Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation

Sources: 
After Downing Street, July 6, 2007 
Title: �Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More?� 
Author: Michael Schwartz

AlterNet, September 17, 2007 
Title: �Iraq death toll rivals Rwanda genocide, Cambodian killing fields� 
Author: Joshua Holland

Reuters (via AlterNet), January 7, 2008 
Title: �Iraq conflict has killed a million, says survey� 
Author: Luke Baker

Inter Press Service, March 3, 2008 
Title: �Iraq: Not our country to Return to� 
Authors: Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail

Student Researchers: Danielle Stanton, Tim LeDonne, and Kat Pat Cresp�n 
Faculty Evaluator: Heidi LaMoreaux, PhD

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century�the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia�s infamous �Killing Fields� during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

ORB�s research covered fifteen of Iraq�s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq�s more volatile regions�Kerbala and Anbar�and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.

Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq�that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility�is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.

Even with the lower confirmed figures, by the end of 2006, an average of 5,000 Iraqis had been killed every month by US forces since the beginning of the occupation. However, the rate of fatalities in 2006 was twice as high as the overall average, meaning that the American average in 2006 was well over 10,000 per month, or over 300 Iraqis every day. With the surge that began in 2007, the current figure is likely even higher.

Schwartz points out that the logic to this carnage lies in a statistic released by the US military and reported by the Brookings Institute: for the first four years of the occupation the American military sent over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill �insurgents� and �terrorists.� (Since February 2007, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.) Each patrol invades an average of thirty Iraqi homes a day, with the mission to interrogate, arrest, or kill suspects. In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances (see Story #9).

According to US military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of one hundred per day (not counting the additional twenty-five or so involving our Iraqi allies). Thousands of patrols result in thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and unconscionably brutal detentions.

Iraqis� attempts to escape the violence have resulted in a refugee crisis of mammoth proportion. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration, in 2007 almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, and Gulf States. Iraq�s refugees, increasing by an average of almost 100,000 every month, have no legal work options in most host states and provinces and are increasingly desperate.1

Yet more Iraqis continue to flee their homes than the numbers returning, despite official claims to the contrary. Thousands fleeing say security is as bad as ever, and that to return would be to accept death. Most of those who return are subsequently displaced again.

Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail quote an Iraqi engineer now working at a restaurant in Damascus, �Return to Iraq? There is no Iraq to return to, my friend. Iraq only exists in our dreams and memories.�

Another interviewee told the authors, �The US military say Fallujah is safe now while over 800 men are detained there under the worst conditions. . . . At least 750 out of the 800 detainees are not resistance fighters, but people who refused to collaborate with occupation forces and their tails.� (Iraqis who collaborate with occupation forces are commonly referred to as �tails of the Americans.�)

Another refugee from Baghdad said, �I took my family back home in January. The first night we arrived, Americans raided our house and kept us all in one room while their snipers used our rooftop to shoot at people. I decided to come back here [Damascus] the next morning after a horrifying night that we will never forget.�

Citation

1. �The Iraqi Displacement Crisis,� Refugees International, March 3, 2008.

UPDATE BY MICHAEL SCHWARTZ

The mortality statistics cited in �Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month?� were based on another article suitable for Project Censored recognition, a scientific investigation of deaths caused by the war in Iraq. The original article, published in Lancet in 2006, received some dismissive coverage when it was released, and then disappeared from view as the mainstream media returned to reporting biased estimates that placed Iraqi casualties at about one-tenth the Lancet estimates. The corporate media blackout of the original study extended to my article as well, and has continued unabated, though the Lancet article has withstood several waves of criticism, while being confirmed and updated by other studies (Censored 2006, #2).

By early 2008, the best estimate, based on extrapolations and replications of the Lancet study, was that 1.2 million Iraqis had died as a consequence of the war. This figure has not, to my knowledge, been reported in any mass media outlet in the United States.

The blackout of the casualty figures was matched by a similar blackout of other main evidence in my article: that the Bush administration military strategy in Iraq assures vast property destruction and lethality on a daily basis. Rules of engagement that require the approximately one thousand US patrols each day to respond to any hostile act with overwhelming firepower�small arms, artillery, and air power�guarantee that large numbers of civilians will suffer and die. But the mainstream media refuses to cover this mayhem, even after the Winter Soldier meetings in March 2008 featured over one hundred Iraq veterans who testified to their own participation in what they call �atrocity producing situations.� (see Story #9)

The effectiveness of the media blackout is vividly illustrated by an Associated Press poll conducted in February 2007, which asked a representative sample of US residents how many Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The average respondent thought the number was under 10,000, about 2 percent of the actual total at that time. This remarkable mass ignorance, like so many other elements of the Iraq War story, received no coverage in the mass media, not even by the Associated Press, which commissioned the study.

