4 ms·

US soldiers did not kill millions of people, Iraq is somewhere between 100000 and 650000 excess deaths to Oct 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey

US soldiers did not kill millions of people, Iraq is somewhere between 100000 and 650000 excess deaths to Oct 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas... The criticisms in the Wikipedia are very detailed and imply there are problems with the 650000 figure of which 186000 are due to US troops direct actions. That still seems high, but you know being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging.

jjgreen 6y ago
I recall Iraq being more of an invasion than a civil war.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  It's complicated, because it started out as "smash the state and let democracy reassert itself". Everyone involved in the room had such a broken mental model of what the Iraqi population was like. American politicians have been getting drunk off the rhetoric of democracy for some time, and we typically forget that most governments are precariously balanced between multiple competing socioeconomic elements with eternal and unending grudges between one another. In the case of Iraq, what started as "invade and impose democracy" quickly progressed into policing sectarian violence as America inherited Saddam's problems.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    > America inherited Saddam's problems Sounds like not only the American politicians were drunk on something, what the hell are you talking about? In no way have the US been through the same pile of shit that Iraq has been through, and neither have any of those problems suddenly walked over the ocean home to the US. Sure, the US has their nose wet in Iraqi and Afghan blood, but let's not pretend and say that US takes any sort of responsibility for the bloodshed they've caused. Otherwise I agree with your comment.
- austincheney 6y ago
  Iraq began as an invasion in March 2003. The invasion was exceedingly well planned and executed with minimal cost in a very short time frame, but the planning did not account for the resulting occupation that followed. Key figures in Iraq, such as Ali Al Sistani, pressed US civilian authorities to stand up an interim government until a permanent government could be drafted. The interim government stood up in May 2004. But by that time Iraq had become a political vacuum with disastrous results. Various external political factions from terrorist groups and nation states were massively importing arms and radicalized youth to instigate internal tribal warfare and acts of terrorism. Shortly after the interim government stood up GEN Casey took over command of coalition forces in Iraq and promoted a hand's off policy and letting the Iraqis clean up the mess, which further compounded the internal problems when Iraq really needed a strong occupation force to stabilize conditions until conditions allowed the capabilities for self governance. GEN Casey was replaced two years later in 2006. In mid-2006 it really looked like Iraq was on the verge of civil war and the US completely reversed policy by late 2006 announcing a troop surge in 2007. The successful command policies of COL HR McMaster were given some credit for exemplifying a successful approach. GEN Petraeus took command of coalition forces in Iraq and advocated a policy of counter-insurgency (COIN) that made significant advances at reducing internal violence and building trust in internal institutions. Over the next two years the surge declined to prior troop levels with forces more engaged in peace keeping and stability missions. In 2009 coalition forces were drastically reduced in what was called a withdrawal. By that time Iraq was no longer on the verge of civil war. Conditions were improving and permanent government institutions were coming online. Unfortunately, the withdrawal was too early. Newly established Iraqi military forces were still conducting peace keeping and stability missions and had not matured enough yet to focus on national defense. This became apparent with the ISIS invasion of Mosul.
  - pydry 6y ago
    The Iraq invasion was well planned? What the hell kind of revisionist are you? Check out the Rumsfeld "war by PowerPoint" if you want to see how that sausage eas made.
    - dang 6y ago
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
"The criticisms in the Wikipedia are very detailed and imply there are problems with the 650000 figure of which 186000 are due to US troops direct actions. That still seems high, but you know being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging." I am not sure you can honestly characterize US as being caught in the middle of the war. US caused it. Everything that follows is its responsibility. That is why you don't start wars willy nilly.
- cutitout 6y ago
  > War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. from the judgement of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common
capableweb 6y ago
Lancet indeed gives those numbers, other sources gives other numbers. Who's right? Probably we'll never know, but just for having the other numbers out there, here they are: - Lancet survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 654,965 (95% CI: 392,979–942,636) - Opinion Research Business (March 2003 – August 2007): 1,033,000 (95% CI: 946,258–1,120,000) - Iraq Family Health Survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000) - PLOS Medicine Study (March 2003 – June 2011): 405,000 (95% CI: 48,000–751,000) Only Opinion Research Business[1] seems to put the upper bound above 1 million. Rather than going for the "Lancet Surveys" page on Wikipedia, you'll probably get a better view when reading through the general page of "Casualties of the Iraq War" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War Also, hestefisk (which you're replying to) are talking about Middle East, not just Iraq. US sure has killed a lot more people in Middle East than just the ones that died in Iraq. > being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging Not sure we're talking about the same war here. As far as I know, the US invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq in recent times (so no civil war), pretty sure we're referring to those events (post 9/11), not the civil wars that were happening there before that.
JAlexoid 6y ago
US literally started the damn civil war. And not in 2003... think '79. The only thing that makes Amercians forget - lack of conscription and relatively small army(as % of population).

