What the heck is going on over there?!?

[K.I.L.E.R]

of course there is the old regime which is promoting much of this and I don't mean to downplay this or say it's directly correlatable

Learn to read. I never said this was a perfect parallel - Hell, a war just happened there, I mean use some common sence. To directly compare them with California which is hardly a warzone and hardly facing the same post-regime crisis as Iraq just shows utter ignorance. But the underlying point is that these acts happen everywhere and as Pax well stated that at this point it's minimal and that there is no mass insuregency... yet.

There are places in some inner-cities (as O'Reilly just pointed out when he visited Chicago) that experiences over 100 homicides in a 6 month period. People disapear, the police won't even dare venture into these neighborhoods. To claim that this type of situation isn't a world-wide phenomina is wrong.

Where do you get your statistics from Vince?
Over 100 homicides in a 6 month period is aweful.

 

[Bogotron]

I'm sure the Independent, or any paper for that matter, can report events such as you site, however I do not believe they reflect the complete situation accurately.

That is the main concernt with reports from the region. It's hard to know if Mr. Mansour is the village idiot, laying it on really thick so the fancy westerners will feel sorry for him or simply telling the honest truth.

People still had water and power.

After the first Gulf War? Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Most probably not, since I haven't been there and digging up unbiased/reliable information after the media went into a feeding frenzy round about last december has been difficult. Seriously poor wording on my part (damn it's easy to see that in hindsight) makes it too easy to read my sentence as "everyone had power, even old goat-farmer Haseem in his cabin up in the mountains", and not "major cities had sanitation and basic anemities and hospitals had power".

I have been fairly aware that living-conditions outside the major 5-6 cities can best be summed up as primitive. And before the first gulf war things were much better (just look at the salaries of the average goverment employee and how that nose-dived), but the major cities did have water and power (even if it was only for use in vital infrastructure) from what I understand. How do you keep a city like Baghdad or An-Najaf densly populated without basic sanitation? Look at the brouhaha when An-Nasiriyah was without water. This was definitely not something that they were used to, and that is a major Shia city IIRC.

Where did you think the figures of 4-500,000 people dead from sanctions came from? For some it was malnutrition, but the majority of those dead came from water-borne disease.

But this is mainly in smaller villages, not the major cities, right? And is only 4-500.000 deaths over the entire 12 year period attributed to sanctions? I'd imagined it had been more...

Just because 99% of the international press are staying in Baghdad and only see what happens there, doesn't mean it's 99% of the country. Other parts were doing much worse before the war, and are doing a bit better (and a lot better compared to how they used to be) now.

What bothers me about the current information available is that we don't get to hear this side of reality. Shouldn't the coalition have a press/pr corps that makes it their agenda to get these stories in the papers as well? Why not drag up some success stories from Iraq. There has to be some of them out there...

 

[Dave H]

But this is mainly in smaller villages, not the major cities, right? And is only 4-500.000 deaths over the entire 12 year period attributed to sanctions? I'd imagined it had been more...

Some reports put the figures at up to a million or more, but these were essentially taking what the Iraqi government said at face value. The most indepth report had an attributible deaths count of ~225,000 from 1990-1998, with ~40,000 per year ongoing at the end of the survey. That's where I got my 400-500,000 number, although now that I look at the study is seems it doesn't cover the period after the Oil for Food program started up, and thus the morbidity rate certainly went down since then and thus the total count is probably 300-400,000.

On the one hand, it's worth noting that the Kurds in Northern Iraq, who enjoyed de facto autonomy from the Baghdad government because of the Northern No-Fly zone, were actually doing better on the indices of public health (e.g. life expectancy, birth mortality, child mortality, etc.) from the late '90s on than they had been before the first Gulf War, despite being under the exact same sanctions regime, and worse being almost entirely cut out of the Oil for Food program which was generally controlled by Saddam (actually by Uday IIRC). On the other hand it should be noted that Northern Iraq has much better access to naturally clean drinking water than does Southern Iraq.

Just because 99% of the international press are staying in Baghdad and only see what happens there, doesn't mean it's 99% of the country. Other parts were doing much worse before the war, and are doing a bit better (and a lot better compared to how they used to be) now.

