• Home
  • Blogs
  • Couric & Co.
Couric & Co.
March 19, 2007 4:56 PM

Katie Couric's Notebook: War By The Numbers

Posted by Katie Couric
Hi everyone.

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, it's a good time to take stock.

Since the war began...3,192 US troops have been killed. More than 24,000 have been wounded. At least 50,000 Iraqi civilians have died.

The cost has been at least 351 billion dollars...and is projected to exceed half a trillion by the end of this year.

Oil production and electricity distribution are both below pre-war levels.

Just last month, bombings that killed multiple people were up, and 150 Iraqi army and police officers died, and 3 US helicopters were lost.

On the other hand, 70% of Iraqis voted in their last election. Unemployment is down. Inflation is down from 50% to 20%. And the White House says that violence is now down by one quarter.

For four years, many voices have spoken out on the war. Today, I thought we'd just let the numbers speak for themselves.

That's a page from my notebook.
Tags:
notebook ,
Iraq
Topics:
Katie's Notebook
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More from Couric & Co. and Evening News on CBSNews.com

Add a Comment See all 15 Comments
by dan2098 March 21, 2007 12:29 AM EDT
"...you are shown the suicide bombers, but you don't see them." from lilbean6

I see the suicide bombers as a problem for the Iraqi people to deal with. It is time for America to declare victory and go home. Please note that more than 70% of Americans think that it is time for the war to end. You and I both know that that number includes conservatives as well as liberals.

By the way, I tend to be moderate in my views, and I take exception to the "left" stereotype.

Excuse me as I gracefully step away from the 6 bus.

Reply to this comment
by sleeplesseye March 20, 2007 8:11 PM EDT
I'm not saying that the violence in Iraq wouldn't be worse if we left. We'd see a lot of violence, as Iraqis "ethnically cleansed" each other from their respective neighborhoods. We'd also see a Shi'a/Kurdish power struggle over Kirkuk, and a move towards Kurdish separatism.

But the thing is, we're most likely going to see that anyway.

Awhile back on C-SPAN, I saw a panel testify before a House committee on Iraq. One of those who testified, a professor James D. Fearon, is perhaps the foremost expert in the analysis and study of civil wars.

He noted that his analysis of civil wars indicated that they have an average duration of 10 years, and usually end with decisive military victories. They only end in power sharing agreements about 17% of the time, at most.

"The historical record on how civil wars end suggests that . . . it probably doesn't matter much if the U.S. stays in Iraq one more year, five more years, or even ten more years. . . Foriegn troops can enforce powersharing and limit violence while they're present, but once they go, lack of trust, factionalization, and the fact that the players are organized for violent conflict means that the deals we backed would be likely to fall apart..."

His words, not mine.

Right now, all we're doing is dragging the conflict out, much like we did in Vietnam. In this case, however, the people who have the upper hand aren't communists, but are our marginal allies. So let's let them settle this matter for themselves.
Reply to this comment
by judster43 March 20, 2007 6:53 PM EDT
Come on don't be so naive to think that if we leave iraq it wouldn't be much worse. I wish now that we wouldn't have gone to war in iraq but we can not just leave. So many times we have left and then things get much worse for us. I really think we have been using a failed plan. So let's get in there and do something right. I know we could win this war if we truly went after it. I also believe that the american people want to win this war. I also know that if we heard a good plan we would all be alot happier.
Reply to this comment
by sleeplesseye March 20, 2007 6:34 PM EDT
The idea that pulling out of Iraq means handing it to Iran ignores several key facts.

1 The Iraqis have decades of hatred against the Iranians, due to the Iran-Iraq war.

2 The Iraqi press, which represents the Shi'a majority, routinely blame Iran for trying to undermine their country. Many, if not most of the Shi'a population in Iraq are opposed to the Iranians.

3 Iraqis are predominantly Arab. Iranians are Persian. They've been at each other's throats for centuries.

4 Iran already has strong economic ties with Iraq. So, how is pulling out going to change this?

5 Iraq's rulers are already pro-Iranian in many ways. This isn't going to change.

6 The most pro-Iranian Iraqi parties, such as Sadr's, are relatively weak. Sadr's coalition makes up maybe 1/16th of the total national vote. That's not much of a mandate.

7 Iraqi Shi'a hate terrorists. They're xenophobic and don%u2019t trust outsiders, or care much about their problems. That explains efforts to push Palestinians out of Iraq. Saddam supported them -- and arab nationalism -- but the Iraqi Shi'a simply do not.

