Tony Blair knew that 650K Iraqi civilian deaths since 2003 was accurate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TomFetter

Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
1,103
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2044345,00.html

Remember our discussions last October, when The Lancet published a Johns Hopkins' study estimating civilian war deaths in Iraq? Both the UK and US government officially distanced themselves from the study, and many conservatives and government supporters severely questioned the methodology and study results?

A reporter for The Guardian used right-to-information requests to obtain briefing materials that Blair's officials - right up to the people who briefed Blair and his staff - used in their analysis of the report.

It seems that officials in Blair's civil service told him that the study was likely correct.

Scientists in the UK Department for International Development actually felt that the study's 650,000 number likely understated civilian war deaths since 2003. And the Ministery of Defence's chief science advisor considered the study to be "robust" and "balanced," advising the government NOT to publicly criticize it. The methodology was sound, indeed "close to best practice."

So Blair knew this, yet still had his official spokesman reject the Johns Hopkins study. Presumably, the officials in Bush's government are no less aware of best practices, and will have prepared similar briefs.

I think this is utterly shameful. Whatever one feels about the Iraq invasion and its justification, own up to the actual cost in innocent human lives.

The Roman legions used to "decimate" conquered nations - killing one in ten. With an initial population of about 25 million, the 650,000 civilian deaths isn't decimation. But if you include the 2M civilian refugees that the study also estimates, it's decimation and then some.

t.
 
Hi Tom,

I am against any policy that targets or is careless about civilian deaths in war, whatever the supposed motive may be.

I would suggest that in a just war, the unrighteous party should be held responsible for the accidental deaths that occur, as their evil practices precipitated such a war.

I am speaking in general terms, not about this war.

It seems to me that there is plenty of responsibility to go around on this one, and I would hope that those who justly criticize the west and its conduct of this war will not forget the terrible wickedness and intransigence of the former regime in Iraq that lead to the war in the first place. I would suggest that the bulk of responsibility, and culpability, lies at that door.

I am against dishonesty, and cover ups also. Once you try to cover up or ignore things, your words will be forever doubted, even if you had right on your side.

To determine the facts is beyond my own personal resources. When people are guided by fear of what others may think, as opposed to just stating the truth openly and honorably, bad things usually happen, and the perception, the reality, of dishonesty is tough to shake.

The world is indeed a mess.

.......................................................................................................

Paradoxically, what is the UK doing about the 15 sailors?

I do hope we are not in for another 444 days of hand wringing.

There was a time when such an act would have been considered an outrageous provocation, and an act of war.

:(

Tom
 
What to do?

In pretty much every scandal that I've seen evolve, the real scandal's been over lies and deception in covering up what might have been an unpleasant truth. You'd think that after a while, politicians in democratic countries would get it.

This 650K number is atrocious. It's more appalling, though, that governments have lied about its accuracy. Though it's conistent with how other aspects of the war have been handled, from the get go. The dishonesty in all aspects of this is what's making Tony Blair resign this year. And what will likely lose the Republicans the 2008 presidential election.

In Canada, we had a government fall a year ago based on a scandal and coverup - the coverup was far more damaging than the spending scandal. We've currently got our RCMP brass in a scandal too - and it's the coverup that's got everyone's shorts in a knot.

People can take hard truths. They won't like them, but can take them. To be brutally honest, war's far less costly in lives now than, say, in WWII days. How many civilians died in the Blitz? Or at Dresden? How many soldiers fell in a single major battle? More, I suspect, than the US and UK have lost in the entire campaign.

If a cause truly IS just, one can justify dying for it. And killing for it. If a cause truly is unjust, then one is forced to obscure the real causes, and the real casualties.

This lying is, in my view, an appalling example of undermining the very foundations of democracy and honour that we're now hearing used to justify the invasion in the first place.


.........

