Iraqi Damage Assessments Are DEVASTATING

[kpete]

The damage assessments out of Iraq and Afghanistan are devastating. So is a military officer's recent analysis of the way the Administration's handled one of the most critical strategic elements of the so-called "War on Terror": the battle to persuade the Iraqi and Afghan people that their future lies in building an enlightened, non-fundamentalist society.

These developments underscore the failure of the US to promote the democratic and sectarian values we were supposedly fighting to instill there. Poor decisions by the civilian leadership in Washington have put our military into wars it can't win - either on the battlefield, or in local hearts and minds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/communication-breakdown-_b_26575.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. That's a lot of mass graves

Has Bush set a record yet?

[liberal N proud]

22. Surely he has topped Saddam

[dogday]

2. Where is Fallusia on this map?

Guess there is nothing left of it?

[NNN0LHI]

14. Now the USA has Camp Fallujah where Fallujah used to be n/t

[TahitiNut]

15. Fallujah is in Anbar province (map notes provincial tolls)

:shrug:

[wordpix2]

3. I really don't understand why the US doesn't insist on regime change here

at home.

This maladministration is destroying our country as well as others. :puke:

[LibDemAlways]

4. Since when do you persuade

a nation to build an "enlightened" "democratic" society by unlawfully invading it with "shock and awe," destroying its infrastructure, and killing its citizens? Sounds to me like acts of a rogue, terrorist state, surely not one leading by peaceful, "enlightened" example. I would suggest that the US has simply reaped what it has sewn.

[gratuitous]

6. This does seem bone simple, doesn't it?

If you turned what the U.S. has done to Iraq around, and imagine it done to us, is there anyone anywhere who would think that we were better off? Of course not. Yet, the administration and its lapdogs in the media and sycophants at the think tanks peddle the malarkey that the nation and people of Iraq are so much better off than they were under Saddam Hussein. By what measure? The sole measure that Saddam is no longer in power. By any other measure? Euh, not so much.

[beltanefauve]

40. You reminded me

of a Juan Cole blog entry entitled, "If America were Iraq, What Would it be Like?", written on 9/22/2004
http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juanricole_archive.html

some exerpts:

"What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?" (snip)

"What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?"

Just a picture of what it would be like had Iraq done to our country what the Neocons have done to theirs.

[krkaufman]

25. Although, through the reasoning of negative proofs ...

... this Administration *has* shown that a diplomatic, enlightened, internationlist approach is the best way to go: just look at the results of the militaristic, preemptive, go-it-alone/unilateralist route.

[nradisic]

5. War Criminals!

My next license plate will be made by Bush & Cheney. They belong in jail....just like Milosevic and Saddam!

[Bjorn Against]

7. But didn't you hear things are going well over in Iraq...

Why bother your mind with facts when the fiction is so much more comforting?

[Loge23]

8. While we're figuring out who to blame...

I particularly found the ending of this tragic account intersting:
"Despite Sen. Clinton's new-found animosity toward Donald Rumsfeld, these problems reflect decisions made or supported by the entire GOP leadership."

The fact is, this mess was created - in part - by anyone from both sides of the aisle that supported this debacle from the start.

Regardless of affilation or electability, all of us must hold accountable anyone who has a hand in this mess.

[krkaufman]

26. Sure, but is inarguable that the Republicans are almost entirely ....

... to blame, given that they control all branches of the government.

There *are* differences in the political parties, and this Republican Party is one of the most cynical, selfish and corrupt in American history.

[Loge23]

44. Agreed (eom)

[NNadir]

9. This is a part of the picture seldom discussed.

In our media the issue is always framed in terms of American soldiers kill.

Human beings are human beings, in and out of the military, foreign or domestic.

[malaise]

10. One more WTF moment

although we already know these facts.

[Gregorian]

11. And then there's DU. It's going to be in Iraq for 4 BILLION years.

And I don't see any mention of the half a million dead children from sanctions.


This has been a thirty year war against Iraq. And I watched a documentary last night, on Linktv, where a medical doctor who was put in Abu Graihb with his son for looking like a terrorist, said that when they were in the prison, US guard shot from at least five different positions on them while they were in tents in the prison yard. With live ammunition. Killing some.


Our invasion is testament to the ignorance of our society. We don't know, and we don't give a damn. The way we have treated another group of humans is no different than what Hitler did. Not at all.

