Several people have told me to look at this site – but its biases are so blatant and so hostile to the liberation, I’m not going there. Here’s an FT story that contains some interesting info:
From April 5 to September 12, slightly over five months, 3,186 Iraqi civilians, men, women and children, died as a result of either terrorist incidents or in clashes involving US-led multinational forces.
Baghdad has proved most bloody with 942 deaths. Some 674 died in Anbar province, home to Falluja and Ramadi, and then Najaf with 528, according to a neatly maintained file in the operations room.
So the murders are by no means confined to Anbar province – but are mainly in the capital. You can see why in this heart-wrenching story from the NYT today. I don’t have data on the rate of these murders or killings or accidents. But extrapolate the death rate to a country as big as the U.S. and you’ll get 35,000 civilian deaths in five months or so: two 9/11s a month. Does anyone think that that level of fear, anarchy and insecurity is conducive to a transition to democracy? I should reiterate. Some would use these stats to denigrate the war effort as a whole. That is not my point. My point is to offer some kind of criticism to help make this liberation work. I never believed it would be easy. But it seems to me that the lack of security in that poor country is making our goals all but impossible. How do we beef up that security? That’s the question.
HANSON ON IRAQ: VDH’s latest essay is a really good one; and I couldn’t be more in agreement about the necessity of hanging in there and turning Iraq around. But even VDH concedes that there is “increasing chaos in the country,” and says:
It is true that parts of Iraq are unsafe and that terrorists are flowing into the country; but there is no doubt that the removal of Saddam Hussein is bringing matters to a head. Islamic fascists are now fighting openly and losing battles, and are increasingly desperate as they realize the democratization process slowly grinds ahead leaving them and what they have to offer by the wayside. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and others must send aid to the terrorists and stealthy warriors into Iraq, for the battle is not just for Baghdad but for their futures as well. The world’s attention is turning to Syria’s occupation of Lebanon and Iran’s nukes, a new scrutiny predicated on American initiatives and persistence, and easily evaporated by a withdrawal from Iraq. So by taking the fight to the heart of darkness in Saddam’s realm, we have opened the climactic phase of the war, and thereupon can either win or lose far more than Iraq.
Sure. But do we have the means to accomplish what we have engaged upon? Do we have enough troops? Have we botched the critical political element? Why do polls show overwhelming hostility to American forces among Iraqis? Isn’t Bush ignoring Iran? Why have we not sealed the borders? Why have we been unable to disburse even a tiny fraction of the money apportioned to reconstruction? These are the critical questions; and it’s telling that Hanson doesn’t address them. Neither does the president. My guess is that we are soon going to have to make a huge new investment of manpower and money to wrench Iraq away from a looming civil war or chaos. We will have to do this because we didn’t do it a year and a half ago. It angers me that it has taken this administration over a year to find that out.
The Dish 