Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Casualties of war: dead, buried and discarded

By Pierre Tristam - posted Monday, 30 October 2006


Bush’s reply: “I don't think they’re going badly. I mean, obviously I think they’re going badly for the soldiers who lost their lives, and I weep for that person and their family. But no, I think we’re making good progress. As I said I pray for calmness when the seas are storming, and I - you know, my faith is an integral part of being who I am, and I’m not going to change.”

Obviously not.

The exchange dates back to September 22, 2003. Notice that Iraqi civilian casualties didn’t register with the president’s concerns - not then, not now. Asked about the recent estimate placing Iraqi deaths at 650,000 since 2003, Bush’s reply was: “600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just - it’s not credible.”

Advertisement

It’s not as if men with the intellectual capacity to address the matter more intelligently do any better. To the contrary. They flex the same kind of contemptuous brawn by other means: “Certainly while we were losing relatively small numbers of soldiers early on, I think that was a huge shock,” Max Boot, the columnist and Council on Foreign Relations grunt, tells Reuters this week. “But now that it’s kind of accumulated it doesn’t have as much of a shock value. This is reminiscent of Stalin’s phrase about how ‘one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.’ There’s some truth to that.”

There’s truth to it only if the likes of Boot reinforce the likes of Stalin. And the likes of Boot have been stomping that “truth” into the American way of reporting since the beginning of the war, going as far as making such absurd comparisons between the “low” number of American casualties in this war and those in previous wars.

They have the numbers on their side. So far in Iraq, 3,026 “allied” soldiers have been killed, 2,788 of them American. At Antietam on September 17, 1862, 6,500 Union and Confederate soldiers were killed in a single day; at Shiloh, 24,000 in two days; on D-Day in Normandy 1,465 Americans were killed and 3,184 wounded; and in the Battle of the Somme, at least 21,000 men died in the first hour of the first day, and 60,000 by the end of that first day. Then there are the ghastly bombings of World War II - Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. But the relativists usually prefer not to mention those because they’re almost entirely civilian casualties.

If even military deaths have essentially been cleansed of their meaning, dehumanised, purposefully and systematically, how are civilian deaths to matter at all?

Yet the true devastation of the Iraq war has little to do with soldiers, if we’re into comparing numbers. It’s about the civilians. Right-wingers can’t downplay the number of military casualties in comparison with other wars and ignore the number of civilian casualties, regardless of how those numbers are interpreted - unless they consider an Iraqi civilian death less valuable than an American military death.

The open secret here is that they do, and Boot-fetished right-wingers alone aren’t to blame for this. Just look at the way the media report on casualties in general. If American soldiers barely register as numbers, Iraqis don’t register at all. They don’t count. When they are counted, they’re scabrously discounted, as has been the case since that study was published, showing possibly 650,000 Iraqi deaths since 2003.

Advertisement

The debate over the study shows up the disconnect of the American public and media over the devastation of the war better than anything to date. No matter how much you downgrade the number, even if it’s cut in half, it still amounts to more deaths in three years, as a result of the American intervention, than all the killings of the Saddam Hussein regime in a quarter century - and all the killings at Hiroshima, Hamburg, Tokyo and Dresden combined. It’s still more than all the American dead of World War I and II combined. It’s still more than all the American dead, northerner or southerner, of the Civil War, and by far more than all the American dead, soldier and civilian, in all wars involving Americans since World War II, combined. (See for yourself.)

But if we care so little about American casualties, we can’t very well be expected to care at all about Iraqi casualties. They’re a means to an end, like those 50 prime-time deaths every night.

As President Bush said on January 26, 2005, when he was told of a helicopter crash that claimed the lives of 31 Americans that day: “Obviously, any time we lose lives it’s a sad moment … And listen, the story today is going to be very discouraging to the American people. I understand that. We value life. And we weep and mourn when soldiers lose their life. And - but it is the long-term objective that is vital, and that is to spread freedom.”

In other words, don’t Iraqis dare stand in the way. They’ve never mattered in this war - not in 2003, not in 2005, not today. They have only one admissible role. They’re décor to the American way of gore, fillers for the new mass graves.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in Pierre Tristam-Candide’s Notebooks on October 21, 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Pierre Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer and editor of Candide's Notebooks. Reach him at ptristam@att.net

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Pierre Tristam
Related Links
Fact rather than fable in the Iraq debate - On Line Opinion

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Pierre Tristam
Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy