« Afghan elections | Main | The NYT's Judith Miller, Jack Shafer's "impossible minx," is no true martyr »
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Iraqi lives count, too
If you're noting a theme in my blogging today, you're right: We Americans aren't in this global war alone.
Last night, once again, Sen. Kerry insisted that "[n]inety percent of the casualties [in Iraq] are American."
But now even FactCheck.org is, belatedly, acknowledging that if one takes Iraqi casualties into account, Sen. Kerry's wrong, as was his running mate Sen. Edwards in the vice presidential debate:
We know of no accurate count of deaths suffered by Iraqi security forces, but an estimate reported both by the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post puts the figure at 750. Lumping those estimated Iraqi deaths with fatalities suffered by coalition forces produces a total of 1,955. Of that, the estimated Iraqi portion is 38% — or 45% if "allies" are included with the Iraqis — and the US total amounts to 55%.
Ninety percent is only right if Iraqi lives don't count. And if — as I believe would be even more appropriate — you include Iraqi civilian casualties inflicted by the terrorists, in addition to casualties in the Iraqi security forces, the percentages would shift even more dramatically.
Congrats to Juan Non-Volokh for calling FactCheck.org to account and getting a (stealth) correction to their earlier post.
Posted by Beldar at 04:38 PM in Global War on Terror, Mainstream Media, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Iraqi lives count, too and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) Al made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 5:45:04 PM | Permalink
Note scare quotes around "allies".
From memory, I vaguely recall something about some of the car-bomb-hits-recruitment-center tallies _not_ ending up as "Iraqi Security" casualties... because they hadn't quite signed up.
A Seattle local who came back and got married on his two week leave was more than a little torqued at this disparaging of the _trained_ Iraqi's efforts. "I'd take them at my back in these sorts of operations."
(2) BumperStickerist made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 6:29:16 PM | Permalink
Another Factcheck related question:
Factcheck was the source for Kerry's claim that Bush owned a lumber company. Factcheck reports that said company was part of 'Lone Star Trust'.
What Factcheck doesn't report is that Lone Star Trust is a blind trust.
Isn't the whole point of a blind trust that the beneficiary of the trust *not* know its holdings?
(3) Amelia made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 9:48:58 PM | Permalink
Is it not also appalling that Kerry seems to have thought he could just confer with the French and bring them into Iraq with no thought as to how the Iraqis might be feeling just about now with the participation by the French in the Oil-for-Corruption scandal? Does Kerry think the Iraqis would be thrilled to have the French troops come into their country knowing that the government of France is heavily involved in the theft of the money that was to have gone for their food and medicine?
So how about if that International Court we hear so much about order those who participated in this scheme return the money to the Iraqis? That would go a long way toward the training of their own troops and police force and they would not need to have those who robbed them brought into their country.
Add the discounting of Iraqi lives, forcing the French on them and Kerry's wife saying to let them go naked for a few days when speaking of hurricane victims in the Carribean and I sense a bit of a sense of entitlement, even racism with regard to those of other ethnic groups and cultures. I dare say no conservatie would be given a free pass on all of this. Ask Trent Lott!
(4) mcg made the following comment | Oct 9, 2004 10:00:04 PM | Permalink
The one thing that concerns me, purely from a political standpoint, about including Iraqi lives in the "count" is this: shouldn't we include the Iraqi civilian casualties that we have caused? If we do that, then the number grows much higher of course. And while they were an unfortunate consequence but one justified by the greater good, they are nonetheless politically difficult to swallow. So the further down the road we go in "counting" Iraqi casualties, the less attractive the story becomes.
(5) Edward made the following comment | Oct 11, 2004 5:46:03 PM | Permalink
mcg,
We have caused casualties, screw it, bring home the troops and put Saddam back in power. Is that the message you wanted to send?
Try this on for size. National Geographic put the Iraqi death toll at 2 million in the past decade. Which is 50,000 a year and about 1000 per WEEK! Day in and day out.
God help the US if he wins.
Ed R-
Ex-Physics Professor, Creator/builder of Kidsafe Playhouses
Edward1960@hotmail.com
(6) steve streetman made the following comment | Oct 16, 2004 9:56:17 PM | Permalink
As I remember the statement Kerry made was that 90% of the COALITION casulties are American. The Iraqis are not and have never been part of the Coalition.Also, how many troops of the other"30" Coalition members are stationed in Iraq?
The comments to this entry are closed.