While we might see an Iraq emerge that is friendly to Iran, it is very unlikely we will see one where the government supports terrorism. That, frankly, is what matters.
Reply to this comment
by sleeplesseye March 20, 2007 3:46 PM EDT
If reducing al-Qaeda's number is the only language Osama understands, it is a shame, then, that the war in Iraq has significantly increased al-Qaeda's numbers, and has helped them to recruit new followers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm

Reply to this comment
by sleeplesseye March 20, 2007 6:03 AM EDT
Didn't the Christians die -- and kill, and force out -- by the thousands to achieve their goal during the Crusades? Haven't the U.S. died -- and killed, and forced out -- by the thousands to drive the Indians and Spanish out, to achieve their goals? Haven't the Israelis died -- and killed, and forced out -- by the thousands to achieve the goal of Israel?

Why, Israel's greatest leaders were no better than terrorists themselves once. What? You don't remember that one? Let me refresh your memory:

----------------------
On July 22, 1946, members of the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun Tsvai-Leumi planted and exploded a bomb at the King David Hotel in the British Mandate of Palestine. The hotel was the base for the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division.

91 people were killed: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured.

The attack was ordered by David Ben Gurion and directed by Menachem Begin, both of whom would later become Israeli Prime Ministers.
----------------------

So, don't go telling Americans that "they don't get it" when it's blindingly obvious that extremists everywhere are willing to use force preemptively, and that extremists don't give a *** about civilians that get in the way. That's what makes them extremists, and that's what makes them, according to numerous major international treaties and every major religion, no better than criminals.
Reply to this comment
by lilbean6 March 20, 2007 5:41 AM EDT
dan2098,
theres something that the left in this country just can't seem to grasp.you are shown the suicide bombers, but you don't see them. the ideology dan, it has to be changed, not emboldened. from atlasshrugged/israelnn.com.

"When will you Westerners realize that half-measures don't work with people who are willing to die by the thousands for Allah to achieve their goal? In their eyes the Western World is simply an abomination on earth that has to be wiped out.

"The Americans, the Europeans, and even you Israelis really don't know what it is all about, do you? During the last generation hundreds of thousands of children have been taught all over the Moslem world in Madrass schools to become martyrs for Allah in order to kill the infidels. These youngsters not only are ready to do it, but are actually in the process of doing it. Bombs are going off all over the world killing and maiming thousands of people, not only on 9/11 in the US, in London Madrid and Bali, but in Africa, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and many other places. The first signs of the Islamic Tsunami are already here, but the West doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand what is coming.


"The Americans, instead of realizing that this is as bad as World War Two, or even worse, are going to pull out of Iraq, handing it over to Iran on a silver platter. "

take the 6 bus dan.
Reply to this comment
by sleeplesseye March 20, 2007 4:43 AM EDT
The casualty figures in this war are not historically low. Rather, the difference in armorment and training is rather high, and we are using the Kurds and Shi'a primarily to help fight the Sunni.

There have been some fairly comparable conflicts in the past. Probably the closest is the Philipine - American war, which lasted for 14 years. 4,324 U.S. soldiers died in that war and 3,000 more were wounded, but up to 1,000,000 Filipino civilians died of war, famine, or disease.

We're on the same grim path as that war, because we, as Americans, have learned nothing from our past.

Many brave and honorable Americans loudly spoke out against that war, including Mark Twain, William Jennings Bryan, Grover Cleveland, and Andrew Carnegie. (Read up on the Anti-Imperialist League for more details.)

"The platform . . . condemns the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable blunder, which has involved us in enormous expense, brought us weakness instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the charge of abandoning the fundamental principles of a republic."
- William Jennings Bryan

"A mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater."
- Mark Twain, describing the Philipine-American War

As someone who is not anti-war but who is most certainly anti-this-war, these great Americans are my ideological ancestors, and personally, I'm proud of that fact.
Reply to this comment
by car1diem March 20, 2007 3:25 AM EDT
Hi katie

My point? The numbers are appalling, but they are even more horrendous in light of the fact that this was a war we entered into under false pretenses. Namely, we all know by now that none of the excuses used were actually true, and we ultimately tumbled a man we, helped gain control of a country. So in light of all this, the number paint a grim picture of what is to come.

My heart goes out to those brave men and women serving over there and their families left here, specially when we are not even able to provide the minimum care and comfort to them when they come back wounded, physically and/or emotionally.