[JohnyCanuck]

23. Depleted Uranium is especially dangerours when inhaled.

From "The Health Effects of Depleted Uranium in Iraq" by Thomas Fasy" MD PhD:

Soil particles contain uranium at very low concentrations, typically less than 5 parts per million; the vast majority of these soil particles, however, are too large to be inhaled deep into the lungs. In contrast, the dust particles derived from depleted uranium weapons contain very high concentrations of uranium, typically more than 500.000 parts per million; moreover, most of the D.U. dust particles are sufficiently small to be inhaled deep into the lungs. Thus, compared to the uranium naturally present in the environment, D.U. dust contains uranium in a form that is vastly more bio-available and more readily internalized. (my emphasis /jc)

Uranyl ions bind to DNA; they bind in the minor groove of DNA. While bound to DNA, uranyl ions are chemically reactive and can give rise to free radicals which may damage DNA. Chemically mediated DNA damage of this type may contribute to the ability of uranium to induce cancers.

I would now like to present some epidemiologic data from the Basra governate in the south of Iraq. In February 1991, more than 300 tons (possibly much more than 300 tons) of D.U. weapons were used in South of Iraq. After 5-6 year latent periods, increases in childhood cancers and birth defects were documented in the Basra governate. The most recent data indicate a four fold increase in pediatric malignancies and a seven fold increase in congenital malformations compared to 1990, the year preceeding the war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4124449

[krkaufman]

27. Also, this analysis is not like the Lancet study

This report doesn't address the change in the death rate since the invasion, as in the Lancet study. I don't know where the above numbers come from, but the Lancet study attempted to compare the death rate in Iraq before and after the invasion -- in order to analyze the overall effects of the war on the health of the nation, rather than only tabulating the "kills" directly associated with military action.

The numbers in the above report surely don't address the increase in deaths due to the lack of clean water, electricity, health care, etc.

Iraq is in a tailspin, and the US is to blame. Well done, Republicans.

[krkaufman]

29. "no different than what Hitler did"

Well, in case no one else opts to pipe-in, I'll offer that we certainly haven't setup ovens and concentration camps throughout the region. We're definitely a deranged society, it appears, and our behavior in Iraq seems to have occasionally morphed into that of the regime we derided, but the "no different than Hitler" statement is taking things a bit far.

I'd have a harder time drawing a differentiation between the peoples of 1940s Germany and our own populace. Both appear to have allowed atrocities -- of differing degrees -- to be carried-out in their name.

I *will* say that Bush's invading Iraq was just as ignorant as Hitler's invading Russia.

[Gregorian]

36. It IS a bit far. I admit that.

I have pushed the boundary of truth. But then, I was speaking from the perspective of a victim. I think the results are the same. Whether ovens or bullets. You are correct that the comparison is not valid. But I believe we need to start making more serious comparisons. The Turks didn't set up ovens either, but they killed millions of Armenians. One method was to simply put them on trains, and ship them. To their death. They died in those cars. I'm probably wasting keystrokes, since we are all pretty much in agreement here. But there is a universal reality that is being ignored. People's lives. In some ways, Iraq has been worse than Auschwitz. For some, it has lasted much much longer. So at some point, what has happened to Iraq is worse than what Hitler did. And in reality, the numbers aren't what we are counting. Each one is a life. Each one is you. Me. Your kid. Your mother. Not four. Not three million. Just one.

[krkaufman]

42. I accept your statements regarding the value of life.

However, the Hitler comparison is unnecessary and irrelevant, since any murderer's name would suffice to champion the value of a life lost. What sets Hitler apart was the cold bureaucratic efficacy with which he dispatched millions, and I'm thrilled that we haven't yet arrived at that station. We're just repeating the time-honored tradition of murder (aka collateral damage) through warfare, with bonus carnage due to amoral incompetence (at best).

In some ways, Iraq has been worse than Auschwitz.

Not a reasonable comparison, since any one situation cannot be compared to another based on the experiences of a single person at either. Certainly, Iraqi Salim B's experience, having been murdered in Abu Ghraib, may be considered "worse" than Auschwitz survivor Simon G's experiences during WW2, if the greatest weight is given to survival; but no comparison can be made overall based on such a small sampling. Each travesty is horrific in their own special way.

