Iraq - Still, In Fact, Going On

[sadmanbarty]

Yeah, the full list with summaries is here: https://www.globalpolicy.org/invasion-and-war/iraqi-public-opinion-and-polls.html

Its not actually all that difficult to find out what Iraqi's think. ORB has been conducting detailed polls every year for at least the last decade. An interesting excerpt from their latest poll reveals that 85% of Iraqis think that 'ISIL is foreign American made'.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/iraqdata.pdf

They dont seem to have an archive on their site. I have a few of them downloaded somewhere.

I meant difficult in terms of googling it; all the results are about US and UK public opinion rather than Iraqi's.

Re. "foreign made". Robert Fisk says that there are numerous Sunni's fighting in Assad's army. When he asked them why they were fighting, they claimed to be fighting a foreign invasion from the Gulf monarchies, rather than a civil war, revolution, sectarian conflict, etc.

 

[sadmanbarty]

2003-2016

There's a consensus that violent deaths following the invasion are between 100,000- 200, 000.

1979-1991

Conservative estimates of violent deaths from Sadam’s wars and repression begin at 500,000.

1991-2003

There was a consensus that sanctions resulted in around 500,000 deaths. However these were based on results coming from the Iraqi government, so they are not reliable. Studies since suggest that actually deaths as a result of the sanctions were minimal.

(The first two don't factor in deaths from poor infrastructure, etc. that result from wars, government policies, etc.)

 

[droid]

2003-2016

There's a consensus that violent deaths following the invasion are between 100,000- 200, 000.

No there is not. The only 'official' figure in that range are the fatally flawed IBC numbers. A Passive information-gathering exercise which simply logs deaths in the Western press.

If you are using their figures, all you can say is that there is a consensus that there was no less than 200,000 violent deaths.

1979-1991

Conservative estimates of violent deaths from Sadam’s wars and repression begin at 500,000.

'Saddam's wars' Do you mean the 'Iran-Iraq' conflict and Kuwait?

1991-2003

There was a consensus that sanctions resulted in around 500,000 deaths. However these were based on results coming from the Iraqi government, so they are not reliable. Studies since suggest that actually deaths as a result of the sanctions were minimal.

(The first two don't factor in deaths from poor infrastructure, etc. that result from wars, government policies, etc.)

Jesus, no, the 99 UNICEF report was not based solely on 'results coming from the Iraqi government'.

There was never a consensus about '500,000 deaths'. There was consensus about '500,000 excess deaths in the under 5's'.

I have seen conflicting studies since then, I agree that the 500,000 figure seems exaggerated for various reasons, but I dont think deaths were 'minimal' either.

 

[sadmanbarty]

Sorry, with the first one. I meant to say that body counts (rather than surveys) yielded a consensus in that figure.

I was combining the 200,000 from HRW's conservative estimate for represion and the conservative 300,00 from the Iran-Iraq war.

Far enough with the last point. The minimal comes from a UN study in 2010.

 

[droid]

Sorry, with the first one. I meant to say that body counts (rather than surveys) yielded a consensus in that figure.

No problem. There was the Lancet report & the ORB report, both of which were claimed to be problematic. Have you looked at the IPPNW report I mentioned upthread?

The purpose of this investigation is to provide as realistic an estimate as possible of the total body count in the three main war zones Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan during 12 years of ‘war on terrorism’. An extensive review has been made of
the major studies and data published on the numbers of victims in these countries.
This paper draws on additional information such as reports and statistics on
military offensives and examines their completeness and plausibility. It applies
interpolation to calculate the figures for those periods for which no information is
available. Even now, 13 years after this war began, there has still been no equivalent
study.

This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly,
killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan,
i.e. a total of around 1.3 million. Not included in this figure are further war
zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of
which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the
media and major NGOs. And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number
of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million,
whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.

http://www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Frieden/Body_Count_first_international_edition_2015_final.pdf

I was combining the 200,000 from HRW's conservative estimate for represion and the conservative 300,00 from the Iran-Iraq war.

Oh, I would say that's far too conservative, but I would also be extremely hesitant to place the blame for all casualties in the Iran-iraq conflict on Saddam.

Far enough with the last point. The minimal comes from a UN study in 2010.

Interesting point on this both the US state department and Blair both accepted the 500,000 figure, Blair going so far as to use it as a rationale for war. So regardless of the true number, those implementing the sanctions believed they were causing a huge amount of deaths.

 

[droid]

But you seem to be asking a philosophical question here, effectively: Is there a universe in which intervention in Iraq would have been effective and morally correct?