By the way, good luck with the "springboard" concept.
Reply to this comment
by ronmwanga March 20, 2007 1:16 AM EDT
pmcor has a point: An interesting story idea is how those numbers -- which, historically, are rather low for a war -- are having a disproportionate effect on the anti-war movewment. I, too, was not a fan of this war, but I am truly curious as to how these historoically low and terrible tragedies has s uch a strong effect on the public will. Has Vietnam fundamentally changed us in how much we are willing to sacrifice at war? Has the cost of human life risen so drasmatically in the intervening years? Has the presidents inability to effectively communicate his vision played a part? Has the media's constant use of these numbers influenced the public? This would be an interesting report, for 60 Minutes, or the Evening News. Thank you.
Reply to this comment
by pmcor March 20, 2007 1:14 AM EDT
If 3217 soldiers had been killed on the first day of battle, the news would have been accepted without much fanfare as the unwanted but sometimes necessary result of war. I was not a big fan of going into Iraq in the beginning, but now that we're there it does not good to pound out the numbers -- 3217 today, 3219 tomorrow, 3228 the next day -- as if by doing this we can create a sense of panic or guilt in the viewers mind. Yes they are facts. But how we communicate the facts can become the more important message than the facts themselves. At that point, it is really disguised editorializing. This kind of editorializing is fine with those whose viewpoint it condones, but it seems an unfair use of public air waves to others.
Reply to this comment
by dan2098 March 20, 2007 12:37 AM EDT
"...and right down below her in her streets, over 3600 of her fellow new yorkers have been murdered in the same 4 years that we've been in iraq." by lilbean6

To your point, every day someone loses a loved one to something besides war such as murder, or an automobile accident, or a medical problem such as cancer. But it feels different when it is a soldier who is dying in a war that more than 70% of us think is a bad idea. The number of soldiers who die in Iraq deserves attention, and our President should be held accountable for allowing this war and these deaths to continue.
Reply to this comment
by sleeplesseye March 19, 2007 11:01 PM EDT
While the first few weeks of the surge had lower casualties and the attitude on the ground was reportedly "wait and see", the last few weeks have seen casualties go up sharply. Last week averaged four U.S. soldiers killed every day, which is nearly as bad as was seen during the invasion of Iraq.

On Friday, approx. 10,000 supporters of Moqtada Sadr protested against the U.S., and a representative of Sadr's party threatened to bring down the Prime Minister if the U.S. doesn't withdraw from Sadr City. By shifting our priorities, we seem to be simply creating more enemies.

The idea that peace in Iraq will be possible if Baghdad is secure makes as much sense as the idea that peace in Afghanistan is possible if Kabul is secure. There's a reason why our people who work in Kabul call it "Kabubble" -- they're trapped in a reality distortion zone. Does it really matter much if the US creates a "Baghbubble", if the insurgents establish themselves elsewhere?

With millions of Iraqis supporting the concept of resistance, Iraq cannot be stabilized without many, many more troops. The only thing that a "Baghbubble" will accomplish is to lull reporters who have been virtually quarantined in Baghdad's Green Zone into a false sense of progress and security.
Reply to this comment
by sleeplesseye March 19, 2007 10:35 PM EDT
What is the basis for your statement that unemployment is down in Iraq, and how old is your source for that information? A large poll was just released a few days ago from the Times of London, which puts the total Iraq unemployment rate at 60%, which is the same as in 2004. Indeed, if you check out their poll's numbers, you'll find that unemployment rates in Iraq are even higher than 60% outside of the largely authonomous Kurdish territory.

Since we know that the coalition has been hiring Iraqis, it can be reasonably determined that millions of Iraqi jobs have been lost to war and instability, above all the obvious jobs lost immediately after the invasion. Those are the jobs that really need to be created in Iraq, as U.S. taxpayer-funded jobs are simply not sustainable.
Reply to this comment
by dan2098 March 19, 2007 8:41 PM EDT
"And the White House says that violence is now down by one quarter."

I heard on the radio (a CBS affiliate) today that the insurgence is actually a more difficult fight than the toppling of Saddam, and that the troops are in more danger now than ever. So I struggle with this comment from the White House.
Reply to this comment
See all 15 Comments

About Couric & Co.

Go for a look behind the scenes at The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric for stuff we like and for surprises. It's also a place for you to post comments and join our conversation about the news.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed