Loading ...
War is an ugly business
There’s something that has been eating at me for a while now. Others have blogged about it, and now I guess it’s my turn.
13,000,000
20,000,000
495,000
14,429 – 16,579
Those are the numbers of civilian casualties from World War I (the Great War), World War II, the American phase of the Vietnam Wars and Iraq. Please note that I am intentionally staying away from the politically motivated but statistically dubious Lancet study. Let’s look at those more closely for perspective:
The Great War: Years: 5 (1914 – 1918). Average civilian casualties per annum: 2,600,000
World War II: Years: 8 (1938 – 1945). Average civilian casualties per annum: 2,500,000
Vietnam: Years: 15 (1960 -1975). Average civilian casulaties per annum: 33,000
Iraq: Years: 2 (2003 – Present). Average civilian casualties per annum: 8,289
Now certainly one might expect that civilian casualties would be higher in the two wars which were fought on larger fronts than the singular country of Iraq. However, both of the larger conflicts also were fought in, through, and around population centers.
The conflict that is the closest in nature to the current Iraqi conflict, though, is Vietnam. The average number of civilian casulaties per year is 33,000. Compare that now to the 8,289 civilian casualties per year of the second Iraqi war and I think you’ll start to see my point
Civilian casualties are happening at a rate around
- 0.3% of those in the Great War,
- 0.3% of those in the Second World War, and
- 25% of those in the Vietnam conflict
per year. That is to say that for every one civilian casualty in Iraq there were:
- 313 civilian dead in World War I,
- 301 civilians in World War II who lost their lives, and
- 4 civilians killed in Vietnam.
Now, does this minimize the value of the lives lost in Iraq? No. Each of those people had worth and none of them, being non-combatants, deserved to lose their lives.
But, I think it points out the fallacy of statements like this one:
The increase in Civilian Casualties from War and Sanctions is why the Gulf Wars violate the Geneva Convention. Such high rates of casualty are considered War Crimes.
How did they arrive at the conclusion that civilian casualties have increased? By making them a percentage in comparison to coalition combatant casualties. That is, they looked at civilian casualties as a percentage of all casualties (and they don’t even cite authority for where they get their body counts) and determined that more civilians were killed as a percentage of all deaths in successive conflicts and that this violates the Geneva Conventions. They’re really saying that not enough American soldiers have died to justify the current rate of civilian casulaties among Iraqis.
But, contrary to the assertion, the preservation of combatant lives is not a violation of the Conventions. There is no such formuliac statement that high rates of civilian casualties as a percentage of all casualties is a war crime. The relevant part of the Geneva Conventions here is Convention 1, Article 57 which says:
Art. 57. Precautions in attack
1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: (a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall: (i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them; (ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; (iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
(b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; (emphasis added)
(c) effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.
In other words, the deliberate targetting of non-combatants is to be avoided, if possible. The fact that civilian death rates are in fact declining on a per annum basis should be sufficient proof of the fact that the US Military is doing its part to uphold the requirements of Article 57.
Thank you for letting me get that off of my chest.
MickC @ November 18, 2004
Nice analysis. Our military is most prudent in targeting and actual combat operations. Civilians and civilian infrastructure are always taken into consideration. Too bad our enemies don’t do the same.
Good Blog!
Let’s assume your numbers are correct. Fine. Would technology not be the largest reason for the decline you suggest. In WWII major urban areas were virtually carpet bombed, especially London in an attempt to break the resolve of the people. The allies responded in kind on Berlin. In Vietnam, napalm and agent orange were used extensively. Neither of those tactics had any inherent consideration for civilian casualties.
In Iraq, with the sofisticated weaponry that the US forces have, they are better able to avoid strategies whereby civilians are caught in the crossfire.
Furthermore, I would argue that this war is really just beginning. The failure to properly secure the country in May 2003 under the foolish “mission accomplished” philosophy now means that the neglible resistance that the US and British forces faced in first year of the conflict are replaced by a very motivated and growing force of Iraqi insurgents who, as in the Fallujah example are willing to take on US forces in close quarters. The battle has now shifted directly to the cities and towns of Iraq. Civilian casualty “averages” can only increase in urban warfare.
I am not suggesting that the US has not lived up to its article 57 obligations only that the very nature of war has changed dramatically and before you start adding up the numbers of dead and suggest that it is not so bad as other wars perhaps you might consider waiting until this one is actually finished.
I think you’re absolutely right about technology being the major cause behind this. The military does not have to result to carpet bombing cities any longer.
And you might be right about the resistance increasing, although given the testimony of someone with first hand experience, I’m doubtful that it’s true. But even if true, it’s going to take a lot of things going very wrong for that number to quadruple.
Mickey, what’s the source of your (presumably politically unmotivated) casualty figures for Iraq?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
I don’t expect IBC to be non-political, but instead somewhat biased against my position. The numbers used were current as of the posting of the original on 11/18/04.
Information, including statements regarding contributors’ anti-war activities and affiliations are available on that site.
I guess what I’m wondering about is your assertion that the Lancet study is “politically motivated”. I’ve always viewed Lancet (along with “Nature” and “Science”) as one of the world’s leading scientific journals, with some of the highest standards for peer review anywhere. So, you’re suggesting that their study was politically motivated because…?
Well, then maybe you should click the link there and read the post where that gets outlined.
Mainly I make the assertion because had the Lancet used their normal standards (which are agreeably high), they would not have published a study saying that they have a 95% confidence level that civilian casualties in Iraq are somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. The 100,000 figure is merely splitting the difference. Plus their relative risk level assessments are within the realm of statistical insignificance.
There is no logical reason other than politics to explain why the Lancet would publish something without statistical significance and such a wide difference between the lower and upper bounds to get it to a 95% confidence level just days before a major American election. This is true both of the editors of the Lancet who sent the paper to press after an “abbreviated peer review” and the paper’s authors who were going to refuse permission to publish had the report gone to press after the election.
I was curious to why you showed 4 numbers and compared different ones? The almost half million killed in Iraq in a not even 3 month war(495,000 civilian deaths) during the 90s didn’t show up in the comparison.
Ooops eat my words I read it wrong and the half million casualties were your Vietnam estimates. I’ve seen those same estimates for the 90s Iraq War and guess that is what I was thinking about…ooops again…
I did “click the link there”, thanks. Sorry, didn’t read anything that suggests to me that the Lancet has suddenly become less credible than a right wing political commentator.
Bal,
The numbers in the Lancet’s paper speak for themselves. Now, I could have (with just as much authority) just claimed that the Lancet is claiming that only 8,000 civilian casualties have happened in Iraq as it falls within the bounds of their 95 CI. But the numbers themselves are bogus and I don’t think they can really be trusted by anyone on either side of the issue. The range is too far, the peer review was forced through for speed, and the relative risk levels don’t rise to statistically significant levels.
That’s not just coming from right wing commentators but also by the physicians who read the Lancet professionally. MedPundit (the one I cited in the other article) is one.
As it is, I used the higher numbers (compared to 8,000) provided by IBC because they do, in fact, fall within the realm of sanity.
I have this feeling that if we had those jerks back in WW II they would have us all FRD,HITLER,MUSOLINIE,TOJO,CHURCHILL all sitting around and negotiating for a peaceful solution wow what a buch of idiots they have been living a life brought to them by the LSD and heroin and wacky tabacy they snuff us their noses