A new study by the World Health Organization and the Iraqi government estimates the Iraqi civilian death count since the start of the war at 151,000. Sectarian violence and terrorist bombings certainly account for a huge chunk of this. But it's worth noting that this sort of chaos was not the norm in Iraq (although the organized violence of Saddam Hussein was) prior to George W. Bush's war of choice to root out non-existent weapons of mass destruction, retaliate against Iraq for its non-existent connection to 9/11, and establish a non-existent democracy in Iraq.

A quote from the wire, "The new estimate covers a period from the start of the war in March 2003 through June 2006."

So this latest study does not include any of the violence in 2007, the most violent year in Iraq. Therefore the real toll at this point is much higher, probably more than 200,000.

Since we are never going to be able to create a stable government that is both democratic and pro-American, I don't see why we need to stay in this mess one day longer.

So there is a fanatical segment of Muslims in the Arab world who think in pan-nationalist terms, of a unified Islamic world against the infidels. They have all sorts of trouble gaining real footholds in the various countries in the region b/c most people's heart and interests is satisfied locally, w/in their clans, villages, states, and country's. Certainly the rulers of the various countries do not want any real pan-nationalism, they like their local power.

So how do we show this radical faction that has no real home and no clear constituency that we mean business? We overthrow one of their enemies, occupy indefinitely two Arab nations and become the trigger for the deaths of well over 200,000 Iraqis, largely civilians, w/ tens of thousands being women and children. We also create two failed states in the process, which to thugs and bandits w/ no home state is as good as establishing safe havens for them.

Why do our rulers insist on using such blunt weapons for what of necessity is a defensive and offensive task that requires subtler means? We have to reduce our footprint in the region to always be able to undermine the draw of radicalism. TR said "walk softly and carry a big stick" and we all know we have the big stick, but it has to be combined w/ a much softer walk to make strategic sense.

Considering the atrocity of war and the fact that I'm sure we'd all like to see zero Iraqis killed, it would be inteesting to know how many Iraqis were killed or who disappeared under the rule of Saddam Hussein in the same time period as the current war/police action/nation building.

I suspect the number is considerably higher.

From the stand point of American national security the worst part about it is we have largely ignored Russia and China. Those two countries pose a far greater threat to US natioal security interests than Iraq ever did.

We are going to be withdrawing from Iraq within the next year. The American military is being worn down and cannot continue the current operations much longer, furthermore, the American people will not tolerate this for much longer either.

The surge may have helped to reduce violence some but it will be ending soon and the withdrawl of American and Coalton forces will begin. Maybe the sectarian violence will not pick back up to the level it was before the surge but I think it will probably will and with the abscense of American and Coalition forces the levels of sectarian violence are likely to be higher for the period from 10/1/08 to 10/1/11 than they were for 2003-2006. I hope I'm wrong of course and I hope the Iraqis can establish a secure and prosperous country for themselves. This will ultimately be up to them. After 9/30/08 all US and coaltion forces will likely be out of Iraq.

Poster,

I agree with you entirely and I think that a lot of people in this country are trying to avoid thinking about the impending overall threat from that continent. Especially, with regard to China.

It was explained to me in an earlier post that China is not a worry for us militarily because of how they are the recipients of economic windfalls due to their beneficial relationship with our economy and business entities.

Because of that relationship, they have had greater access to our technologies (many that are conducive to military application) and have used their great profits (our deficit is their surplus!) to build up their military might.

With their historic track record for aggression, I doubt that they’ll be using that military for defensive purposes.

ASDF: I'll consult my State Dept. Report on Human Rights and get back with the estimates of killing under Saddam Hussein's regime.

I think it might be interesting the know what that number is. thx

"Since we are never going to be able to create a stable government that is both democratic and pro-American, I don't see why we need to stay in this mess one day longer."

I think we should stay 100 years.

Regards,

John McCain

Neither Russia nor China has shown a hint of interest in any kind of military conflict with the United States.

151,000, thats all? man i want to see that number x10. how many did the U.S. kill? how many did retard muslims kill? these people chose there side. so they pay the price. NO tears here for these numbers. just the nearly 4000 us dead.

Again, Ben-T, there is your World and the world as it really is. You believe that it's only offensive aggression that begets reciprocate aggression. But, it ain't. You’re view of the world is very naïve and you need to understand that there are people out there who will attack us just because. Why can’t we all just get along? Human nature.

ASDF, you say that I am living in a fairy tale world, but its you who believes in storybook monsters.

