Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

Iraq's War Dead

An AlterNet Editorial. Posted October 26, 2005.


This week's grim milestone, 2,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq, doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the real human costs of this war.
Advertisement

This week in Iraq, we reached a heart-breaking milestone: the 2,000th American soldier died in combat, fighting what we now know was always a war of choice and ideological preference.

For those who opposed the invasion, it's a moment to mourn our impotence: millions of us around the world did our best to stop this bloody disaster before it started, but we failed.

The real human cost, of course, is far greater than 2,000. It includes the 198 members of the "coalition of the willing" who have died, almost 300 private contractors, 73 journalists, the 15,220 Americans who have been wounded, and the invisible dead from what the Guardian's Julian Borger called the "extraordinarily high number of accidents, suicides and other non-combat deaths in the ranks that have gone largely unreported in the media."

And then there's the sad fact that those deceased Americans and allies are a fraction of the number of Iraqi dead.

Extrapolating from a study of post-traumatic stress disorder published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 41,000 U.S. marines and army troops reported that they believed they had killed at least one Iraqi civilian in the 15 months following the 2003 invasion.

Estimates of Iraqi troops killed during the invasion range from 5,000 to as many as 45,000 projected by the Guardian. General Tommy Franks guessed it was 30,000.

While we're supposed to consider these "bad guys" and ignore their deaths, the majority were young men trying to escape poverty in a country with an unemployment rate as high as 70 percent during the sanctions regime.

The real human toll includes, too, the estimated 3,450 Iraqi police and security forces who have been killed in what is already a low-grade civil war. And according to Iraq Body Count, a website that gathers media accounts of civilian deaths, between 26,000 and 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died from coalition actions through Monday.

But even those totals are dwarfed by the number of dead -- by some estimates over a million -- caused by the U.N sanctions that started with Bush I, and continued under President Bill Clinton, whose Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, once described the effects of the sanctions on Iraq's children as "worth it."

And even when we include all of those lives lost, we still don't begin to scratch the surface of the real human costs of this war -- the permanent emotional scars that war inevitably leaves on all of its participants, victims and victors alike.

Public support for this war has been sustained by a willful ignorance of the damage being done. On some level, Americans need a sanitized view of conflicts like Iraq to keep their dream of America's righteousness alive. Sure, the newspapers, the White House and the Pentagon have refined their techniques of repressing the numbers of the dead in Iraq, but the truth is there's a public appetite for the version of events they offer.

It is the perception that we are prosecuting a war that is less than righteous -- far more than recurring images of flag-draped coffins -- that will sap public support. The dead U.S. soldiers, dead children, dead Iraqi civilians are all the result of the same thing: 14 years of remorseless and cynical policy conducted by an unaccountable government and abetted by a citizenry that will stay loyal so long as the real human cost remains hidden.

Digg!

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

Advertisement
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:
what goes around...
Posted by: keffiya on Oct 26, 2005 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..doesn't come around. Despite that being everyone's favorite thing to say about policy disasters like Iraq, that we'll pay for it someday, let me tell you, it isn't true.

We have to recognize that the only coming around that will happen with Iraq is when this country changes its mind. Don't wait around for Iraq or Iraqis to attack America, because it won't happen.

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

» RE: what goes around... Posted by: cstriker
» RE: what goes around... Posted by: Basenjis
Bomb Saddam (He's the only one that lives in Iraq)
Posted by: decembrist on Oct 26, 2005 1:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The true cost of war has never been in the American forefront.

The war began with a slogan, Bomb Saddam, that conservative bushites chanted at anti-war demonstrators. That slogan hid the true cost of the coming war under a picture of US bombs (not soldiers) and one Iraqi, Saddam (not the thousands who ACTUALLY got bombed).

The true cost of this war continues to be hidden by arguments like "we'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." Nothing a US politician could say could be more ridiculous to an Iraqi, I'd wager. Or piss them off more... how would we like it if a foreign nation invaded and occupied the US just to provoke thousands of US sympathizers to flood the country and fight the foreign occupying troops? This is the essential point of that argument - we turned your country into a battleground because it was convenient.

We can now only protest, rise up in anger and indignation and shout at the top of our lungs that this war is unjust. That and hope and wait that Fitzgerald is building a coffin for political ambitions.

