It will surprise nearly everyone in the U.S. to learn that the single greatest direct cause of Iraqi deaths are the foreign fighters of the United States military and their allies, known as the “coalition”. That is what the authors of both of the Johns Hopkins/Al Mustansiriya mortality studies (aka the “Lancet report”) found. It is also what the reality on the ground in Iraq demonstrates, though that information is not easily available if one is dependent on the U.S. government, their military, and the American mainstream media as sources.
U.S. Greatest Cause of Iraqi Deaths
The first “Lancet” study, published in October, 2004, found that the single greatest source of Iraqi deaths was the United States military, with aerial attacks as the greatest cause of death. The second “Lancet” study, published two years later, found that around one third of the estimated 655,000 “excess” Iraqi deaths were caused directly by the United States military – aka the “coalition” occupation forces – once again making the “coalition” occupation forces the single greatest source of deaths. That was almost certainly a conservative figure since a death was not classified as caused by the “coalition” forces if there was any doubt at all on the part of the reporting household as to who was responsible for the death.
The number of deaths caused directly by “coalition” forces has risen steadily from March, 2003 to the present, as has the overall level of violence, and the overall number of deaths. There is no indication that this trend is going to change in the foreseeable future. In other words, the longer the U.S. stays, the more deaths they are likely to cause, and the worse the overall situation is likely to become.
Deaths caused directly by U.S. and “coalition” forces – about one third of the total “excess” deaths – are only one part of the mortality directly attributable to the actions of the occupation forces. Another large proportion of Iraqi deaths directly attributable to the occupation forces’ actions are those caused by resistance fighters defending against raids and attacks by the U.S. Other deaths take place during resistance strikes against the occupation and its proxies, agents, and collaborators. If the U.S. is the killer, civilian deaths are first denied, then dismissed as “collateral damage” and/or blamed on “insurgents”. If the resistance is responsible for civilian deaths it is labeled terrorism, or “sectarian violence”.
Iraqi deaths directly attributable to U.S. actions almost certainly constitute well over 50% of all deaths. It is reasonable to predict that if the United States withdrew, the death rate would immediately be reduced by at least the percentage of deaths directly attributable to U.S. actions. Even if deaths not directly attributable to U.S. actions were to increase, which is possible, but not certain, the net result would still be an overall reduction in violent deaths, and a significant relief for Iraqis.
U.S. Presence Has Destabilized Iraq
The United States presence in Iraq has from the beginning destabilized the country, and led to increasingly intense and widespread “ancillary” violence and killing – that is, violence that is not directly a result of U.S. actions, but is, nevertheless, a consequence of the U.S. presence, its creation of chaos, and its failure to either establish or maintain order. The U.S. has not only failed to restore stability at any point, it has been the primary source of an escalating downward spiral into greater and greater and more and more widespread instability at every level.
Many of the U.S. policies and practices in Iraq have driven wedges between Iraqis, encouraged and enabled divisive and extremist elements, and helped lead to and exacerbate the current deepening and widening sectarian violence in a region that has never before in its centuries of history experienced serious, widespread, or protracted sectarian civil conflict.
U.S. failure to establish and maintain order have enabled criminal gangs to operate openly and at will, kidnapping, raping, murdering, robbing, and generally terrorizing Iraqis.
The United States has failed to effectively control the portion of the violence and killing that may not be directly attributable to United States’ actions, yet results from its policies and practices, and from the constantly increasing instability caused by its presence, policies, and actions. It is at least arguable that if the United States withdraws, it will remove the single greatest cause of the ongoing instability, which would at least slow the downward spiral.
U.S. Military Responsible for Massive Destruction
The U.S. military is also directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of the destruction in Iraq. This is not surprising, of course, considering its capacity for massive destructive force, not to mention its willingness to use such force as a “solution”, or as punishment. Occupation forces have used collective punishment for all kinds of “offenses”, including failing to provide on demand information about “insurgents” (the assumption is nearly always that the person being questioned is withholding information, not that he doesn’t have it). For that failure Iraqis’ homes have been demolished, and farmers’ trees and field crops have been destroyed, partially or completely. If an entire villages have suffered similar collective punishment for refusal to “cooperate”.
Effects of Increasing U.S. Aerial Attacks
In recent months the United States has dramatically stepped up its use of aerial attacks on populated areas, and is currently rapidly increasing its aerial capability in Iraq. Aerial attacks are extremely indiscriminate and therefore result in high civilian casualties, and heavy destruction. Iraqis can expect to see more civilian deaths and destruction of homes and infrastructure as a result of the occupation forces’ increased use of aerial attacks.
