- Approximately 201 coalition troops, of which 148 were American, died in Operation Iraqi Freedom; and
- between 11,000 and 15,000 Iraqis died, with about 30 percent (3,200 to 4,300) being noncombatant civilians who did not take up arms against Coalition troops.
The study used "operational data, demographic data, several hospital and burial society surveys, media interviews with Iraqi military personnel, battlefield fatality estimates made by US field commanders and embedded reporters, and media and non-governmental accounts of hundreds of civilian casualty incidents" to come to its conclusions. (The study uses the terms "combatants" and "noncombatants" instead of "military" and "civilians," because it appears a significant number of civilians took up arms and a number of Iraqi soldiers fought out of uniform and may have been mistaken for civilians.) How did the 2003 war in Iraq compare to the 1991 Gulf War? Although there is uncertainty as to the number killed in 1991, the Project believes that more than 3,500 civilians and between 20,000 and 26,000 Iraqi troops died in that conflict. The executive summary says:
- Both the absolute number and the proportion of noncombatants among the Iraqi war dead was higher in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) than in Operation Desert Storm (ODS), twelve years earlier. This, despite the intervening years of technological development and enhancements to US warfighting capabilities (which cost US taxpayers ~ $1 trillion) and despite the fact that far fewer aerial munitions were used in OIF than in ODS and a much higher proportion of these were guided.
- In absolute terms, US, British, and Iraqi combatant fatalities were substantially fewer in the 2003 war than in the first Gulf War. Iraqi fatalities in 2003 were perhaps only 37 percent as numerous; US and British fatalities, 48 percent as numerous. Yet, measured against the numbers of troops engaged on both sides during the two wars, casualty rates were actually higher in 2003 for all concerned.
- Looking at both the 1991 and 2003 wars, the only feature that marks the two wars as ostensibly "revolutionary" is the low ratio of US and British fatalities to Iraqi ones. These ratios are in the range of 70-90 to one. (By comparison, Israel was able to achieve exchange rates of no better than 4-to-1 in its wars with Arab states.) Apart from the relatively low number of Anglo-American fatalities, both of the wars had death tolls that registered within range of many strategically significant wars of the past 40 years. They do not stand out unambiguously as "low casualty" wars.
Why were there more noncombatants deaths and no significant decline in the number of combatant deaths this time around? The goal of Operation Iraqi Freedom was fundamentally different from the 1991 Gulf War: Regime Change. The United States needed to operate more deeply into Iraqi territory than before and there was more fighting in and around cities. Not only were more civilians placed in harm's way, but more civilians decided to pick up arms and fight the invaders. Most of the fighting in the 1991 war, however, took place in the mostly empty southern and western desert of Iraq around Kuwait.
It's not pretty. It's not surgical. You want surgical, you should have left the place alone. You try to limit collateral damage, but they want to fight. Now it's just smash-mouth football. --Chief Warrant Officer Pat Woellhof with USMC units in Nasiriyah, April 2003
Many of the Iraqi war dead were concentrated in or around Baghdad, where some of the heaviest fighting occurred. Between 4,376 and 5,526 people -- combatant and noncombatant -- appeared to have died in fighting for the Iraqi capital. The study estimates that _at least_ 2,876 of those killed were noncombatant civilians. Much of the carnage can be attributed to attempts by Baghdad residents to flee as the Americans advanced. The day before the first American thrust into the city, the International Red Cross described a scene of chaos as thousands of residents jammed the streets in cars, taxis and even horse-drawn carts in attempt to flee the city. The next day saw heavy fighting, with civilians caught in the crossfire. "In one incident," the report states, "at a south Baghdad interchange, two dozen civilian vehicles were inadvertently destroyed -- their occupants torn apart or incinerated -- by a US mechanized task force that was responding to an attack from nearby Fedayeen. Women and children were among the recognizable dead remaining in the wreckage days later." (Irish Times) At the time, _The Guardian_ reported that the streets of Baghdad were strewn with bodies. In the air campaign, one third as many fighter and bomber sorties were flown in 2003 as in 1991, and Operation Iraqi Freedom saw only 13 percent of the total number of bombs dropped in Operation Desert Storm. But 19,948 of the 29,900 bombs used in 2003 were guided (66.7 percent) compared to 6.5 percent in 1991. This increasing reliance on guided munitions gives the impression -- in the public's mind at least -- that there will be fewer casualties. But the report makes the point that being more accurate doesn't fewer people die. _It means hitting the target and achieving the aim with fewer bombs._ "Whether this produces fewer casualties depends on one's target and intent," the report says. In all, comparing the two conflicts leads to this:| Operation Desert Storm (1991) | Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) | |
