This month's New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) carries a free full text of correspondence related to two widely divergent estimates of post-invasion violent deaths in Iraq. The debate in itself is about statistics and stuff but the shocking fact is that the lowest estimate of non-combat violent deaths in the civilian population is 150,000 while the more realistic estimate (still on the conservative side) is 600,000!
Saddam Hussein in his worst avataram, is considered over a tenure of 24 years (1979-2003), to have been responsible for no more than 50,000 deaths per year. Post ouster that rate has climbed to at least double and probably even much more.
Should we not certainly be worried when hundreds of thousands of people die?
One of my major questions is was it worth it? I really don't know how to answer this question. America repeatedly claims that they simply had to get rid of a psychopathic butcher, but then the butchery after his removal seems to have got that much worse!
On another front look at what has been happening in Sudan's Darfur region. The toll there is conservatively estimated to be around a half million with a couple of million who have been turned into refugees and are always on the brink of starving to death or of being massacred in their UN/AU 'protected' refugee camps.
The striking similarity in both these horribly deadly disasters is the oil. Black gold. In both cases we see greed for control of oil revenues spilling over into ethnic-racial conflicts and terrible destruction of human lives. Entire peoples are being wiped out. Oil is not evil in and of itself. What it boils down to is greed. Greed alone is not enough, it is those who have power and who get greedy who then utilise ethnic hatred and use that as a propaganda weapon to justify and inflame their wars on innocents.
Saddam fell into the trap twice, first with Iran and then with Kuwait. In between he took a few swipes at the Kurds. I don't think that there is much doubt that in both wars, Saddam was lured into being the point person for others, who subsequently dropped him like a hot potato when the going got tough. But then that's just par for the course in the world of Realpolitik.
Do we have to search very hard for the reasons for other disaster zones like Zimbabwe or Myanmar? On the surface, NO, yet my overactive suspiciousness always makes me wonder who is duping whom to get what? It always seems that one of those with real power in this world sits and meddles in the background to actively but furtively create a situation out of which will fall windfall profits and increasing power and influence on the world stage.
Greed, power and the death of innocents...