1,500+100,000+54.60+ – Moon of Alabama

March 3, 2005

1,500+100,000+54.60+

More than 1,500 GI’s have died in Iraq by now. Additionally some 200 contractors and some 100 soldiers from several other countries died.

The accounts vary:
U.S. Department of Defense has some numbers. Global Security has other numbers, as do ICasualties.org and the Associated Press. All the above are usually based on reports from the U.S. military and I have my doubts that these numbers are correct.

Iraq Body Count only counts confirmed civilian dead, some 18,000 by now, directly attributed to the war and not including possible insurgents. They say their numbers are certainly an underestimation.

The scientifically correct Lancet study (free sub.) four month ago did give, as the most probable number of war related Iraqi casualties, 100,000. This was not the maximum number as some reports said, but the most probable. Today that number is likely higher.

Uncounted are still the future victims of this war. Especially those from radioactive dust distributed through the use of depleted uranium ammunition and other long term illnesses.

Higher today are also oil prices $54.60/bl and going for $80.00/bl, if not higher. This does not only mean recession, but it will also kill people, because the price for wheat, corn, rice and soybeans will rise with the oil price and the poor on this planet will not be able to afford food.

The fruitless actions of the military and the mercenaries will continue, as will the prices for commodities, until the U.S. public wakes up and kicks ass. In Vietnam it took more than 50,000 killed GI’s to bring the war to an end. What will it take in Iraq?

Posted by b on March 3, 2005 at 17:19 UTC | Permalink

Comments

“It’s time to go to war,” he says, smiling, “It’s a good opportunity.” Lopez (mercenaries link above)
I discussed the Iraq war with a few people when I was in Egypt in January, and the general feeling was that ‘America was loosing’ because of the number of US casualties. They seemed either puzzled or disbelieving when I commented that ‘America does not care’. Two or three dead GI’s/ ex. WalMart employees on a daily basis is not going to bother them.
This low-level insurgency can go on for years. As long as flag-drapped coffins are not on the evening news.
America will not be leaving Iraq any time soon. Not before hell freezes over, or 50,000 GI’s are dead.

Posted by: DM | Mar 3 2005 18:20 utc | 1

From the point of view of their geopolitical interests and the strategic presence in the Middle East, I think the US government may more or less get what they want: the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq intimidates the entire region and makes major deals without the US unthinkable. Iraqi oil is under US control, and Iran must tread much more softly. If you cynically leave the question of the war casualties aside (and less than 2000 is not much), the damaged prestige of the US (Abu Ghraib etc) may be the worst outcome for the US gov so far – and they seem to think they can somehow make the world forget – and they may be right. The image of the mad, bad, and dangerous US may go away over the next 20 years or so, and they have secured a strong influence in the world’s strategically most important region. I have to stop typing, because I suddenly feel slightly sick.

Posted by: teuton | Mar 3 2005 18:42 utc | 2

@teuton feeling kinda sick myself. The New Scientist reports that pain researchers in the UK are “furious” about U.S. research to determine how much pain can be induced in individuals, as part of the U.S. military’s development of a Pulsed Energy Projectile designed to trigger extreme pain from a distance of more than one mile. (cursor.org this day)
I don’t think the image of the mad, bad, and dangerous US is gonna go away any time soon.
remember that scene in Star Wars (the first one) where Darth Vader settles into Princess Leia’s cell for an interrogation session, accompanied by some horrible, scary torture machine covered with electrodes and needles? well that’s the image of the US for many years to come, I think — and I wish I could say it was unfair or undeserved.
research to determine how much pain can be induced in individuals ohmigawd… HTML markup not adequate to express the nausea. can we spell “Nazi war crimes”? can we spell “concentration camp experiments?” can we spell “the total corruption of science and medicine”?