Iran? Yeah, this would in another time have justified a war. I think that's what Iran wants - the jihadist leadership of Iran needs a Great Satan to oppose, in order to maintain their own hold on domestic power. From what we can tell, the capture of the 15 UK soldiers was an orchestrated event - 6 boats involved in an ambush. But the UK doesn't have what it needs to fight a ground war in Iran - and Iran knows it. Nor does the US.

I'm sure that some special ops rescue options are being considered, and the current game is just to keep the captives alive. If it turns out to be impossible, I frankly don't see military options with good outcomes. Air strikes? Destruction of the Iranian air force and navy? Easily enough done, but it's precisely what Iran's government wants. It would justify their hard-line positions, prompt a response against Israel, and likely leave the whole middle east a smoking ruin.

I don't see a good way out, except diplomatically, or using special ops.
 
You are right Tom.

No good way out.

The only way out for the west is to start doing the right thing, ie behaving honorably, and treating people fairly.

That has not happened too often in the past, has it? I do think the west has done much good, especially for personal freedom, advances in quality of life, and many more. However, the bad has been very bad at times too.

What to do?

Pull back, and get ourselves energy self sufficient? Good idea. Spread wealth and prosperity so most of the world's population has an interest in stability? Worth a try.

If the British special ops are still top notch, I hope they can pull it off, and get the sailors out. That would be a fabulous black eye to the extremists.

Destroying the Navy and Air Force of Iran might be a good idea, regardless of the propaganda value to the Jihadists. We would have to be willing to follow up with arms and supplies to dissident groups in Iran, to eventually overthrow the jihadists.

Just giving in to their demands, and leaving altogether will not help us much either.

usually, if it takes a long time to create a mess, it takes a long time to clean it up.

maybe we could start by restoring full sovereignty to some of the Native American nations within our own borders?

The answer to the Wests problems lie, in my opinion, primarily in the moral realm.


As usual Tom, you bring a thoughtful plate to the table!

Take care,

Tom
 
TomFetter said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2044345,00.html

Remember our discussions last October, when The Lancet published a Johns Hopkins' study estimating civilian war deaths in Iraq? Both the UK and US government officially distanced themselves from the study, and many conservatives and government supporters severely questioned the methodology and study results?

A reporter for The Guardian used right-to-information requests to obtain briefing materials that Blair's officials - right up to the people who briefed Blair and his staff - used in their analysis of the report.

It seems that officials in Blair's civil service told him that the study was likely correct.

Scientists in the UK Department for International Development actually felt that the study's 650,000 number likely understated civilian war deaths since 2003. And the Ministery of Defence's chief science advisor considered the study to be "robust" and "balanced," advising the government NOT to publicly criticize it. The methodology was sound, indeed "close to best practice."

So Blair knew this, yet still had his official spokesman reject the Johns Hopkins study. Presumably, the officials in Bush's government are no less aware of best practices, and will have prepared similar briefs.

I think this is utterly shameful. Whatever one feels about the Iraq invasion and its justification, own up to the actual cost in innocent human lives.

The Roman legions used to "decimate" conquered nations - killing one in ten. With an initial population of about 25 million, the 650,000 civilian deaths isn't decimation. But if you include the 2M civilian refugees that the study also estimates, it's decimation and then some.

t.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here....

What if, rather than trying to "cover up" or "deny" the figures which came out of the study, Blair and others simply didn't agree with the numbers? Why assume bad faith rather than simple disagreement?

Side note: I think the Romans practiced decimation as a means of punishing their own legions. Not that they would have flinched from decimating their foes, but they were usually more concerned with subjugation and assimilation than utter destruction. After all, you can't impress or tax people who are dead.

Andy
 
Good points Andy.

Many conquerors do see the wisdom of preserving and profiting from the civilian populations they gain sway over. Not all do. Some just destroy, even when against their own interests.

"Hobbits as miserable slaves would please him more than Hobbits happy and free."

I'm guessing many tyrants have shared this view.

Tom
 
Certainly some folks disagree with the study's numbers - usually because of the methodology.

