Jay Manifold's weekly Quagmire Watch is up. I particularly liked this bit:

Medact, the British affiliate of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, this week published a report that estimates the number of Iraqi civilian deaths during the invasion to range from 5,708 to 7,356. The report estimates that the number of civilian deaths after May 1, when Bush declared an end to major combat operations, ranges from 2,049 to 2,209.

Rereading this post from exactly one year ago today, we find that Medact's pre-war casualty estimate was ... wait for it ... half a million.

Their undoubtedly manipulated "actual" total is, at most, 9,565.

Hint to my fellow citizens: maybe special-interest groups who make predictions that are off by a factor of 50 can't be trusted.

As Instantman would say...indeed.

What's the total including soliders?

We may never know, but soldiers die in wars. Certainly Saddam killed more, and would have killed more in the future, than we did.

I remember listening to a senior member of IPPNW (the American branch) lecture a group of us in college about how the USSR was not nearly as bad as the Reagan Administration had painted it.

When asked about the situation with Sakharov, this august doctor (an American, mind you) said that Sakharov was a traitor, since he had suggested that it would be better if the United States were ahead in the nuclear arms race (I don't recall Sakharov actually ever saying that).

He then suggested that, had Sakharov said such a thing in the US, he'd have been jailed as well.

That pretty much did it for me, regarding IPPNW's credibility.

Didn't they win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Sure Saddam killed more, but ignoring the ordinary forces deaths is a mistake. One of many conceptual ones still, it seems being made.

Nobody's ignoring them, David, except in this particular discussion, because they're not relevant to the topic, which was civilian casualties (which are in a different ethical category than military casualties).

But you knew that, didn't you?

Nobody's ignoring them, David, except in this particular discussion, because they're not relevant to the topic, which was civilian casualties

No, I asked a question. You're getting awfully defensive Rand.

(which are in a different ethical category than military casualties).

Never said that they weren't. Although, for a lot of reasons outside of the Republican Guard I think its slightly craven of us to think of the standard Iraq solider as anything other than a victim of the vile system that was Iraq.

But you know that too Rand.

BTW - I am looking forward to the next graph from Dale Arnon with great interest. Now I start reading nonsense about power handover - everything I feared before this.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that because someone made a wildly inaccurate prediction that 5700+ civilian deaths is OK?

The 9/11 terrorists killed less than 3000 civilians.

We have killed, even by the most conservative estimates, more than twice that many Iraqi civilians.

Keeping in mind that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had (apparently) no WOMD, tell me, Rand, how many civilians do you think we would have to kill before we begin to lose our claim to the moral high ground?

Dave, you asked a question that had no relevance to the topic (i.e., you attempted to change the subject). I can see why you would want to do that, but don't expect people not to call you on it.

And Ron, no, the point is not that any number of civilian deaths is "OK." The point is that we shouldn't pay so much attention to hysterical predictions by people like IPPNW.

And the jury remains out whether or not Saddam was involved in 911 (or has/had WMD). Stephen Hayes' story certainly indicates a lot of cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda for many years.

Since I kinda started this, I'll answer that one: ironically, a civilian death toll about the size of the one Medact so desperately wished for could have nullified the good deed of liberating Iraq.

But liberating a nation of 25 million people with a per capita death toll somewhere around 1 in 5,000? This was the safest war ever fought. The regime killed more than 5,700 people every month. Some years, it killed more than that every week. We now know that number of bodies in mass graves reaches into seven figures.

Ron, you earn my praise by 1) not commenting anonymously (I have a permalink to your blog on Arcturus) and 2) stating correctly on your blog that Iraq was invaded for expediency -- I myself believe that Iraq was invaded largely because it isn't Saudi Arabia.

It simply does not follow, however, that the liberation was not a good thing. We have saved at least 100,000 lives in Iraq already, a toll that will rise into the millions if we are able to incubate the rule of law and a healthy civil society.

The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq is the most unsordid act carried out by the Federal government of the United States since the Apollo project. It has made me proud to pay taxes for the first time in my adult life. Two and a quarter years ago, I would never have believed such a thing possible.

Dave, you asked a question that had no relevance to the topic (i.e., you attempted to change the subject). I can see why you would want to do that, but don't expect people not to call you on it.

I asked a related question which yes, changed the subject.

What I don't get is why you get all defensive about it rather than just answering the points. Don't ignore data which doesn't fit the model please.

> The point is that we shouldn't pay so much attention to hysterical predictions by people like IPPNW.

Hysterical? 1) the prediction was that half a million people could die, not that they would, and 2) it's possible that "hysterical predictions" like these caused people to pay attention to the issue (or at least more than they otherwise might have), and that the low (relative to the predictions) number are, at least in part, a result - a self-unfulfilling prophecy as it were.

So I disagree. Just because a prediction is wrong it does not follow that one should necessarily ignore subsequent predictions from the same source.

> It simply does not follow, however, that the liberation was not a good thing.

Of course the liberation was a good thing (if we can make it stick, that is, which is not at all clear). But just because it was a good thing it does not follow that it was the right thing.

Wow! I am sitting here in utter disbelief and amazement at the spin doctoring in defense of the irresponsible and completely inaccurate predictions by Medact. Next we will be asked to accept Wesley Clark's predictions on how our military will fare in the next conflict. Hey, even CNN realized he was clueless in his predictions about the Iraq war. That is why they canned him. It was not some vast right wing conspiracy by the Bush Administration, which is what he claimed. I'll bet the Bushies wish they had that much clout at CNN.

it's possible that "hysterical predictions" like these caused people to pay attention to the issue (or at least more than they otherwise might have), and that the low (relative to the predictions) number are, at least in part, a result
Incorrect. The low number of civilian deaths is due to the nature of the US military doctrine. We did not go in to kill Iraqi civilians, and made every effort to minimize the threat to them. The exaggerations of Medact and other "peace" organizations probably were never even brought up in a single military briefing. There was no need to.

> The exaggerations of Medact and other "peace" organizations probably were never even brought up in a single military briefing.

Maybe, maybe not. How would you know?

Remember, I didn't say this happened. All I said was that it was possible.

"Possible" by what definition? Wishful thinking on your part? Or ignorance of US military doctrine?
We've had a "minimal civilian casualty" doctrine since before Medact existed. "Total war" ceased to be an option for the US, except as a response to an all-out nuclear attack, since the end of World War Two. Since Vietnam we have been particularly sensitive to the issue, due to a combination of advancing military technology and heightened awareness on the part of the military to the psychological effect on our troops.
So the hysterical bleatings of the peaceniks, particularly in this case, would not have been considered. They are in complete ignorance of both the technology and doctrine our military operates with.

> Since Vietnam we have been particularly sensitive to the issue, due to a combination of advancing military technology and heightened awareness on the part of the military to the psychological effect on our troops.

I see. So it's all about the tender psyches of the troops, eh? You don't see any possibility at all that the "hysterical peaceniks" marching in the streets in the 70's had anything at all to do with it?