The question I guess Im asking is: How can anyone continue to support the decision to intervene when, in this reality, it has been proven to have been an utter disaster?

 

[sadmanbarty]

I always enjoy our debates Droid, I’m glad we keep it civil.

It’s getting close to the weekend and I’m not sure if I’ll be up for all this next week, so these are my closing thoughts (until next time).

Like you suggest, lets narrow things down to how the war actually played out, rather than a hypothetical Iraq war.

My paradigm for assessing the right thing to do is essentially trying to limit excess deaths. So international law, people’s motivations, etc. aren’t of the utmost relevance to me.

I’m not trying to convince you that the Iraq war was the right thing to happen. I’m merely trying to suggest that someone doesn’t have to be mentally ill, stupid, misguided or immoral to believe the Iraq war as it actually played out was for the best.

I’d point to the opinion polls before the civil war in which the plurality of Iraqis believed the war was for the best. Were they mad, stupid, misguided or immoral? After the civil war, the population was almost evenly split on the issue; were 49% of Iraqi’s mad, stupid, misguided or immoral? Even during the civil war the vast plurality preferred the new system to the old one. (I’d be interested in seeing polls from later on the subject. The fact that public opinion began to shift after the civil war could suggest that the plurality of people would again be in favor of the invasion, once enough time had passed after the sectarian bloodletting. I wonder how the current civil war would effect Iraqi opinion of the invasion; presumably it’s for the worse).

The numbers of dead during each iteration of post-1979 Iraq (Pre-sanctions, sanctions and post- Invasion) aren’t clearly discernable and thus don’t present a clear, quantifiable answer to whether the war was the right thing to do.

Counterfactuals are inherent in any statement on this issue. Being against the invasion relies on the counterfactual that life would be better in Iraq if the invasion hadn’t happened. As such they have to come into these discussions. The counterfactual of how the Arab spring would have affected Baathist Iraq in 2011 confuses the issue. Would a civil war ensue and would it yield more death than the two civil wars Iraq’s suffered since 2003? In which case is Iraq is better off with the invasion? You could argue that there has been a similar amount of excess deaths in Syria since 2011 then there has been in Iraq since 2003 (possibly even more). Would Baathist Iraq be similar to, better or worse off than Baathist Syria?

 

[droid]

My paradigm for assessing the right thing to do is essentially trying to limit excess deaths. So international law, people’s motivations, etc. aren’t of the utmost relevance to me...

...The numbers of dead during each iteration of post-1979 Iraq (Pre-sanctions, sanctions and post- Invasion) aren’t clearly discernable and thus don’t present a clear, quantifiable answer to whether the war was the right thing to do.

I don't accept this assertion. The IPPNW report seems authoritative and dovetails with previous reports and is not contradicted by IBC's model.

The number of refugees is AFAIK relatively uncontested. So you have about 5% of the population dead and 15% displaced as a result of the war.

Would a civil war ensue and would it yield more death than the two civil wars Iraq’s suffered since 2003? In which case is Iraq is better off with the invasion? You could argue that there has been a similar amount of excess deaths in Syria since 2011 then there has been in Iraq since 2003 (possibly even more). Would Baathist Iraq be similar to, better or worse off than Baathist Syria?

This is the problem with counterfactuals - you cannot set a proximate limit on consequences.

Would the Arab Spring have happened without the war? If it had happened, would the West have been better placed to intervene (diplomatically or otherwise) in Egypt, Libya or Syria? Without a decade long military quagmire could other approaches have been adopted? Did Iraq and the new humanitarianism deal the final blow to the authority & relevance of the UN? Would the result of diplomatic entrenchment & a decade of soft power resulted in a more stable region? We know that Iraq sparked a huge increase in organised terror - would the region be better off without ISIS & Al Qaeda in Iraq?...

If Nasser had lived, could he have formed an effective counterbalance to Ba'athism? Did the Eisenhower doctrine prevent any hope of independent democratic development in the region? If the French had held to the Tripartite Agreement would the Czech-Egypt arms deal have happened? What if Sykes had choked on a chicken bone?

I’d point to the opinion polls before the civil war in which the plurality of Iraqis believed the war was for the best. Were they mad, stupid, misguided or immoral? After the civil war, the population was almost evenly split on the issue; were 49% of Iraqi’s mad, stupid, misguided or immoral? Even during the civil war the vast plurality preferred the new system to the old one. (I’d be interested in seeing polls from later on the subject. The fact that public opinion began to shift after the civil war could suggest that the plurality of people would again be in favor of the invasion, once enough time had passed after the sectarian bloodletting. I wonder how the current civil war would affect Iraqi opinion of the invasion; presumably it’s for the worse).

