Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsTalk
At the end of the day, regardless of what the actual number really is, there was bad planning from day one, and more civilians died than there should have. We should never had invaded Iraq.
|
1. Don't confuse causality.
How many of the "excess" deaths post-OIF were due to Saddam's amnesty (no matter how much security exists, there were still excess deaths due to this pre-invasion action of Saddam)? How many fewer deaths occured in 2002 (part of the benchmarking period to determine "excess" deaths) because Saddam knew he had to play nice with his enemies in the face of a more pressing external threat?
Both of these questions demonstrate that the "excess" deaths are biased upwards if the lens of the study is to show that the invasion itself is responsible for all of the "excess" deaths.
2. Don't confuse counterfactuals.
If the lens is to compare the invasion as it was executed versus counterfactuals, then it is necessary to compare it against all potential counterfactuals, i.e., not just a binary lens of invasion/no invasion, but rather, invasion without disbanding the Iraqi Army, invasion using the full complement of troops as per the Cobra II plan, invasion integrating the various studies that were ignored by the Rumsfeld Pentagon, etc.
To use the binary invasion/no invasion approach is to both create a false dichotomy as well as to confuse the causality of the "excess" deaths.
So, while your point about bad planning (which includes ignoring the plan that existed) is valid, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.