Every time we read or hear from national media about another mass slaughter of civilians in Iraq, the news are almost always presented as another proof that insurgency remains strong and possibly getting even stronger. Every time, practically without exception, we are told that the slaughter is commited by insurgents and is another proof that resistance against US occupation is as determined as ever.
However, just recently a report was issued and well received by all opponents of US invasion in Iraq.
This report states that insurgency actions account for only 9% of all the killings of civilian population, while “predominantly criminal killings” account for 36%. Which means that for every life taken by insurgents, criminals kill four people. Thus out of control criminals are much bigger problem for Iraq pacification then insurgency is.
Yet we never hear on the news that “unabating criminal violence remains as deadly as ever in Iraq”. It’s all insurgency, all the time. Only when the time comes to count the corpses, suddenly insurgency becomes not responsible for 3/4 of all the killings.
So, where is the truth?
If IBC is right, then why would media describe all violence against civilians in Iraq as actions of insurgency?
If media is right, why IBC would present insurgency as much smaller actor in Iraq violence?
And “US led forces alone” account for 37.3% of all the killings of civilians; thus US led forces are a much bigger problem for Iraq pacification the either the insurgency or criminals.
The media simply reports on the insurgency attacks because 1) they tend to be spectacular (large bombings), 2) they tend to attack US troops. A murder here, a murder there by criminals doesn’t get national press attention for the same reason someone getting shot in SE DC doesn’t get national press attention.
I knew this study was on-going but dint realize that a report had been completed. Those are big numbers.
Perhaps the media get the bulk of their information from faulty or prejudiced sources, such as the US military or State Department.
Perhaps the IBC authors are have a hidden agenda, such as supporting the terrorists or another anti-American faction.
My own $.02 is that the IBC is prolly fairly accurate, and does not have an agenda other than to attempt to accurately assess an aspect of this conflict that heretofor was ignored because of the very real difficulties involved in getting an accurate count. Based on the concept of self-interest, I doubt that the US military or the current administration has made much of an effort to get any accurate numbers about this situation, as it makes more sense from a continuing PR perspective to spin everything they can as “insurgent related”, thus (seemingly) justifying their (continued) presence in Iraq.
Yeah but 4 people getting shot every day in SE DC prolly would get some press. But we don’t hear about this situation in Iraq, even as tangentially related to the effort to stabilize the country. Why not?
How are they drawing the line for criminal killings? Every murder by insurgents is criminal, isn’t it? Roadside bombs and assassinations of public officials can’t be legal.
Do we get nightly summaries of the total murders from the combined locales of Atlanta, D.C., Detroit, NYC, L.A., Chicago, East St. Louis, etc.? Why would we get similar reports from Iraq?
I could very well be wrong about this, but I remember reading once that a sergeant explained to one of his troops that in war, you don’t murder the enemy, you kill him.
Nope, not that I know of anyway. But we do hear annually, from the FBI, about various crime statistics.
It is at least, as I mentioned, tangentially related to our time there. It has some bearing on the situation with regard to our being able to effect an exit and return control to the Iraqi people. Why is it that we don’t ever hear about it, then?
My understanding, from the methodology published on the IBC website, is that their numbers are largely drawn from credible public news services, online ones. So I don’t think it’s accurate to say “the media” is not reporting things, only that there is a slant to the main news reports, and it takes dedicated sifting through a whole lot of electronic "page 17"s to uncover real numbers.
So the real question is, why the slant? Damn that librul meedyuh!
On the other hand, when the military itself reports on what’s what in Iraq, every person they’ve killed in Iraq is an insurgent. All these battles, fights, skirmishes, actions, etc., they only ever kill insurgents. That’s some good shootin’!
Might be worth your time reading about their methodology prior to (presumably) blaming their figures on a “biased agenda.”
Unlike yours of course.
Oh, and by the bye, any idea of whose legally* responsible for security in today’s Iraq?
*I know, I know, laughable, ain’t it. The whole notion of “legality” I mean. 'cept I’m not much prone to laughing when so many unwarranted deaths are involved.
