Rumsfeld: MIA on the True Costs of the Iraq War

When the Muslim Brotherhood take control of the countries surrounding Israel and the major contries of Europe and Israel is under siege and we have thousands of insurgents crossing our borders will the "peacniks at any price" finally find a reason to defend the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably not,because the progressive elite will not even recognize the enemy until it's too late. The Chamberlain's are alive and well.

MR. Corn: MIA on the true benefits of the Iraq war. These may be becoming evident in the blooming popular uprisings against despotic middle eastern rule in north Africa and most recently Egypt. It is too soon to know if self-rule movements there will succeed, but the example of free and fair popular elections in Iraq is arguably a significant encouragement to many in Tahrir square. I for one hope for freedom and self-determination in Egypt, and I hope that includes recognition of women's rights and their active participation in the process of government.

Mr. Corn, as others have pointed out, is either too young or too naive to understand the nature of war and the role the "innocent" bystanders -- the civilians -- play in warfare. It has only been in recent wars, beginning with Vietnam, that the "hearts and minds" concern for civilian casualties has gained traction.

Without repeating all of what has been written about World War II, it is important to note that civilians were not victims of collateral damage but targets of both sides in an effort to demoralize the population in the hope of hastening the end of hostilities. Millions of civilians died in that conflict -- many times more than the military casualties. Civilians were viewed alongside their leaders the "enemy," and their lives were considered to be no more or less important in the calculus of war than those of enemy soldiers.

In Iraq, great effort was made to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible. In fact, during the conventional war phase of the conflict, relatively few civilians died. Most of the Iraqi civilians who died during the ensuing civil war were killed by their fellow Iraqis or by al Qaeda, via roadside bombs, car explosives, suicide bombers and ordinary murder. And let's get one thing straight: the actual, i.e., non-political, civilian death toll as of January 2011 is about 45,000. In more than eight years of war, this averages about 5,500 deaths per year. It was estimated that Saddam killed, during his reign, a minimum of 25,000 civilians per year, not including the estimated 500,000 child deaths attributed to starvation and disease caused by Saddam's refusal to abide by U.N. sanctions, and his abuse of the Oil for Food program.

Is Iraq better off today? By orders of magnitude.

It's odd that in this article the author does not mention the estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered by Saddam prior to the invasion, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers killed in wars initiated by Saddam. So the author is guilty of the exact same error of omission that he accuses Bush and Rumsfeld of. Talk about "a tremendous amount of blood to place on the scales." I'll bet the surviving relatives of those killed by Saddam rejoiced when Saddam was hung. Also, the author does not mention that a huge majority of Iraqis killed after the beginning of the war were killed by other Iraqis. Is the US responsible for centuries of Sunni vs. Shiite hatred? Another example of liberal bias.....

War in Europe and Japan caused the loss of millions of civilians' lives, and hundreds of thousands in Britain through bombings, firestorms, and V-weapon attacks. With the exceptions of Pearl Harbor and the WTC, America's geography has largely protected civilians from attack. Mr. Corn seems to be surprised that wars are hazardous to civilians. Less writing and more reading might restore some semblance of historical context.