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 3 2005 19:06 utc | 3

teuton
It seems to me US can pull this off only by keeping factions (iranians, shia, kurds, sunni, turks, etc.) at each others’ throats. “Insurgency” for the length of occupation, no doubt. Again, I believe only someting like a partition will work for Americans, but this is a big if for the Iraq problem, let alone instabilities created by bombing and/or occupation of Iran/Syria.
Fuicking crazies.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 3 2005 19:21 utc | 4

the memory hole has a copy of the PEP contract document that the sunshine project rcvd from the univ of fla.
and the us seems to always be experimenting on the susceptible, whether it’s psychological and other medical testing on captives in iraq/afghanistan/cuba, using bogeymen to frighten the public, forcing the citizens to be guniea pigs for big pharma & “life science” industries, using soldiers to test the effects of squalene & du, etc etc… it’s not a matter of when the u.s. becomes the nazi’s, it’s a matter of when we can recognize/admit that labels are just words. to chastize the abuses of a system which depends on abuse misses the point. societies, in the end, are judged by their actions, not their propaganda.

Posted by: b real | Mar 3 2005 19:39 utc | 5

These wars kill after the war is over.
The aim is to minimise battleground deaths.
Superior technology and military might sees to it that not many are directly killed by the enemy. Soldiers just die later, sometimes many years later. DU packs a powerful punch, and is, after the punch, a slow killer. Experimental vaccines and othe toxic substances, chemical and biological, local bugs, lack of knowledge or preparation for the dangers, all take a toll.
Returning (US) troops enter a Kafka-esque bureaucratic system of health care. They are ignored, rebuffed, insulted, given the run-around, and die.
Some insults are transmissible, either through direct infection, or through damage to sperm. Spouses and children, even future children, are affected.
How many (US) Gulf War I vets have died since they returned? How many are drawing disability? How many have claimed but have not been properly processed or awarded what they are due?
Off the cuff–, one is talking abouty 300 000 people here, dead and still alive. (Maybe overestimated?)
Many sites are devoted to this topic – definite figures are missing.
Official figures for the (US) Vietnam War deaths hover around the 50 to 60 thousand.
Far less.
And the Iraq vets are only just coming home, and claiming. Or trying to.

Posted by: Blackie | Mar 3 2005 20:34 utc | 6

Juan Cole references an interesting comment and article
Tomgram: Jonathan Schell on a Less Super Superpower.
The Bush Administration and the Neo-Cons have basic strengths in projecting the American Empire. Orwellian propaganda and media control in the USA. A low reported causality rate. Striding atop the second largest know oil reserves. US nationalism and cult of superiority promote kicking ass in the Middle East.
However, realistic analysis show that their dreams of empire are a bloody nightmare.
Empires always inevitably develop military alliances counter their power. Coalitions against the USA are already forming. The US is hugely in debt. Manufacturing has left the US.
More importantly, the US is behaving and ruling the Middle East as a foreign despot; condoning torture and defiling local cultures and religion. The Holy War will inevitable lead to the defeat of the invading Crusaders.

Posted by: Jim S | Mar 3 2005 20:38 utc | 7

DeA: How much pain can be induced??? Before one goes as mad as the people ordering this kind of research already are?
I am afraid of the fearful dialectic inherent in the current reliance on military power: The more the US does to signal full-spectrum dominance, the more threatened and powerless many nations and fractions will feel. Thus, the more the US gov seeks to create a climate that prevents the spread of nuclear weapons, the more it actually creates the desire to own them, because it is then the only way to be safe from the most direct US ‘intervention’. And with the pool of willing martyrs growing all the time, it may be only a matter of time until one of them finds a way into a western city and does the unthinkable. AND the US is already doing research on strategic mini-nukes, creating weapons that make the use of nukes in future conflicts even more probable. I know you all know this…
As Slothrop says: Crazies. On all sides. The only reasonable creatures left are me and my little pink elephant.

Posted by: teuton | Mar 3 2005 20:47 utc | 8

Raed has a post with this topic too: Iraq is Not Vietnam

Do you know that the number of US soldiers killed in Vietnam in the first two years of the war was less than one fourth of the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq till now?

He has numbers and curves.

