How many more?
The Los Angeles Times reports that 100 people died yesterday in Iraq. There were two car bombs that killed 60 people and another 40 died or were found slain in other incidents.
I remember a couple of years back–after the initial justification for the war had been discredited by the failure to find any WMDs–that supporters of the invasion tried to reframe it as a humanitarian intervention. One enterprising fellow even added up all the civilian deaths that occurred under Saddam Hussein (including those that happened during the Iran-Iraq war) and came out with a figure between 75 and 125 civilian deaths per day. This was meant to suggest that acting to remove Hussein would save more lives than leaving him in power.
There was a lot about this number that was nonsense. But even if you concede the nonsense, we’re getting awfully close to that number. Civilian deaths in June were approximately 3,149 and that number is expected to rise in July.
It’s almost as if we’ve lost the power to be stunned by this. The United States took a country of 26 million people and turned it into Lebanon at its worst.
Supporters of the war often have a retort ready on their lips: “Would you prefer to see Iraq under Saddam Hussein?” It’s a cheap shot and perhaps it doesn’t deserve an answer. But perhaps one response might be “How many people are you willing to see killed to remove Saddam Hussein?” How many are we willing to see killed to remove President Ahmadinejad of Iran? Assad of Syria? Just how many bodies are you willing to see piled up to achieve your revolutionary democratic utopia?
There is a grave hubris involved here: the thought that violence can actually be used as a fine tool to promote a good, the thought that people of other nations will respond as we think (or hope) they will, that embarking on international adventures will succeed as long as the bankroll holds out and the press is muzzled.
Amazingly enough, this war looks like a loser. Morally, for obvious reasons. Abu Ghraib and the rest are all just symptoms of a western (or American) immorality that shows we had very little to stand on heading back into the Gulf.
This war is looking more like Gulf War I, in which Saddam emerged victorious over Bush I. My sense is that extremists in the Middle East have played the Republican braintrust of the Bush administration like a fine violin. How much better could it have gone for them? Not only has a new generation been recruited for battle, but wedges have been driven into American relations with just about every major European player.
The US borrows hundreds of billions to finance a worldwide recruiting effort to bring the world into a bloodbath of barbarism. Who cares if Hezbollah miscalculated in one battle. The greater effort has far too much momentum to worry about the Israelis now. I suspect another target is lined up.
Which is really sad, considering that after their misadventures with the Brits 1920-50, the Muslim states in the world were ready to align with big brother America versus the Soviets. We wouldn’t have needed to betray Israel to cultivate a little something in the Middle East. Keeping our hands off the leadership and showing justice and respect would have been more than enough. And all this insanity could have been avoided.
The things people do once they’ve been hooked on world war …
W found himself post 9/11 and his crew called on that occurrence for permission to do whatever they wanted. The sound bite won over good sense and marketing justified violence.
History will not be kind to W and his hoods. We will see what the American public wants to send as a message in November. We get what we deserve it seems.
It’s funny: when asked, I imagine most people will agree with the moral principle that the ends do not justify the means.
But when it comes to real-life applications, it’s a different story…