And then of course your total unwillingness to even discuss the idea betrays that you do not believe you can defend your world view in a debate.

P.S: If you believe that Russia and China will attack us "just because" it should be rather easy for you to produce one iota of evidence that suggests either of them are interested in a conflict with the US.

Unfortunately none exists.

One last note. Sorry to keep posting, but reading your argument is something like, as Dinesh D'souza likes to say, being a mosquito in a nudist camp. To clarify, I do not believe there is no such thing as unprovoked aggression. I believe that in the current conflict between the United States and "terrorism", the United States is the aggressor (and, while people like to pretend the tactics of organized warfare are in some way anything but terrorism, it is without question true that Uncle Sam has killed far more of their innocent civilians than they have ours). Unless the US government chooses to replicate that unfounded aggression against Russia or China, we have no reason to believe that they will do so to us. Why? Because as I have stated, and you have dodged, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they have any interest in a military conflict with the US. Just like there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Al Qaeda's reasons for attacking the US lie outside of what they claim them to be: That we have occupied their lands and slaughtered thousands of their innocents.

Look,

As for Russia and China their interests are LOCAL to them, their desire for aggrandizement and prestige, and hence aggressiveness pertains to wanting to be dominant in their REGIONS of the globe. The idea that they are militarily a threat to us depends on the unexamined assumption that we should be the dominant player in any region of the globe, which is just ridiculous. Why would we want to? We are no good at empires. How can we afford to? We can't.

China and Russia are clearly aggressive relatively speaking, but in a manner equivalent to us and our tradition of the Monroe Doctrine and hemispheral dominance. We do not want any other world powers vying for dominance in our neighborhood, and Russia and China seek the same in theirs. This desire is natural to modern nation states and can be handled w/o histrionics and w/ no serious threat to us or our interests if we get over the idea that we can dictate relative balance of powers between nations in every area of the globe as well as get rid of entangling alliances.

Dan,

After you find out how many Iraqis Hussein killed (wink) maybe you can explain why it should matter to us. Tagem is indifferent to how many Iraqis we kill b/c of his racism, I am indifferent to how many Saddam killed b/c it does not imperil our nation. Do radical Islamists gain anything from Saddam killing his citizens? I doubt much. But they do gain immeasurably from our open-ended occupation of Iraq and killing of Iraqi civilians as well as the chaos sown which (even when we aren't doing the killing) we take the blame for.

When one of the region's own is a brutal dictator the consequences to us are nil, but when we take on that role the dangers to us are readily apparent and disastrous.

ASDF: The State Dept. Report doesn't give a figure, but it references reports of "tens of thousands of reported disappearances," 3,000 summary executions from 1997 to 2000, and mass killings of Kurds. If we didn't have a single source of human intelligence on the ground in Iraq in the last years of Saddam, it's not surprising that we don't even have a ballpark figure. It's safe to assume that he killed a lot of people.

"You believe that it's only offensive aggression that begets reciprocate aggression. But, it ain't. You’re view of the world is very naïve and you need to understand that there are people out there who will attack us just because. Why can’t we all just get along? Human nature."

Just out of curiosity, does this view of "human nature" also apply to those who formulate American foreign policy? Do they -- not we -- engage in 'offensive' aggression? Or is it just other countries -- the Hans and Slavs and Jihadists -- who are influenced by 'human nature?'

"You believe that it's only offensive aggression that begets reciprocate aggression. But, it ain't. You’re view of the world is very naïve and you need to understand that there are people out there who will attack us just because. Why can’t we all just get along? Human nature."

Just out of curiosity, does this view of "human nature" also apply to those who formulate American foreign policy? Do they -- not we -- engage in 'offensive' aggression? Or is it just other countries -- the Hans and Slavs and Jihadists -- who are influenced by 'human nature?'

Of course it is difficult to say how many people Saddam Hussein killed not only because of the lack of credible records, but because there is always a question of culpability. Is he responsible for all the Iraqis who died in the Iran/Iraq war? But if he is, are others also responsible? Is he responsible for all the deaths that were due to the UN embargo? Or does he share that responsibility with others?

How many people Saddam killed is an interesting question, but it isn't relevant to the ongoing debate about our occupation in Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was a dictator -- we knew about his brutality since the early 1980s -- but because he was an alleged threat.

