14 Myths

14 Iraqi War Myths

1) Americans have killed 100,000 Iraqi Civilians



The most immediate cause for suspicion of the claim that 100,000 Iraqi
civilians have been killed by coalition troops is that this number
materialized about a year after the war began and has stayed unchanged in the
years since, indicating either that it?s own proponents have little confidence
in the figure, or that about 200 civilians really were dying each day from a
genocidal pinpoint campaign that somehow evaporated overnight.



Iraq is not an inaccessible backwater. It has a modern communications
infrastructure, as well as hospitals and morgues. It is simply unfeasible
that 200 civilians could die everyday from violence that was undirected at
them without the media finding out about it. The group Iraqbodycount.net, for
example, meticulously traces news sources for any death, from which it
(presumably) culls redundancy and then posts the totals. It found that there
were a little over ?7,000 civilian? deaths from the ?effects of war? (mostly
at the hands of Isalmic terrorists) during the most intense stages of
conflict.



Even this statistic is highly exaggerated, since the enemy there is not known
to fight in uniform. In all probability, the immense effort of coalition
forces to avoid civilian casualties was quite successful and the true number
is between 2,000 and 3,000, perhaps lower.

[ed. note: In fact, a more recent (11/28/05) analysis shows the number of
civilian deaths incurred as a direct result of coalition action to have been
less than 1,000].



So where did the figure of 100,000 come from? It was created from a popular
interpretation of a politically motivated article that appeared in The Lancet
in October 2004, in which an anti-war researcher surveyed an outrageously tiny
sample of households that were disproportionately located in the violent Sunni
triangle (2/3's of the deaths were reported in Fallujah).



The survey did not rely on any means of verification, nor did it define terms
that would preclude deaths at the hands of the terrorists. This last part is
important because in the month of July, 2005, for example, terrorists killed
over 600 Iraqi civilians while Americans killed none. For the first eight
months of 2006, terrorists killed about 8,000 Iraqi civilians, while only 59
were killed collaterally by the Americans (often in shootouts with
terrorists).



So woefully unreliable was The Lancet survey that it actually begrudged a 92%
margin of error - meaning that its conclusions could be closer to 8,000
deaths, which would put it in line with other news sources, although it is
doubtful that many of these could be attributed to cluster bomb mishaps, since
such incidents were both rare and highly publicized.



The figure of 100,000 civilian deaths is not employed out of accuracy, but
rather expediency. Public sympathy can be manipulated by arbitrarily
inflating the number of civilians killed in the conflict. It obscures the
fact that nearly all of the deaths of innocents are occurring at the hands of
the very people that coalition forces are trying to stop, as well as the fact
that the civilian death rate was far higher under Saddam, and would be much
worse in a future without a stable security force to support the democratic
government.





2) Insurgents only want an end to the ?Occupation?



According to this myth, the insurgents are so repulsed by the presence of
foreign troops in their country that they are forced by conscience to take up
arms and kill fellow Iraqis by the hundreds each month. If the Americans were
gone, then the ?insurgency? would evaporate and these Iraqis would respect
their democratically elected government.



In the first place, these would have to be extremely dimwitted insurgents,
since their own murderous rampage is the sole reason that American troops
remain. The democratic Iraqi government is clearly working toward
self-sufficiency, but its efforts are being undermined exclusively by the
terrorists, hence the need for external support. Clearly, there are ulterior
motives involved that are not as palatable to Western tastes.



The impartial observer will also note that the ?insurgency? is conspicuously
and curiously limited to 20% of the country (the so-called ?Sunni Triangle?)
even though all of Iraq is technically under ?occupation.? Why isn?t the
resistance spread evenly ? if it is truly an Iraqi insurgency, and not merely
a Sunni ploy to regain hegemony under the guise of freedom (or the banner of
Jihad)?



In fact, virtually all of the suicide bombers (who cause the most damage) are
not Iraqis at all, but instead come from places like Saudi Arabia, where the
lives of Iraqis are not highly valued.