| Noncombatant deaths (approx.) | Approximately 3,500 | between 3,200 and 4,300 |
| Combatant deaths (approx.) | Between 20,000 and 26,000 | between 7,600 and 9,400 |
| Percentage of noncombatant deaths | between 13.5 and 17.5 | Approximately 30 percent |
Note the similarities in noncombatant deaths between the two wars, despite 12 years of technological advances, the dropping of fewer bombs and more precision-guided ones. None of these factors guaranteed a reduction in noncombatant deaths, which should surprise people who think America's ability to wage war is somehow "cleaner" or less harmful to the innocents. But these were two different wars, right? Yes. And that reflects a strategic change more than a technological one. The goal of regime change fundamentally changed how this war was fought, with more fighting in urban areas, closer to civilians and against Iraqi civilians defending their country. So we shouldn't make a big deal out of the similar figures for noncombatant deaths, right? Two different wars, apples and oranges, etc. But the 1991 war was a war gamer's dream scenario. Two large armies, in the middle of a featureless desert, in a mostly unpopulated area going at one another. That kind of war _won't happen again._ Wars like Operation Iraqi Freedom will likely be more common, with heavy urban fighting and a confusion as to who is a combatant and who is not. While 3,500 people killed and a total casualty count of 11,000 to 15,000 might not sound like many -- considering it was a major invasion -- a 30 percent noncombatant casualty rate is horrible and dangerous. The (relatively) low numbers of Iraqi war dead was because "major combat" ceased after the Iraqi Army disintegrated. Can the United States count on that to happen every time? What happens if America gets into another war like this and the enemy _doesn't_ roll over? What happens if you have 100,000 war dead and 30 percent of that is noncombatant? Will the United States be able to tolerate 30,000 noncombatant deaths? Will the world be able to tolerate the United States? My point is that war is dangerous, deadly and highly imprecise. Lots of people who don't have any dog in the fight are going to pay the ultimate price. And this will lead to vengeance and hatred on the part of those left behind. As the father of a girl killed by a cluster bomblet said, "I am going to kill America -- not today, after 10 years." If that's the legacy of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the America's leaders -- and its people -- should be very careful about future wars. Winning ugly may be winning, but the ultimate cost can be higher than the victory.
We are in agreement that the number of deaths in the war, as in any war, was way too high. Even one death is too high.
But since we agree that counting deaths is an important factor of the degree to which the war was morally wrong or morally right, we also should look at the lives that will be saved by virtue of the fact that the war was fought.
Namely the hundreds of thousands of people that will not be tortured and put to death in Saddam’s “security” apparatus, and who would have been if we had not gone to war. The fact is that those kinds of numbers were killed by Saddam before, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that that practice would not continue.
So, if we’re counting lives, the lives saved would appear to be far greater in number than the lives lost, and the life-counting measure would point to the war being a moral good.
Maybe there’s something totally wrong with the above reasoning, but at this point I don’t know what it is.
As far as I can tell, you are against the war, and you don’t seem to be a person who just wouldn’t give a shit about huge numbers of people being tortured to death or otherwise “disappeared” at the whim of a corrupt regime.
So, how do you respond to the above?
(By the way, while I disagree with many of your views about the war, I think you’re a superb writer and reporter, and I was among those who have contributed financially to Iraq 2.0.)