I think the longer we stay in Iraq the more difficult it will be to leave. How is it going to be easier to leave in 5 years or 10 years than it is now? In fact, it will be much more problematic because we will become much more ingrained in Iraqi civil society, and our departure will cause even bigger problems.

Bite the bullet, withdraw immediately, consign the Bush Presidency to America's biggest flop.

Russia and China already control their regions of the earth. There military build up seems to go far beyond what would be necessary to maintain control over their regions. The Pentagon recently reported efforts to hack into its computers by China. Russian spying efforts have been reported by the military to be at Cold WAr levels. In addition to this, Russia maintains the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world.

Through relations with countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Panama and others in Central and South America Russia and China wield more influence over Central and South America than the US does. So much for the Monroe Doctrine.

It does not seem to be entriey true that Russia and China are not seeking a military confrontation with the US. In any event the military build up of both Russia and China seems to go far beyond what would be necessary to maintain domination of the regions arund them which they already dominate.

It remains to be seen how interested the Russians and the Chinese will be in a confrontation with the US once the US ceases to be a major world power. After the US has ceased to be a major power, the Russians and the Chinese may not be interested in the US any more. Due to its huge national debt, its hollowed out industrial base, and its worn donw military the US is unlikely to be able to continue to be a major world even if it wanted to be for much longer. In addition to this, the American people are tired of ongoing military operations around the world. They will vote out of office anyone who wishes to continue this role. As such, the US role as a major world power will likely be over by the end of 2010. I think it is highly likely that Russia and China will fill the void left by the US. Will the world be better with Russia and/or China acting in the world policeman role that has been filled by the US since the end of WWII? Do we even need a global cop? I don't know the answers to these questions but the world will likely be finding out soon. I'm inclined to think the world will be a much rougher place without the US as a major influence but I don't know. We will all likely be finding out soon enough.

I would not be opposed to an agreement with Russia and China. As part of this agreement, NATO would agree to withdraw all forces from former Soviet Soccialist Republics. These forces are not significant enough to pose an offensive threat to Russia and they have only limited utility as a defensive force. Russian leadership has lamented the fall of the Soviet Union. After NATO forces withdraw, Russia can retake the territories of the former Soviet Union. In exchange, Russia would agree to withdraw all support from the Iranian and Syrian leadership. Without the support of Russia the Islamic terrorists who are supported by Iran and Syria would be much easier to contain and ultimately defeat.

As part of an agreemnt with China, the US could withdraw even the token support it has shown for Tawain. In exchange for this China withdraws its support for the Islamic terrorist supporting governments of Iran and Syria. This would make Islamic terrorists much easier to contain and ultimately defeat. At a minimum, without the support of Russia and China Islamic terrorism would likely be much less effective.

These diplomatic agreements are problematic on several levels. First of all they seem to be woefully one=sided in favor of Russia and China. Unfortunatley the US has very little leverage when dealing with either Russia or China. This would be about the best we could do. Also, there is a problem of enforcement. The media scrutiny on the US is always intense. As such, the US has no choice but to honor the agreements it makes even if it did not want to. Russia and China do not face this kind of media scrutiny. This leaves them huge opportunities to violate the agreements they make with impunity should they choose to do so. There will need to be some mechanism of enforcement.

As for its domestic policies, the US should develop all of its own oil and gas reserves, build more refineries, secure the borders, place a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries, and cloesly monitor the Mosques. Developing our own oil and gas reserves and building more refineries would give us more leverage when dealing with OPEC countries. Right now we have very little leverage when dealing with these people. These polices would give us far greater utility for our national defense needs than keeping a military presence in Iraq or invading another Middle Eastern country ever would.

As for the "occupation" of Iraq, it ends whenever Iraq's soverign government formally asks US and Coalition forces to leave or when the US and Coalition forces decide to leave, whichever comes first. I think the the Iraqi parliment recently tried to introduce a bill requesting the US to depart. I'm not sure if it got any where. I suspect US and Coalition forces will be departing before the official request comes from Iraq's government.

The "surge" ends very soon. When it does, the Sectarian violence probably returns to the level that it was prior to the surge. For the sake of Iraq, I pray I am wrong. Also, the US military is being worn down. As such, they cannot continue to reamin in Iraq at current levels for much longer. Also, pressure on politicians continues to grow to end the war in Iraq. As such, the troops will probably begin withdrawing when the surge ends and wholesale withdrawl will start in about March 2008. Complete withdrawl of US forces will be completed by 9/30/2008.