The ?al-Qaeda in Iraq? leader, al-Zarqawi, has declared war on the Shia
majority in remarkable disregard for Sunni Iraqis, who previously benefited
from the impressive patience shown by the Shia and Kurdish groups that
outnumber them four to one. Perhaps al-Zarqawi has such little concern for
anyone in Iraq because he is from Jordan, and has no personal stake in the
welfare of either side.



Although anti-war and anti-American propagandists search desperately for
appealing terminology that will legitimize the violence, the fact remains that
the vast majority of Iraqis have chosen to live peaceably under their own
chosen democratic government





3) Fighting Terrorism Simply Creates More Terrorists.



There is some merit to the argument that it doesn?t take much to inspire the
holy warriors of Islam to suicide bombings and other acts of violence in the
name of Jihad. The very fact that many of these misguided Muslims can be
manipulated into leaving a country such as Syria, where the dictator has
willfully slaughtered tens of thousands of suspected Islamic fundamentalists
to retain power over the years, only to travel to Iraq and engage in the
slaughter of innocent Muslims (most of whom haven?t completed the Hajj) is
pretty good evidence of just how vulnerable Islamic radicals are to the
misinformation tactics of secular puppet masters.



Still, al-Qaeda had no problem attracting thousands to its training camps well
before America started fighting back in the war on terror, and it is a fact
that these sociopaths have to live somewhere. If no country feels that it can
safely harbor terrorists without facing severe consequences, then their
numbers will naturally shrink.



Since America made terrorism a national defense issue, rather than a legal
matter, and began building allies in the battle, totalitarian regimes in
Afghanistan and Iraq have been overthrown and replaced by democracies. The
world is no longer threatened by Saddam Hussein, or forced into guessing games
regarding his WMD programs. Syria has been pressured into ending a very
brutal occupation of Lebanon, and elections have been held there, as well as
in Egypt. Libya has given up its WMD program and surrendered its stockpiles.
Islamic terrorists are under pressure across the globe now from Pakistan to
the Philippines.



There is no perfect solution to terrorism, but the passive approach taken in
the 1990?s obviously has far harsher consequences for citizens in the West.
Our policy of non-confrontation and appeasement was rewarded with successively
bolder attacks against military, diplomatic, and civilian targets, culminating
in the loss of 3,000 innocents on 9/11.



For 1400 years, Islamic terrorists have always found reasons for hating and
killing unsubmissive infidels, in keeping with the teachings of their
religion. No amount of appeasement will ever change this.





4) The War was About Oil



There are two flavors to this argument. The first was popular before the war,
and held that the United States would invade Iraq and take the oil. Given
that this hasn?t happened, and that the Americans are helping to rebuild Iraq
(against ?insurgent? attempts to thwart the process by destroying pipelines
and terrorizing the population), this is no longer believed by anyone except
the most hopeless anti-American conspiracy nuts.



The more reasonable version of the argument is that America?s only interest in
Iraq is to see that the country?s oil reaches the international market. The
problem with this theory is that the only thing keeping Iraqi oil off the
market prior to the war was American-supported sanctions.



The sanctions wouldn?t have been there if Americans were only interested in
oil. Nor would America have gone to war over oil, since it would have been
far easier to simply drop the sanctions? if oil was really the issue.



As it turns out, the only people selling their souls for oil were the
Europeans who were paid millions in oil allotments by Saddam to moralize
against the war. Fortunately for them, they aren't American, therefore no one
in Europe actually cares.





5) The War is based on a lie. Bush Lied about WMD?s



George W. Bush never claimed to have been to Iraq. Rather, both he and Tony
Blair deferred to intelligence reports and, at the same time, complained that
their sources were limited by the fact that Saddam would not allow inspections
under the agreements that ended the Gulf War; nor would he respect numerous UN
mandates to allow unrestricted monitoring.



Though rare, there are some in the world who allege that Bush knew the reports
were wrong (in some mysterious fashion), but went to war under false pretenses
anyway. This would certainly qualify as a lie, but it also defies common
sense and probably speaks to the ignorance, delusion, or dishonesty of the
person making such an assertion.



For obvious reasons, first-term American Presidents do not send troops into
combat with a primary justification that they know will be proven false before
the next election. Neither do second-term Presidents for that matter, since
the fallout would have devastating consequences for their political party, to
say nothing of personal conscience.



Ironically, those most critical of America over the relative absence of WMDs
also happen to have been the most sympathetic toward Saddam?s manipulative
shell games that made the war necessary in the first place. Their shallow and
unbalanced moralizing gave the dictator confidence that the American President
would never follow through with his threats to hold his government accountable
under the WMD inspections agreements that it signed. Saddam never believed
that he would wind up in a spider hole or on trial.



Had the world united against Saddam Hussein and required that he honor
international law, then the war would never have happened and the good people
of Iraq would still be living under his sublime and gentle hand.





6) The Insurgents are Freedom Fighters, in the Spirit of 1776



This belief has its roots in the multicultural mindset that compels many
Westerners to interpret the actions of non-Westerners through the vocabulary
of moral equivalence. Since Americans don?t kill for religious purposes or to
satisfy the craving of a murderous minority that wants to reclaim autocratic
power, it therefore follows that our enemy?s motives must be unrelated to
these interests as well.



Disingenuousness is a critical ingredient for proponents of this position.
They must remain intentionally naïve to the true motives of the terrorists,
disregarding the call to Jihad, for example (which obviously inspires the
suicide bombers) while drawing attention to the portion of insurgent
propaganda that is designed to appeal to Western sensibilities.



The reality in Iraq is that the insurgents leaders are mostly elements of the
old regime that are sheltered by small pockets of the Sunni community. They
cynically use Islamic theology to inspire fellow Sunnis from outside Iraq to
join the ?Jihad.? Since the Sunnis benefited disproportionately under Saddam
Hussein (at the expense of 80% of the Iraqi population) many are sympathetic
to the true motives of the terror leaders, which is to reestablish the sort of
tyrannical rule that worked to their narrow advantage in the past.



True political freedom in the form of democratic rule is obviously
antithetical to the interests of this minority, so they employ the most
barbaric tactics to undermine the constitution and thwart the people?s efforts
to define their own government. They aren?t fighting for freedom, but rather
for minority rule and subjugation. This makes them the polar opposite of the
American Revolutionary.



There are true freedom fighters in Iraq, of course. They are the tens of
thousands of police and Iraqi soldiers who take enormous risk each day to keep
their democratic government in power. Unfortunately, their sacrifice doesn?t
serve the political interests or the romantic needs of the critics, so the
same sympathy is not extended to them as to their homicidal foes.





7) 500,000 Iraqi Children Perished because of American-supported UN Sanctions



The fact that this [conveniently round] number originated with Saddam?s
government while it was engaged in the very process of building nearly one
hundred opulent palaces for the dictator in various parts of the country makes
it extremely problematic. If the government had the wealth to pursue such
idle pretensions, then it certainly could have afforded medical supplies for
children, particularly since the money came from the ?oil-for-food? program.
Obviously Saddam had other priorities, which were beyond the control of the
U.S. government.



Before taking Saddam Hussein?s statistics at face value, consider the source.
One of the few promises that he ever kept was when he told that the wife of
one of his ministers that he would return her husband to her after the woman
begged him. His minister had been arrested and tortured for daring to suggest
in a cabinet meeting that perhaps Saddam should step aside temporarily in 1982
as a political ploy, then resume power after the international objective (of
peace with Iran) was established. The man?s body was chopped into pieces and
delivered to his wife in a black canvas bag the day after she begged for his
return.



The Americans can?t force a dictator to provide for the welfare of his people,
although they can topple him from power rather than praise or condone his
behavior, as the ?humanitarians? were doing. It is extremely curious that the
very people claiming to be most concerned about the plight of children under
sanctions should be most ?horrified? over the effort to remove the man
responsible for the suffering.