What bothers me about the current information available is that we don't get to hear this side of reality. Shouldn't the coalition have a press/pr corps that makes it their agenda to get these stories in the papers as well? Why not drag up some success stories from Iraq. There has to be some of them out there...[/quote]

There are, if you know where to look. Here are a couple posts from OxBlog and one from Dan Drezner pointing to (although I bet some of those links are dead by now) and quoting from primary sources on the issue:

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_oxblog_archive.html#105546799124772705
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_oxblog_archive.html#95566557
http://drezner.blogspot.com/2003_05_25_drezner_archive.html#95039492

And I've seen several other stories along those lines from different areas. I'll agree that the US is looking somewhat incompetent at presenting its side of the story, and indeed that that's not the only thing they're looking incompetent at. In general I think it's quite obvious that the US troops are not well trained as peacekeepers, and that it was a large mistake not to address that in advance in some way (either by doing much more peacekeeper training, or by bringing along more international troops who are good at that sort of thing).

However, I totally disagree with the idea that the occupation is going very badly so far, and even more so that the continuing trickle of combat deaths represents any sort of long-term problem. Sorry folks, for 23 deaths in a month and a half is hardly a quagmire or in any way unexpected, except perhaps for being unexpectedly low. The key point that seems to be missed in all this is that the violent resistence is not coming from wide swaths of the Iraqi people as a whole, but rather from a few scattered ex-Baathists isolated in a small area of the country, plus some hundreds of non-Iraqi Arab fighters they smuggled into the country to fight for them. Large swaths of the Iraqi people in general distrust the US, are disappointed in the occupation so far, and/or would like the US troops out as soon as possible, but none of them have turned that into violence so far, nor do they appear likely to soon or ever.

The occupation certainly hasn't gone as well as it could have so far. And most of the mistakes that have occurred seem like they should have been avoided. But on the other hand, none of them has been very large (and some of the "largest", like the whole Museum thing, turned out to be not nearly as large as originally reported), and none of them seems to present insurmountable long-term problems IMO.

It seems to me that the media coverage of the occupation has been itching to find problems and present them as representing proof that the transistion is doomed to failure. And from scrutinizing those stories and reading between the lines, I think that conclusion is very premature. Yet if this sort of sensationalistic reporting is the only way to keep the media focused on the occupation, then IMO it's on balance a good thing; I definitely support holding us to a very high standard and keeping attentioned focused on the rebuilding of Iraq, because it would be both a humanatarian and strategic disaster if it ended up like Afghanistan or many other military interventions. Of course, if the media coverage turns into pressure for an early pull out, that would be one of the worst things possible.

 

[Bogotron]

There are, if you know where to look. [urls...]

Thanks for the links. I guess I'll have to get used to blogging, so it might as well be now.

[mistakes] like the whole Museum thing, turned out to be not nearly as large as originally reported)

Funny you mention that. If this article is anything to go by, then it wasn't so small after all. But it is fairly common nowadays to report grossly exaggerated news if there is little actual information available (at least in the headline news services). So you end up with "end of the world!", "nah, it's not that bad", "ouch, well, maybe it stings a little", "looking back, it built charater" etc. occilation between "good" and "bad". If it wasn't for the actual stories they report, one could be amused by reading the reports and watching the pendulm swing back and forth over time.

Of course, if the media coverage turns into pressure for an early pull out, that would be one of the worst things possible.

I hope that never happens. In for a penny, in for a pound (if I remember my english proverbs correctly).

 

[Dave H]

like the whole Museum thing, turned out to be not nearly as large as originally reported)

Funny you mention that. If this article is anything to go by, then it wasn't so small after all. But it is fairly common nowadays to report grossly exaggerated news if there is little actual information available (at least in the headline news services). So you end up with "end of the world!", "nah, it's not that bad", "ouch, well, maybe it stings a little", "looking back, it built charater" etc. occilation between "good" and "bad". If it wasn't for the actual stories they report, one could be amused by reading the reports and watching the pendulm swing back and forth over time.

Quite true, it definitely wasn't a small issue, especially if you consider the loss, theft, and destruction of all antiquities throughout the entire country, rather than just the collection of the Baghdad Museum. Still, the story as originally reported--that the entire collection of one of the world's most important antiquities museums was entirely gone; that it had happened due only to the indifference and negligence of the American forces, in broad daylight after they had total control of the city--turned out to be completely incorrect. The losses elsewhere were far worse than those at the Baghdad Museum, and it's unclear if the US could have done anything to stop the most serious thefts at the Museum.