The Iraq Veterans Against the War has made the brutality of the occupation their special activist province. The slaughter of the Iraqi people is the foundation of their demand for immediate and full withdrawal of US troops, and the subject of their historic Winter Soldier meetings in Baltimore. Though there was no mainstream US media coverage of this event, the live streaming on Pacifica Radio and on the IVAW website reached a huge audience�including a vast number of active duty soldiers�with vivid descriptions of atrocities committed by the US war machine. A growing number of independent news sites now feature regular coverage of this aspect of the war, including Democracy Now!, Tom Dispatch, Dahr Jamail�s MidEast Dispatches, Informed Comment, Antiwar.com, and ZNet.

UPDATE BY MAKI AL-NAZZAL AND DAHR JAMAIL

The promotion of US general David Petraeus to head CENTCOM, and General Raymond Odierno to replace Petraeus as commanding general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, provoked a lot of anger amongst Iraqis in both Syria and Jordan. The two generals who convinced US and international society of improvement in Iraq do not seem to have succeeded in convincing Iraqi refugees of their success.

�Just like the Bush Administration decorated Paul Bremer (former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority), they are rewarding others who participated in the destruction to Iraq,� stated Muhammad Shamil, an Iraqi journalist who fled Iraq to Syria in 2006. �What they call violence was concentrated in some parts of Iraq, but now spread to be all over the country, thanks to US war heroes. People are getting killed, evicted or detained by the thousands, from Basra (South) to Mosul (North).�

Other Iraqi refugees seem to have changed attitudes regarding their hopes to return. Compared to when this story was published in March 2008, the refugee crisis continues to deepen. This is exacerbated by the fact that most Iraqis have no intention of returning home. Instead, they are looking for permanent residence in other countries.

�I decided to stop dreaming of going back home and find myself a new home anywhere in the world if I could,� said thirty-two-year-old Maha Numan in Syria, �I have been a refugee for three years now living on the dream of return, but I decided to stop dreaming. I have lost faith in all leaders of the world after the surges of Basra, Sadr City and now Mosul. This seems to be endless and one has to work harder on finding a safe haven for one�s family.�

Iraqis in Syria know a lot more of the news about their country than most journalists. At an Internet caf� in Damascus, each of them calls his hometown and reports the happenings of the day to other Iraqi refugees. News of ongoing violence across much of Iraq convinces them to remain abroad.

�There were four various explosions in Fallujah today,� said Salam Adel, who worked as a translator for US forces in Fallujah in 2005. �And they say it is safe to go back! Damn them, go back for what? For roadside bombs or car bombs?�

It has been important, politically, for the Bush administration to claim that the situation in Iraq is improving. This claim has been assisted by a complicit corporate media. However, the 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria, and over 750,000 in Jordan, will tell you differently. Otherwise, they would not remain outside of Iraq.

To obtain updated information on the refugee crisis, see  http://www.irinnews.org/IRIN-ME.aspx - http://www.irinnews.org/IRIN-ME.aspx , http://www.iraqredcrescent/ - http://www.iraqredcrescent  .org/,  http://www.refugeesinternational.org/section/waystohelp - http://www.refugeesinternational.org/section/waystohelp , http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html - http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html , and  http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/ - http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/ .

Would it not be interesting to see what an average Amreeki is allowed to know and what is censored? Freedoms!