I haven't looked in detail with the polls in years, but I also recall several results pointing to a significant majority of Iraqis claiming that life was worse for them since the invasion wrt basic necessities, security & stability. Presumably, also, the same people who criticised the Lancet poll would have serious issues with the methodology and neutrality of NBC & the BBC.

 

[droid]

I always enjoy our debates Droid, I’m glad we keep it civil.

Of course! When have I ever been UNcivil?

 

[sadmanbarty]

This is the problem with counterfactuals - you cannot set a proximate limit on consequences.

This equally applies to your counterfactual that Iraq would have been better off without the war.

 

[droid]

My paradigm for assessing the right thing to do is essentially trying to limit excess deaths. So international law, people’s motivations, etc. aren’t of the utmost relevance to me.

This is just a general point wrt to intervention.

If your stated aim is to somehow improve the lives of a population through war and military intervention, the burden of proof is high. it is not enough to hope that things may be better afterwards, you must, at a minimum be sure that your actions will not make things worse - this is what the 'Last Resort' & 'Proportionality' criterion of Just war theory and International Law are concerned with.

As a corollary, this is also why aggression is seen as the supreme war crime, because war in of itself has unpredictable and deleterious consequences:

"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common

 

[sadmanbarty]

So Droid, after all of the back and forth and even though you don’t think that the war was the right thing to do, would you agree with the following:

Someone doesn’t have to be psychopathic, have Credulous Personality Disorder, be misguided, naïve, historically ignorant, stupid, etc. to believe that the Iraq war was for the best?

Would you agree that an intelligent, mentally sane, moral person with access to the abundance of information on the subject, may in fact come to the conclusion that the war was the right thing to do?

 

[droid]

This equally applies to your counterfactual that Iraq would have been better off without the war.

I guess its possible that killing or displacing 20% of the population, devastating civilian infrastructure, fermenting civil war, weakening international law, destroying the possibility of future diplomacy and sparking a wave of terror that destabilised an entire region could be seen as a net positive?

Its a refreshing point of view. Did the Blitz help Britain? Would the Bosnians have been worse off without Srebrenica? Will Ukrainians benefit from Russia's invasion in the long run?

 

[droid]

Someone doesn’t have to be psychopathic, have Credulous Personality Disorder, be misguided, naïve, historically ignorant, stupid, etc. to believe that the Iraq war was for the best?

Would you agree that an intelligent, mentally sane, moral person with access to the abundance of information on the subject, may in fact come to the conclusion that the war was the right thing to do?

No.

Do you believe the war was the right thing to do?

 

[sadmanbarty]

No.

I presume that doesn't apply to the Iraqis polled who agreed with the war.

Do you believe the war was the right thing to do?

I'm undecided.

At some point I'll go through the death statistics of the 3 different stages in post-79 Iraq, which hopefully may clarify things.

Even so, there is the looming counterfactual of what arab spring/winter Baathist Iraq would look like.

 

[droid]

I presume that doesn't apply to the Iraqis polled who agreed with the war.

How many of the million corpses were polled?

 

[vimothy]

Michael White in The Guardian today: http://www.theguardian.com/world/bl...the-cost-of-intervention-and-non-intervention

 

[sufi]

total relativist claptrap, really disgusting.

It's a classic scene of commentators isolated in their bubbles, maintaining distance from atrocities on the ground by looking at enormous aggregated numbers and applying gross over-simplifications, which lets them off the hook from considering:

• gigantic refugee flows (as mentioned by droid)
• militarisation of entire societies (including ours)
• destruction of cultural and civil heritages and institutions
• that the iraq invasion created the arab spring and the syria conflict
• literally millions of personal tragedies that should never have happened and have not impinged on the news cycle

It shows how several generations after the threat of war has been removed from western consciousness (and consciences), we are now so ignorant that we seem to feel that we can somehow justify these atrocities using some sort of scientific numbers game...

or am i missing some enormous actual benefit, to anyone, of all this, that can possibly balance the above?

 

[vimothy]

Really? Even though I am opposed to intervention in Syria, I think there is a valid point there: the outcome of "non-intervention" might be bad too.

 

[sufi]

oh come on, that's nonsense, the war in Syria was fuelled by the violence and enormous flows of weaponry in Iraq. Intervention/non-intervention is a fake question.