home

Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq

It's been more than two years since we invaded Iraq. How are the Iraqis doing? Not so good, according to this new joint Iraqi-U.N. report. In fact, living conditions are called "tragic."

The report estimates the number of Iraqis who have died since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 somewhere between 18,000 and 29,000. Of those deaths, 12 percent were children under 18 years of age, meaning that between 2,100 and 3,500 children have been killed in the war thus far, according to ILCS data.

It's the children who have been suffering the most:

Nearly one-fourth of Iraqi children aged between six months and five years are chronically malnourished, meaning they have stunted growth, the report says. Among all Iraqi children, more than one in 10 suffer from general malnutrition, meaning they have a low weight for their age. Another eight percent have acute malnourishment, or low weight for their height.

In addition, 37 percent of young men with secondary or higher education are unemployed and just 83 percent of boys and 79 percent of school-age girls are enrolled in primary school.

On military damage:

....Military damage to dwellings in the north of the country averages 25 percent of all rural households and in provinces such as Sulaimaniya, 49 percent of all rural homes were damaged.

While the regime of Saddam Hussein built up many of the country's service networks, like electricity grids, sewage systems and water, the systems are widely in disrepair, the report says.

...Key facilities have been neglected for years under economic policies described as misguided and as a result of international sanctions, which cut Iraq off from most trade throughout the 1990s. Infrastructure also been damaged by three wars, the most recent of which was followed by severe looting and vandalism. The report concludes that refurbishing these systems is one of the biggest challenges to rebuilding Iraq.

< The 2002 Koran Incident at Guantanamo | Bush Courts Christians ... Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    soccerdad: "Of course JR is under the delusion that Iraq has something to do with the war on terror. There is no war on terror. There is however, a war for oil." If this were only about oil, we never would have gone to war. Like Russia and France and Germany, we would have signed a deal. Occam's razor makes that plain enough for those who think it through. As to Ernesto's absurd comment: "Since you read so much history you should know by now that Hussein only invaded countries (Iran and Kuwait) after getting our approval." The Iran/Iraq war started without US action. There was a tilt towards Iraq, and that was due to the after-effects of the 1978 hostage taking. As to Kuwait, we no more approved that action than we approved the North Korean invasion of the south in 1951. A verbal miscue by an ambassador was misinterpreted in both cases. Here's a question Ernesto - if we approved the invasion of Kuwait, why did we immediately go to all the trouble of getting a UN sanctioned force to liberate it? You might try applying Occam's Razor again.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    If this were only about oil, we never would have gone to war. Like Russia and France and Germany, we would have signed a deal. Occam's razor makes that plain enough for those who think it through.
    To bad. No go. Russia and China had already signed deals with Iraq for refurbishing their oil infrastructure. Saddam did not want to deal with the US and in fact wanted to be paid in Euro's not dollars. So there was no way the US was going to get a major part of the deals. It also explains why the US did not want the sanctions lifted. The deals with China and Russia were not progressing because of the sanctions and uncertainty. You bring up a good point. Why does the US insist on using its military might to secure its oil. Note all its bases its establishing throughout former USSR countries. Note its attempt to overthrow Chavez and alienate all of SA. Meanwhile China is running around the world making deals that are good for both sides.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    The oil is still in the ground everything is just fine

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    And democracy is afoot.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    Freedom is not free, I wish all these Iraqi's would understand that. They died heros... *sarcasm*