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

Can YOU wait for another election?
Posted by: Smiggsy on Oct 26, 2005 2:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel like I'm repeating myself but the US gov't is beyond being a unhuman diobolical mess. It seems they don't ever intend to leave Iraq until every last drop of oil is extracted for the whims of the few. Then they will walk away like it was some sort of simple mistake. Bush will tell ya "Ooopsy - my bad". How many compatriotes must die. How many innocent civilians must die & suffer.

Isn't it seriously about time to start some actual meaningful civil unrest in Washington & begin the unseating of this pathetic US gov't administration - Actions speak louder than words (or websites). Many good folk are making progress toward unsettling Bush & his cronies, but they will use every means possible to stay in power.

Bush et al love being in unbridled power - they will never go - they'll only leave being dragged & screaming out the doors of the white house. Seriously - this gov't is proven capable of mass murder, endemic lies & untold deception at the highest order - they will never admit to actual failure nor retire of there own cogniscense. They will never ever apoligise their wrongdoings & predictably they will uphold their false virtues for eternity.

This is a gov't that proves time & time again it does not care for even the US citizens at home - your own people. THEY JUST DON"T CARE. So what are the american people going to do about it. Can you all wait another election? The longer they're are left to pollute democracy the greater the mess & even greater the consequences - no matter how horrific or unthinkable.

Tough times calls for tough measures & the american people should recognise that a political softly softly approach will never get results. The need to remove these imbiciles sooner than later has never seemed more significant.

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

» RE: Can YOU wait for another election? Posted by: montana freeman
» Good riddance Posted by: keffiya
i don't remember vietnam
Posted by: Ace-Del-Boy on Oct 26, 2005 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i don't remember vietnam but has there been a sadder moment than this in american history...i was born on the 4th july in the UK and have always admired america...now i just feel sorry for you...where are the protesters..where are the voices crying out loud and clear against this bullshit..i hope this isn't a milestone but a millstone used to sink this corrupt administration.

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

» RE: i don't remember vietnam Posted by: owleyes
» RE: i don't remember vietnam Posted by: sidewinder
» RE: i don't remember vietnam Posted by: woodford54
» RE: i do remember vietnam Posted by: ShaSpirit
» RE: i do remember vietnam Posted by: montana freeman
Have Your Kid Come Home In A Box!!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Oct 26, 2005 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday the hideous dirtbag that we so laughingly refer to as our Commander in Chief (well maybe not. I'm not laughing anymore) said, in so many words, that in order to make sure that those 2000 kids didn't die in vain we have to make sure that a whole lot more of them die.

We have at least this to be thankful for: The death knell of the most corrupt, contemptable administration in the history of human folly is about to toll. Look for a man by the name of Patrick Fitzgerald with his hands gripped tightly on the cord at the bell's end. Watch with glee as the rats caught in his trap start to turn on each other. Yes kiddies, this is political theater at its very finest; A criminal conspiracy so mind-numbing in its breadth and scope that it'll make Watergate look like a traffic infraction. The so-called "Plamegate Affair" is only the tip of a very nasty iceberg that is going to rip apart the SS Dubya at its very center. Alot of these hideous bastards and bitches (Hi, Condie!) are going to wind up doing some serious time. The chickens have come home to roost. Big time.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

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

The "Death-Toll" is Understated
Posted by: Velos on Oct 26, 2005 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This latest 'milestone' is incorrect.

The Bushista-controlled media reports the number of dead based on those who actually died "in country". It does not include in the count those who died of their war injuries "in transit", or who've died after they return home.

I've read reports estimating that the actual American war dead is as high as 6,500.

I believe that the "Librul Media" (e.g., Alternet, Move On.Org, etc.) should report the actual death toll, based upon the criteria of death caused by injury received whilst fighting this stupid war (regardless of "where" they died), and stop acquiescing to the Evil Junta's propaganda sanitisation.

As we learnt during Vietman, the only way the American people are going to demand an end is when the body count rises to some psychologically unnacceptable level.

Your thoughts?

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

» To be Fair Posted by: tuff_bird
» RE: To be Fair Posted by: Velos
» RE: To be Fair Posted by: tuff_bird
» RE: To be Fair Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: To be Fair Posted by: tuff_bird
» RE: The "Death-Toll" is Understated Posted by: montana freeman
marta
Posted by: cuja1 on Oct 26, 2005 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The dealth toll in Iraq is just the beginning of the ones in Bush's wars next with Syria, Iran, and whoever stikes his fancy.