Posted by: Fran | Mar 3 2005 20:57 utc | 9

Even if the american public doesn´t care about the soldiers dying wasn´t Pat reporting that some forces are becoming “broken”? Wouldn´t that mean a lot for the american military?
Pat if you are still around, I would love your comment on this.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Mar 3 2005 22:13 utc | 10

I would disagree with the hypothesis that the US will go on this way for 10 years with 2-4 deaths a day. Frankly, soon enough some powers will notice that the current casualties are no deterrent to US troops and have no effect on US people. These organisations (and probably countries) will also realise that they need to hit big to scare or disgust the US and make it go away. I don’t think the Wahhabis, Iran or even Sistani would accept a statu quo for a decade, and any of them could do some nasty shit.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Mar 3 2005 22:42 utc | 11

cluless joe
sadly, this bloodbath will accelerate in dimensions unimaginable, even today. defeat is not an option for the common front that constitutes the resistance in iraq. at every turning point where the u s has tried to make the world & itself believe that the task was finished – it has become clearer & clearer that the task has not yet begun
i am extremely pessimistic about the american public – the institutions of fear have done their work well & to that degree they are completely capable of escalating their criminal war to either iran or syria
while we write the bombing of iraq – the constant killing of a civilian population continues at a pace that is hidden but that is clearly significant
the political passivity in face of this criminalm war does not bode well to any substantial form of resistance in america. what was lacking for the state in any time before this point – was the kind of laws that are the second skin of this evil & criminal administration
the best of you will be targeted in one way or another – marginalised, silenced in one way or another & if there is some effectiveness in the coming resistance – it will be met by the full force of the judicial & police apparatus. in fact it has already commenced with many thousands of people in custody that is in every sense punitive. what they are doing to arab people today – they will do to you tommorrow

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 3 2005 23:05 utc | 12

@SKOD
Current plans provide for about 130,000 troops in Iraq through the end of 2006. That number, while reasonable, may be adjusted downward. The pressing necessity is to get these troops off the streets. US soldiers and Marines will be drawn in increasingly tightly over this year, ceding more and more territory and security responsibility to Iraqi forces. We will maintain rapid reaction forces that can be swiftly and briefly deployed from their bases to hot spots within their sectors, but our chief operational support will be shifting from ground to air. There will be a civil war, the only thing preventing its onset at this time being general observance of the explicit prohibition of retribution (for events such as Hilla) set down by Shiite religious leaders. We will not stay on for that war, which would entail combatting sundry Shiite and Kurdish militia/irregulars as well as the main Sunni outfits, in a conflict likely to be both between the three rival populations and within and among the Shiia. Iraqi defense forces will be chewing that particular sandwich themselves.
For what it’s worth.

Posted by: Pat | Mar 4 2005 3:56 utc | 13

pat
worth quite a bit. don’t let the sissy marxists chase you out of town.
what about iran? bombs?

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 4 2005 4:04 utc | 14

There will be a civil war … We will not stay on for that war
Mission Accomplished!

Posted by: DM | Mar 4 2005 4:30 utc | 15

Powell said what he did knowing full well that our presence in Iraq is permanent – a done deal.
The only way we will leave Iraq is five minutes ahead of catastrophe – give or take five minutes.
Posted by: Pat at May 15, 2004 10:18 PM
@Pat
I would be interested to know if you have any information on these “permanent bases” we hear about. Not a lot of reporters roaming the country at the moment.

Posted by: DM | Mar 4 2005 6:16 utc | 16

@slothrop
Beats me. Russia has allegedly said that it will provide enriched uranium to Iran this spring. That takes pressure off the EU3. Could be Putin’s looking to see how much he can squeeze out of us in return for not doing (this week, this month, this year) what we obviously don’t want him to do. A little blackmail can go a long ways, especially if the blackmailee hasn’t received all the proper assurances from Israel that it will, for the time being, ignore a long-established key component of its own defense doctrine – namely, that no Arab state shall be permitted to go nuclear. Once the enriched uranium is delivered, the already bad option of attacks on a handful of facilities is taken off the list, and what’s left is regime removal by some means or other – putting the nuclear capability into the hands of a different crew.
@DM
No, I don’t have information on specific bases, permanent or otherwise, essential or non-essential. If things went tolerably well our presence would be an indefinite one, as in Korea (or in Bosnia or Kosovo or Afghanistan, for that matter). One individual, looking ahead shortly before the elections in Iraq, opined that we’d be leaving “out the back door.” I didn’t think to ask how one makes a discreet exit, what that “back door” might be, nor what this would mean for the enormous diplomatic staff. I wish I had.