Gary -
It should also be noted that when threated, Saddam has in the past reacted by loosening security and releasing prisoners. Had the US intention been to help the people of Iraq, we could have very easily used our money and influence to “guide” Saddam down a more gentle path. Instead we supported him in his war against Iran, and even sold him the tools to harm civilians. The US didn’t change heart about Saddam because our gov’t agencies grew a concious, it was because he outlived his political usefulness.
The numbers of dead reported as a result of sanctions competes with the number missing under Saddam. Add to that the casualties of “shock and awe” and the “highway of death”, and I suspect the US takes a strong lead over saddam.
“It should also be noted that when threated, Saddam has in the past reacted by loosening security and releasing prisoners.” It’s not very realistic to say on the one had that we should “guide him gently” while simultaneously arguing against my original point by saying “when threatened he has released prisoners.” The evidence we have, and that you apparently agree with, is that he wouldn’t have released them without a threat, and gentle guiding is not a threat.
“The numbers of dead reported as a result of sanctions competes with the number missing under Saddam. Add to that the casualties of “shock and awe” and the “highway of death”, and I suspect the US takes a strong lead over saddam.”
Sanctions were considered necessary by the U.N.. You believe that they caused a similar number of deaths to those caused by Saddam’s security apparatus. I assume you think that those deaths were a bad thing. Now that we have ousted Saddam, the sanctions imposed by the U.N. are not necessary any longer. So those deaths, at the behest of the vote of the U.N., will no longer occur, due to the actions of the U.S.
Note however that I would not really blame those deaths on the U.N. either, since Saddam had the choice of using the oil-for-food program to help his people rather than subverting those funds as he reportedly did. (Also, I would like to see hard, verified numbers on those deaths — I haven’t yet seen any.)
Following up on my previous message, “So those deaths, at the behest of the vote of the U.N., will no longer occur, due to the actions of the U.S.” — I think that’s good.
Based on the tone of your message however, I presume that you would turn back the clock, if you could, to the time before the attacks happened, and put things back as they were.
That would mean that a) the U.N. sanctions combined with Saddam’s reported tendency not to use the oil-for-food money for the benefit of his people would be responsible for hundreds of thousands (or more) of deaths, if those numbers are accurate, and 2) Saddam would still be executing and torturing political prisoners at his historical rapid rate.
Is my presumption wrong or right? Would you turn back the clock if you could and cause the war to not have happened?
This talk about the war and the loss of life being a “moral good”, morally or other wise, seems misguided. The taking of life is wrong. Period. It may still be something we as a society decide to do, for some greater purpose. But when we begin thinking that it is justified, that we can remain on some moral high ground while taking the lives of non-combatants seems to me to be very shaky ground indeed.
And still, sometimes it will be the choice we make. I just want to put forward that with that decision to kill we have taken something from ourselves as well, and we should be honest about it. We cannot also claim we still possess some moral purity. As a father, I completely sympathize with the father in Chris’ article that lost his daughter and promised his vengeance against America. Anyone who thinks he would give a damn about our higher purpose is not truly empathizing with his loss. It’s through his eyes that I can see our actions in a different light, and one that should be remembered when we embark on these ventures.
Why are these lives somehow less valuable to us than our goal? How do we justify collateral damage in greater numbers than those lost at the WTC, which we are supposedly avenging? And that’s not counting the non-combatants lost in Afghanistan. I for one do not feel the mission in Iraq is making a dent in our Homeland Security in any imminent sense, however valuable it is in the long term.
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But I feel very cautious confronting the tasks our country is faced with in these times, knowing that some of our actions will challenge our sense of “rightness” when put up alongside some innocent child dying when coming in contact with our cluster bombs. And I don’t hold the military responsible, since they are doing a job we have sent them to do at great personal risk.
I can only cherish my own children, feel grateful that I was so lucky to live in the safety our country provides, and to do my best to value those other lives, the statistics of war, as we as a country make these weighty decisions.
I completely agree with your feelings. But I want to stay focused on trying to figure out how to do the best thing.
