Daniel Davies at Crooked Timber
While that’s horrible, it’s not horrible by the standards of a lot of the world, including a lot of countries with whom we have decent relations. I would very much like to be able to put some definite figures to this, because at the back of my mind is preying the suspicion that the case for the unique awfulness of Saddam, as opposed to the case for his awfulness which can be taken as read, seems to be based on the conflation of very large but old atrocities with more recent but much smaller ones, with the effect of making the moral case for immediate war appear much stronger at the time than it actually was. Pointers please in the comments below; I’ll post an update in a couple of weeks' time.
Posted by P6 at February 18, 2004 09:36 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/458
Comments
Jesus Christ ! What intellectually specious crap are you linking to here Prom ? !
Sure, after you cut out military massacres of civilians (Shiites) and " old " acts of Genocide (Kurds) and if you ignore ongoing, "new " Genocide ( Marsh Arabs) that ended only with our invasion of Iraq, by arbitrarily defining it out of the equation then you can yield a figure of what Saddam's terror machine did while simply idling while it awaited the next major purge.
By that standard if we eliminate categories of Jews, POW's, Gypsies and slave laborers then Nazi Germany's Gestapo looks rather modest as well. They didn't really arrest all that many apolitical," Aryan ", Germans. However that's not a terribly realistic picture of life under that regime.
The best estimates I have read - not including Kuwaiti, Iraqi and Iranian war dead- is that Saddam's regime slaughtered about 200,000 - 300,000 people during Saddam's rule. Not in the same league as Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot but certainly the worst in the mideast by far.
Posted by mark safranski at February 19, 2004 12:29 AMMark, I'd love to hear your thoughts about the human rights record of Uzbekistan, which is currently a trusted Bush ally in the war on terrorism. You seem to be missing part of the point here. As Daniel wrote:
While that’s horrible, it’s not horrible by the standards of a lot of the world, including a lot of countries with whom we have decent relations. (emphasis added)
Do you plan war on every country that engages in human rights abuses? If so, how do you plan to pay for it? If not, then why was Iraq singled out over other despotic regimes? Because of its WMDs? Oh yeah, there aren't any WMDs.
I'm always interested in libertarians who want to turn the government into a permanent war machine, but at the same time want to cut taxes. Personally, if we're going to be spending all that money, I would rather see it be spent on helping the disadvantaged here in America than on killing people abroad.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 19, 2004 07:50 AMMark I don't know how many people Saddam had kiilled, but I don't put war and suppressing rebellions in the same category as extrajudicial killings. In the same way, I don't think of killing someone in pursuit of money the same way as thrill-killing.
Not advocating any of it, of course. Just recognizing differences in intent and effect.
At any rate, I'll be watching for what Davies comes up with.
Posted by P6 at February 19, 2004 10:27 AMNot being able to intervene everywhere does not presuppose that therefore we should intervene no where.
It's a sad fact that many parts of the world are in the grip of tyranny. Tyrants are generally brutal, corrupt and incompetent rulers and some of them, like Saddam was, are additionally hostile and aggressive. A hostile and aggressive tyrant like Saddam might not be more *evil* than an isolationist tyrant like Ne Win but they are more troublesome, dangerous and unpredictable.
When national interest coincides with a moral imperative to intervene and the risk is reasonable, we should intervene. Where national interest is absent, the US should press for reform and intervene if the opportunity to do so with relatively little risk presents itself. If the national interest is absolutely vital - or the moral case overwhelming ( genocide) the US should intervene even at relatively high risk. In cases where there is neither tyrant nor moral imperative then military intervention cannot be justified.
The sheer number of tyrants and finite nature of American power requires that some tyrants be tolerated but opportunities to get rid of them ought not be passed over lightly. Tyrants who trade favors with us should not be confused for allies or friends.
Uzbekistan, BTW, is pretty bad but then it has been for at least a century. Hopefully, it will be better relatively soon.
Posted by mark safranski at February 19, 2004 02:26 PMWhen national interest coincides with a moral imperative to intervene and the risk is reasonable, we should intervene. Where national interest is absent, the US should press for reform and intervene if the opportunity to do so with relatively little risk presents itself. If the national interest is absolutely vital - or the moral case overwhelming the US should intervene even at relatively high risk.If this were your social policy as well as your military policy, I could die happy.
