Posted on 11/26/2005 11:12:07 AM PST by Logic Times
Article excerpt from Logic Times.
The Iraq Body Count study reports 24,865 civilian deaths in the first two years of the Iraq War, an apparent ringing endorsement of the "Iraq in chaos" position. But a curious statistical anomaly jumps right off page one: over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%). This contradicts a basic tenant of the civilian casualty argument, namely that we are describing collateral damage during a time of war. Collateral damage does not differentiate between male and female, between child and adult. A defective smart bomb falling in a marketplace, stray bullets ripping through bedroom walls, city warfare in Fallujah – all these activities should produce casualties that reflect the ratio of men to women or adults to children that prevail in Iraq as a whole.
This question is particularly relevant when one side in the conflict does not wear uniforms, is predominantly adult and of one gender, and engages in a practice of concealing its combatants within the civilian population. The statistics are further distorted if the Iraqi security forces – essentially the free Iraqi military on the side of the U.S. coalition – are classified as civilians, as they are in this study.
Details at www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm.
Well, we remember the big problem with the Vietnam Body Count - those dead civilians could well have been VC, couldn't they?
We seem to have the same phenomenon in reverse. The dead guy in civilian clothing could have been a civilian, right?
The only real truth here is that statistics can be made to say pretty much whatever you would like them to say for you.
Especially with the info so incomplete and of questionable reliability.
As for civilians who are opposed to our presence and overtly or tacitly support the insurgents... they are hardly "civilians", having basically declared war on us through their actions or inaction.
I haven't paid a a blind bit of interest in these figures from the start. The USA & UK etc....have done their best to avoid civilian casualties and have even been criticized for it ( remember Feluga or however you spell it ).
Which, frankly, is absurd. The goal of war is the destruction of the enemy.
I'm glad to see this kind of information out there. I hear all the time about the crazy body count, but no one has ever shown me the actual numbers. Thanks for pointing me in a direction.
You're welcome. My hope with this sort of work is to shine some light on statistics tossed around like footballs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.