Blogs > Liberty and Power > Human Death Toll in Iraq

Mar 25, 2008

Human Death Toll in Iraq




We have just passed a tragic benchmark – 4,000 Americans killed in Iraq since the war began – including more than 3,500 since the capture of Saddam and more than 3,000 since the handover to Iraqis in mid-2004, which I, at the time, referred to as the"Iraqization Scam," predicting more bloodshed and escalation to follow. Then there are the tens of thousands wounded, whose number some have suggested has been underreported and whose severity has not been confronted by American society.

For all those American troops who wished to quit their jobs, but were forced to keep fighting under Stop Loss or just the plain threat of being tried for"desertion," there is a moral element to their deaths rarely grasped: Under the principles of the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence, the right to liberty is an inalienable right. This was enshrined in the 13th Amendment, which banned not just chattel slavery but involuntary servitude, including indentured servitude. What this means is in America, everyone is supposed to have a right to quit his job, at any time. He cannot sell himself into slavery, even for a term of service. If he violates a contract and quits, he can be held for damages, but he cannot be forced to keep working. Except in the military, where once you sign up, you cannot change jobs, even after your nominal term expires. What this means, in terms of morality, is everyone who is fighting in a war but would rather quit, and is held against his will to keep fighting, is a slave, and should he die while fighting, he is, morally speaking, a victim of murder by his own government. We do not have a fully voluntary military unless people can quit.

However, we can at least say these people, while often manipulated by recruiters, opted to sign up in the first place. But the Iraqis – what did they do to ask for this war? Nothing. This war has been a war of aggression against the Iraqi people, and so we must sympathize with not just Iraqi civilians but also the Iraqi soldiers who were killed in a war of aggression – on top of the possibly more than one million civilians killed as a result of this war, up to three times as many Iraqi soldiers died when compared to American soldiers.

A million civilians? If you think the number sounds too big, cut it in half – or even by 90%. There is something fundamentally dysfunctional about the way Americans tend to view their government's role in world affairs, to think that 100,000 Iraqis, by an extremely, perhaps even irresponsibly low, estimate, have perished in this war – and yet most focus, where there is any focus at all on the human costs of war, is centered on the American deaths.

There never was an excuse for this war, and there certainly is no excuse to stay. Four years ago, we began hearing the argument that if the US were to withdraw, there would be more violence and more death. There have been more violence and more death since – much more. The supposed success of the"surge" has been a return to the horrific levels of violence a few years back, back when the goal was supposedly to plant the roots of democracy and leave Iraq better than the US found it. Now the goal seems to be keeping the death toll to one or two Americans per day, while ignoring completely the mounting Iraqi death toll.

The US empire supported the horrible Saddam Hussein, encouraged his war of aggression against Iran, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, imposed through the United Nations a regime of sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands more, and now has the blood of many, many thousands more on its hands. For nearly three decades, the US has been the greatest enemy of the Iraqi people, for even when we could say it was Saddam, the dictator was being sponsored by the US government. The idea that more American intervention in Iraq is going to bring about peace and stability should seem pathologically absurd on its face by now. It is time to end this atrocity and begin the long process of reconciliation with the Iraqi people. The US government should take this as an opportunity to finally stop being the global policeman.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Anthony Gregory - 3/27/2008

Yes, Roderick. By consequentialist standards, this war has been an unspeakably enormous disaster, and it was predictable that it would be.


Roderick T. Long - 3/27/2008

Is the average Iraqi any better off now than they were under Hussein? That's not obvious (even if one subtracts, as one shouldn't, all the killed ones). Nor, it seems to me, was there any good reason to expect they would be.


Gus diZerega - 3/27/2008

Right. As a matter of historical fact the only successes I know of where democracy was imposed from without - Italy, Japan, and Germany - involved countries that had previously developed democratic practices on their own and so had a cultural foundation once the fascists were discredited by losing a war.