jjgreen 6y ago

I recall Iraq being more of an invasion than a civil war.

kmeisthax 6y ago
It's complicated, because it started out as "smash the state and let democracy reassert itself". Everyone involved in the room had such a broken mental model of what the Iraqi population was like. American politicians have been getting drunk off the rhetoric of democracy for some time, and we typically forget that most governments are precariously balanced between multiple competing socioeconomic elements with eternal and unending grudges between one another. In the case of Iraq, what started as "invade and impose democracy" quickly progressed into policing sectarian violence as America inherited Saddam's problems.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > America inherited Saddam's problems Sounds like not only the American politicians were drunk on something, what the hell are you talking about? In no way have the US been through the same pile of shit that Iraq has been through, and neither have any of those problems suddenly walked over the ocean home to the US. Sure, the US has their nose wet in Iraqi and Afghan blood, but let's not pretend and say that US takes any sort of responsibility for the bloodshed they've caused. Otherwise I agree with your comment.
austincheney 6y ago
Iraq began as an invasion in March 2003. The invasion was exceedingly well planned and executed with minimal cost in a very short time frame, but the planning did not account for the resulting occupation that followed. Key figures in Iraq, such as Ali Al Sistani, pressed US civilian authorities to stand up an interim government until a permanent government could be drafted. The interim government stood up in May 2004. But by that time Iraq had become a political vacuum with disastrous results. Various external political factions from terrorist groups and nation states were massively importing arms and radicalized youth to instigate internal tribal warfare and acts of terrorism. Shortly after the interim government stood up GEN Casey took over command of coalition forces in Iraq and promoted a hand's off policy and letting the Iraqis clean up the mess, which further compounded the internal problems when Iraq really needed a strong occupation force to stabilize conditions until conditions allowed the capabilities for self governance. GEN Casey was replaced two years later in 2006. In mid-2006 it really looked like Iraq was on the verge of civil war and the US completely reversed policy by late 2006 announcing a troop surge in 2007. The successful command policies of COL HR McMaster were given some credit for exemplifying a successful approach. GEN Petraeus took command of coalition forces in Iraq and advocated a policy of counter-insurgency (COIN) that made significant advances at reducing internal violence and building trust in internal institutions. Over the next two years the surge declined to prior troop levels with forces more engaged in peace keeping and stability missions. In 2009 coalition forces were drastically reduced in what was called a withdrawal. By that time Iraq was no longer on the verge of civil war. Conditions were improving and permanent government institutions were coming online. Unfortunately, the withdrawal was too early. Newly established Iraqi military forces were still conducting peace keeping and stability missions and had not matured enough yet to focus on national defense. This became apparent with the ISIS invasion of Mosul.
- pydry 6y ago
  The Iraq invasion was well planned? What the hell kind of revisionist are you? Check out the Rumsfeld "war by PowerPoint" if you want to see how that sausage eas made.
  - dang 6y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

"The criticisms in the Wikipedia are very detailed and imply there are problems with the 650000 figure of which 186000 are due to US troops direct actions. That still seems high, but you know being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging." I am not sure you can honestly characterize US as being caught in the middle of the war. US caused it. Everything that follows is its responsibility. That is why you don't start wars willy nilly.

cutitout 6y ago
> War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. from the judgement of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common

capableweb 6y ago

Lancet indeed gives those numbers, other sources gives other numbers. Who's right? Probably we'll never know, but just for having the other numbers out there, here they are: - Lancet survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 654,965 (95% CI: 392,979–942,636) - Opinion Research Business (March 2003 – August 2007): 1,033,000 (95% CI: 946,258–1,120,000) - Iraq Family Health Survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000) - PLOS Medicine Study (March 2003 – June 2011): 405,000 (95% CI: 48,000–751,000) Only Opinion Research Business[1] seems to put the upper bound above 1 million. Rather than going for the "Lancet Surveys" page on Wikipedia, you'll probably get a better view when reading through the general page of "Casualties of the Iraq War" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War Also, hestefisk (which you're replying to) are talking about Middle East, not just Iraq. US sure has killed a lot more people in Middle East than just the ones that died in Iraq. > being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging Not sure we're talking about the same war here. As far as I know, the US invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq in recent times (so no civil war), pretty sure we're referring to those events (post 9/11), not the civil wars that were happening there before that.

JAlexoid 6y ago

US literally started the damn civil war. And not in 2003... think '79. The only thing that makes Amercians forget - lack of conscription and relatively small army(as % of population).