Posted by: Pat | Mar 4 2005 7:55 utc | 17

GlobalSecurity has info about US forward bases in Iraq, with maps. Its worth digging around the site, lots of info.

Posted by: Ineluctable | Mar 4 2005 10:08 utc | 18

Re: my 2:55 AM post
“what’s left is regime removal by some means or other – putting the nuclear capability into the hands of a different crew.”
Unless it isn’t obvious, regime removal is not at present a serious military option for the US. It wasn’t an option even before OIF took its toll; it certainly isn’t one now. Cats are skinned and regimes are brought down in more ways than one and in the case of Iran no outside agency can be the sole or primary force behind such an event without alienating, by an order of magnitute greater than in Iraq, the population as a whole. This is also the most serious downside of any airstrikes on nuclear facilities, which would postpone rather than hasten a homegrown turnover while only delaying nuclear weapons development. (OTOH: Iran has to be the retaliatory target of choice if another al Qaeda attack were to take place within the US. I’m sure they’re aware. Conspiracy theorists, rev your engines.)

Posted by: Pat | Mar 4 2005 10:50 utc | 19

Yea we know where they are, but WHY are they there? Nobody builds a house for nobody to live in it. It is the pre-emmanent symbol of the long term intentions of the US. Even Kerry said he would stop the construction of these bases in the debates and — the statement passed the jury without comment. Good grief, if the US had the true intention of creating stability and sovereignity in Iraq and then bring the troops home, Ha, what the fuck are those bases for, the new Iraqi army? I doubt it. Sure Pat, civil war is likely,even going on now, but I can’t see Bush throwing in the towel even in the midst of civil war sittin on top of all that oil, what, let the Iranains in, the Turks? No way, they got close to 4 years to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and they’ll stay at the table until it’s all gone, all of it.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 4 2005 10:51 utc | 20

Pat,
Hi

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 4 2005 10:54 utc | 21

@anna missed
Hi. It sure as hell is counterintuitive, isn’t it, the thought of us just…leaving. I have to work to imagine it myself. But I think it wise to get used to the idea.

Posted by: Pat | Mar 4 2005 12:23 utc | 22

(OTOH: Iran has to be the retaliatory target of choice if another al Qaeda attack were to take place within the US. I’m sure they’re aware. Conspiracy theorists, rev your engines.)
Sure, the whole world would understand that the Shia Iran must be responsible for an attack, if it would happen, done by an extremist Sunni sect that hates Shia muslim.
BTW: Who did spread the Antrax?

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2005 14:13 utc | 23

Hallo Pat. Some weeks ago you wrote that the US troops would undoubtedly be in Iraq for a long time; now you think it wise to get used to the idea of the US leaving Iraq. What has changed your mind? There are the usual suspects, but I think you may have a different explanation.

Posted by: teuton | Mar 4 2005 14:22 utc | 24

I am sure they are looking for a suitable Iranian lowlife to charge with the anthrax episode as we speak, if they don’t already have someone that is.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 4 2005 15:09 utc | 25

It’s good to read your posts, Pat–very good indeed!

Posted by: alabama | Mar 4 2005 15:31 utc | 26

@teuton
“now you think it wise to get used to the idea of the US leaving Iraq. What has changed your mind?”
The person who presented that scenario to me.
@b
Iran would be charged with harboring and abetting al Qaeda members. With a known AQ presence in 60+ countries, the case isn’t exactly a difficult to one to put forward on short notice against the world’s most prominent supporter of terrorism. And we’d have European and ME intel in hand to back us up. If that sounds unhappily familiar, well, that’s how these things work, isn’t it?

