Well, I did not mean to start a debate about the merits of the invasion, although on reflection I suppose it was inevitable. My post was meant to be about the merit of the DIS newsletter.
Whether you support the war or not, I think people should be aware of the full effects of our nation's actions. Since people seem to think it's not out of place, I'll post a link to a comprehensive study of civilian casualties in Iraq, based upon reports in media outlets. Yes, a couple of these outlets are Arab-based, but the majority are not. If your world-view is such that you don't believe anyone outside the United States could have a valid viewpoint, you can easily ignore the reports from those outlets, since the database carefully documents its sources. Although I would assert that if you think Arab sources are necessarily incredible because of their direct involvement, logic would dictate that you discount American sources, as well.
I do disagree with the project's decision to include civilians killed by insurgents. I understand why they do it- the thinking being that those people would not have died had we not invaded. But I am more interested in what we Americans have done directly. Again, it is a simple matter to discount those deaths (if you feel them inappropriately included), since all reports describe the nature of the incident. In any event, the total of civilians killed by insurgents compared to those killed by military action, you can see, is very small.
The Associated Press also did a study of civilan casualties, but focused only on those reported in Baghdad hospitals. The total still was in the thousands.
Finally I will humbly admit that the "ratio" I cited in my post was meant more as rhetorical flourish than statement of statistical fact. Mea culpa. I stand by the essence of it, however, based upon my very wide reading of news reports concerning the killing and maiming of children, especially by the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs. If you only accept US news sources as believable, you will have seen very little discussion of this issue. I'll give a couple links to stories about this problem, as well. If you do a search for "cluster bombs iraq" you'll find a wide variety of reports.
Of course, none of this even considers the deaths among military personnel. Totals are impossible to determine, but estimates I've seen are of 20,000 Iraqi soldiers killed. Make of that what you will- I personally do not feel that the deaths are irrelevant simply because they are soldiers. As we in the States know all too well, soldiers are also parents, children, and spouses.
Finally, a word about "supporting the troops." It has become a politically charged word. I believe supporting the troops means wanting them to come home safely to their families. I think the merit of their mission is irrelevant to supporting them- you don't have to think what they are doing is worthwhile to support them. The troops have no choice in the matter. They are doing their duty, and we owe them a great debt for that. The merit of their mission is something we should take up with the people who made the decision to send them there.
Extent of civilian casualties:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Impact of cluster bombs on children:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ny-woclus0415.story
The extent of the cluster bomb problem:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,968181,00.html
I am still uncomfortable posting these links on a Disney-themed board. If the webmasters think it's inappropriate, I apologize.