Incidentally, some archeologist (bloggers ) I'd read had made the point that far more important than losses at the Museum are the looting of current archeological dig sites--after all, at least the world has pictures and detailed analysis of all the finds that were in the Museum, so losing them doesn't mean losing much if any knowledge; but a looted dig means the knowledge that have been gained will probably never be reconstructed. One wonders if the "cried wolf" aspect to the Museum reporting means the dig looting that is apparently going on won't get the coverage it deserves.

 

[davefb]

There was uk bbc2 tv programme about the baghdad museum. This antiquities specialist ( who i'd last seen on tv in afghanistan visiting all these ruined sites and the ruined museum) went to it... i managed to miss most of it.. however he concluded that ,

1. the people running it should be removed because they were bhathists. this included the manager who though he'd previously spoken with her in english she was now denying she could speak it.( i think he'd said she, as i say i managed to miss most of the programe )

2. there really wasnt that much removed .

3. they'd NEVER cataloged it properly.

4. they'd just made the stolen figures up to put the US/UK in a bad light.

5. most of the missing stuff was basically the gold and jewellry which was most likely swiped previously by the iraqi regime...

[ ouch just read the guardian link thats just horrific , i bet lots of that cuniform stuff wasnt even translated yet ]

personally i recon theres been some really, really good bbc2 stuff on recently.....

-dave-

if you watched "holidays in the evil empire" then yeah, what saddam had managed to do at other sites was insidious as well........

 

[nutball]

There was uk bbc2 tv programme about the baghdad museum. This antiquities specialist ( who i'd last seen on tv in afghanistan visiting all these ruined sites and the ruined museum) went to it... i managed to miss most of it.. however he concluded that ,

I saw that programme. After watching the first one (on the impact of the Israel-Palestine conflict on historical monuments in that area) I was expecting a pro-Iraqi bias. In actual fact his conclusions are that the coalition forces did everything one might reasonably expect of them (the museum was being used as a military stronghold by the Iraqi militia), and most of the fault for the poor state of the museum holdings lies with the ex-regime.

The presenter (Dan Cruichshank) did a write-up on the BBC web page, it's well worth a look:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/iraq_after_the_war_01.shtml

This quote struck me:

The British government, the British Museum and UNESCO are all now offering help to the Iraq Museum. It seems to me that they should be very cautious. The museum is too important to the Iraqi people - to us all - to be left in the hands of people whose past is murky and mysterious.

 

[Clashman]

It looks like up to 5 U.S. soldiers were killed yesterday, another died, and another 2 captured and quite possibly dead. I've been doing some number crunching, to try and get an idea of where we're going with this all.

This is my 4 day count. Most online sources aren?t listing all the incidents together, so I'll include my sources at the bottom. Some of the reports are only showing up in snippets in the individual reports, so you kind of have to look for them.

6.24.03
6 Dead British, 8 Wounded in two apparently separate incidents in S. Iraq

6.25.03
1 Dead U.S. 2 Wounded in crash while responding to Ambush with 3 wounded U.S.

6.26.03
1 Dead U.S., 8 Wounded SW Baghdad
1 Dead U.S., 1 Wounded Bomb, Baghdad airport road
2 Missing, (probably dead), US, abducted in Baghdad
2 Dead Iraqis assisting U.S. forces in Baghdad. Grenade attack. Unconfirmed # U.S. wounded. No U.S. dead.
Smoldering U.S. army truck. Unconfirmed # wounded or dead. Witnesses report 2 US dead.
1 Dead U.S, 9 Wounded near Najaf. Killed while on patrol
1 Dead US Navy. Non-Combat related.

6.27.03
1 Dead U.S. in Baghdad. Shot while buying DVDs.

70-74 (Including missing troops) Coalition forces have died since May 1st, according to today's news and http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/wd.php.

At this rate, (70 Confirmed Dead/58 Days since the war "ended"), by September 23rd, the total Coalition deaths "After The War Ended" will equal the amount killed "During The War".