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009

• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/ - #1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-security-and-prosperity-partnership-militarized-nafta/ - # 2 Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/3-infragard-the-fbi-deputizes-business/ - # 3 InfraGard: The FBI Deputizes Business
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/4-ilea-is-the-us-restarting-dirty-wars-in-latin-america/ - # 4 ILEA: Is the US Restarting Dirty Wars in Latin America?
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/5-seizing-war-protesters-assets/ - # 5 Seizing War Protesters� Assets
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/6-the-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act/ - # 6 The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/7-guest-workers-inc-fraud-and-human-trafficking/ - # 7 Guest Workers Inc.: Fraud and Human Trafficking
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/8-executive-orders-can-be-changed-secretly/ - # 8 Executive Orders Can Be Changed Secretly
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/9-iraq-and-afghanistan-vets-testify/ - #9 Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Testify
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/10-apa-complicit-in-cia-torture/ - # 10 APA Complicit in CIA Torture
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-el-salvadors-water-privatization-and-the-global-war-on-terror/ - # 11 El Salvador�s Water Privatization and the Global War on Terror
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/12-bush-profiteers-collect-billions-from-no-child-left-behind/ - # 12 Bush Profiteers Collect Billions From No Child Left Behind
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-tracking-billions-of-dollars-lost-in-iraq/ - # 13 Tracking Billions of Dollars Lost in Iraq
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/14-mainstreaming-nuclear-waste/ - # 14 Mainstreaming Nuclear Waste
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/15-worldwide-slavery/ - # 15 Worldwide Slavery
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/16-annual-survey-on-trade-union-rights/ - # 16 Annual Survey on Trade Union Rights
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/17-uns-empty-declaration-of-indigenous-rights/ - # 17 UN�s Empty Declaration of Indigenous Rights
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/18-cruelty-and-death-in-juvenile-detention-centers/ - # 18 Cruelty and Death in Juvenile Detention Centers
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/19-indigenous-herders-and-small-farmers-fight-livestock-extinction/ - # 19 Indigenous Herders and Small Farmers Fight Livestock Extinction
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/20-marijuana-arrests-set-new-record/ - # 20 Marijuana Arrests Set New Record
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/21-nato-considers-first-strike-nuclear-option/ - # 21 NATO Considers �First Strike� Nuclear Option
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/22-care-rejects-us-food-aid/ - # 22 CARE Rejects US Food Aid
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/23-fda-complicit-in-pushing-pharmaceutical-drugs/ - # 23 FDA Complicit in Pushing Pharmaceutical Drugs
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/24-japan-questions-9-11-and-the-global-war-on-terror/ - # 24 Japan Questions 9/11 and the Global War on Terror
• http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/25-bushs-real-problem-with-eliot-spitzer/ - # 25 Bush�s Real Problem with Eliot Spitzer

Expanding War, Contracting Meaning

A week ago, I had a long conversation with a four-star U.S. military officer who, until his recent retirement, had played a central role in directing the global war on terror. I asked him: what exactly is the strategy that guides the Bush administration's conduct of this war? His dismaying, if not exactly surprising, answer: there is none.

President Bush will bequeath to his successor the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone. To defense contractors, lobbyists, think-tankers, ambitious military officers, the hosts of Sunday morning talk shows, and the Douglas Feith-like creatures who maneuver to become players in the ultimate power game, the Global War on Terror is a boon, an enterprise redolent with opportunity and promising to extend decades into the future.

Yet, to a considerable extent, that very enterprise has become a fiction, a gimmicky phrase employed to lend an appearance of cohesion to a panoply of activities that, in reality, are contradictory, counterproductive, or at the very least beside the point. In this sense, the global war on terror relates to terrorism precisely as the war on drugs relates to drug abuse and dependence: declaring a state of permanent "war" sustains the pretense of actually dealing with a serious problem, even as policymakers pay lip-service to the problem's actual sources. The war on drugs is a very expensive fraud. So, too, is the Global War on Terror.

Anyone intent on identifying some unifying idea that explains U.S. actions, military and otherwise, across the Greater Middle East is in for a disappointment. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt laid down "Germany first" and then "unconditional surrender" as core principles. Early in the Cold War, the Truman administration devised the concept of containment, which for decades thereafter provided a conceptual framework to which policymakers adhered. Yet seven years into its Global War on Terror, the Bush administration is without a compass, wandering in the arid wilderness. To the extent that any inkling of a strategy once existed -- the preposterous neoconservative vision of employing American power to "transform" the Islamic world -- events have long since demolished the assumptions on which it was based.

Rather than one single war, the United States is presently engaged in several.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805088156/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20"> Ranking first in importance is the war for Bush's legacy, better known as Iraq. The President himself will never back away from his insistence that here lies the "central front" of the conflict he initiated after 9/11. Hunkered down in their bunker, Bush and his few remaining supporters would have us believe that the "surge" has, at long last, brought victory in sight and with it some prospect of redeeming this otherwise misbegotten and mismanaged endeavor. If the President can leave office spouting assurances that light is finally visible somewhere at the far end of a very long, very dark Mesopotamian tunnel, he will claim at least partial vindication. And if actual developments subsequent to January 20 don't turn out well, he can always blame the outcome on his successor.

