Six years of war in Iraq

Today is the anniversary of the United States’ attack on Iraq — a country which did not attack us on September 11, 2001, or any other time, and did not possess the means to do so.

Here are a few of the costs of George W. Bush’s deadly folly:

US military deaths:  4259

US military suicides (in Iraq):  177

US military wounded:  31,102

Iraqi deaths:  estimated to be 946,000 to 1.12 million

Lies told by the Bush administration to get us into Iraq:  935 (and counting)

Financial cost of Iraq war (US):  Approximately $656.1 billion (and counting)

Finally, as if all this is not enough, we have lost basic Constitutional protections — in the name of keeping us “safe.” Keith Olbermann says it well in this Special Comment regarding habeas corpus:

UPDATE: Think Progress has a timeline of the Iraq War here.

add to : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

7 thoughts on “Six years of war in Iraq

  1. $656 billion? Chump change these days, can’t even bail out the banks to their own satisfaction for that!

    Where’s the case that the actual cost is closer to $3 trillion? Can’t remember where I saw that.

  2. I cannot buy the 1,000,000 Iraqi dead figure, it’s just absolutely preposterous. 1 million divided over 6 years is over 450 dead PER DAY. A rogue bomb goes off and 30 people die, it’s all over the news. Don’t you think 450 a day every day for 6 years would be plastered on every news outlet everywhere you turn?? Seriously, think about that for just a minute. Something that big would not go unnoticed in this day and age of information.

    No, sorry, that is an deceitful, inflated number designed to keep people angry, nothing more.

    • Hi, Rob V. Those numbers are estimated deaths — who knows, they could be lower — or higher.

      I cannot buy that our president lied us into this war in Iraq, causing such horrible death and mayhem, and helping to virtually bankrupt this country. Maybe it’s not really happening.

      Personally, I’m angry that even ONE person died for this clusterfuck.

  3. Rob V is was Johns Hopkins and Lancet medical journal in 2006: 600,000 + ‘excess mortality’.

    So yes I thought about it seriously for a minute, maybe you should take your own advice and do likewise:

    As to why this isn’t an outrage you have heard about – (1) you don’t read USAToday – easy to understand, it’s a comic (2) well, the Arabs, they aren’t real people are they? (3) dying of dysentry, typhoid, cancer, malnutrition and sectarian violence isn’t that newsworthy eh?

    The Western media has been playing down ‘collateral damage’ for decades, Rob. You live in a country where the corporations tell you what is news and what isn’t.

    Here’s another data point, the 500,000 Iraqi children that the UN calculated had died of malnutrition in the 1990s during the US-led blockade happened before the electricity and water supplies went south during ‘shock and awe’. That 600,000 to 1m isn’t that hard to imagine at all.

  4. Rob V.

    I happen to agree with your skepticism about the approximately 1 million Iraqi deaths.

    The figure is identified in the post as an “estimate” but IMHO it should be qualified at least with “possibly up to”.
    That is to say, whilst 1 million deaths are possible, are 1 million deaths actually likely?

    You doubt it, and, as it happens, so do I.

    However you argue that “1 million divided over 6 years is over 450 dead PER DAY. A rogue bomb goes off and 30 people die, it’s all over the news. Don’t you think 450 a day every day for 6 years would be plastered on every news outlet everywhere you turn?”

    You are assuming by your argument that the number of deaths estimated is directly related to instant bombing deaths and that those are the only attributable deaths.
    You exclude deaths from “collateral” injury and lack of medical care and supplies as a result of general warfare.

    Whilst significant bombings have been reported and you rightly point out that none (certainly that I know of) have typically resulted in anywhere near a 450 death-count on any given day, let alone providing an average of that scale, your point of reference pointedly excludes the pre-invasion bombardment of Baghdad and Basra, and the subsequent invasion for which no reliable mortality figures are available—even though the total death-count in question concerns the whole war and occupation, regardless of combat or non-combat status, as a result of bullets and bombs or from the concomitant lack of essential resources such as medical supplies and expertise or reliable power and fresh water, and as a consequence of a war and occupation that the ‘Born Again ‘ president of the United States, a fellow Christian, decided to initiate.

    So what do you think Rob?

    Assuming perhaps ‘only’ 100,000 Iraqis have died on the prosecution of a war of aggression, how many of those do you estimate were sacrosanct unborn?

    I would find it hard to believe that not one pregnant Iraqi woman and her unborn child was ever killed after six years of war and violent occupation.
    Can you conceive that at least one unborn child was killed as a result of the decisions of your fellow right to life Christians?
    Isn’t that most likely a fact? And in that one death doesn’t that make Bush a murderer of an innocent, and anyone who supported him in invading Iraq an accessory to murder?
    Wouldn’t that statistical probability alone also make them “abortionists”?

  5. 5thstate,

    Your comments represent a small sample of the growing change in public opinion concerning warfare, i.e., any innocent civilian casualty is just too much to bear, and if it occurs, the warfare is unjustifiable/immoral, what have you. (You realize this thinking is only about 30-40 years old, right?) I agree that an innocent casualty is a tragedy and something that should try to be avoided, but the nation that won’t fight because they fear ANY civilian loss is the nation that will be trounced upon one day.

    Your “logic” that Bush is a murderer would brand FDR, Churchill, Truman, and even JFK all murderers for their war efforts that resulted in the deaths of innocents. An important fact is that there are people in this world who seek to actively kill innocents. Our military, while they may themselves cause the unintended deaths of innocents, seeks to keep the overall number down as opposed to doing nothing to stop it.

    I only commented to make sure people didn’t blindly accept inflated death toll numbers. I have no interest in taking cheap shots from anonymous people who have nothing better to do than call me an abortionist by association. I also have no interest in rehashing a very tired argument of Iraq war justification.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s