Posted by P6 at February 19, 2004 02:30 PM
if you ignore ongoing, "new " Genocide ( Marsh Arabs)
I'm particularly interested in this question. Like yourself, I was of the opinion that the Marsh Arabs had been made the victims of genocide. But I can't find any references to anything like a body count; all the sources I can find refer to large numbers of Marsh Arabs having been "displaced", but not to any massacres. Displacement is horrible, obviously, but it's not the same as genocide.
Do you have any leads on this one?
Posted by dsquared at February 19, 2004 02:43 PMDsquared,
My memory says 10% have disappeared and a majority were displaced ( Saddam was destroying the Marshlands) but I will check my source and post it on my blog and here on P6 for you to check.
Posted by mark safranski at February 19, 2004 04:01 PMI'm always interested in libertarians who want to turn the government into a permanent war machine, but at the same time want to cut taxes. Personally, if we're going to be spending all that money, I would rather see it be spent on helping the disadvantaged here in America than on killing people abroad.
This should be engraved on the national currency. Or maybe on scrolling LED displays, at regular intervals between stock quotations and the traffic report, on the nation's busiest sidewalks.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 19, 2004 04:45 PMDo you plan war on every country that engages in human rights abuses?
Yup. After 15 years of sanctions, low-level warfare, embargo, international pressure and dozens of UN resolutions fail. Luckily, the Khadaffi situation is likely to become a lot more common before too long.
If so, how do you plan to pay for it?
If we were the empire you seem to imply that we are, we would do it by pillaging the countries we attack. Being that we truly are humanitarian, we'll shoulder that burden ourselves.
If not, then why was Iraq singled out over other despotic regimes?
Because they were first in line. They qued up in 1990.
Because of its WMDs? Oh yeah, there aren't any WMDs.
That we have found yet. And he seemed to be doing a pretty good clip without them. Oh, wait, he did use them to get some of that 200K.
Did anyone else notice the chemical weapons found a few months ago? They were Japanese shells dug up in China. WW2 shells.
Posted by Phelps at February 19, 2004 05:32 PMIf we were the empire you seem to imply that we are, we would do it by pillaging the countries we attack.
The firms whose lobbyists are now the US Executive branch are doing precisely that. It's costing taxpayers 200+ billion to invade/occupy Iraq, but taxpayers aren't paying attention. The energy industry shall be extracting rents from Iraqi oil for decades--and the IGC seems like a bang-up swell way to do it.
Did anyone else notice the chemical weapons found a few months ago? They were Japanese shells dug up in China. WW2 shells.
I think you're trying to say that chemical weapons might be discovered in 2062 or so, thereby vindicating Operation Iraqi Freedom. If you mean something different, sorry, I misunderstood. But the world learned Japan had and was using chemical weapons back in 1937. Japanese use of CW was well known and massive. The reason they're still tragically stumbling across this stuff is because there was so much of it, not because it took 67 years to find any.
BTW, the Laotians, Vietnamese and Khmer are still losing lives and limbs to US ordinance from before 1975. About half of these were planted in violation of treaties to which the US gov't was a signatory. Japan has done far more to clean up the CW it left in China than the US has its mines in SE Asia.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 19, 2004 07:01 PMMarsh Arabs information:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq012503.htm
and:
http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2002/nb20021125.html
Unfortunately, it's apparently unclear how many Marsh Arabs were killed by Saddam's forces outright - it seems to range from many to most of them with a fair number having fled to Iran. Where there was once roughly 500,000 15 years ago there are now only tens of thousands in Iraq plus aroud 100,000 refugees. A safe estimate from these articles seems to be that Saddam killed at least half of this population, possibly more.
Posted by mark safranski at February 19, 2004 10:09 PM"If this were your social policy as well as your military policy, I could die happy."
Ah, but then we'd be quibbling over what constituted a moral imperative ;o)
Ah, but then we'd be quibbling over what constituted a moral imperative ;o)
It would be a start, and a damn sight better than arguing over whether to ACT on internal moral imperitives or not.
Posted by P6 at February 20, 2004 09:57 AMOkay we arm insurgents and then shoot them and they become genocide victims under your definition.
