According this source the civilian death toll in Iraq has topped 10,000. There is much to be debated I’m sure, but it seems hard for me for the deaths in 9/11 to approach even a deflated figure.
So… who has a higher civilian body count GWB or OBL? What deaths can squarely be put on the shoulders of either?
Also, is this a relevant question to ask? Why or why not?
I ought to make clear that in general I’m a Bush-hater on an “almost-Reederlike” level.
You can’t really blame Bush for civilian deaths in Iraq in the same way you can blame bin Laden. Bin Laden authorized the 9/11 attacks expressly to kill Americans; whatever you may feel about Bush, I consider it beyond credible to suggest that he intended to kill Iraqi civilians.
Mayhaps not, but I’m certain he knew there would be many of them if he went ahead with this “damn stupid fool war” ™.
So on one hand he didn’t actually say “Let’s kill some iraqui civilians”, but he didn’t seem to care that there would be AND that there was no reason to invade in the first place 
Oh yeah, let’s not forget Afghanistan
About 3800 dead by that report.
Actually, I would consider it beyond credible to say that Bush didn’t realize civilians would be killed in a war. He knew it would happen one way or the other but decided to go to war anyway.
You can’t deny that Bush is responsible for those deaths. Just like the rest of us grown adults, GWB’s responsible for every outcome, (intended and otherwise), of every decision he makes.
All that you can do is decide that he was justified in making the decisions that he made.
Ahh, but you also have to take a look at how many citizens have been saved in both countries due to Bush’s actions.
How many thousands were in Saddam’s mass graves and how many more were being killed by his death squads on a daily basis.
Same question holds true in Afghanistan. How many were saved from the terror of the Taliban. How many women have been saved strictly because they can now seek medical attention. How many kids are being saved because they are once again receiving an education.
Not precisely the same way, that’s true, as civilians were not the primary targets, but according to this article the Administration (specifically Donald Rumsfeld) was required to approve any air strike that risked killing 30 or more Iraqi civilians:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/21/1058639735950.html
All fifty strikes proposed were approved by Rumsfeld.
Since none were rejected, it is therefore difficult to say at what point the projected casualty count might have resulted in disapproval of a particular strike.
Perhaps.
From the strict standpoint of the OP it’s not necessary to speculate on how many lives might have been saved. But if you can make a case as to why its relevant, then back yourself up with some cites and numbers, then I’m listening.
I don’t understand how this is an issue when the point of weapons R&D hasn’t been to build a bigger bomb, but one that is more precise and prone to less collateral damage.
Also, is your figure incorporating civilians that “Bush Killed” that actually Iraqi’s own resistance fighters have killed?
In wars, civilians die…thats just a fact of life. Its especially true when the person you are going to war with choose to hide military assets in civilian areas. Even when they don’t deliberately put military bases and assets in civilian areas, there will still undoubtedly be civilian casualties, no matter how precise your weapons or how good your intentions. The US does its best to hold down such casualties, but we aren’t god.
So, Bush definitely knew there WOULD be civilian casualties as his military planners would have briefed him in. Therefore, what you have to decide (and what he had to decide) is was the proposed war (in Iraq and Afghanistan) worth those casualties? I think we’ve hashed that out many times and everyone has a different answer to this I’m sure. For whatever its worth, Afghanistan was necessary and worth those civilian and military casualties IMO. Iraq was not worth it, even if in the long run less people die than would have under Saddam (which is probable IMO). The US had no over riding reason to go into Iraq at the time and in the way we did, so those casualties were unnecessary, and the mere fact that PERHAPS more folks would have died in the long run than died in the short is no consolation.
But there is a big difference between deliberately targetting civilians out of the blue as was done in coordinated attacks on 9/11 and civilian casualties suffered during a war when ever effort was made to minimize said casualties. Probably doesn’t make much difference to those who were killed, but from a ‘moral’ perspective there is a difference IMO.
-XT
Oh I don’t know, because maybe bombs don’t drop on their own.
While it’s impossible to provide a “saved life” listing. You can get an idea of what was going on by the numbers buried in mass graves.
Iraq’s Mass Graves Could Hold 300,000 victims
Also, the civilian casualty numbers being provided by iraqbodycount.net are vastly different than the estimates being provided here: http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000474.php
Yes, but you have to note that this site also says:
I believe that other policies like the no-fly zone were pretty effectively preventing Saddam from continuing to perpetrate such atrocities on the Kurds. So, the question is how many people was Saddam continuing to kill under the conditions that existed in the years immediately prior to the current Iraq war. Are there any good numbers on that?
Well, not so vastly different. The OP’s link lists civilian casualties at 8,235 to 10,079 whereas your link estimates 3200 to 4300 but notes that this includes only the period from March 19, 2003 to May 1, 2003 (when Bush declared an end to the “major combat operations”. The OP’s site notes that of their high end estimate of 10,079, a maximum of 7356 were before May 1st…which means they are estimating another ~2700 occurred after May 1st.
I think XT got it right. As wars go, the loss of life in this one has been relatively small. If your guage of a war’s justifiability is that no civilians die, then you cannot justify a war, even a defensive one.
Imagine the bad old Cold War days, if one side had decide to actually take over the other. One might argue that the side that was attacked should surrender, since there would be enourmous lives lost if a war ensued. Millions and Millions of lives lost. By surrendering, those lives would be saved.
Only the Iraqis themselves can answer the question of whether it was worth it. Data so far seems to indicate they do, by at least a small majority. Only the folks in the US can say if the US lives lost were worth it.
If the war itself is unjustified as the invasion of Iraq was, then all ensuing casualities, miltary and civilian on both sides are unjustified.
I’ve seen no evidence that a single life was “saved” either in Iraq or Afghanistan. What nonsenese. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” We’ve heard that before. :rolleyes:
Here we go again…
You state that the war was unjustified as if that were a fact. That simply isn’t true. Unless you are a complete pacifist, there is a always going to be a trip point that justifies the invasion of another country. And that trip point is not something that everyone is going to agree on as if it were discussing the distance from the earth to the moon.
Well this thread isn’t about assigning a moral relevance to their deaths but about responsibility. One could argue, metaphorically speaking, that it was manslaughter rather than 1st degree murder, but that’s besides the point in this instance. A body count is a body count. Good intentions paving the way to hell and all that.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that some of the justifications were false or misleading.
Yesterday I saw The Fog of War . McNamara gives an account of his years as Secretary of Defense and his role in WWII. It is a very honest and revealing look at how these decisions about war are made. At one point he asks the question; “How much evil must we do in order to create good”. He is obviously disturbed by many of the decisions he made. But he makes the point that his perspective has benefit of hindsight. I think the war in Iraq will prove to be avoidable and that decisions were made based on false evidence, and some evidence created to push a predetermined conclusion.
Intention has to be part of the body count issue. The scarey part is that I think both Bush and OBL believe they are right and justified in their actions.