Rumsfeld, Casey Reject Reports on Iraqi Civilian Deaths, Troop Levels

On Wednesday, the MSM had a field day with two reports. The first was by a Johns Hopkins scientist, suggesting that there have been over 600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq during the current conflict - a full order of magnitude greater than the US-government estimate of 30-50,000. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election."They're almost certainly way too high. This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

The second report was one suggesting that the Army was planning to maintain current troop levels in Iraq through 2010.

At a press conference yesterday afternoon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General George Casey, Jr., Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, rejected the conclusions of the civilian casualty study and clarified troop level plans.

Q General, do you agree with the findings of a study that estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died due to the war? And if you don't agree with that, what is your estimate?

GEN. CASEY: I have not seen the study. That 650,000 number seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I've not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don't give that much credibility at all.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I think it's important to appreciate that the insurgents and al Qaeda make a -- Muslims make a practice of killing Iraqi citizens who are Muslim. And it is a -- they do it aggressively, they do it purposely, and they do it successfully. It doesn't take a genius to kill unarmed civilian people who are going to a shop or operating at a gas station or functioning in a shopping area. And what we have is Muslim extremists killing Muslims and attempting to take over that country and -- notwithstanding the fact that over 95 percent of the Iraqi people don't want that to happen, and 12 million of them went out and voted, at risk to their lives, so that it would not happen.

Q General Schoomaker said this morning that for planning purposes, the Army is putting together troop rotations at current levels through 2010. And I realize that planning is done with a lot of uncertainty in mind. My question to you is, can you keep up that pace for that long without loosening the limitations on the use of National Guard and Reserve, and without wearing out the active force?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You know, I saw the Associated Press headline that said, "Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010." Schoomaker did not, of course, say anything like that, and it's unfortunate that stories go out mischaracterizing what people say. The Army has the responsibility, at the direction of General Pace, and David Chu, and me, and the president, to look out over a period of time and do a series of sensitivities as to what if this, or what if that, and how might they do it, and to then undertake a planning process to see if they were asked to do this, what might they do. And that's what the Army does. General Schoomaker and the Army does not set force levels in Iraq. They're not the ones who determine how many will be there and until what year they'll be there. That's a function of General Casey and General Abizaid reporting to me and to the president.

Finkelstein lives in the liberal haven of Ithaca, NY. View webcasts of Mark's award-winning TV show 'Right Angle' here. Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

"...over 600,000 civilian deaths in Iraq during the current conflict..."

Considering the degree to which other "facts" about Iraq have been modified or distorted in some way, this is probably one of the LESS egregious misstatements of reality that have come out of commentary on the "war on terror".

And the fact that the "authority" quoted was a Johns Hopkins scientist - how does THAT demonstrate any more validity than to have some wino on the street say the sky is green?

The John Hopkins scientist may be an absolute whizz at what he does, but outside his own field, he is as likely to be as uninformed as any of us.

Because of the nature of the way individuals have died in Iraq, at the hands of clandestine thugs who come out in the night, and the discovery only much later of the corpses, the number is a little uncertain, but another reality is absolutely certain - the vast majority of Iraqi civilians that died were at the hands of the insurgents operating throughout Iraq. Virtually all the "civilians" that died because of engagement with these insurgents, were either themselves actually insurgents, or human shields thrown up between the coalition forces and the insurgents in street battles, and died as collateral damage.

Those few rare instances where individual GIs appeared to have run amok have been severely punished by the US military authorities. Otherwise, the whole Iraq operation has been run in the most disciplined manner of any force in a foreign country, that history has ever seen.

The John Hopkins scientist

He is more like a clown who is so full of hate against President Bush that he published a pack of lies to fit the democrat talking points and call it a “study” deluding himself like other hate filled liberals that the majority of people are going to believe this lie and vote democrats this elections. Do not underestimate what hate can do to people minds, hearts and souls.

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.