You say “I feel very cautious confronting the tasks our country is faced with in these times, knowing that some of our actions will challenge our sense of “rightness” when put up alongside some innocent child dying when coming in contact with our cluster bombs.”
I feel very cautious too, and think we also need to be cautious about the choice inaction — since that is a conscious choice too, exactly as much as going to war is. Inaction may seem like doing nothing, but it is not. It is choosing inaction. It is actively, consciously choosing the results of that inaction. As far as I can tell, the results of inaction with respect to carrying out the war are the ones I have outlined above. Yes, there were many children killed in the way, and that is very, very evil. But there were hundreds of thousands of people killed by Saddam’s regime, and that too is very, very evil. It would have continued, but for the war.
We have to choose. There is no way to evade our responsibility. We must choose. Inaction is a choice just as much as action is. Which do we choose? Hundreds of thousands tortured and killed by the regime, or doing something, at the cost of tens of thousands?
As terrible as it is, I would have to choose the latter, because it is less bad than the former.
Just to be clear, the only alternative to war is not “inaction”. Also, I was attempting to speak to the weightiness of the decision, not the avoidance of it. But your point is well taken, and I just hope that very sober minds are addressing these responsibilities.
James I think you and I are in fundamental agreement, and I respect what you’re saying. The one place where we MAY differ — I don’t know if we do — is that I don’t think there was any truly realistic plan of action that would have stopped the tortures and disappearances than going to war and removing Saddam.
That certainly is not the only reason we went to war, and solving that problem is certainly not the only result of the war, and obviously not all results of the war are positive. But this thread is in response to Chris’ article in which he focuses on counts of the dead, and I think if we’re going to do that, and if our desire is to use that information to judge the Bush administration, we must also count those who would have been destined to die under Saddam’s tyranny but who, due to the war, will not.
Gary and James—
Thanks for your comments and dialogs. And thanks for not degenerating in name-calling. I’d like to address some things that Gary asked me about.
First of all, thank you for your very kind support and praise at the end of your first post. I really appreciate it.
On to your other points. You say, “As terrible as it is, I would have to choose the latter, because it is less bad than the former.” (Meaning going to war and killing 11,000 is better than not going to war and standing by why Saddam kills more than that.) Well, for whom is it “less bad”? The Iraqis? Sure, probably. For the American people? Hm. Much more abiguous on that one. Possibly even “bad” for the American people. And to whom does the United States government owe its first priority? The people of Iraq?
I oppose(d) the war, but not because I’m some pink-o Saddam-loving malcontent. I opposed it because it wasn’t in America’s interest to go in there. I felt the cost would be too high in American and civilian lives, would decrease stability in the region and that America would be bogged down in a nasty guerilla war/occupation. (So far, I’ve been pretty accurate in those predictions.) And while I certainly sympathize with the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam, I have to question whether the costs I just outlined outweigh the benefits of removing Saddam. I know that sounds cold, but I tend to be a foreign policy realist and look at nations’ interests as reasons for doing thing, not whether something is morally “right” or “wrong.”
So in that sense, we don’t agree on whether counting deaths is is an important factor in whether a war is morally right or wrong. Organized killing can never be morally right. However, it can sometimes be necessary. And nations should very carefully weigh the costs (human deaths, increased instability, revenge seekers and an environment ripe for terrorism) versus the benefits (24 million Iraqis without Saddam and … what other benefits are there?) of said organized killing.
Next, the “hundreds of thousands” of Iraqis who won’t be killed by Saddam is a good thing, sure, but it’s also an unquantifiable. There’s no way to know that they would have died. Saddam was (is?) pretty old. He could have fallen into a coffin tomorrow. Qusai or another successor might have seen the wisdom in negotiating with the United Nations. If we’re going to look at potentials, to be intellectually honest, we have to look at the potential for a changed Iraq without war as well as the hundreds of thousands of potential victims of Saddam. And when you start basing a war plan on might-bes and could-bes, you’re asking for trouble. Ask Condoleeza Rice.
However we can definitely say that the noncombatants killed in the ware actually dead, and there is at least one guy who wants revenge against America. There are likely more. Will they act on that revenge wish? I don’t know.