According to an important NGO report released last month by Global Policy Forum, the United States military has flattened or rendered uninhabitable large portions of twelve major Iraqi cities, Falluja, a city about the size of Cincinnati being the best known. This kind of deliberate destruction of homes and infrastructure makes the U.S. military directly responsible for at least one million permanently displaced Iraqis who have no more homes to go back to. These displaced, homeless Iraqis are now more vulnerable than ever to death from all causes, including violence by the United States military, so-called “insurgents”, sectarian death squads, and criminal gangs.
Unlikely That Killing Would Increase if U.S. Withdraws
In order to justify the belief that the violence and killing will increase if the United States withdraws from Iraq, we must assume that in the absence of the U.S. the remaining violent elements would be capable of and have the will to commit more violence than the U.S. military and the resistance combined.
As you think about this bear in mind that the people who are expected to commit more violence than that caused directly by the U.S. military and the resistance combined do not have even a tiny fraction of the death-and-destruction-dealing equipment, technology, and firepower that the U.S. military possesses, and regularly uses, nor do they have the freedom of movement that the U.S. has had in Iraq. They do not have tanks or the weapons carried on tanks, they do not have humvees and apc’s with mounted large-caliber automatic weapons, they do not have missiles, they do not have attack helicopters, they do not have bombers, they do not have any kind of aerial firepower at all. Therefore, the capability simply is not there to replace the amount and magnitude of deadly violence the U.S. is directly responsible for.
In addition, the belief that the violence would increase if the U.S. were not there requires the clearly very questionable assumption that the U.S. is doing anything significant to quell the violence. The evidence points quite clearly in the opposite direction.
On-the-ground observation as well as studies have shown that an increase in violence tends to follow occupation forces’ arrival in an area. Naturally, wherever they are, occupation forces are a target for attacks by resistance and other groups vaguely and inaccurately characterized as “insurgents”. In addition their mere presence inspires fear and resentment among the population. And more often than not, occupation forces bring their own violence with them, which is met, of course, with violence from Iraqis defending their homes, and attempting to repel the occupiers.
The favoured occupier’s practice of trying to “pacify” an area by means of massive violence tends, not surprisingly, to consistently yield the opposite result, if not in the short term, then certainly in the long term. “House to house” actions in which they break down people’s doors and drag them out of bed at 3 AM do not make people feel more peaceful toward those who conduct the searches.
Falluja is a textbook example of how the U.S. occupation forces bring violence with them. That city, known not to be a pro-Saddam area, was quiet and free of the violence, chaos, and looting seen in many other Iraqi cities until the Americans occupied it in late April, 2003 and, through their own actions, turned it into a “hotbed” of resistance.
What Do Iraqis Want?
Polls have consistently shown that Iraqis themselves understand very clearly that the U.S. does far more to cause and provoke violence and death than it does to prevent it, and that the overwhelming majority believe that the violence would lessen, not increase, if the U.S. left.
Add to the above the fact that it really is in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis to go back to what they have done successfully for millennia – living together with at least a reasonable degree of normal relations and cooperation.
In the current atmosphere of ethnic (or rather sectarian) cleansing, Sunni and Shi`a families facing sectarian violence and threats of ethnic cleansing in their neighborhoods have devised a system whereby they can help one another by exchanging homes temporarily in order to live, for the time being, in the “right” neighbourhood. This mutually beneficial practice has become common enough that there are now enterprising agents whose business it is to bring families together and coordinate the legal and practical arrangements. This kind of creative cooperation speaks loudly and clearly about the true nature of Iraqi society as well as its ability to repair itself if left to its own devices.
Certainly, Iraq would not suddenly turn into Shangri-la, or become the Switzerland of the Middle East as soon as the Americans left. It IS possible that the violence and killing not directly attributable to U.S. actions might increase somewhat in the beginning, but it is extremely unlikely that it could increase enough to exceed or even replace the violence and death caused by the “coalition” forces and the resistance. The capacity simply is not there, nor very likely is the will. In addition, the primary stimulus for much if not most of the violence would have been removed.
There is simply no chance of any improvement as long as the U.S. is in Iraq. On the contrary, as the past four plus years have shown clearly, as long as the U.S. is there the violence will continue to escalate and broaden, and the overall situation will continue to deteriorate.
Iraqis have been living together without serious conflict for millennia. Sunnis and Shi`as have lived together in Iraq for about 1500 years with no history of serious sectarian civil conflict. Iraqis are the only ones who have the history, the ability, and the will to repair their society and their country.
The United States must give Iraq a chance. It must get out now, and get out completely, and leave Iraq for Iraqis.
