Holocaust Denial, American Style

Iranian President Ahmedinejad's flirtation with those who deny the reality of the Nazi genocide has rightly been met with disgust. But another holocaust denial is taking place with little notice: the holocaust in Iraq. The average American believes that 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in March 2003. The most commonly cited figure in the media is 70,000. But the actual number of people who have been killed is most likely more than one million.

This is five times more than the estimates of killings in Darfur and even more than the genocide in Rwanda 13 years ago.

The estimate of more than one million violent deaths in Iraq was confirmed again two months ago in a poll by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business, which estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the US invasion. This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health more than a year ago. Their study was published in the Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal. It estimated 601,000 people have been killed due to violence as of July 2006; but if updated on the basis of deaths since the study, this estimate would also be more than a million. These estimates do not include those who have died because of public health problems created by the war, including breakdowns in sewerage systems and electricity, shortages of medicines, etc.

Amazingly, some journalists and editors - and of course some politicians - dismiss such measurements because they are based on random sampling of the population rather than a complete count of the dead. While it would be wrong to blame anyone for their lack of education, this disregard for scientific methods and results is inexcusable. As one observer succinctly put it: if you don't believe in random sampling, the next time your doctor orders a blood test, tell him that he needs to take all of it.

The methods used in the estimates of Iraqi deaths are the same as those used to estimate the deaths in Darfur, which are widely accepted in the media. They are also consistent with the large numbers of refugees from the violence (estimated at more than four million). There is no reason to disbelieve them, or to accept tallies such as that the Iraq Body Count (73,305 - 84,222), which include only a small proportion of those killed, as an estimate of the overall death toll.

Of course, acknowledging the holocaust in Iraq might change the debate over the war. While Iraqi lives do not count for much in US politics, recognizing that a mass slaughter of this magnitude is taking place could lead to more questions about how this horrible situation came to be. Right now a convenient myth dominates the discussion: the fall of Saddam Hussein simply unleashed a civil war that was waiting to happen, and the violence is all due to Iraqis' inherent hatred of each other.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that the occupation itself - including the strategy of the occupying forces - has played a large role in escalating the violence to holocaust proportions. It is in the nature of such an occupation, where the vast majority of the people are opposed to the occupation and according to polls believe it is right to try and kill the occupiers, to pit one ethnic group against another. This was clear when Shiite troops were sent into Sunni Fallujah in 2004; it is obvious in the nature of the death-squad government, where officials from the highest levels of the Interior Ministry to the lowest ranking police officers - all trained and supported by the US military - have carried out a violent, sectarian mission of "ethnic cleansing." (The largest proportion of the killings in Iraq are from gunfire and executions, not from car bombs). It has become even more obvious in recent months as the United States is now arming both sides of the civil war, including Sunni militias in Anbar province as well as the Shiite government militias.

Is Washington responsible for a holocaust in Iraq? That is the question that almost everyone here wants to avoid. So the holocaust is denied.

This column was published by Alternet on November 21, 2007.

Comments

[lore]

This article really bothers me. You're right that the slaughter in Iraq is terrible. There has been torture. There have been thousands of deaths. The Western media has reported only on American deaths. The Bush administration has said all of these deaths serve a greater good.

But calling it a genocide or Holocaust is simply inaccurate (and, quite frankly, it's that sort of impassioned, not-quite-accurate radical rhetoric that discredits radicals). Look up "genocide" in any dictionary, and you'll see that the term refers to the systematic extermination of a group of people based on their nationality, race, religion, sexuality, etc.

While the majority of casualties in Iraq have indeed been Iraqis, it's important to remember that many of those have been spurred by Iraqis themselves. I also question whether it was really the United States' intent to wipe out the Iraqi people when we went into Iraq. Bush's goal was to get rid Iraqi of every remnant of Saddam Hussein and his elusive weapons of mass destruction A better example of genocide is Saddam Hussein's attempt to exterminate the Kurds. There's a group of people who were singled out ad killed simply because of who they were. They were not killing each other.

Just because more people were, perhaps, killed in Iraq than in Darfur does not qualify this as a genocide. Genocide isn't simply about numbers, and your credibility declines significantly when you suggest otherwise.

[Nommo]

Deal first with the Holocaust of the indigenous population of what is not the "Americas".

[realitytrumpsbull]

Know what's really interesting? We lose over 1/2 million a year to various avoidable causes
in the USA every YEAR, and no one bats an eye.
if it's not the 100k or so from the lung-darts,
it's the 45k on the roads, another 100k estimated accidental hospital deaths, then
there's fires, falling down stairs, not
understanding what 'voltage' means, self-inflicted injuries, other-inflicted injuries,
and just plain stupidity.

Grampa died peacefully, in his sleep. Unlike
his passengers, who went screaming...

[locanicole]

This whole situation is just so sad and the reason the general public isnt aware of this is cause the msm has their heads up their a$$es. The public is more then willing to go along with this attitude. We went into Iraq with a big stick and whacked a hornets nest and then some people are going to sit back and say that it is the Iraqi's fault..if you are any type of moral, humane person you must oppose this war and support all it's victims, both our soldiers and iraqi civilians.

[letstakeawalk]

I found it interesting that a poll conducted by ORB, and reported 4/18/2007 by Marie Colvin in the The Sunday Times, "shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services." The article continues to mention that Iraqis do not see the military conflict as a civil war, that the armed militias are diminished, and that most Iraqis are confident and optimistic that when international troops are withdrawn, the presently installed government will be a success.

Of course, polls and statistics can be interpreted in many ways, and to admit that Iraq is not a complete disaster would hurt... who?

[Lon]

The Rwanda figures range from a low of 500,000 to a high of 1 million killed during a 3 month period out of a population under 10 million. And the killing was part of a concerted effort of one group to eliminate the existence of another.

The Iraqi deathtoll, while disastrous, pales before Rwanda. Similarly as a matter of scale, it likely pales before Durfur.

Genocide does not seem to be an accurate description of what has happened in Iraq. (Just as the ludicrous genocide on fetuses used by the right reflects a misunderstanding of what genocide is).

There seems to be a lot of ethnic cleansing going on of the sort of pushing Sunnis into Sunni areas and Shia into Shiite areas. But it does not seem accurate to call this genocide. (And if genocide, by whom?)

[Cavedog]

I was under the impression that the casualty estimate was actually expressed as a confidence interval, i.e. researchers were 98% sure that the number of casualties is somewhere between 300,000 and 1,000,000. Both high numbers, but an awfully wide range, and that's a pretty important distinction.

[Atticus]

Holocaust? Nope. I'ts just war. You've two nutso groups killing each other off and also attacking our troops. The annihilation of the Iraqis is blood on their own hands, not ours. They could lay down their arms anytime. All the sane people left a long time ago.

[ActuallyRemembers]

I love it when people discuss the significant issues that are, for the most part, passed by. This post is profound, profoundly sad, and most likely, Mr. Weisbrot is correct.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Weisbrot,

I don't know what the numbers are exactly, but I know a low-ball would be in the half-million range. That's to say nothing of the maimed and orphaned.

And this is just the beginning, because this whole war thing is escalating out of control.

Mark my words! Agape.