But we know now that the stated reasons for going to war were false. And there are a whole lot more uncertainties than there were before the war. And I don’t think that’s good.
My mother would say “two wrongs, don’t make a right” and I am staggered reading a discussion posed about whether it is morally right for a country to ever invade another country. (It is not. Never. And not just because it is a moral position. Its practical.)
On top of which the delusion that permeates the argument, that this kind of vicious ‘regime’ is the only one in the world. There are grievously wrong dictators and suspension of civil rights everywhere. In many parts of the world. Governments and its peoples are out of integrity everywhere. All of us are guilty with governments who abuse power in some way. Seems a state of the moment.
So why go after Saddam and Iraq?
What’s so different with that place and man?
Oil and instability of a region easily achieved. And it only serves American industry. Honestly.
I am short of breath you guys, reading your words, but have to admit you had me reading and it was all such civilized argument.
Living-north-of-the-border and not saying that Canadians are more moral but have to say I’m glad my government is working with other countries. And not swaggering around the world’s stage talking about “Operation Freedom”… Sorry. I’ll go off and watch my movie.
Actually Jane, I’d argue that on rare occasions, invading another country turns out to be both practical and morally “right”.
I’m thinking mainly of the Tanzanian invasion of Idi Amin’s Uganda (in response to Ugandan aggression)… maybe also the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia which ousted Pol Pot.
In both cases, I think you’d be very hard pressed to argue that not invading was more moral and practical for the invading country, than invading was. Self interest, aggressive warfare, and morality can, and do, sometimes coincide.
Note that I don’t consider Iraq an example of this. As you point out, there’s plenty other repressive regimes out there, some of whom “we” actively support (such as Uzbekistan)… and the US won’t be “freeing” those countries anytime soon. Which makes the sudden crusading sense of urgency and morality infused into the rhetoric of the war buildup and aftermath seem that much more rediculous, cynical and hypocritical.
It’s hard for me to believe that we’ve achieved anything other than a temporary pause to the brutality in Iraq. We’re laying the groundwork for a worse dictatorship to follow—probably in the wake of a civil war three, five, or ten years down the road. Not a long time in any real sense. Besides, I don’t believe for a minute that A) the American people ever really gave a #@$* about the Iraqi people or that B) the Iraqi people weren’t at least somewhat responsible for their own suffering. They (the Sunnis for sure) liked Saddam well enough till he got out of hand. He was going to build a secular, pan-Arab empire. But, that’s the risk you take with empire-builders. Unfortunately, we don’t have the hard-edged decency to split up the three old Ottoman provinces (Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia) into independent states, which is our only hope for humane governance in the Anglo-American fiction we call Iraq. (We were lucky the Wilsonian fiction of Yugoslavia broke apart BEFORE we tried to save it or we’d merely be forestalling violence there, too.) So, in that sense, the non-combatant deaths will be wasted. We should simply have eliminated any direct threats to us, which is our right, and, as our leadership knew, did not exist.
Well, at least 11,000 to 15,000 Iraqis now have freedom, as well as 201 coalition troops .
If we’re trying to instill freedom and democracy in this country we’re going about it the wrong way - it’s going to have to come from within and cannot be imposed against the will of the present controlling institutions.
But it’s too late for recrimination and for now we should be pulling together to get out of this mess because it’s only going to get worse - let’s install another friendly Saddam clone as soon as possible and get the hell out of there. It’s time our oil companies developed alternative energy and got used to working for their money - our environment will probably be very thankful and maybe our kids, and their kids if we don’t screw up too badly, will be able to breathe a little easier.
Bob
To Chris Allbritton:
Thank you for your serious response to my question. I think I understand your position now, although I do still strongly disagree with it.
The problem is that to even begin to adequately address the issues at the heart of our disagreement, in a way that could potentially change anyone’s mind, would probably take days or weeks of in-person discussion and months of research. It just can’t be done in this context.