Posted by: Pat | Mar 5 2005 0:55 utc | 27

we’d have European and ME intel in hand to back us up interpreded as signed by Blair and Sharon – sure everybody will agree when they sign up …

Posted by: b | Mar 5 2005 1:05 utc | 28

Seems last I heard about AQ in Iran, was when they offered(the US) to trade those in their custody in exchange for MEK leadership in Iraq. The US refused this opportunity to receive some high ranking members of AQ. The case for AQ working, or being associated with Iranian leadership is probably as weak as the same case against Saddam, and so would expect much skepticism this time around — as a case for more war.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 5 2005 2:04 utc | 29

Quote:
If you cynically leave the question of the war casualties aside (and less than 2000 is not much), the damaged prestige of the US (Abu Ghraib etc) may be the worst outcome for the US gov so far – and they seem to think they can somehow make the world forget – and they may be right. The image of the mad, bad, and dangerous US may go away over the next 20 years or so, and they have secured a strong influence in the world’s strategically most important region.
***
It probably would be so but there is one little thing and that is that this wouldn’t be nature of an Empire…not even human nature as such…They will not stop here…they never did…they’ll become more offensive and greedy and ruthless as they managed to go along with this war thingy pretty good…They KNOW they can’t be stopped at this point so remind me why would they stop? It’s going to take some time while USA Empire collapse being rotten “from inside” in its very base, not being able to stop its deadly machinery even if they want it …just like any other Empire. In the main time they’ll grab what they can and kill who ever they need and even want…It’s increasingly becoming obvious to me how WWII events unfolded for more then decade and how the hell it was possible to happen…It’s like a curse that we need to view in front of our eyes what our “fathers” had to all over again…They call it history all tho all history books are very questionable in my eyes at this point of my life…very very questionable…
Quote:
Soldiers just die later, sometimes many years later. DU packs a powerful punch, and is, after the punch, a slow killer. Experimental vaccines and othe toxic substances, chemical and biological, local bugs, lack of knowledge or preparation for the dangers, all take a
toll.
… Some insults are transmissible, either through direct infection, or through damage to sperm. Spouses and children, even future children, are affected.
How many (US) Gulf War I vets have died since they returned? How many are drawing disability? How many have claimed but have not been properly processed or awarded what they are due?
***
I don’t give a damn shit about American solders dieing from DU and other deadly experiments of USA. Does anybody, anybody in USA EVER asks “What about population that has to live FOR GENERATIONS with deadly effects of DU without exception” …all of them, not just “dictators” that “generous” USA government wanted to replace in the name of “democracy”…I would really laugh here very loudly if reality of so many people and children dieing in bombarded countries does not make me cry.
So once again who cares for American solders who WILLINGLY decided to join USA Army KNOWING what a killing machine it is. If they are not educated they should just go to cinema and see some AMERICAN movies (and by the way we are so bored with American movies nowadays…really bored to death)…
Quote:
Good grief, if the US had the true intention of creating stability and sovereignity in Iraq and then bring the troops home, Ha, what the fuck are those bases for, the new Iraqi army? I doubt it
***
Oh Anna…did you EVER EVER think anything ludicrous like this…Hope not!
Are Americans generally ( or majority of them) sooo stupid or naïve to really believe “good intentions” of their government ? Any government let alone USA government? My God…
Quote:
but I can’t see Bush throwing in the towel even in the midst of civil war sittin on top of all that oil, what, let the Iranains in, the Turks? No way, they got close to 4 years to pull the rabbit out of the hat, and they’ll stay at the table until it’s all gone, all of it.
***
Now you are talking…