By March 19, 2004, the one year anniversary of the war:

567 Coalition Troops (176 during the war + 70 up until now + 266 days at the "After The War" rate), will have died.

Countless Iraqis Civilians will have died. http://www.IraqBodyCount.org is currently estimating between 5,570 and 7,243 civilians have been killed thus far based on news reports by journalists, hospital reports, etc, within Iraq. For various reasons this count is incomplete. Journalists cannot be present at all times and in all places, and in many cases do not even hear about many of the deaths. Many Iraqi's are unlikely to take their dead to the hospital, and simply bury them quietly. Sometimes there is noone left to report the damage, or to do counts. Iraqi hospitals were not even able to keep an accurate track at certain points during the war, as casualties woule often stream in at several per minute, and treating them was more important than counting. Also, the Iraqi Red Crescent, which is also in the process of conducting a count, was/is being denied access to some of the areas that suffered the heaviest fighting. The numbers there will probably never be known with real accuracy. This estimate also fails to take into civilians who die indirectly because of the war, from starvation, malnutrition, and disease. During the first Gulf War, 2,500 to 3,500 civilians died in the war itself, but it was estimated that more than 100,000 died needlessly when refrigeration systems failed, when easily curable diseases before the war went untreated due to a devastated health infrastructure, from drinking contaminated drinking water, etc. These factors likely also played into effect significantly in the second Gulf War, but it is questionable if they will ever be tallied.

Countless Iraqi military personel will have died. In one push during the "Battle Of Baghdad", the U.S. military boasted of killing over 2,000 Iraqis. It will be next to impossible to document soldiers deaths, and so the real number will likely never be known.

Current U.S. resentment appears to be high. There's no telling when, (or if), these attacks will slow or stop. The U.S. military does not even appear to have any concrete targets or organizations to go after, simply referring to them all as "Baathist Elements", a generalization I personally find hard to swallow. Moreover, many senior defense and government officials are stating that we will likely be in Iraq for at least another 5 years, and it seems likely that this could continue for quite some time. It sure seems to me as if Iraq is going to be causing Americans alot more problems now than it ever did before we went to war.

Sources On Attacks:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030626/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_307

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=514&ncid=514

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...nm/iraq_shooting_dc&cid=564&ncid=1473

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?p=...l=sl&nosum=0&large=0&t=1056729948

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_341

Just wanted to point out to y'all that this original projection seems to be pretty spot on, according to http://www.pigstye.net/iraq , we have just in the past several days reached an "after the war ended" coalition death toll that surpassed the "during the war" death toll, (note: earlier reports of U.S. deaths equaling the war total hit earlier because the U.S. has been taking on a larger proportion of the deaths as the Brits have scaled back their operations somewhat in comparison).

This is not meant as an "I told you so", but rather as something to think of the next time Coalition commanders try to downplay the attacks as "desperate acts" or as having decreased in recent weeks. In fact, the rate at which Soldiers are killed has increased since I originally posted this. Having miscounted the total war dead by 2 at the time I only calculated for that many to have been killed by now. The reality is that the death toll today, (the original day I predicted we'd hit the "wartime" tally), is about eleven higher than I had originally anticipated.

 

[Sazar]

When did Bush say the war was over?

heh... I am in a nitpicking mood so bear with me

okies... TECHNICALLY we never DECLARED war... therefore there need not be a declaration that the war is over since... supposedly... we never WENT to war..

lol... yah well... it sounded good when I was formulating that in my mind

 

[kyleb]

but remember, this was actually a continuation of the war back in 1991. we had to finish it because we were under the impression that Iraq broke the cease fire agreement by stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. or at least i remember seeing that argument at one point. :?

 

[zurich]

If you figure in the number of soldiers that died at the hospital from their wounds, soldiers that died from "illness" (DU), and "seriously wounded" (read: amputated) soldiers, the figures become that much more disturbing.

 

[epicstruggle]

but remember, this was actually a continuation of the war back in 1991. we had to finish it because we were under the impression that Iraq broke the cease fire agreement by stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. or at least i remember seeing that argument at one point. :?

I almost positive that you posted (prior to the war) that any WMDs that would be found would probably have been planted by the US. At the very least I hope you can agree that the US has tried (trying) to get the truth out now.

later,

 

[Clashman]

If you figure in the number of soldiers that died at the hospital from their wounds, soldiers that died from "illness" (DU), and "seriously wounded" (read: amputated) soldiers, the figures become that much more disturbing.

