Iraq's Shocking Human Toll / John Tirman
03-Feb-2009 (6 comments)

We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration. Looking at the empirical evidence of Bush's war legacy will put his claims of victory in perspective. Of course, even by his standards -- "stability" -- the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it's too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major unresolved issues, like the status of Kirkuk.

We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis -- more than half of them refugees -- or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.

The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were... >>>


War on Iraq

by smhb on

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans




by smhb on

I guess you should have known by his screen name: mehdimazloum!!! Thats a give away right there.

Anyone who is familiar with how they behave can see right through their idiotic schemes!!

It really doesnt matter what he has to say. As you indicated he is a fake, the question is does he know it himself.

In the meantime enjoy and have fun.


Secularism prevails in Iraq

by Akhoond hater (not verified) on


Thank you MSHB

by Mehrnaz (not verified) on

again for your care and concern.

I wonder if you noticed that Mazloum in his post addressed to you and I exposed himself as a fake. An Israeli Jew of Iranian origin who evidently from his blog knows Farsi very well, addressed me as Agha!!! He is neither Mehdi, nor Mazloum and is certainly more than two under that mask!

Here it is:

Pro-Israel Media War Bloggers Join Media War

"nu nu nu, labeling people!!!!
by Mehdi Mazloom on Fri Jan 30, 2009 07:25 PM PST

aghaha ye Mehrnaz ve smhb......."

So continue your good work my friend.

Ignore the poison and best wishes to you.


smhb: Thank you for the

by tasvir (not verified) on

smhb: Thank you for the post. I admire your tenacity in selling your ideological version of 'all-things political', in general.

BTW, do you support the IRI?? and if you do, why do you think you have the moral standing to criticize others on issues regarding morality, ethics, and crimes against humanity? What gives you that right? Is it the fact that you think Muslims religion have supremacy over all other religious ideologies??


Iraq’s victory, Iran’s loss

by Reporter (not verified) on

Iraq’s victory, Iran’s loss
New York Times
Feb 3, 2009

IRAQ’S peaceful elections and strong voter turnout last weekend were a major success for both that country and the United States — not that there was much celebration in American news coverage.

The elections could also redefine Iran’s role in the region. Critics of the Iraq war claimed that overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2003 strengthened Iran’s position. Had we left Mr. Hussein in power, the theory goes, Iran would be less of a global threat. This argument is fundamentally wrong.

Long before the American ouster of Mr. Hussein, Iran was supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank. It was seeking hegemony in Syria and Lebanon, and was well along in its clandestine program to acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. After Mr. Hussein’s conviction and execution, Iran increased efforts to advance its radical brand of Shiite Islam in Iraq. But the success of the election should substantially retard those efforts.

Mr. Hussein defended his repressive regime — and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction — in the name of protecting Arab nations from Iran. Western critics of Mr. Hussein’s removal are basically parroting the arguments of a tyrant. Surely some other Iraqi government could have advanced the Arab cause without invading Kuwait, or using chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Iraq’s provincial elections actually weaken Tehran’s hand.

First, they were not entirely dominated by Shiite voters. After mostly boycotting the 2005 Iraq elections, Sunnis participated on Saturday in large numbers. Many of them seem to recognize that their abstention had been a mistake. If they follow through in the general elections that should be held later this year, the composition of Iraq’s Parliament will change substantially.

Moreover, it’s unfair to assume that Tehran calls the shots among Iraqi Shiites. This gives too much credit to Iranian propaganda, and too little to the good sense of the Shiites themselves. Now they must decide whether taking orders from mullahs in Tehran is really more attractive than electing their own representatives in Baghdad.

Despite these successful elections, the sectarian and communal violence will not necessarily end, and we may even see the ultimate fragmentation of Iraq. Nor will the elections put an end to Iran’s ambitions. Tehran appears to believe that its influence in the region is expanding, and that its neighbors and the United States have failed to respond effectively. This belief is unsurprising, given the Obama administration’s acquiescent attitude toward Tehran.

Still, the elections could make a deep impression on the citizens of Iran and its vassal, Syria. Young, educated, sophisticated Iranians, dissatisfied with their country’s religious orthodoxy and economic failures since the 1979 revolution, will draw their own conclusions from Iraq’s peaceful democratic process.

Uncomfortable though it may be for some on the American left to admit, the “surge” continues to work, politically and militarily. The moment has come for the Obama administration to acknowledge what those fingers dipped in purple ink truly represent — a triumph for democracy.