The use of the word "Holocaust" will doubtlessly offend some, who say it is confined to the World War II Holocaust of the Jews, but Mark Weisbrot in his piece in AlterNet "Holocaust Denial, American Style" says it applies to what has happened in Iraq as a result of the Iraq War - and the way in which Americans have simply ignored what has been wrought in the war-torn country.
"Institutionally unwilling to consider America's responsibility for the bloodbath, the traditional media have refused to acknowledge the massive number of Iraqis killed since the invasion.
President Mahmoud 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 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."
Meanwhile, in New Matilda, Antony Loewenstein in his piece "Iraq: The Forgotten War" addresses how the war has simply slipped under the radar in so many respects:
"Iraq has become the forgotten war. During Australia’s current Federal election campaign, foreign affairs has barely rated a mention (though Labor Leader Kevin Rudd told the Sun Herald last weekend that one of his first tasks, if he wins office, will be to start negotiations with the USA and Iraq to remove Australian combat troops from southern Iraq. ‘I have been very blunt with President Bush,’ he said. ‘I have a no-surprises policy when it comes to these things.’"
"Institutionally unwilling to consider America's responsibility for the bloodbath, the traditional media have refused to acknowledge the massive number of Iraqis killed since the invasion.
President Mahmoud 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 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."
Meanwhile, in New Matilda, Antony Loewenstein in his piece "Iraq: The Forgotten War" addresses how the war has simply slipped under the radar in so many respects:
"Iraq has become the forgotten war. During Australia’s current Federal election campaign, foreign affairs has barely rated a mention (though Labor Leader Kevin Rudd told the Sun Herald last weekend that one of his first tasks, if he wins office, will be to start negotiations with the USA and Iraq to remove Australian combat troops from southern Iraq. ‘I have been very blunt with President Bush,’ he said. ‘I have a no-surprises policy when it comes to these things.’"
Comments