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

» RE: marta Posted by: woodford54
» RE: marta Posted by: Fade
More than 2000 US Deaths
Posted by: P M Donovan on Oct 26, 2005 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do the US war deaths only include the soldiers who died in Irag and not the ones who died in hospitals outside of Iraq? Wounded soldiers are flown to hospitals in Germany and elsewhere. Why don't we have a more accurate count of the US war dead? Is a soldier who dies in Germany from wounds received in Irag, not a victim of the war in Iraq. Shouldn't that soldier should be counted with the others killed in the war on Iraq?

This question is not meant in any way to mimize the horror of death and destruction the war has caused on all peoples, but to point out that if we keep accepting the government's deluding us as to the cost in US soldier's deaths, how can we expect them to even try to honest as to the cost in lives of other people.

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

» RE: More than 2000 US Deaths Posted by: ezermeno
yellowdogdem
Posted by: DCH on Oct 26, 2005 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The apathetic/pathetic acceptance by those of you in the Universities of this country is stunning. What will it take before a genuine movement begins to form?
The documented criminal conduct of this administration as to cooked intelligence should start a 60's type protest around the country.
A war begun under deliberate false premise will never be justified.

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

» RE: yellowdogdem Posted by: woodford54
» RE: yellowdogdem Posted by: Fade
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Posted by: nitsua1023 on Oct 26, 2005 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Mission was accomplished in May of '03.

Didn't the troops get the memo?
Did anyone tell the Iraqis?

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

» RE: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Posted by: ShaSpirit
In this blog, the same pattern: Iraqi deaths don’t count.
Posted by: gp on Oct 26, 2005 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People in Iraq are dropping like flies, having had their neighbourhoods razed to the ground by liberating US bombs. Iraqis have been either blown to pieces or buried under the rubble in the process. Entire cities have been sieged, and a very brutal cleaning procedure has been applied to them using cluster bombs, tanks, high-caliber bullets, and mortars: Fallujah (est pop. 300,000), and Tal-Afar (est pop. 100,000) are two examples. The displaced are never mentioned. Where did they go? How did they find water, food, shelter? Did they survive? Why didn’t anyone cover this humanitarian catastrophe?

The US military conduct their operations far, wide, and unrestrained in Iraq. Since most operations are in urban theatres, civilian deaths are inevitable –or rather, made inevitable by the use of overwhelming force. Those deaths are called “collateral damage”, and not recognised as human lives. Homes have been destroyed, schools are in ruins, hospitals are little more than morgues and houses of worship lay in shambles. Why isn’t anyone in this blog mourning, regretting these losses? Can anyone empathise with the plight of the Iraqis? Does anyone feel sorry for them?

Iraq has little or no basic services such as: running water, electricity, and garbage collection. Water treatment plants no longer work (drinking water out of the Euphrates is risking disease, as all of Baghdad’s raw sewage flows into it), hospitals have little or no medicines, and ambulances and other medical service vehicles are routinely shot by US troops. US marines can arrest, imprison, torture, rape, mutilate, and murder at will in Iraq. The US military are now guilty of a great number of war crimes. Why would anyone lament the loss of those who committed war crimes?

Some say that what goes around comes around. Maybe it is true. Those brave, valiant, moral, all-American men and women now busy blowing steam by breaking prisoners’ legs with baseball bats, and who find it entertaining to sodomise prisoners with broom sticks, will have to come home one day. They will be the mild-mannered neighbour, the quiet and well-liked teacher, the clerk at the store, the person sitting next to us at the theatre, restaurant, and in the train. They will be the other parents during those parent-teacher conferences. To paraphrase Pres. Bush: We are learning to torture and rape them over there so we know how to torture and rape them over here.

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

» RE: Native American Posted by: montana freeman
» RE: Native American Posted by: stoney13
If ...
Posted by: Edward George on Oct 29, 2005 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's hard to remember now, but this administration responded correctly in defeating the Osama protecting Taliban and was rewarded by forgiveness for a stolen election. IF at at that time Mr. Bush had said to the American people:

"I believe that the best way to defeat Muslim terrorists is by showing that they do not represent all Muslims; that, in fact we are better friends of Muslims than those terrorists. And I believe that the best way to do this is to remove their real oppressers. We have made a start with the Taliban but there is more to do.

