Evidence is mounting that America's war in Iraq has killed tens of thousands of civilian Iraqis, and perhaps well over 100 thousand. Yet this carnage is systematically ignored in the US, where the media and government portray a war in which there are no civilian deaths, because there are no Iraqi civilians, only insurgents.?
American behavior and self-perceptions reveal the ease with which a civilized country can engage in large-scale killing of civilians without public discussion. In late October, the British medical journal Lancet published a study of civilian deaths in Iraq since the US-led invasion began. The sample survey documented an extra 100,000 civilian deaths compared to the death rate in the preceding year, when former president Saddam Hussein was still in power -- and this estimate did not even count excess deaths in Falluja, which was deemed too dangerous to include.
The study also noted that the majority of deaths resulted from violence, and that a high proportion of the violent deaths were due to US aerial bombing. The epidemiologists acknowledged the uncertainties of these estimates, but presented enough data to warrant an urgent follow-up investigation and reconsideration by the Bush administration and the US military of aerial bombing of Iraq's urban areas.
America's public reaction has been as remarkable as the Lancet study, for the reaction has been no reaction. The vaunted New York Times ran a single story of 770 words on page 8 of the paper (Oct. 29). The Times reporter apparently did not interview a single Bush administration or US military official. No follow-up stories or editorials appeared, and no New York Times reporters assessed the story on the ground. Coverage in other US papers was similarly frivolous. The Washington Post (Oct. 29) carried a single 758-word story on page 16.
Recent reporting on the bombing of Falluja has also been an exercise in self-denial. The New York Times (Nov. 6) wrote that "warplanes pounded rebel positions" in Falluja, without noting that "rebel positions" are actually in civilian neighborhoods. Another New York Times story (Nov. 12), citing "military officials," dutifully reported that, "Since the assault began on Monday, about 600 rebels have been killed, along with 18 American and 5 Iraqi soldiers." The issue of civilian deaths was not even raised.
Violence is only one reason for the increase in civilian deaths in Iraq. Children in urban war zones die in vast numbers from diarrhea, respiratory infections, and other causes, owing to unsafe drinking water, lack of refrigerated foods, and acute shortages of blood and basic medicines at clinics and hospitals (that is, if civilians even dare to leave their houses for medical care). Yet the Red Crescent and other relief agencies have been unable to relieve Falluja's civilian population.
On Nov. 14, the front page of The New York Times led with the following description: "Army tanks and fighting vehicles blasted their way into the last main rebel stronghold in Falluja at sundown on Saturday after American warplanes and artillery prepared the way with a savage barrage on the district. Earlier in the afternoon, 10 separate plumes of smoke rose from Southern Falluja, as it etched against the desert sky, and probably exclaimed catastrophe for the insurgents."
There is, once again, virtually no mention of the catastrophe for civilians etched against that desert sky. There is a hint, though, in a brief mention in the middle of the story of a father looking over his wounded sons in a hospital and declaring that, "Now Americans are shooting randomly at anything that moves."
A few days later, a US television film crew was in a bombed-out mosque with US troops. While the cameras were rolling, a US Marine turned to an unarmed and wounded Iraqi lying on the ground and murdered the man with gunshots to the head.
But the American media more or less brushed aside this shocking incident, too. The Wall Street Journal actually wrote an editorial on Nov. 18 that criticized the critics, noting as usual that whatever the US does, its enemies in Iraq do worse, as if this excuses American abuses.
It does not. The US is killing massive numbers of Iraqi civilians, embittering the population and the Islamic world, and laying the ground for escalating violence and death. No number of slaughtered Iraqis will bring peace.
The US fantasy of a final battle, in Fallujah or elsewhere, or the capture of some terrorist mastermind, perpetuates a cycle of bloodletting that puts the world in peril. Worse still, America's public opinion, media, and election results have left the world's most powerful military without practical restraint.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS