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