Electoral Lessons (f/k/a "100,000 Iraqi Dead")

[showcase]

A "conservative" estimation indicates that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the invasion, excluding those deaths "normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents."

The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence, mostly caused by coalition air strikes, reveals the study of almost 1000 households scattered across Iraq. And the risk of violent death just after the invasion was 58 times greater than before the war. The overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than before.

The figure of 100,000 – estimated by extrapolating the surveyed households’ death toll to the whole population - is based on "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US, who led the study.

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war.

www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

It's difficult to know what to make of the numbers, since they are an extrapolation, and I think we're all seeing the limits of polling and sampling. Nevertheless, I find it disappointing that this aspect of the war is getting almost no discussion. Civilian deaths are an inevitable by-product of war, but I think that it's just plain wrong to visit death on a grand scale in order to bring "freedom" from outside. If people want freedom enough to die for it, that should be their choice.

As an aside, IF these estimations are accurate, what does this do to the Administration's alternate justification for invading Iraq - that Saddam had murdered 100,000 of his own people (even if that was almost entirely in the 80s - not that that diminishes the gravity of it, but it does weaken the justification for acting over a decade after the damage has been done, and particularly if your actions are going to exact the same or higher cost).

[jerseyhoya34]

I saw this study as well, and it came as a disappointment to me. I don't view it as a direct result of our force. In other words, I do not think all of these people died because of American bullets. It reflects more the degree to which the Iraqi government and CPA did not provide the conditions on the ground to sustain a population vis-a-vis healthcare, security, employment, etc.

[nychoya3]

Even if the figure is exagerated, the issue deserves greater discussion. At this point, the most legitimate explanation for the war seems to be the humanitarian one. One can't make that case without factoring in both the civilian costs of inaction and action. I don't pretend to know the answer, but this certainly makes you think.

The reason I always rejected the humanitarian argument were 1) the people who were making it and 2) there were countries where the crisis was sharper and a fraction of the force could have saved a multiple of the lives. Darfur comes to mind as an obvious example. I think some in the administration believe very deeply in the humanitarian aspects of the war. Wolfowitz for example. But the way they've conducted the war has undercut this argument. Peter Galbraith (among the most vocal advocates for intervention to stop the Kurdish and Bosnian genocides) supported the war in Iraq, but now attacks the way it was carried out.

[Deleted]

The fact statistics like this are never discussed just represents to me stupid America has become. Any rational thought or intellectual discussion has faded almost completely from our foreign policy. If only our current "leaders" struggled with the moral questions people like Truman did when faced with the prospect of mass civilian casualties. Then again, who cares how many Iraqis are left if we've "liberated" them?!?!?

Disgusting. Dark day for our great nation.

GO HOYAS!!!

[Cambridge]

Amen Buffalo. Amen, brother.

I spent a semester in Hanoi during my junior year at gtown. Let me tell you, it was mind boggling that they estimate Vietnamese losses in the North and South at roughly 5 million (4 million civilian, 1 million military)

Keep in mind that that was over the period of many years (1954-1975) and includes both conflict with France and US.

*Note* Vietnam went on to fight a war with Cambodia and China immeadiately following the withdrawal of troops as well, these figures are not included.

5 million dead amongst a population of 38 million (avg. total population at the time of the war). That is about 12-13% of the entire population or 1 in 7.5 people in the country at the time. That does not included those maimed or wounded. Nor does that include those born with birth defects due to agent orange. Nor does that include the thousands who have died since the war due to unexploded ordinances.

I know this doesn't mean much to some people, but a war of such magnitude, designed to liberate a people only served to mutilate them. Families were devastated by the war and its after effects.

Take what lesson that you will, I merely wanted to add an anecdotal note as comparison.

[Joe Hoya]

If one candidate won by four million votes but lost the electoral college, then you could probably call it a "dark day".

When a sitting president wins by 3.5 million popular votes and takes the electoral college as well, the proper term to use is "mandate".

[WilsonBlvdHoya]

51% does not a mandate make; Dick Cheney's usual bluster to the contrary. He also said something like no President has risen to the occasion like W has (I'm paraphrasing here.)?! Excuse me? Washington? Jackson? Lincoln? FDR?

