|
Tuesday, 24 October 2006 16:46 |
 | | Roland Martin |
CHICAGO ÇƒÓ It is inevitable in war that people will die. The idea of using forceful action to fight another country leads to people being killed and injured when guns and bombs are used to settle issues.
As Americans, we reflect rather somberly on the 58,000 U.S. soldiers who were killed in the Vietnam War.
We had more than 400,000 casualties in World War II, almost quadruple the number of American lives lost in World War I.
In the Civil War, nearly 1 million Americans were killed, the most of any war ÇƒÓ foreign or domestic.
Yet the concern for those killed is often a one-way street.
Have
any of you ever thought of the nearly 2 million Vietnamese killed
during the Vietnam War? Oh, sure, we only think of ourselves, and
thatës understandable. But just imagine if every person in my hometown
of Houston ÇƒÓ little more than 2 million ÇƒÓ were killed? Thatës the
extent of the losses in Vietnam.
I got to
thinking about war deaths when a report was issued stating that upwards
of 650,000 Iraqis have died in the war. That would mean that the city
of Fort Worth, Texas, would be completely empty now.
But this wasnët
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or any of the other groups
often labeled as far-left. Who did the survey? The Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Publishing the
survey in The Lancet, a medical journal, the report was based on a
house-to-house sampling of more than 1,849 Iraqis in 47 various
neighborhoods between May and July.
Clearly such a
startling figure would cause those who support the war to slam the
analysis, and that is exactly what happened. The report was immediately
denounced by President George W. Bush and Englandës Prime Minister,
Tony Blair, as being wholly unreliable.
According to one
news report, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said the survey
wasnët "plausible," adding that it "is absolutely precarious, it is an
unbelievably large number and it is out of whack with most of the other
assessments that have been made."
Now U.S. and
British analysts have used the Iraqi death toll of about 40,000 ÇƒÓ as
compiled by the Iraqi government ÇƒÓ as their benchmark, but exactly what
evidence do we have to suggest that their figures are right? Isnët it
"plausible" to conclude that those numbers could be suppressed in order
not to inflame people who would be outraged by a higher body count?
My prime
position isnët that the issue has to do with whether 40,000 died or
650,000. The real issue is that we shouldnët be so quick to dismiss
Iraqi deaths.
Be honest with
yourself: When you see the news about 40 Iraqis being found in a mass
grave, or someone storming a mosque and killing more than 100, do you
really stop in your tracks? I donët. Why lie?
When the Amish
girls were killed in Pennsylvania, the major networks broke into
coverage to report the news. But deaths in Iraq? Hey, out of sight, out
of mind.
Bush did say he
grieved for the loss of life, but for many of us, we go on with our
business without a care in the world, never once truly reflecting on
the massive loss of life.
Say Iëm being a
bleeding-heart liberal or a compassionate Christian or just someone who
cares about human life. Fine. But truly reflect on the thousands of
souls who have lost their lives through this war. So many innocent
people have perished because of the sins of a few.
The real
casualties in the war in Iraq arenët Saddam Hussein or the insurgents
or the U.S. soldiers who are just following orders and doing their
jobs. Itës the folks who had no choice in the matter, other than living
in a country that is considered the battleground for democracy in the
Middle East.
ï
Roland S. Martin, editor of The Chicago Defender newspaper, is author of "Speak, Brother! A Black Manës View of America."
|