Today's greatest oppresser of Muslim's is the brutal atheistic dictator and murderer Sadam Hussien of Iraq. Let me be very clear. There is no evidence that he protects terrorists that endanger this country nor is his military capable of attacking this country. He has, however, attacked two Muslim nations without provocation and rules his own country by murder and terror. The people of Iraq are not free to speak but refugees from there assure us that they would welcome our removing him. My military advisors have assured me that with minimum casualties to our forces they could quickly defeat his forces and remove him from power. That would be our only motive and our only action. We will remain in Afghanistan only as long as they want our help in getting their country organized and the same is true for Iraq. If you agree with this proposal please tell your representatives in Congress. If it Congress assures me that this is the will of the country and provides the authorising power I will proceed."


WHAT WOULD HAVE DONE???

How sad that they lied to the American people because they saw us as stupid rabble and themselves as lordly and wise. (Or because their real motive and intentions were something other than protecting the country from terrorism?)

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

Other Humans Massacres, a Bush's Thrilling Game
Posted by: terror enemy on Nov 2, 2005 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As long as it is outside my courtyard it doesn't matter. I can destroy towns and villages claiming they are all terrorists and enemies of democracy. As long as the facts are hidden from the people I can enjoy all my adventures. I can bombard thousands and hundreds of thousands claiming achievement, heroism and even victory." George W Bush

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

Over 100,000 Casualties in Iraq, not 2,500
Posted by: PeaceThinkTank.org on Jun 14, 2006 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In previous wars, US casualties were counted as both dead and injured, mentally ill due to war, physically ill due to war causes and those missing in action. This was true counting of casualties of war. Casualty figures included all those that left the field of battle other than those rotating out.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a casualty as "a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment or capture or through being missing in action." This is the official definition of casualties, but these casualties are not included in the Pentagon's casualty reports. That's odd. Why are casualties no longer being counted, except for a small slice of the total number of US dead, which is just those killed in direct hostile action? Those killed in accidents are not counted as injuries or dead. Why not?
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature
/2005/12/10/casualties/index.html

In Iraq, casualties of war according to the Pentagon are only the US soldiers killed in hostile fire and officially dead, according to the Pentagon. Could it be that they are covering up this figure as well? The 5,000 very smart Pentagon think tankers have reframed the war to make it look MUCH better, by taking out the number of injured and trying to avoid mentioning anything else. Even then, they do not count certain injured soldiers, much less journalists or others killed or injured while in Iraq.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2004/11/19/60minutes/main656756.shtml

"119,247 service members who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan -- and are now off duty -- are receiving health care from the V.A. Presumably, some of those health problems are unrelated to the war." How many of these are related to wars? Probably almost all of them in my view…so the military is lying about the true number of casualties and/or only counting a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the true number of casualties.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/
2005/12/10/casualties/index.html

In previous wars, as well as this one, the Pentagon has consistently tried to cover up and deny those killed or injured, by minimizing or trying to not count anyone, by firing those who tried to count the casualties. Here is one example of many, explaining how an expert was fired in response to trying to give an accurate count of civilian casualties. http://www.businessweek.com/
bwdaily/dnflash/feb2003/nf2003026_0167_db052.htm

Iraqi hospitals stopped counting civilian casualties, due to the overwhelming numbers of dead coming in. Also, if you are counting insurgents compared to civilians, how do you know the difference between a killed insurgent and an innocent civilian killed as “collateral damage”? In the eyes of the Pentagon, all civilians killed are insurgents, because they are “suspects”.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15720/

In my view, the US has suffered over 100,000 US soldier casualties in Iraq, not 2,500. This figure includes those injured mentally and physically, the killed media, the contractors the true peace keepers, and all those others who died over there in the name of the US, not just those who died on the battlefield. The media should count both the injured, mentally disabled, ousted out of the military for whatever reason, the missing as well as the dead. Tell them not to lie.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/
feature/2005/12/10/casualties/index.html

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

Bil
Posted by: Bil on Dec 31, 2006 9:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
new1
new2
new3
new4

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