[kchoya]

I'm sorry, but I thought that I heard the Democrats bemoan Bush's 2000 victory by saying he didn't have a mandate because he didn't win the popular vote. Well, this time he won more electoral votes, won the popular votes and received the most votes ever.

Is there a bright line for what is a mandate and what isnt? Where is it? Even if BUsh had pulled 400 electoral votes, do you think most Dems would concede that Bush had a mandate? I think a lot of Dems would never admit that Bush has a mandate.

(Of course, all of this glosses over the issue of (1) what's a mandate and (2) why does it matter is someone has a mandate?)

[showcase]

"Mandate," like the terms "rout" and "landslide," tend to be overused in the context of electoral politics. If a mandate arises in a context where 75,000 changed minds in Ohio would make the difference between setting the agenda and retiring to Crawford, TX, I wouldn't be so confident calling it a "mandate." Reagan had a mandate in '80 and a landslide victory in '84. Clinton arguably won a mandate in '96. Dubya just won a narrow victory in a starkly and fairly evenly divided nation.

Not that it makes a difference for Dubya, who (for better or worse) has governed like he had a clear mandate from almost the beginning of his Administration. Going forward, it will be interesting to see what changes in style (if any) differentiate Dubya's first term from his second.

[Deleted]

Bush won fair and square. Nobody's disputing that. I simply used "dark day" because its my opinion anyone with Bush's record has no business running the United States of America. Rove and Co. ran a far superior campaign, getting the DNC dopes to play on their terms where they obviously didn't fare so well. It frightens me (hence, "dark day") that our nation buys into this whole demonization of gays and the insane notion that our country is somehow "safer" with one candidate over another, just to name a few points cashed in on by the GOP. I thought Americans would somehow prove to be smarter than this.

Its my hope that now more than ever we embrace the federalist nature of our government. We're in for four more years of government sanctioned faith-based garbage, especially with the election of two of the most Christian-right, anti-gay politicians to Senatorial seats coupled with Bush winning. Excellent point made by Andrew Sullivan:

As blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. That goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. Forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. Federalism is now more important than ever. I just hope that Republican federalists understand this. I fear they don't.

Just to clarify, I'm hardly pro-John Kerry. Not even a Democrat over here. He simply provided, to me, the "lesser of two evils" option.

[kchoya]

What's this demonization of gays you're talking about?

I don't see any such thing occuring, What I do see is a response to moves like the MA Supreme Court ruling whereby other states didn't want a similar occurrence happening in their state.

And what was the difference between Kerry's and Bush's position? Didn't they both espouse a anti-marriage pro civil union position?

[showcase]

kchoya said:

I don't see any such thing occuring, What I do see is a response to moves like the MA Supreme Court ruling whereby other states didn't want a similar occurrence happening in their state.

A number of southern states enacted anti-miscegenation laws because they didn't want a similar occurrence happening in their state, which the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia struck down on the basis that

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Anti-miscegination statutes, I believe, are as misguided and inappropriate as these anti-gay marriage amendments. However, I know that it will be an unmistakably "activist" judge or judges that strike them down under the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses.

And what was the difference between Kerry's and Bush's position? Didn't they both espouse a anti-marriage pro civil union position?

I don't believe that Dubya said he was in favor of civil unions. His answer invariable stated only that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman; no one pressed him on the other half of the equation.

[kchoya]

We'll have to agree to disagree whether there's a fundamental difference on prohibitions on marriage between races versus same-sex marriages.

As far as Bush's position, I thought he did come out "in favor" of civil unions -- albeit at the end of the campaign. Of course, i may be wrong due to all of the political information overload from the past few weeks.

[showcase]

Maybe the real question is whether any of the 11 anti-gay marriage amendments passed on Tuesday provided for civil unions. My understanding is that they did not.

I agree that we can reasonably disagree on whether gay marriage is on equal footing with anti-miscegenation statutes or amendments. My problem is that I feel that the anti-gay marriage argument that was made this electoral season made no room for any of those reasonable counter arguments. "The sanctity of marriage" is such a farce as the reason for pushing forward with these amendments.

[kchoya]

That's a lot of the problem: a lot of liberals/democrats/whatever give no credence to the "sanctity of marriage" argument. They think it's a ruse for something else. But a lot of the nation -- and not just the radical right -- really believe in that argument. I think that inability to understand that, the reason why the South and Midwest are solid red, was/is the Dems' biggest failure.