The "Iraq Body Count" folks, for instance, have a much lower civilian body count, and dispute the methodology used by the Johns Hopkins study. In contrast, they count only people whose deaths have been reported by at least two independent news sources, so no claims can be made that they're inflating numbers. Their point is that though this under-represents the reality (as clearly not all deaths will make news reports), nobody can level accusations that they've inflated things to support their political views. Not surprisingly, they've about 10X smaller in their numbers - about 60,000 civilian deaths reported by at least 2 news agencies.

The methodology used by the Johns Hopkins study was, however, used to estimate any number of other events - e.g. deaths in Stalin's purges, in Mao's purges, in the Holocaust ... as well as in a bunch of contemporary conflicts like Ruanda's genocide. It's based on the epidemiology methods they use to track the spread of infectious diseases ... are using now for bird flu, HIV/AIDS, and have used in the past for smallpox and polio. Nobody's taken swipes at the World Health Organization for using the same methods there - quite the reverse.

So the methodology's got a long history, and the UK government experts who briefed Tony Blair thought it had been done methodically and correctly in this study in Iraq. Though they won't have liked the results any better than Blair did.

I dunno what "the right thing" is here. By now, I doubt that there is a "right thing" regarding Iraq. But if there is a positive way forwards, I think it must include acknowledging and being accountable for the deaths we caused. If the cause is truly just, we should be able to look them in the eye and say "yeah - war is hell. Nobody's saying otherwise. The alternative was worse."

Not doing that, minimizing the cost, calls into question whether the folks leading the charge really felt that the cause WAS significant enough to justify the cost. That's a bigger issue.
 
Andrew Colglazier said:
Playing devil's advocate here....

What if, rather than trying to "cover up" or "deny" the figures which came out of the study, Blair and others simply didn't agree with the numbers? Why assume bad faith rather than simple disagreement?


Andy
Click to expand...


Because their snide politicians perhaps?

Spiral
 
Pehaps you should look into the political section of BF to find that all the knifemakers/knifeknuts seem to think that gasoline melts steel.
 
I'm not accustomed to seeing folk this critical of Western conduct in the Middle East of late. I'm sure things will get even more interesting when the less critical users chime in.

I don't really follow current events and politics that closely anymore, but I'm skeptical enough about any military operation whose aim is ostensibly "democracy", or "liberty", and other feel-good lofty concepts.

Democracy don't pay the bills, people.

As per decimation, like Andrew I was under the impression that it was a discplinary action for the legions. I'm thinking that if it is true at all, that it was reserved only for SEVERE breaches of conduct. In trying times, I doubt you could afford that kind of loss of one's own troops.
 
C.S. Graves said:
As per decimation, like Andrew I was under the impression that it was a discplinary action for the legions. I'm thinking that if it is true at all, that it was reserved only for SEVERE breaches of conduct. In trying times, I doubt you could afford that kind of loss of one's own troops.
Click to expand...

It was reserved for severe disciplinary problems such as cowardice or rebellion.

It was used more commonly earlier in the history of Rome, then fell out of use until the time of Julius Caeser, who brought it back.

Andy
 
Decimation refers to a discipline tactic in the legions, not what was done to the enemies of Rome. If a Legion disgraced itself in battle, it was decimated as an example.

The Lancet number is nowhere near accurate. The civilian deaths are much lower, and the survey was conducted by 7 people, interveiwing 808 households. Before you get all worked up over a number, look behind the scenes at the methodology. If the US wanted to kill people in big numbers, they'd do it.
 
I recall a radio program where a fellow involved in tallying civilian deaths said that the methods used were the same as those used by orginizations like UNICEF, etc... ones that would otherwise be trusted by the US government, if it weren't getting its own hands bloody.

Sure, they could kill MORE people if they really wanted to, but I don't know that a mere moderate bloodlust is cause to throw the statistics out the window completely.
 
I've heard a bit about the study, but need to dig into the methodology a bit more.