There is a "wild card" of sorts here. If Sectarian violence continues to reamin at the levels they were when the surge ends that they are now, Iraqi and American officials may decide that there is marginal utility for both countries to keep coaltion forces in the counry. Nevertheless I stand by my prediction that is a complete withdrawl of American and Coalition forces by the end of September 2008.

B.Poster, under your belief that an increase in military funding = aggressive behavior, would they not just be responding to our own aggression?

And we are of course the only one of these three that has proven itself to be a dangerous nation. Not Russia or China, but only we, have invaded and occupied nations that did not attack us with no cause.

Ben

Thanks to the reply to my post. Perhaps we were responding to their aggression or to the actions of their proxies. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps we were both responding to the actions of each other. I'm inclined to think we were each responding to the actions of each other.

I don't think an increase in military spending will necessarily lead to aggressive behavior. What is clear is the US and the free world have a huge man power disadavantage when dealing with their enemies. In order to remain competitive, the US will have to have a technological edge over its enemies. This means the US will need to spend more money on its military than its enemies will have to.

Russia and China have invaded others. We do not seem to have a monopoly on this. They have also used proxies. Both the US and its major enemies have used proxies from time to time. With that said I think we agree that many of our actions have been unjustified even though we and others felt we had cause. In all likelyhood some of these military actions were unjust and should not have taken place. Others have been counter productive to American security and economic interests. We ckearly should be looking at ways to lessen our military preseence in other parts of the world. We will becuase the American people are tired of it and the military is worn down. We are unable to continue our present course even if we wanted to.

As American patriots, I think we will agree that we should secure the borders, develop our own oil and gas reserves, build more refineries, monitor the mosques, and place a moratorium on immigartation from Middle Eastern countries. These actions will give us leverage when dealing with Middle eastern countreies.

I think the diplomatic solutions I suggest in the previous post for coming to an agreement with Russia and China can be effective. The keys will be are they serious about peace and can the agreements be enforced. For any thing we do to be successful, we will need leaders who have the moral confidence in America to defend its just interests. Frankly in many quarters this is sorely lacking. This problmem is prevalent among both Republicans and Democrats.

As the US withdraws its military forces, we should strive to have the most powerful military forces and the most capable intellegence services on earth. It should be made plain that spying activities and anti-American hate speech coming from State controlled news media will be taken seriously and will be dealt with accordingly. This does NOT necessarily mean an invasion.

Why are Russia and China our enemies? Who have they invaded lately?

We are in their backyards, not the reverse.

"Why are Russia and China our enemies?" Ask them. I'm simply going by the reports from the Russian and Chinese state controlled news media. They regard us as their number one enemy.

"Who have they invaded lately?" They have built up the military capabiliies of Iran, Syria, and a number of other countries who pose a threat to the US, Israel, and a number of other countries. Their intellegence services are generally superior to ours. If we could get our intellegence services on par with theirs, it would lessen the chances that anyone would need to be invaded.

"We are in their backyards, not the reverse." While it is true that NATO has a presence in some former USSR countries and some former Eastern Bloc countries. Russia and China have both positioned forces and proxies in Central and South America. I think it would be fair to say that the three countries are active all over the world. The forces in former USSR countries do not seem to be large enough to pose an offensive threat to Russia or to neighboring countries. This seems different from the build up in Cnetral and South America by Russia and Chhina. With that said, in order to avoid tension with Russia and China, I would be willing to withdraw support from former USSR and former Eastern Bloc countries. In exchange, I would expect Russia and China to withdraw support from our enemies in South and Central America.

Thanks for the response Dan. The point of my asking was not meant as a tricky justification for our involvement in Iraq but rather to know if our involvement might have prevented more deaths than we (directly or in-directly) have caused.

"Ask them. I'm simply going by the reports from the Russian and Chinese state controlled news media. They regard us as their number one enemy." - B.Poster

Perhaps its because of our proven track record of invading nations that did not attack us.

"They have built up the military capabiliies of Iran, Syria, and a number of other countries who pose a threat to the US, Israel, and a number of other countries. Their intellegence services are generally superior to ours. If we could get our intellegence services on par with theirs, it would lessen the chances that anyone would need to be invaded." - B.Poster

In response to...unprovoked US aggression in the region.