Suspicious as well is that those who rely on the unsubstantiated figure of
?500,000 deaths from sanctions? also happen to be least concerned over the
tens of billions that were skimmed out of the oil-for-food program in the form
of bribes from Saddam. This is because the lives of these children are only
as valuable as their usefulness to the anti-American cause.





8) Iraq is a Winner for U.S. Democrats



Democrats have certainly tried their best to capitalize on the natural
ambivalence that often accompanies modern wars waged by Western powers,
realizing that they benefit from their own efforts to make Iraq unpopular.
Comparing American soldiers to Nazis and wildly extrapolating every misstep of
the war from Abu Ghraib to a ?mishandling? of the Qur?an has had a
demoralizing effect both on those fighting in uniform and the resolve of the
American public. Iraqis are now suffering in ways the Afghans are not;
despite the common presence of foreign troops.



The potential political reward from a successful insurgency has seduced some
Democrats into disingenuously assisting the enemy. Ted Kennedy, for example,
virtually fed the radical cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, talking points about
Vietnam in the spring of 2004, even as the religious leader was engaged in a
murderous uprising that left hundreds dead.



In fact, the shadow strategy is to frame the war using terms (such as
"quagmire") that are often used retrospectively to describe Vietnam, where
America faced an enemy that merely wanted to subjugate and kill the locals and
their immediate neighbors, rather than wage global Jihad against infidels.
The practice of meticulously keeping a running tally of American dead, in
fact, was unheard of until Vietnam activists realized midway through the
conflict that such a ploy could weaken public support for foreign sacrifice.

Vietnam was a loser for a divided America, and if Democrats can successfully
associate the two conflicts in the nation?s consciousness, then Iraq will be a
loser as well ? both for us, the Iraqis, and the hopes of pro-reform advocates
in the Middle East.



So, on the surface this would appear to be a winning issue for Democrats. But
wait? The party rejected anti-war candidates in 2004 for a full ticket that
voted in favor of the war. In all likelihood, the 2008 Democratic nominee for
President will also be someone who supported the war and refuses to articulate
an ?exit strategy.? Even prominent party leaders such as Harry Reid have
scoffed at the notion of ?timetables? for removing troops ? rightly explaining
that it would merely encourage the enemy.



The problem for Democrats is that their murky opposition to the war is fueled
only by the success of terrorists, usually in the form of barbaric and
cowardly attacks. Retreat in the face of terrorism may have short-term
electoral benefits, but it will merely strengthen the general impression that
Democrats are soft on terror, and this will not be good for the party in the
long run? nor for the rest of the world.





9) ?They? are Insurgents, not Terrorists



The word ?insurgent? is a loaded term that confers legitimacy since it is
neutrally defined as ?one who opposes authority.? It is broad enough to apply
to any American who votes for the Green Party, for example, as well as the
citizen who bombs a government building in Oklahoma City in the middle of the
day.



Obviously, it is intellectually dishonest to categorize Ralph Nader loyalists
alongside those who use violence to overthrow a democratically elected
government, so narrower terminology is not just appropriate, but morally
imperative.



We modestly suggest that those who commit violent acts of terror against a
democratic government and its citizens be known as terrorists.





10) Anti-War Activists are truly Motivated by the Human Cost of War



Anti-war activists often pretend that the killing in Iraq began the moment
American bombs started falling, and will end the minute coalition troops leave
the country, but mass graves uncovered from the Saddam era, and present-day
terror attacks against ordinary Iraqis are clear indicators of the odd mixture
of insincerity and ignorance that characterizes the ?peace movement.?



In fact, true sympathy for the Iraqi people would have to run pretty thin
among those pressing for the premature removal of peacekeeping forces.
Leaving innocent people exposed and vulnerable to the forces of terror or a
bloody civil war hardly qualifies as a humane gesture. Neither did these
activists appear visibly moved by the plight of more than 300,000 - 600,000
missing and murdered Iraqis under the Baathist regime.