Certainly, I could see contention over responsibility for deaths. Take the largest possible number - every death that has occured in Iraq since the U.S. military action began. Some of those deaths would have occured naturally anyway - accidents, illness, old age, etc. Other deaths would have occured under Sadam Hussein's regime. Next, you have deaths due to direct combat action - soldiers directly engaging enemies, or accidentally killing civillians (aside from the difficulty of accurately deciding who a civillian might be). Finally, there is all sorts of violence between Iraqis that was made possible by the U.S. removing Sadam. This last pool may be grounds for reasonable contention - are we responsible for Iraqis killing each other or not? I think on some moral level, we are. However, we share the blame with others - notable those who took advantage of the power vacuum to advance their own interests.

I'm not saying that Blair should've said that the study was wrong, just thinking about what the death total means. Unfortunately, the modern political arena rarely allows for nuance. "You're number is right, but we're not completely responsible" doesn't make a very good sound bite.
 
What did the general years ago?......................
Ah yes, "WAR IS HELL"

We are at war gentleman. :(
 
The accuracy of the study certainly has been questioned: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece
How where these hundreds of thousands killed? The study sheds no light on that whatever.
Before the invasion of Iraq, reports from the Guardian and other fellow travellers were adamant that sanctions were causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians annually, and almost 600,000 children, with many hundreds of thousands more severly malnourished and ill. http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm That would mean that even if this new study were correct, the deaths counted in the study aren't necessarily attributable to the invasion. Moreover, the number who died as a result of the invasion would actually be less than those caused by the sanctions ie, the invasion saved lives.
And there are studies that completely contradict both the preinvasion and postinvasion death statistics using different methodology http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

The truth is that this is a highly politicised issue and the "science" being used is highly unreliable because the information and methodology used are highly unreliable. By all means consider the studies and the numbers, but consider more than one (especially if it is cited in the Guardian) and be aware that they must be taken with a metric tonne of salt.
 
We are not at "war." We are now an occupier in Iraq. The war was over years ago.

This occupation will either go on for years and years- literally forever, and create more death, or it will end. There are no other options.

My view is that war is a solution of last resort. You do it if you must, but not because you want to do it.
It is a failure of diplomacy. There is no other way to read this. If you think that war is a preferred method, then we should be at war all over the world right now....think of Burma, Somalia, Haiti, and the list goes on.

The general who said that we should use more than 300,000 troops to go into Iraq was fired for saying this. The secretary of the treasury who said that the war would cost about $200 billion was fired for saying this. This sounds cheap right now.

If you recall, Powell said that there is no evidence for weapons of mass destruction. Two weeks later, he went to the U.N. with his story about WMD.
The next thing you know, his son was appointed as head of the FCC.

Then, Powell makes negative comments about the "war" - a few years later - he steps down, and his son gets fired.

I saw our VP say that they are going to greet us with flowers ....
The flowers have turned to IEDs.

You can fill in the dots here.

Whatever you think about the rationale for the war, we are now in a very bad place with no good options. Insurgencies last for years. Rumsfeld didn't seem to ming the idea of a war/occupation that lasted for 10-15 years.
 
It was and is a war. The jihad want to destroy the Western way of life and all of its influence.

The only two armies that have successfully defeated the Persian / Arab empire were the Greeks and Mongols. As a result, it kept those people in check for many centuries.

We're in it , so we might as well get it over with, so we can rest easy for a few more centuries.

There is no place for apathy or sympathy now.
 
Just sharing a fact or two, {opinions aside.}

Jihad is just the arabic word for holly war. Jihad are not a race, religion or people.

jihad? Thats what some percieve the Brits/Yanks to be doing there.

I think money has oil power & money for a select few has more to do with it myself.


The Ottoman empire ruled long {centuries that is.} & wide, after the Greeks & Mongol armys were nothing but sheep & goat herders.

Spiral
 
yes the Ottoman Empire was great. How many realize that Musilim religion is a off shoot of the Hebrew religion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top