Posted by: vbo | Mar 6 2005 12:02 utc | 30

@anna missed
“if the US had the true intention of creating stability and sovereignity in Iraq and then bring the troops home…”
You’re overlooking the fact that a substantial, long-term US troop presence on foreign soil requires a certain level of local stability. It is stability that makes that long-term presence possible. The last place you want to park your fat, pricey butt is in the middle of running-sore internecine conflict. When we depart Iraq we’re still in a far better position strategically, with other bases located in the region (established before and after 9-11) but without the deep, daily liability of force protection for tens or hundreds of thousands of combat and support troops stationed in a country at violent odds with both us and itself. Counter-terrorism and intel activities can (and will) be run, as in many other places, out of the embassy and a few, more discreet facilities. And after all, there’s not much that a bomber can’t reach out and touch, little that satellites and surveillance aircraft can’t look at.
Maybe it was never ABOUT the real estate, anna missed. Maybe it was always about that grating, unfinished business from 1991 – and, like right-wing pundit Jonah Goldberg frankly asserted (and Rumsfeld is alleged to have strongly felt) the need after 9-11 to take a swing at something more substantial than the gang of pious thugs in charge of Kabul and Kandahar. These motives don’t contradict a desire for long-term basing in Iraq, but perhaps the latter neither had nor has a place of prominence among the things sought.

Posted by: Pat | Mar 6 2005 14:18 utc | 31

“The last place you want to park your fat, pricey butt is in the middle of running-sore internecine conflict ”
pat 09:18
ô tere is just the small matter of a criminal & immoral invasion & occupation

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 6 2005 16:03 utc | 32

I dont give a damn shit about American solders dieing from DU and other deadly experiments of USA. Does anybody, anybody in USA EVER asks What about population that has to live FOR GENERATIONS with deadly effects..
vbo you are right. I think though, if US soldiers had even the faintest clue about what war is and the hidden harm (vaccines, DU, etc.) that is being done them (and others, etc.) a good proportion would refuse to go.
The grip of the media, including Hollywood movies, the lies, the spin, the duplicitous work of the 7,000 (I read, ?) recruiters, as well as the social stratification in the US and the present economic situation, are effective.
(But black recruitement is down 41 % ! – Link)
Yes, many are so stupid as to believe the good intentions of the Gvmt. War is a racket, and the US is particularly good at keeping its population feeling superior, also dumbed-down educationally, the perfect combination for regarding Iraqis (say) as non humans – zombies I read in one blog – and being inured to killing. But then, look at all those Germans and French who marched off to war – it was the thing to do; they got the call up, went. Patriotism. Honor. Duty. Women pinched their white lips, stoic, or sobbed; kiddies were the only ones who asked Why Papa? The EU seems to have learned something at least – but not enough –
The scandal about DU is that everyone has conspired to cover it up. NATO has poo-pooed it, the World Health Organisation has suppressed damning reports about it (under Gro Harlem Brundtland), no Western Powers have touched the topic, and even some regular caring and well-informed lefties in the US invoke the confusion of multiple causes when discussing Gulf War Syndrome. They are certainly right about that; but then, so what? No excuse…
The sanitisation of war has reached new heights and besides some national Gvmt. or World Agencies personnel, a Gvmt. within a Gvmt, as RGiap described for Italy, all those in power thinks this is hunky-dory. Or perhaps, a-hem, it is expedient to accept the present state of affairs, and bow down.
The people who suffer the most are those who “live there.” That is no accident. The news from exYugo – last time I looked, about a year ago, is appalling.

Posted by: Blackie | Mar 6 2005 18:37 utc | 33

Quote:
But then, look at all those Germans and French who marched off to war – it was the thing to do; they got the call up, went. Patriotism. Honor. Duty.
***
Yap…same all story…that makes me sick…Serbs marched for the same reason you know…
and it’s just too late when bill comes…
I understand complexity of the situation but am just tired reading how everybody is worrying about American solders…there are much more people bombarded and they are ALL innocent…and did not want to find them selves in war situation at all…

Posted by: vbo | Mar 8 2005 12:55 utc | 34

mortgage
with reference to your commercial: interest rates have plummeted

Posted by: Anti-spam | Mar 8 2005 22:13 utc | 35

Back to Main