Obviously, the language of compassion is a mere artifice for deeper political
and social motives, which can be anything from anti-American bigotry to the
complex insecurity in the Muslim world toward free and open societies. The
Islamic third world is awash in state-sponsored propaganda that rarely
presents the truth for fear of nurturing demands for internal reform. Europe,
for its part, has no religion, and depends on anti-Americanism to fill the
void by providing common purpose, zeal and moral superiority. Facts would
only get in the way.



Just as the lives of tens of millions in the gulags of the Soviet Union,
China, Cambodia, Vietnam and Africa were inconsequential to the anti-Western
Left, so are the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis to today?s generation of
?useful idiots.?





11) Iraq is a Disaster



The terror attacks in Iraq provide an excuse for political opportunists to
label the country a ?disaster.? This, in turn, inspires more violence and
works against the resolve of those fighting the terrorists.



Apart from the terror, Iraq is a stable country where educational and economic
opportunity is now afforded to the 80% of the population that was denied basic
rights under the dictatorship. Schools are open; electricity and clean water
are reaching new areas; and the torture chambers and rape rooms have been
closed. Oil is flowing, and the revenue is not being skimmed away from the
people via corrupt practices as it was under Saddam. A free and open
democracy now exists at the heart of the Arab world, which means long-term
regional stability as surrounding countries are pressured into democratic and
human rights reform.



Iraqis have been given an enormous opportunity to benefit from the overthrow
of tyranny, and American blood has been shed to make it so. The only thing
that will squander the opportunity and make the sacrifice in vein is if the
terrorists win.



Criminals and Fedayeen have been killing about 500 Iraqis a month over the
last year ? mainly police and other security forces. Each high-profile attack
invites sanctimonious hand wringing from opportunists, who are assisted by the
media?s natural inclination toward bad news. When attention is isolated on
acts of violence, their significance becomes exaggerated and context is lost.



But let?s put the numbers in perspective?



Eighteen times as many Americans die from alcohol-related incidents. In fact,
the death rate from terror in Iraq is about eight times lower than the number
of Americans dying from tobacco-related causes even taking the population
disparity into account. This is also true for obesity-related mortality,
which is poised to overtake smoking as the top cause of preventable death.



The residents of fourteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces enjoy a much lower
crime rate than nearly any American city, and the other four provinces average
fewer murders per capita than New York City?s worst year under David Dinkins.



Though the number of Iraqis dying from terror attacks is both tragic and
preventable, it is almost incomparable to the number of those killed under
Saddam. The people in the West who use the attacks for their own propaganda
purposes (in exactly the way that the terrorists intend) are playing directly
into the hands of those whose intention is to turn Iraq - and the Middle East
- into a genuine disaster that will have enormous consequences for the rest of
us.




12) America is Waging a Crusade against Islam



Opponents of the coalition effort to topple an autocratic regime and see that
representative government is installed successfully in its place are always
careful to tailor their rhetoric to fit the audience. In the West, for
example, it is chic to accuse the United States of supporting democracy in the
Middle East simply because the presence of open and accountable governments
there improves the long-term security of Americans (as if only non-American
countries are allowed to act in the self-interest of their citizens).



However, the anti-democratic strategists in the Arab world have long
understood that religion is the key to manipulating and arousing the passions
of the people.



Such opportunists were quick to exploit Bush?s use of the word ?crusade? in
reference to the battle against terrorism, but neglected to inform their
audience that unlike ?Jihad,? which is never divorced from the historical
context of Islamic warfare (either against sinful desires or obstinate
infidels), ?crusade? has become a secular term in modern language that merely
denotes a quest for some exalted goal, in this case the eradication of those
plotting to kill innocents. (For example, the comic book figure Batman, which
first appeared in 1939, has long been known as the "Caped Crusader," but the
series obviously has nothing to do with religion).