According to IBC report, “a murder here, a murder there by criminals” in Iraq amount to FOUR times the number of civilians killed by insurgents. Strawman this.
The way I see it, if criminality in Iraq is so out of control, there is need for organized insurgency. All you need to oppose US presence is stand ready to make a money transfer: pretty soon some criminal will undertake any hit you want.
OTOH, if organized insurgency is indeed a potent force in Iraq, then IBC is whitewashing the situation.
Btw, murder rate by “criminals” in Iraq is around 17 per 100,000. Louisiana, the worst in US, had 13 murders per 100,000 in 2003.
I presume the main premise of the OP is that the mass media are deliberately lying to us about the nature of deaths by violence in Iraq. I have no idea why the editors of various media outlets may wish to do such a thing and the OP doesn’t give a reason either, but whatever.
I don’t think anyone could plausibly argue that the current level of criminality in Iraq is entirely unrelated to the effects of the US invasion, particularly the dismantling of what passed for a police force and justice system under the former regime. If such is the case, I don’t see what the significance of this issue is. The dead are still dead, and in both cases, many of them would likely not be so if the invasion had not taken place.
As for why the “media describe all violence against civilians in Iraq as actions of insurgency”, well, first of all they don’t; the OP himself links to a media report demonstrating this assertion as false, for cryin’ out loud. Secondly, the OP answers his own question in the first sentence of his post:
Mass slaughter is more likely to be reported in the international press than individual slaughter. I have to doubt that any significant number of incidents of “mass slaughter” in Iraq is not in fact related to the insurgency. The OP is welcome to demonstrate that many of these mass killings are not related to the insurgency if he wishes; I’ll listen.
If I may speculate on my own premise, it seems to be a contradiction between two sources of information, with an attempt to resolve it.
As far as cites for media overwhelming concentration on insurgency, I tried to Google for ‘Iraq insurgency strong’ and got a whole lot of pertinent headlines, directly to the subject. Attempt to Google for ‘Iraq criminals strong’ ended in great number of hits, most obscure and many related to - surprise! - Rumsfield and Cheney. Which very well may be how many people view the situation, however such a view, with emphasis on insurgency versus US ‘stand-off’ completely ignores the reality of widespread deadly criminality in Iraq, as demonstrated by IBC report.
If such headlines as for example “Criminal violence in Iraq kill more people today” would be a regular feature in the news, then I would never see a contradiction between media and IBC data.
Also, I do not suggest any media motives, but only wonder what they might be.
I think the problem here might be the methodology on how they determine what are “criminals”. Basically they have all other categories broken down, and they are placing all “others”, (deaths of unknown origin) onto the “criminal” category.
So you have something that looks like this:
Military
Those who target military
Those who target civilians en masse (Mosques, police, cafés, etc…)
Criminals
So if they don’t fall into the top three, the fall into the bottom. Which I take to mean that if a guy gets killed on the corner, and he’s not military, he not government, and he’s not obviously killed by a car bomb, or something of that ilk, then it “criminal”.
I have no problem with this method at all, but it does explain why the media doesn’t report it. They Who, what, where, why, isn’t well defined.
However, that said, the criminal activity after the initial invasion was widely reported. Mostly because riots are far more compelling, than random murder.
Oh, and one more thing, The third group (Those who target civilians en masse (Mosques, police, cafés, etc…)) is not counted in the “insurgency” group, however, the American media does include them in this group, and they accounted for 11% in March. While this number is trending upward the number of deaths due to “criminals” remains steady.
74% of the deaths caused by U.S. led forces occured between March 20, 2003 and May21, 2003. Since that time, U.S. led forces appear to be a trivial cause of Iraqi civilian deaths. In January 2005 for instance 25 Iraqi civilian deaths were linked to U.S. forces and 848 to “anti-occupation forces, unknown agents and crime.” There were spikes in deaths caused by U.S. forces in April and November of 2004.
The full report is linked in the article the OP linked to. It’s a PDF, and large.