There is little if any warrant for someone coherently claiming libertarian, classical liberal, or even simply decent values supporting aggressive war to make others better. That so-called classical liberals can still argue otherwise after the past several years in Iraq is simply appalling.


Anthony Gregory - 3/27/2008

Sometimes, removing a dictator from power by force kills lots of innocent people, without actually establishing liberal government, which is always and everywhere a reflection of liberal culture. Indeed, attacking countries can make their people less liberal. I'd say this is what most often happens.


Gus diZerega - 3/27/2008

These comments echoe perfectly the price libertarian and liberal thought has paid in allying itself with the illiberal right, a force no better than the illiberal left.

Try reading even Alexander Hamilton let alone Madison and Jefferson on the impact of war on free societies, or contemplate Randolph Bourne's observation that "war is the health of the state" and the fact that internally relatively free governments always become more repressive during wartime. Think about Hayek's criticisms of social engineering - those of us understanding Hayek rather than using him as a debating point used this reasoning to predict what has happened in Iraq BEFORE the war broke out.

There is no basis at all in libertarian thought for what we did and continue to do in Iraq. None at all.

I am amazed that someone associated with libertarian thought could make such an argument these days.

Right wing libertarianism seems to me as dead intellectually and morally as it is possible to be.


Jeffrey Todd Singer - 3/26/2008

Again I ask, why not remove Saddam Hussein from power? Or more properly, what is immoral about fighting dictators? I agree there might be prudential reasons for not fighting every dictator out there, but I don't understand why you seem to conflate Saddam's government with the Iraqi people and can't appreciate that many Iraqis are very, very happy Saddam is dead (e.g. the Kurds).

"Government violates rights"...well, yes I suppose that is true. But they can also protect your rights, for example your right to life and property can be threatened by criminals and having the police around to fight criminals seems like a good use of government power. How strong that power should be is of course a key idea behind all our checks and balances on government power, but it seems to me that individuals as well as government can violate someone's rights.

Finally, five years ago the U.S. government attacked Saddam's government (and military forces) which led to innocent people dying, which is true of every war ever fought by the Union. I suppose you can argue a principaled case for pacifism, but don't think that the Iraq War, in terms of the number of civilians killed by U.S. forces, is any different than any other war the U.S. has fought. I tend to agree with Clausewitz and think war is a legitimate tool of public policy which has done a lot of good for people over the years, but like other tools of public policy has also done some bad. You can certainly disagree but it would be helpful if you framed your arguments with these realities in mind.


Anthony Gregory - 3/25/2008

"We went to war with Saddam's government and our explicit goal has been to establish in its place a consensual government that reflects the will of the people and even provides some basic individual rights."

We didn't go to war. The US government did. As for the will of the people, no democracy perfectly reflects it, and yet no government can persist long without at least majority acquiescence to it. Unless an external power props it up, perhaps. And the US propped up Saddam, and so surely he deserves some blame for his crimes. When it comes to the idea that government "provides rights," I don't agree – government violates rights, which is why America's founders sought to limit its reach at home and abroad.

"Our enemies, once Saddam's government was deposed, have been mostly individuals who think that blowing up innocent Iraqis is somehow indicative of a more just social order to come."

Wait a second. Five years ago this month, the US government embarked on "Shock and Awe" -- blowing up plenty of innocent Iraqis, and all for the sake of a more just social order, supposedly. Why is this justified?


Jeffrey Todd Singer - 3/25/2008

You say that the Iraq War "has been a war of aggression against the Iraqi people", but what does it mean to refer to the Iraqi people in the context of an Iraqi government that was neither consensual nor representative of the people's will? We went to war with Saddam's government and our explicit goal has been to establish in its place a consensual government that reflects the will of the people and even provides some basic individual rights. Our enemies, once Saddam's government was deposed, have been mostly individuals who think that blowing up innocent Iraqis is somehow indicative of a more just social order to come. So again I ask, what aggression have we committed against the Iraqi people, as opposed to Saddam's government forces and the insurgents?