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    its always bad for the poor, its always prison for the poor, nothing new here. by the way the reason why so many iraqis want to work for us and the so called government of new iraq, is food and a place to live, and you will be doing that here soon, just like the rest of the world.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    If you go back to the way we armed and encouraged Iraq to go to war with Iran. Then the first gulf war, then the decades of sanction, and now the most recent invasion and occupation, I think a reasonable person would realize we have killed many, many Iraqis for our political and economic ends.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    Reporters from The Army Times were on CSPAN the other day describing their experiences in Iraq ("you can't do anything worhwhile without a good translator, a car and a good disguise"). They said that the Iraqi security forces are woefully underequipped and do front line patrols in unarmored Nissan pickups. For $300 billion is this the kind of nation building we are paying for? What a horrible thing we've done to these people.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    WWII killed millions of civilians in Japan and Germany. Does that invalidate that war in TL's eyes? The entire point of this war, apparently lost on TL, is that it's better to fight the Jihadis over there than over here.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    James Robertson...Japan and Germany started WWII. We invaded Iraq. But then again, history ain't your strong point. James Robertson...We invaded Afghanistan to fight the jihadis. We invaded Iraq to destroy the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Looks like reality and geography and ain't your strong points, either.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    Look, Ernesto, we're doing the best we can for the Iraqis and the Argentinians. We're not the policemen of the world, and buy the way, how much do you pay for gas? See, I told you, liberal -- you people think thinking is so thoughtful. You never consider the danger. We must teach the Arabs how to think, and then we can be sure they will return our ministrations in kind, making a LOT of money for the security state that is what YOU LIBERALS are in such a panic about. Islam Karimov is a saint, and you liberals keep calling him a mass-murderer and torturer. Obviously, you never went to high school and got hazed. And now you just want the whole world to smoke opium. Disgusting.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    Ernesto: "James Robertson...Japan and Germany started WWII. We invaded Iraq. But then again, history ain't your strong point." Doesn't matter. TL is trying to claim that the conditions suffered by civilians in Iraq (never mind that it's the terrorists blowing them up) invalidate the war all by itself. If that's the case, then high civilian casualties invalidate any war. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy inherent in TL's argument. As to history not being my strong point, I'd guess that I've read far more widely on the subject than you have.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    Doesn't matter.
    I beg to differ. If we were defending the United States from a hostile invasion, then you might have a point. The fact that Iraq was no threat to us, and we reduced it to rubble anyway, means that ANY deaths invalidate this war!!
    As to history not being my strong point, I'd guess that I've read far more widely on the subject than you have.
    Wow, and this is all you have to show for it?

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    “... died since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 somewhere between 18,000 and 29,000.” It is hard to find the numbers now that the anti-sanction groups have morphed into anti-occupation groups but thanks to the way back machine I have managed to pull some of the numbers that were making the rounds during the Clinton years; ~1.2 million Iraqi civilians dead due to lack of needed sanctioned items (echoes of genocide), 277,000 children under 5 years of age, all over a decade. Using the top end numbers, two years of US war and occupation; ~15,000 Iraqi civilians/year, ~1,750 children/year dead. So, under sanctions; ~120,000 Iraqi civilians/year ~27,700children under 5/year. Granted, neither of these estimates are likely reliable, and I assume the same folks have/are inflating them both. My point? I was astonished to see the same folks decrying sanctions turn 180º in support of sanction extorted inspections two years ago. Economic sanctions are a kind of warfare folks. This war was the inevitable conclusion of a decade+ of UN brokered intrusion; cutting off a gangrenous leg to spare the body.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    This war was the inevitable conclusion of a decade+ of UN brokered intrusion; cutting off a gangrenous leg to spare the body.
    The only way to end our sanctions against Iraq was by invading Iraq? Wow, with that kind of gift for twisted logic, I nominate you for a job at Bush's State Department or Pentagon.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    Ernesto, So in your view, leaving the Hussein regime in power was the better course of action? The US (and the UN - recall that the 1991 peration was UN sanctioned) ended up with a set of restrictions on the old regime. That's where the no-fly zones came from - the UN sanction regime. Under the old arrangement, Iraqi Kurds (and Shiites in the south) were wantonly slaughtered - we are still finding mass graves. So to get back to the question - your preferred policy would have been: -- dismantling of the UN sanction regime -- withdrawal of the UN sanctioned troops that maintained the no fly zones (etc) What would you preferred policy have been after the Hussein regime, drawing the obvious conclusion that the West and the UN were tired, invaded Kuwait again?

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    What would you preferred policy have been after the Hussein regime, drawing the obvious conclusion that the West and the UN were tired, invaded Kuwait again?
    Doesn't the US maintain an ACR in Kuwait? Or at least, didn't we use to before we sent them into Iraq? Gee. A US tripwire force has worked in Korea since 1953. I'm inclined to believe it would have continue to have worked here as well.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    JR, Sadly, it may be a correct assumption that war WAS the only inevitable conclusion to the Iraqi issue. Our leaders from both sides of the aisle failed miserably in this difficult situation. They refused to acknowledge that Iraq HAD been disarmed and was no longer a regional threat, much less a threat to the US, despite overwhelming evidence to support that observation. Their actions have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people who would otherwise be alive today, and the total destruction of a developed country. This is not an effective way for a superpower to conduct international foreign policy.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    1) Once we engaged Hussein in 1991, we should have removed him from power. Leaving him in meant permanent policing of the borders there 2) Europe (and the left here) was advocating for the end of sanctions and the removal of US forces maintaining the tripwire all through the 90's. You can't have it both ways, even though you would like to have your opposition to those earlier policies flushed down the meory hole 3) The reason that we did not finish the job in 1991 was precisely because we built a large, UN mandated multinational force. The price for doing that was maintaining the Hussein regime. The ancillary price was watching as the Kurds and southern Shiites were slaughtered