The figure grows exponentially with the Iraqi toll as well when you add in figures from DU, starvation, hunger, and disease related deaths as a result of the destruction of infrastructure during the war, deaths caused by mayhem since the collapse of the Iraqi state and the lawlessness that ensued, Iraqi soldiers deaths, wounded and maimed, deaths from cluster munitions that are still exploding, as well as the tolls from the recent bombings and checkpoint shootings that I believe have yet to be added to www.iraqbodycount.net.

After the first Gulf War a survey was done based on these statistics to determine the civillian toll of the war, (this didn't include Iraqi soldiers, nor the toll from the Shiite uprising which was crushed), and the person doing the survey concluded that while only around 2500 to 3500 died as a result of the bombing itself during the war, the final civillian toll when all those factors were taken in reached far above 100,000. For further information about that, check this out:

http://www.glovesoff.org/web_archives/mondiplo_mar03_daponte.html

 

[zurich]

Well, I'm personally really disturbed by this DU stuff. Supposedly in some areas of Iraq hit by heavy bombing/shelling, radiation levels are something like 1000x above normal.

 

[RussSchultz]

DU is not terribly radioactive, so it isn't from that.

http://www.vbs.admin.ch/ls/e/bg_info/du/

Look about halfway down, or search for:

The dose-rate from external radiation in the vicinity of DU is very low. One kg DU at a distance of 1 m produces a dose of less than 1 mSv per year. In comparison, an average person in Switzerland accumulates about 3 mSv per year from natural radiation sources.

According to some American publications, if a DU surface is touched by the bare skin, a localized dermal dose of about 2 mSv per hour results. The very improbable case of a direct contact for several days with the same part of the skin would lead to a considerable dermal dose.

Radiation doses of millisieverts per year do not cause acute radiation damage; the only consequence would be a barely quantifiable increase in the risk of cancer.

 

[zurich]

In small doses yes, but when 2000 tonnes of DU ordanance were dropped in the matter of weeks, then it can become a problem

 

[Clashman]

It's also a matter of what form it's in, Russ. When handled before it's fired, DU generally has a fairly low level of toxicity. DU after it's been fired, however, aerosolizes on impact and does in fact become highly toxic. There is also a significant amount of evidence that suggests that the U.S. used non-depleted uranium in Afghanistan. If that's the truth, then I would find it hard to believe that Iraq is much different.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1112-01.htm

There have been many studies on Gulf War Syndrome over the years, as well as on possible long-term health hazards of DU munitions. Most have been inconclusive. But some researchers said the previous studies on DU, conducted by groups and agencies ranging from the World Health Organization to the Rand Corp. to the investigative arm of Congress, weren't looking in the right place -- at the effects of inhaled DU.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, director of the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, and center research associates Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz, published a unique study in the August issue of Military Medicine medical journal.

The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of thermal ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to easily distinguish between natural uranium and DU.

The study, which examined British, Canadian and U.S. veterans, all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found that, nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in their urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a deceased Gulf War veteran.

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Uranium-Levels-Afghanistan5jun03.htm

 

[RussSchultz]

Toxicity is different than radioactivity.

DU is not 1000x more radioactive than background radiation, so the 1000x radioactivity problem that Zurich quotes (if it exists) cannot be from that.

 

[Clashman]

Toxicity is different than radioactivity.

DU is not 1000x more radioactive than background radiation, so the 1000x radioactivity problem that Zurich quotes (if it exists) cannot be from that.

From the commondreams article linked above:

DU shell holes in the vehicles along the Highway of Death are 1,000 times more radioactive than background radiation, according to Geiger counter readings done for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Dr. Khajak Vartaanian, a nuclear medicine expert from the Iraq Department of Radiation Protection in Basra, and Col. Amal Kassim of the Iraqi navy.

The desert around the vehicles was 100 times more radioactive than background radiation; Basra, a city of 1 million people, some 125 miles away, registered only slightly above background radiation level.

 

[Clashman]

Even if we were only talking about toxicity, that's still a huge damn health disaster waiting to happen, (actually, it's already happening, come to think of it). It also ignores the liklihood of us using NON-depleted uranium, which is also a huge health risk.