Food for thought Posted by: bonapartist
"In Politics, Some Are More Equal Than Others."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 19, 2005 9:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it 25,000 dead? Or 39,000 dead? Or 100,000 dead? Plus the 1700+ of our dead? Or is it 7,500 of our dead? And what about the thousands of our soldiers – never seen or heard of in today's "polite" society – who have been maimed for life, or the tens of thousands of Iraqis who've suffered the same fate, or worse?

What was it our illustrious presidente has said about the sanctity of every human life? I guess he forgot to tell us that he was referring only to those not born yet or those who could help his career. Iraqis are not either, so I guess they're S.O.L.

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

justthefacts
Posted by: justthefacts on Jul 19, 2005 10:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number under debate about Iraqi civilian deaths since the war began now seems to be 25,000. Not long ago, it was seemingly engraved in stone at 100,000 (do a search). But that is not remotely the point. The point is rather simple - the number of deaths the Iraqis are willing to bear in defense of their emerging freedoms and democracy is to be measured by how the Iraqis deal with it - how they accept it. And it is pretty clear that they are willing to accept it - a measure by and large of where they were under Saddam.
The measure of all this is not some reporter's view, it is not your view, and it is not mine; the measure is the people of Iraq. And so far they seem to be bearing up, accepting the terrorist murders of the innocents and children, in the interest of their future.
The message from reporters like this seems to be - my god, 25,000 civilians have been killed by and large in these murdesous bombings since the war began. This is totally unacceptable and an indictment of Bush and so on. But to repeat, whether these losses are acceptable or not, are measured singularly by the Iraqi people and the price they are willing to pay for what they perceive to be a better future.

Check oput our history and the price we paid for freedom and our ultimate democracy. Wasn't cheap.

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

» RE: justthefacts Posted by: clarasam
» RE: justthefacts Posted by: kmj
» RE: justthefacts Posted by: bonapartist
'Freedom and democracy'
Posted by: kmj on Jul 20, 2005 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To say that it is up to the Iraqis to decide what is an acceptable death count in return for ‘freedom’ is an irresponsible abdication of responsibility.

The USA invasion of Iraq was a unilateral action that was performed under false pretenses, i.e., lies. The Administration made Congress, the UN, and the world believe that the invasion was necessary to protect the USA against Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and against Iraqi ties with al-Qaida. When those lies were exposed, the Administration suddenly changed its tune to ‘spreading freedom and democracy’, once again unilaterally to a sovereign nation who did not ask for ‘freedom and democracy’.

Who in God’s name gave the USA the right to unilaterally ‘spread freedom and democracy’ to other sovereign nations?

There is no real desire to spread freedom and democracy. It is just an attempt to rationalize an illegal invasion and soothe the American conscience. Do you really think that Congress would approve war if the rationale laid out before them said, “We must invade XYZ country to spread freedom and democracy to that country”?

The USA invasion of Iraq is the cause of death of 25,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, the wounding and maiming of many thousands more, the exponential strengthening of al-Qaida, and the spiraling towards a full-blown civil war.

America has a very advanced ability to create its own worst enemies.

If you are unable to feel compassion for USA inflicted suffering of citizens of other countries, then ask yourself, ‘How many American lives am I willing to sacrifice, not only in terms of soldiers killed, but also in terms of innocent American civilian lives lost in reprisal attacks?’

This is a continuous loop of attack and reprisal attack. The only way to defeat the ‘terrorist’ is to remove the reason(s) that motivated them to attack in the first place.

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

» RE: 'Freedom and democracy' Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: 'Freedom and democracy' Posted by: Pearl in Colo
Mistake about IBC methods
Posted by: obs on Jul 20, 2005 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"More important, IBC counts only civilian deaths inflicted by US-led coalition forces, so civilians killed by suicide bombers, insurgent attacks, or the increasing number of assassinations and kidnappings by insurgents and others are not reflected in their totals."

That's not correct, according to IBC's statement -
"In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation."

Check the IBC database for coverage of civilian deaths due to insurgents.

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

Lousy reporting
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Jul 20, 2005 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the Pentagon and the U.S. Government doesn't count the voluminous amount of Iraqi deaths, eh? Well, if these jackasses thought of the war deaths as the amount of money in their bank accounts, wouldn't they be interested in the number, too?
The shame of our nation! The major news organizations have done a terrible job of covering the war. "Embedded" journalism never told the truth of what our military has done in Iraq.
We're going to pay dearly for Bush's Excellent Adventure into Iraq someday. And no amount of military might will stop it!

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

THE COST OF WAR, CAUSALITIES! ©
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Jul 21, 2005 4:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Judith Coburn . . .

I am thankful that you too find this news disturbing. It seems too many ignore the war and prefer discussions that distract. I too penned my distress.

I welcome your thoughts on my reflection and writing, THE COST OF WAR, CAUSALITIES! ©. I thank you for yours.

Your work is very well done and truly appreciated!

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

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

The Harring Report suggests 9,000 US militray dead - read why!
Posted by: pwreid@hotmail.com on Jul 23, 2005 12:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out The Harring Report at http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1682.htm. They say that the 1,700 figure given by the Pentagon is for those "who die in Iraq", but does not count those on the plane to Germany, or the large number that have died in the US military hospitals in Germany. (deceptive Rumsfeld again) Don't take my word for it - check the article and any links yourself.

How did today's CNN report by Jane Arrar on Fallujah manage to avoid any reference to bombing? The total devastation was implied to be due to the fighting on the ground! Of course she made no reference to Depleted Uranium. Cluster Bombs, or Napalm, but I didn't expect her to. There were too many other horrors for me to put here, and I'm tired tonight - a sad Canadian - Peter

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

Also the Untold US Soldier Death Count
Posted by: edq on Aug 10, 2005 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is this? Bush and his buddies hiding more from the American public? Word is.....the US does not count, as a soldier killed in Iraq, injured soldiers being flown to Germany for treatment but dying on the way. Where do they count them then......as a unfortunate mishap in Germany.....or "elsewhere"? This needs to really get out to the news media(if they have the balls to tell the American public, and stop bowing to the White House). Why isn't ole Bushy over there fighting side by side and using all the "training" he received in....where was it....oh yeah...in Alabama?

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