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    1) Once we engaged Hussein in 1991, we should have removed him from power. Leaving him in meant permanent policing of the borders there 2) Europe (and the left here) was advocating for the end of sanctions and the removal of US forces maintaining the tripwire all through the 90's. You can't have it both ways, even though you would like to have your opposition to those earlier policies flushed down the memory hole 3) The reason that we did not finish the job in 1991 was precisely because we built a large, UN mandated multinational force. The price for doing that was maintaining the Hussein regime. The ancillary price was watching as the Kurds and southern Shiites were slaughtered

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    James Robertson believes every word this administration says. He believes thousands of "jihadis" are going to storm our shores and murder us in mass. He is frightened, and his fear is what guides his thinking, tho he will claim it is logic. How incensed he must be then, if indeed he claims to be logical, that Dubya is against stem cell research because he's against things that "destroy life in order to save life". Either Bush is mentally retarded or is the most cynical liar in the history of politics. This administration has lied about everything from the reasons we wen't to "war", to the reasons Pat Tillman was killed. They lie about the public and the private, all the time, whenever it suits them, and Bush's stem cell quote is the most glaring proof of the absolute vacancy of thought, concern, truth they possess. So why James Robertson would believe the administration about the invading hordes of "jihadis", one can only assume his fear is so profound he can't overcome it with his intellect. Let me hip you to something, James. Anyone, jihadi or little league coach, who wants to kill a thousand Americans can do so quite easily. That they don't more often oughtta give you more faith in colored humanity than you seem to possess. Why don't you support sweeps of anti-government militia groups, the kind that threaten judges, blew up the Murrah bldg, etc.? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Proven fact. Now, to say it's proper and moral and right to start a war in someone else's house, someone else not connected with your specific beef, just so you can spare your own house the mess, well, I guess we have a drastically different idea of morality and right vs. wrong. Very sad. Peace, my fellow Americans.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    You can't have it both ways, even though you would like to have your opposition to those earlier policies flushed down the meory hole Nice try, but no dice James. I'm amazed your vast psychic powers failed you this time. I never advocated the removal of the tripwire force (3'rd ACR I beleive, but could be wrong on the specific unit). What exactly was your basis for this assumption? It's trite but true about what happens when you assume something, except I think the consequences this time are solely yours.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    Why don't you support sweeps of anti-government militia groups, the kind that threaten judges, blew up the Murrah bldg, etc.?
    Probably because when they can be bothered to vote, they are more likely to tag the "R" column, of course.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" James, you may sleep well knowing we sent thousands of "human shields" to Iraq to draw fire away from you, I don't. Jihadis want to kill us, make them cross the ocean, why make it easier for them? A small group of murderous terrorists is no reason to level a country, and kill tens of thousands who would never have crossed the Atlantic. I wonder how a human being becomes so cavalier with the lives of other human beings. Can you enlighten me James? Will you volunteer to go "fight them there"? If and when these jihadi hordes you have imagined land on the beaches of NY, I'll be there. Until then, I wish Joe Iraqi or Joe Afghani no harm. Obviously you do, as well as the American troops you are so willing to sacrifice. And before you bring up 9/11, I will remind you those guys are allready dead.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    And before you bring up 9/11, I will remind you those guys are allready dead.
    With the exception of Osama bin Ladin. If the current GOP leadership could only go after Osama with half the zeal they went after Clinton/Lewinsky, Osama would have been captured a couple of years ago. But as our leader has reminded us "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him , to be honest with you. I truly am not that concerned about him. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country." April 13, 2002 WH Press Conference.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    How about if we spent only half of the 300 billion on securing our borders? Again, all of this death and destruction would have been unnecessary. That is if Sundays are the terrorist-attacks-excuse day. It's hard to keep them all straight.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    "James Robertson believes every word this administration says. He believes thousands of "jihadis" are going to storm our shores and murder us in mass. He is frightened, and his fear is what guides his thinking, tho he will claim it is logic." I do? Sheesh, you don't know me as well as you think you do. I don't think that thousands of jihadis are going to storm US shores if we don't fight them abroad - on the other hand, so long as they are being distracted into Iraq, they aren't coming here - a net plus. There are plenty of aspects of administration policy I dislike - huge domestic spending sprees, a complete failure to address illegal immigration being the two biggest. What I most enjoy though is watching you build up the strawman me and demolish that. On 9/11, we had a terrorist attack that needed answering. We went in Afghanistan as a result, and the administration decided to hit Iraq as a way of destabilizing the entire region - the goal being to end up with a region less likely to spawn the kind of militantcy that has been all too common there. Seeing events in Iraq (elections, and an "insurgency" more interested in killing Shia than anything else), events in Libya (abject surrender), Lebanon (political reform), Syria (potential reform), Kuwait (rights for women), and even some tentative steps in the right direction in Saudi Arabia, I'd have to say it's working. We tried ignoring terror attacks - we;ve done it since Iran 1978, through Carter, Reagan, Bush the elder, Clinton, and the first 9 months of this administration. Without some change to the externalities in the middle east, more attacks would have come. Now, what do you think the popular response would be to a continuing run of attacks? Most likely, a willingness to cede civil rights in exchange for safety. You can blather about the Patriot Act all you want, but anyone who's read about events in the US in 1917-1920 realizes that nothing or relevance is happening in that area now. Unlike under Wilson and FDR, simple verbal dissent isn't getting you locked up (unless McCain and feingold have their way on campaign finance - then we might see more of that). What we have is a war that is fomenting change in the middle east. It's not all positive, but it's largely moving in the right direction. The left's proposed policies - to leave tyrants alone - makes a mockery of classic liberal thought.