[LSK]

12. K & R

[ninkasi]

13. The irony of this statement

How could the Bush administration persuade anybody that the future lies in building an "enlightened, non-fundamentalist society" when they have been turning back the clock on science and enlightenment here? The fundies who are happy to see the Middle East blown up, if it brings about the "Rapture" are part of Bush's base.His administration has ignored global warming, forbidden funding stem cell research, and has been trying to undo Roe vs. Wade for years.

We have a government which spies on us, feels free to "disappear" people, and if some of these nut cases have their way, they Will be stoning women for adultery, executing gays, and making birth control illegal. A government run like this can't help anybody toward enlightenment. The are so corrupt, that rather than try to come up with any coherent plans for anything is lost in the feeding frenzy as they award contracts to cronies.

The illegal Bush presidency has been a huge disaster for the entire world. Taking back at least one house of Congress this fall is of utmost importance. It will not be an easy fight, since we are seeing more and more underhanded Republican tricks to steal or suppress the vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Not to worry. It's just "birth pangs" of the "new middle east".

It's all for their own good.

[Joe Fields]

17. I would imagine that the civilian casualty estimates are low.

I have heard stories of as many as 100,000 dead .

[JackNewtown]

37. I agree, I saw that figure a few months ago

I wonder what it is up to now? :(

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bperci108]

19. One major difference....

...most of not nearly all of those folks wanted us there.

Iraq, and likely soon Iran (I'm sorry to say,) is/are a different story.

These Foaming True Believers that have hijacked our nation live in their own fantasy land, not reality. They actuallly think they can "happy talk" their lunacy into existance.

What absolute idiots. :eyes:

[Julius Civitatus]

32. Bullcrap!!! Germany Japan Italy can't be compared to this horrendous mess!

Do I smell propaganda?

For your info, Germany, Italy and Japan were not in the situation Iraq or Afghanistan are right now. They can't be equated, as they are completely different situations.

First of all, the USA had a clearly defined POST-WAR PLAN before going into Japan and Europe, unlike what the neocon idiots did in Iraq. Their only post-war thought was "being welcomed with flowers and candy as liberators," which has turned out to be nothing short of infantile hubris.

Second, the USA left some sort of government and order in place after they took over Germany, Italy and Japan, which allowed continuity and kept social order, helping in reconstruction. Instead, Rummy destroyed any semblance of government, police, military, or economy without even a plan for post war Iraq. Looting was the norm for days. Then the Bush admin. pathetically tried to rebuild everything from scratch, but gave the massive reconstruction contracts to, surprise surprise, Halliburton and Bechtel. Chaos ensued while these contractors made a mint on our dole.

Third: The USA entered Europe and Japan with OVERWHELMING FORCE. Rummy sent to Iraq only 1/4 of the troops necessary for proper control of the country. Only 1/4, according to military experts, who warned America needed four times the current number of troops to properly police and maintain order there. Rummy and the treasonous neocons thought they could invade a country "on the cheap."

Again, this is from the same delusional bastards that thought they would be greeted with flowers as liberators.

Fourth: Last, but not least, neither Germany nor Japan were multi-cultural societies (Sunni, Shia, Kurd) confronted by old ethnic strifes, and barely held together by force (Saddam). Neither Germany nor Japan exploded on a civil war right after the invasion, and our troops were not caught in the middle of such civil struggle. And don't bring the division of Germany in two, because that had more to do with Stalin than with the German people.

Please do some research.

[Jacobin]

35. Japan and Germany SURRENDERED

And told their citizenry to surrender.

What kind of an idiot believes this Sean Hannity claptrap?


How do you people walk across the street without walking in front of a car?


Seriously, how fucking ideologically nutso do you have to be to buy into this fucking claptrap?

[Nikki Stone 1]

20. Seems like the goal WAS to destroy and create massive instability

since this administration was told again and again that this, in fact, would happen. Now, the CIA that predicted this horrific outcome is under the controlled umbrella of Negroponte.

The truth is this administration never gave a flying fuck about stability in the Middle East. Our billions in tax money are being used to protect the parts the oil industry wants protected. The real Iraqis are of no import to this administration. Then again, neither were American citizens drowning in New Orleans.

[glitch]

33. And then call it "democracy" thus discrediting what they never believed in

in the first place.

[FUGW]

21. GW, the only man who can protect us from the terrorists he is creating

[krispos42]

24. I hate to say it, but was Saddam the best choice for Iraq?

God, the thought is disturbing... that a ego-maniacal homicidal nutcase would be the best possible future for some 25 million people. I hate the fact that it may be true. I HATE it! I'm an American and we're not suppose to think that way.