Depleted uranium and sanctions helped kill how many, along with infrastructure depletion for clean water and farm/fishing industires?
Lack of potable water even prevented proper burial on such a large scale-mass graves result. Not to mention the many thousands that were the middle ground of the trench warfare towns of the Iran/Iraq war that James Baker helped instill. And there are how many authopsies performed from these to tie them to the gas weapons we sent Saddam or the precursors that the Bechtel lobbies helped supply?
Noriega went from ally to a person to capture, Saddam the same way. My question is this- who is Bush making the next to get? North Korea got nuke help under his father's watch, but who else?
Columbia who killed over 2,000 union organizers and was W's first free trade ally in south America?
As for the mass killings- how many of them were religious zealots who hated Saddam's secular gov't which included progressive women's rights and oil revenue sharing with poorer/underdeveloped arab nations?
Yes the man was such a tyrant....the 2,000 per year would almost equal suicide bomber rates of some regions which would deal with Shi'ites version of Puritanism on a regular basis.
Never mind that we armed no fly zones with counterinsurgents, then occaisonally targeted them as well.
If Iraq is such a cause to you, live there and make it a better place, and take your NRA videos of Moses with you to convert them to an faith masquerading as Abrahmaic covenants. Oh both sides do that already.
Posted by Mr.Murder at February 20, 2004 02:42 PM
Depleted uranium and sanctions helped kill how many, along with infrastructure depletion for clean water and farm/fishing industires?
I'm going to cite Godwin on this one now. As for DU, the only DU that is going to hurt you is the piece coming at you at 1000+ fps.
Posted by Phelps at February 20, 2004 03:18 PMMark:
from http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq012503.htm
In a 16-page briefing paper, �The Iraqi Government Assault on the Marsh Arabs,� Human Rights Watch documents how systematic bombardment of villages, widespread arbitrary arrests, torture, �disappearances,� summary executions, and forced displacement have reduced the Marsh Arabs from more than 250,000 to as few as 40,000.
Large-scale government drainage projects have virtually wiped out the Marsh Arab economy and, along with severe repression, forced the displacement of at least 100,000 of the Marsh Arabs inside Iraq. More than 40,000 others fled as refugees to Iran. �The Marsh Arabs have suffered some of the worst repression in a highly repressive political system,� said Joe Stork, Washington director of the Middle East and North Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. �In the event of war, there is reason to fear that the marshes area will again be a battleground, with devastating consequences for those who remain.�
Many of the government�s acts of repression against the Marsh Arabs, because they were part of a widespread and systematic attack, constitute a crime against humanity, and Human Rights Watch called for an international tribunal to investigate and punish those responsible.
from
http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2002/nb20021125.html
The Marsh Arabs of Iraq
Hussein's Lesser Known Victims
November 25, 2002
WASHINGTON--Saddam Hussein's persecution of his political enemies, most notably the Kurds of northern Iraq and Shia Muslims in general, is notorious in the West, except in one case: that of the "Marsh Arabs" of southern Iraq. A society of 500,000 people who have lived in and around an enormous freshwater wetland ecosystem for some 5,000 years, the Marsh Arabs have suffered the total destruction of their economy, their culture, their habitat and their way of life. The devastation has not been the result of a direct assault on the people themselves, but on the environment that was the foundation of their existence�the marshlands. Covering about 12,000 square miles as recently as 1985, the three contiguous marshes have been drained, burned and dammed to the point that only remnants of them still exist. Where once lay healthy, ecologically rich wetlands, teeming with aquatic life, buffalo and migratory birds there now is only barren, salt-encrusted land. Researchers who have studied this phenomenon have concluded that the destruction of the marshlands had no economic or developmental purpose, but rather was carried out with the singular purpose of destroying the Marsh Arab people. If so, it was a successful venture. Most of the Marsh Arabs have left the area. Only a few thousand remain. The rest have fled to refugee camps in Iran or have dispersed throughout Iraq.
Posted by P6 at February 20, 2004 06:03 PMI'm afraid the Marsh Arab case doesn't amount to genocide. They were "destroyed" in the same way as Native Americans forced off their land and onto reservations. On certain levels, a real destruction, nothing to defend. But not the horror Saddam has been accused of.
Posted by P6 at February 20, 2004 06:15 PM