Likewise, when Bush answered in the affirmative when asked whether he believed
he acted in God's will to improve the lives of Iraqis by liberating them from
murderous dictatorship, the dialogue was quickly embellished by his
detractors. Rational people would be more alarmed by a Christian who says he
doesn't act in God's will, of course, or claims that God wants him to
eradicate the innocent rather than help them, but Western critics went
Hollywood to conjure up the spooky image of a dangerous religious fanatic who
acts unpredictably according to voices in his head. Manipulators in the
Muslim world tried to convince the masses that this was evidence of a
religious plot. At the very least, both groups tried to draw moral
equivalence between the deliberate targeting of civilians by the terrorists in
the name of Allah and the aggressive measures that secular coalition troops
often take for the sake of protecting the people from such religious and
criminal sociopaths.



This propaganda makes it all the more difficult for people in conspiracy-laden
Islamic societies to see that America is a pluralistic country with no
interest in spreading any religion by the sword. Thus, Muslims who express
little if any sympathy for the actual victims of Jihad are misled into
exhibitions of outrage over the false impression of a medieval-style Crusade,
and the "Religion of Peace" ironically finds itself allied with the very
terrorists who are killing fellow members of the faith on an almost daily
basis.



Self-defeating as well is that since the Qur?an instructs Muslims to be in a
constant state of war with non-submissive infidels, believers often assume
that other religions are at war with them, even if it isn?t the case. Even
Muslims who publicly condemn the slaughter of thousands each year in the name
of their religion almost always reserve their harshest rhetoric for any act of
self-protection on the part of infidels outside the faith, be it military or
legislative.



In other words, when Islamic terrorists attack America, it has nothing to do
with Islam. But when America responds by attacking terrorists or restricting
visas, then suddenly it is all about Islam. The Muslim world has always been
able to convince itself that it is the victim in any conflict, no matter how
much hard data has to be ignored to keep the myth alive. The real Crusades,
for example, exist independently of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad,
and 9/11 is actually believed to be a plot against Muslim people rather than a
compelling reason for Muslims to take responsibility for the preachers of hate
who inspire such violence.



Truth is not defined by mere force of belief, however, and if the Islamic
world is to progress beyond rampant paranoia and shallow conclusions, then it
must begin to foster broadmindedness and balanced opinion. The American
government is not waging a war against Muslims and neither are its citizens.
Even in the aftermath of 9/11 there was no outbreak of mosque burnings or
sectarian attacks in a nation of 300 million. Anti-American groups such as
CAIR and Jihad Unspun are perfectly free within America?s own borders to
propagandize against their host country and inflame world opinion, but their
freedom to do so should completely undermine their very message that Muslims
are under any sort of persecution ? at least in the minds of reasonable
people.





13) America Started the War



In fact, the war began in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Instead of
officially ending, hostilities were suspended in 1991 with a conditional
armistice. In order to retain personal power, the Iraqi dictator had to agree
to unrestricted weapons inspections by the UN, among other things.

Over the course of a dozen years, Saddam violated every part of the agreement
that he thought he could get away with, much to his own people's misery. Even
so, he was given every opportunity to avoid war, including an eleventh hour
offer of safe passage out of the country and a life of luxury in exile.

He continued to flout the terms of the armistice by barring inspections, which
must be considered a blatantly unnecessary provocation by those who now
believe that he had nothing to hide. Unless international law isn't meant to
be respected (which is an entirely different debate), the UN had no choice but
to authorize military action to enforce its own resolutions.

Therefore the war wasn't started by America. It was insisted on by Saddam
Hussein.




14) Saddam had No Ties to Islamic Terror



Saddam had plenty, in fact, even if he wasn't behind 9/11, which no one in the
Bush Administration ever claimed (contrary to another popular myth).



The Iraqi dictator conspicuously harbored elements of at least seven known
Islamic terrorist groups in his country prior to the 2003 war, which had been
responsible for the deaths of 811 people, including 36 Americans, and 2,667
injuries (source: Richard Miniter, "Disinformation"). This included Abu
Abbas, the killer of Leon Klinghoffer aboard the Achille Lauro in 1985, and
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda operative who engineered the death of an
American diplomat in Jordan in 2002.
.

Loading