My purpose in asking my original question was to see whether there was some obvious and major issue that I was missing that might cause me to change my mind. That turned out not to be the case — but at least now I understand what someone else is thinking a little better than I did before. Actually, I understand what a few other people are thinking a little better since a few people responded.
So thanks again, to Chris and to everyone else.
To Chris Allbritton:
Thank you for your serious response to my question. I think I understand your position now, although I do still strongly disagree with it.
The problem is that to even begin to adequately address the issues at the heart of our disagreement, in a way that could potentially change anyone’s mind, would probably take days or weeks of in-person discussion and months of research. It just can’t be done in this context.
My purpose in asking my original question was to see whether there was some obvious and major issue that I was missing that might cause me to change my mind. That turned out not to be the case — but at least now I understand what Chris is thinking a little better than I did before. Actually, I understand what a few people are thinking a little better since a few people responded.
So thanks again, to Chris and to everyone else.
I don’t know who to believe about death tolls. I’d be more inclined to believe these people though. They get their figures from a cross-section of media outlets, and have a max and a min figure.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
A lot more than that study suggests anyway.
It seems to me that the value of the precedent America’s first pre-emptive war has set ought to be questioned. As world leaders, do Americans really want to teach this doctrine? Seems to be a no brainer to me: an ends justify the means morality is no morality at all. And very dangerous.
Iraqi soldiers were using “civilians” including Women, as cover and distractions. These so called innocent Women knew exactly what they were doing, and there have been numerous reports of Women picking up soldiers AK’s and then being killed by U.S. troops.
Also while civilian casualties may have been higher in percentage term in this war, it is silly to draw paralells between guided bombs used in 2003 saying they are ineffective.
Anyone with a logical mind will conclude that it was troops on the ground that inflincted more casualties than the bombs, and a logical mind would deduce that if normal munitions were used casualties would have been horrendous.
If you go and read some after action reports on Iraq you will find out that the guided munitions were extremely effective at limiting civilian casualties, and most of the casualties were inflicted from artillery (as always).
More to the point, these casualties could have been avoided if Saddam placed headquaters, troops,weapon caches, etc away from civilian areas.
“The taking of life is wrong. Period.” Then is God an evil entity for God takes all life. Period. I don’t see God as being evil. Period. Perhaps your problem is with God and not the US action in Iraq. If one wants to find the cost of freedom, it is burried in the ground. The same place that one finds the cost of brutality. So the question is not the burying going on.
“am staggered reading a discussion posed about whether it is morally right for a country to ever invade another country. (It is not. Never. And not just because it is a moral position. Its practical.) So if Hitler just killed all the Jews in Germany it would be nobody’s business but their own. “Never?” Give me a break. Your morals appear to work fine for you but you might change your mind if you were on your way to the gas chamber, but it does not appear you will change your mind when it is I or my brother and sisters being killed.
How can anyone say you can subtract the deaths that occured due to the lifting of sanctions? The comparitive lack of commerce due to chaotic travel conditions and general lack of medicine is not exactly a preferred state. I suggest that we see how Iraq gets to its feet after it is done rebuilding billions of dollars worth of infrastructure before we talk about the economic benefits of lifting sanctions.
The caotic situation that is presently going on in Iraq, was surely preventable. Ever since the Bush administration, brought to the line the good against evil rethoric, after Sept. 11, our exterior policy, was doomed from the outset.There is a thin line when we speak about morals, what’s right to you, might not as well be right to me. The world is very diverse and complex, and it seems to me that when you have a problem, you have to analize the roots, of the situation. It’s ironic that our past allies (Bin Laden, Saddam), turned against us. They where true heroes back in the day when Bin Laden, with his CIA trained and funded rebels, defeated the mighty Russian army in Afghanistan. Wasn’t Saddam our business partner, when we gave him millions to fight a war against Iran.(Remember we also armed his opposition). We as american, have to be more open to the world, we dont’ live in a different planet, every empire in the history of the world has fallen because of this stupid theory, that their countryman are more valuable than others. Be careful in November for who u vote for. Vote for someone who will make u proud about the policy he is using around the world.