As for the actual initiatives, I think 8 out of 11 also prohibit civil unions. Here in Montana, the initiative only dealt with marriage.

[showcase]

I have that precise reaction because I see nothing in an anti-gay constitutional amendment that protects the "sanctity" of marriage. Marriage is not under assault from the 2%-10% of the country that might want to enter into it with a member of the same gender. It's sanctity is undermined by easy divorce, Las Vegas wedding chapels, and serial monogamy - all problems precipitated by heterosexuals.

And I don't put a lot of stock on the "well, gay marriage is a threat too," or even that it's the biggest threat, and that it still deserves to be dealt with. If you're about protecting the sanctity of marriage, you go after ALL the problems, and certainly the biggest, as opposed to attacking from the fringes. Why limit your monumental effort (we are, after all, talking about amending constitutions here) to the one problem that affects only a tiny minority of potential marriages while providing a handy tool with which to galvanize a bloc of conservative voters. Invoking "the sanctity of marriage" without delving into a deeper discussion that includes civil unions is akin to invoking "states rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi.

I have tremendous respect for the beliefs of those who sincerely propound the "sanctity" of marriage. However, I do not find it necessary or appropriate to confer that respect on proponents who fail to debate (or even consider) whether civil unions are an appropriate alternative. Dubya didn't talk of civil unions as an alternative for gay marriage during the debates, and apparently 8 or 11 constitutional amendments forbid them as well. Thus, I think the way the "sanctity of marriage" is invoked by politicians is a disservice to those who profess to believe in it.


In a related note, who hijacked this thread? Didn't I start off talking about dead Iraqi civilians?

[jerseyhoya34]

I think liberals do recognize the "sanctity of marriage" argument, but they just disagree as to whether it applies to public policy. I count myself proudly within that group of people.

I hope that there is a discussion about the influence of evangelicals in our politics because I find them to be one of the more dangerous groups in our civil society. If they influence policy as much as I think they will, America may veer off in a radically misguided direction and one that the Founders rejected fundamentally.

This also has serious implications for the War on Terror. Can we win it if we make our society more like Saudi Arabia in our mixing of religion and politics? I don't think so, much as Reagan's partial unraveling of the New Deal and attack on more "Communist" institutions in the US may have contributed to some degree to our winning the Cold War. (Just playing Devil's advocate there)...

[showcase]

Here's an example of why I think this "sanctity of marriage" thing is mostly hooey, as is "the war on tecord." Take a look at the following map of electoral votes on a county-by-county basis:



www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Notice that the the areas that are most at risk of a threat from tecordism and contain significant populations of homosexuals are the populations centers, which went largely for Kerry. Heck, NYC and DC, the cities that were actually attacked, went overwhelmingly for Kerry.

But it's the red counties, that want protection from tecordists and homosexual marriage, that are least likely to encounter either. Yet these were (apparently) the motivating factors for people heading to the polls in those counties. There are actual and reasonable debates underlying those issues, but they were demagoguery during this election, and nothing more.

[Nevada Hoya]

NPR did a piece this morning indicating that it was the gay marriage issue that energized the Christian right more so than abortion or any other issue (economy, war in Iraq, terrorism, etc.).

[PushyGuyFanClub]

showcase said:

Heck, NYC and DC, the cities that were actually attacked, went overwhelmingly for Kerry.

To be fair, DC was not attacked. The Pentagon was, which is in Northern Virginia. The DC that voted for Kerry is a monolithic mass. 9/11 echoed throughout MD and Virginia. Same for NY. A lot of those who died were from LI, NJ, and Westchester. That's part of the reason NJ stayed in play.

Several disturbing articles in the New York Times today. My best advice to Democrats as they rethink strategy is to just stop being so condescending to America. Part of that condescension is blaming bible-beating evangelicals for electing Bush. They didn't do it alone. A lot of smart, successful people voted for POTUS. Dems need to admit that before they can move forward. One fellow quoted in the Times remarked that the reason NYC voted for Kerry is because NYCers are more "sophisticated" than the rest of Americans. I'm from NY and I voted for Bush. Too bad between that birthrite and a Georgetown education some of that sophistication didn't rub off on me.