Next comes the orphan war. This is Afghanistan, a conflict now in its eighth year with no signs of ending anytime soon. Given the attention lavished on Iraq, developments in Afghanistan have until recently attracted only intermittent notice. Lately, however, U.S. officials have awakened to the fact that things are going poorly, both politically and militarily. Al Qaeda persists. The Taliban is reasserting itself. Expectations that NATO might ride to the rescue have proven illusory. Apart from enabling Afghanistan to reclaim its status as the world's number one producer of opium, U.S. efforts to pacify that nation and nudge it toward modernity have produced little.

The Pentagon calls its intervention in Afghanistan Operation Enduring Freedom. The emphasis was supposed to be on the noun. Unfortunately, the adjective conveys the campaign's defining characteristic: enduring as in endless. Barring a radical re-definition of purpose, this is an enterprise which promises to continue, consuming lives and treasure, for a long, long time.

In neighboring Pakistan, meanwhile, there is the war-hidden-in-plain-sight. Reports of U.S. military action in Pakistan have now become everyday fare. Air strikes, typically launched from missile-carrying drones, are commonplace, and U.S. ground forces have also conducted at least one cross-border raid from inside Afghanistan. Although the White House doesn't call this a war, it is -- a gradually escalating war of attrition in which we are killing both terrorists and noncombatants. Unfortunately, we are killing too few of the former to make a difference and more than enough of the latter to facilitate the recruitment of new terrorists to replace those we eliminate.

Finally -- skipping past the wars-in-waiting, which are Syria and Iran -- there is Condi's war. This clash, which does not directly involve U.S. forces, may actually be the most important of all. The war that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made her own is the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Having for years dismissed the insistence of Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, that the plight of the Palestinians constitutes a problem of paramount importance, Rice now embraces that view. With the fervor of a convert, she has vowed to broker an end to that conflict prior to leaving office in January 2009.

Given that Rice brings little -- perhaps nothing -- to the effort in the way of fresh ideas, her prospects of making good as a peacemaker appear slight. Yet, as with Bush and Iraq, so too with Rice and the Palestinian problem: she has a lot riding on the effort. If she flops, history will remember her as America's least effective secretary of state since Cordell Hull spent World War II being ignored, bypassed, and humiliated by Franklin Roosevelt. She will depart Foggy Bottom having accomplished nothing.

There's nothing inherently wrong in fighting simultaneously on several fronts, as long as actions on front A are compatible with those on front B, and together contribute to overall success. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Global War on Terror. We have instead an illustration of what Winston Churchill once referred to as a pudding without a theme: a war devoid of strategic purpose.

This absence of cohesion -- by now a hallmark of the Bush administration -- is both a disaster and an opportunity. It is a disaster in the sense that we have, over the past seven years, expended enormous resources, while gaining precious little in return.

Bush's supporters beg to differ, of course. They credit the president with having averted a recurrence of 9/11, doubtless a commendable achievement but one primarily attributable to the fact that the United States no longer neglects airport security. To argue that, say, the invasion and occupation of Iraq have prevented terrorist attacks against the United States is the equivalent of contending that Israel's occupation of the West Bank since in 1967 has prevented terrorist attacks against the state of Israel.

Yet the existing strategic vacuum is also an opportunity. When it comes to national security at least, the agenda of the next administration all but sets itself. There is no need to waste time arguing about which issues demand priority action.

First-order questions are begging for attention. How should we gauge the threat? What are the principles that should inform our response? What forms of power are most relevant to implementing that response? Are the means at hand adequate to the task? If not, how should national priorities be adjusted to provide the means required? Given the challenges ahead, how should the government organize itself? Who -- both agencies and individuals -- will lead?

To each and every one of these questions, the Bush administration devised answers that turned out to be dead wrong. The next administration needs to do better. The place to begin is with the candid recognition that the Global War on Terror has effectively ceased to exist. When it comes to national security strategy, we need to start over from scratch.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His bestselling new book is  http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805088156/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20 - The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism  (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books). To listen to a podcast in which he discusses issues relevant to this article, click http://tomdispatch.blogspot.com/ - here

Did Jesus Christ at any stage say that greed was good and Cap It All ism was divine?

Or, did he teach us Social Justice?

Socialism is based on Social Justice.

I can prove just from the Bible that Jesus Christ was the world�s First Socialist.

I love Jesus more than you might know and can�t see him being insulted even by mere implication.

You win, Shasha....I'm out of the game.

Life started as a win for me, winning lost all it�s charm since I was a child. Besides, I don't hail from some terribly and neurotically competetive culture.