"While it is true that NATO has a presence in some former USSR countries and some former Eastern Bloc countries. Russia and China have both positioned forces and proxies in Central and South America. I think it would be fair to say that the three countries are active all over the world. The forces in former USSR countries do not seem to be large enough to pose an offensive threat to Russia or to neighboring countries. This seems different from the build up in Cnetral and South America by Russia and Chhina. With that said, in order to avoid tension with Russia and China, I would be willing to withdraw support from former USSR and former Eastern Bloc countries. In exchange, I would expect Russia and China to withdraw support from our enemies in South and Central America." - B.Poster

What proxies do Russia and China have in Central/South America? I can only imagine you are referring to Hugo Chavez?

"Perhaps it is becuase of our proven track record of invading nations who did not attack us." Maybe it is. Maybe it is because these nations undermined what American officials and officials of allied countries perecieved to be our just interests or the just interests of our allies. In some cases allies and other nations that we percieved to be vital to our interests were threatened. Clearly some of our military operations were likely unjustified. Others likely were. Reasonable people probably can and do disagree about which military operations would be justified and which ones would not be. In any event, these military operations take a toll. It would be a good idea to work to lessen the use of the military. One way to do this would be to improve our human intellegence capabilities. If we do this, we may be able to spot threats and deal with them before military intervention becomes necessary. This does NOT necessarily mean covert operations to overthrow enemy governments.

"In response to... unprovoked US aggression in the region." US officials and the officals of nations who support the US probably felt that the military actions were provoked and that they were justified. As stated before, some likely were justified. Others likely were not. I can cite examples that I think were not justified. I think everyone can.

"What proxies to do Russia and China have in Central/South America? I can only imagine you are referring to Hugo Chavez? Mr. Chavez is but one example. There seem to be numerous others. For an example of how China seems to operate, you can reference the following web site: www.cryptome.org.prc-mil-rise.pdf There are a number of other examples. One would have to look beyond the main stream news media to find them. Russia appears to operate in a simillar fashion.

Russian and Chinese operations in Central and South America appear to be broad and deep. US operations in former Soviet countries do not seem to be as broad and deep as those of Russia and China in South and Central America. According to people I know who have served in the former Soviet Republics and former Eastern Bloc countries, the US presence there is primarliy defensive in nature and would be wholly inadequate as an offensive force. Of course these gentlemen could be misinformed or I may not have all of the facts. It does seem clear that Chinese and Russian operations in South and Central America have an offensive component to them. It also seem clear that Russia and China wield far greater influence in South and Central America than the US does. In addtion to this, it seems Russian and Chinese influence in South and Central America goes far beyond the US influence in former Eastern Bloc countries.

The actions of the US face far greater media scrutiny than the actions of Russia and China do. If the CIA ahd been caught hacking into Chinese military computers, we likely would have witnessed mass anti-American hysteria from the media. This serves as a huge constraint on what the US can do. Perhaps that is good.

According to a Stratfor report several months back the idea of having the US withdraw from former Soviet Republics in exchange for Russia withdrawing support from the Islamic terrorist supporting states of Iran and Syria was explored. I actually formulate this idea before I read the report. This idea does not seem to have gotten very far yet. I think it is likely that the Russians and the Chinese are not interested. Also, I can understand the reluctace of US officials to make such a deal, as it would likley lead to the reformation of the Soviet Union and Western Europe would lose a valuable buffer. Also, there is a problem of enforcement. Getting the Americans to honor their part of the agreement is fairly straight forward. The enormous media scrutiny it faces would make it almost impossible for the US to violate its agreements. Russia and China do not face this kind of scrutiny.

Finally, a fundamental question that Americans will need to ask themselves in the coming years is "do we want to be a major world power?" I think the likely answer to that is "no." Once the US ceases to be a major power, Russia, China, and others may view it as less of a threat and their interests in challenging it may go away. Perhaps it won't. The US has large amounts of natural and large amounts of open land. China could use these natrual resources. Also, China is running out of space for its massive population. According to some reports Chinese generals have suggested that this American land be co-opted for Chinese use. This would mean forcefully relocating the US population currently there. Admittedly it is difficult to authenticate such things, however, it does not seem inconsistent with their actions.

I hope that once the US ceases to be a major power the Russian and Chinese threat will go away. I alos hope that the world will be a better place once Russia and China are the dominant powers. One way or the other we are likely be finding out very soon. I don't envision the US being a major world power beyond the year 2010. Its national debt is massive. Its industrial base is hollowed out and its military is worn dowan and there seems to be little incentive among Government officals to address any of this. Even if there was the national will to confront this, it would be very difficult. Without the national will it will likely be impossible.