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    James, You believe every word they say about this war, until you give me reason to think otherwise. If they can't do anything right about domestic spending and illegal immigration, why would you trust they have this right? Why? What possible reason could you have to look logic in the face and turn away completely? Fear. You're afraid. We still support the Saudis, the nation most responsible for 9/11, we support an Uzbek tyrant without the slightest thought of what that support with blowback into. And many others. We are playing the same selfish and thoughtless games that got us into this mess, and we are calling a duck a pig. Give me one reason to trust a word this administration says about the b.s. "war on terror"? What record do they have of being truthful about anything? From Enron and the economic rape of my state, which Bush and his cronies fully supported, to this murderous excursion into inanity. Iraq is a MESS!! If you don't think so, please provide me with detailed information about how happy a vast majority of Iraqis are that, first, we armed and supported their oppressor, and now are destroying the nation in order to "save it".

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    JR - well if Bush went into Iraq to destabilize the area he has succeed beyond his wildest dreams. Of course JR is under the delusion that Iraq has something to do with the war on terror. There is no war on terror. There is however, a war for oil. What Iraq is about is those "enduring" bases that will allow our military to exert influence throughout the area in order to keep the flow of oil coming. The war for oil is why we have bases throught the region including the all the "stan's". That is why we tried to overthrow Chavez, etc etc

    Re: Living Conditions Tragic in Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    So in your view, leaving the Hussein regime in power was the better course of action?
    Yeah, he was a toothless tiger, as was shown in March/April 2003. He was no threat to us and was not likely to be one for a long time, if ever. Now look at what Iraq has become. How are we safer? The more people we kill over there the more enemies we make wanting to kill us. If you don't see that then I wonder where you have been looking the last two years.
    The US (and the UN - recall that the 1991 peration was UN sanctioned) ended up with a set of restrictions on the old regime. That's where the no-fly zones came from - the UN sanction regime.
    Not sure what this has to do with anything, except that the no fly zones were never recognized by the UN. In fact, even the Brits did not go along with the US position on the no fly zones in the ramp up to the invasion.
    Under the old arrangement, Iraqi Kurds (and Shiites in the south) were wantonly slaughtered - we are still finding mass graves.
    And things have gotten so much better now?
    What would you preferred policy have been after the Hussein regime, drawing the obvious conclusion that the West and the UN were tired, invaded Kuwait again?
    Since you read so much history you should know by now that Hussein only invaded countries (Iran and Kuwait) after getting our approval.