But now I wonder about that. It is the fault of the British, who glommed together the nation of Iraq from several separate and mutually-loathed ethno-religious factions? I don't know. Probably... the former imperial powers liked drawing national boarders with a ruler and according to what is politically convenient. But I find it somewhat bewildering that, having coexisted for decades prior to March 2003, they cannot go on living together.

It is the same story in Israel and Palestine and Jordan and Syria, I guess, but at least in that corner of the earth there are two very distinct religions in play. In Iraq they are fighting over details, not fundamentals.

Perhaps the fact that only details keep them apart is what make it worse. So close, yet frustratingly not close enough.

Did the people of Iraq need a strongman to keep a secular government in place and repress religious strife? The situation in Iraq points to an answer I find difficult to accept.

I know that in the United States, since the start of the Iraq war, we have lost about 1,100 policemen and women in the line of duty; it runs an average of one a day. That is in a nation of 300,000,000 people, give or take, so that's about 1.2 officers per million people per year.

Iraq has lost an average of 740 officers a year in a nation of 26,000,000 people. That's about 27 officers per year per million people.

I cannot imagine such carnage among law enforcement.

Fifty people a day murdered in Baghdad? A hundred? Our nation of 300 million people has 41 murders a day. That includes the worst neighborhoods in the most crime-ridden cities in the country. Yet in Iraq the homicide rate is 25 times higher.

Is the answer separating Iraq into three distinct nations? Do we need a nation named Akkadia or Assyria in the west, Babylon in the east, and Kurdistan in the north? I hate to think that; we Americans overcame cultural differences and civil war to remain a unified nation. A read of Harry Turtledove's "The Great War: American Front" shows an alternative that is rather unpleasant. but I may just be an optimistic ignorant American.

[krispos42]

45. Oops, screwed up some numbers there...

We lose about an officer a WEEK, not a day! So our police loss is actually 0.17 officers per million people per year, not 1.2. Iraq's loss rate is 159 times ours on a per-capita basis. OMFG.

[Kurovski]

28. K&R

the numbers tell the tale of the administration's disastrous failure.

[mom cat]

30. Mission accomplished. Destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq and now

Lebanon is the only logical reason behind the wars. Leaving them in shambles, divided and desparate make stealing their resources much easier and solidifies the forward base for the eventual wars on China and Russia.

[Julius Civitatus]

31. Bush neocons spent $300 BILLION to turn Iraq into a failed state hellhole

So Bush, Cheney and his merry gang of chickenhawk neocons have spent over $300 BILLION (estimate) of your tax dollars to turn the nation of Iraq into HELL ON EARTH.

I really don't know how else could you possibly define FAILURE.

Think about the things a responsible government could have done with $300 billion in our own nation. Think about the things a responsible and competent administration could have done with $300 billion in a country like Iraq.

Really, it doesn't get any more incompetent, ineffective, wasteful, and misleading than this bunch.
what they have done is not just a mess, not just a scandal. It's called a crime. A serious crime.

TIME FOR IMPEACHMENT!!!

[Up2Late]

34. Those look like VERY conservative numbers!

VERY Conservative.:mad:

[JackNewtown]

38. Why doesn't the "liberal media", such as the NYT publish the real picture?

[JackNewtown]

39. All this just to steal oil????

The Saddam oil contracts the first viceroy of Iraq immediately canceled were estimated to be worth $1.1 trillion in 2001, based on the price of a barrel of oil being $25. So the current figure is well in excess of $3 trillion. Those contracts, which were held by Russian, Chinese, and French companies were given primarily to American oil companies, with the UK's BP and Shell get their cut as well for supporting the invasion, and a token amount went to the French state-owned oil company.

I posted a thread on oil and the war and did some googling and found this. This is very damning, but no mainstream major politician will dare to imply the war was about oil and other frankly imperial aims.

[Nikki Stone 1]

41. Gotta be more than that

If it were just about oil, they would have replaced Saddam with a pro-US goon and left everything intact. There's something else up here.

[autorank]

43. An astute ee, what a "find" - 2000 doctors killed...who is in charge over

there. This is just amazing, how were we so gullible as a nation? The fact that * has sven 20% support given all of this, simply amazes me.