Six million dead in US wars since 1945: Korea: three million dead, half of them civilians, in Vietnam between 1.5 and 3.8 million civilians and gunmen, in Cambodia between 600,000 and 800,000 people and in Laos around one million. The death toll in Iraq is between 400,000 and 650,000 and that in Afghanistan around 100,000 (already by 2012). The US response to so many dead in Iraq, to five million displaced people and a destroyed country, John Tirman concludes is "appallingly indifferent." "There is virtually no support for reconstruction assistance in Iraq or Afghanistan - no campaigns by major aid agencies, no willingness to take in Iraqi refugees." This myth ("the frontier myth) holds that the use of force is just and right when it comes to subjugating or destroying savages whose land Americans are trying to conquer: "For centuries, the myth of the frontier has been one of the most resilient national narratives." According to Tirman, the most conclusive explanation for America's disinterest in civilian casualties of war is the psychological theory of a "just world". In the case of civilians, he says, the public ignored high death rates, displacement and destruction because such phenomena were not consistent with its self-image and its view of America's role in the world. "Perhaps the most important consequence is that indifference allows our military and political leaders to pursue further interventions." The only encouraging thing for us is that there are those like John Tirman who oppose this - and he is not the only US American to do so.
Six million killed in US wars since 1945:
Ignaz StaubIn an opinion piece for the "Washington Post", MIT political scientist John Tirman explores the question of why the US rarely addresses the civilian casualties of its wars. Yet America's major interventions since World War II have caused "colossal bloodshed". Conservative estimates put the death toll of civilians and soldiers at at least six million.
"Our lack of awareness has less to do with oversight than with habit," writes John Tirman, who has also written a book on the subject ("The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians of America's Wars"). Americans, the author says, see themselves as generous and empathetic, and often they are, for example in the case of natural disasters like the Tsumani in Asia in 2004 or the earthquake in Haiti two years ago: "But when it comes to our wars overseas, we only care about the fate of US troops."
Jon Tirman cites frightening figures. In Korea, it is estimated that three million people died during three years of war, about half of them civilians - a consequence of the population density on the Korean peninsula and the frequently changing war fronts. According to the political scientist of the renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the war in Vietnam and its offshoots in Laos and Cambodia were even deadlier: According to similar assumptions by several researchers, between 1.5 and 3.8 million civilians and gunmen died in Vietnam, between 600,000 and 800,000 people in Cambodia and about one million in Laos. Two scientific studies in 2006 estimated the death toll in Iraq at between 400,000 and 650,000 and that in Afghanistan at around 100,000.
Careless attitude
Tirman admits that these figures allow only limited conclusions because some estimates only counted victims of direct military violence, while others also included victims of so-called "structural" violence, i.e. people who die as a result of the collapse of a health system: "The fact that we don't have an official system to count victims is an indication of the careless attitude that accompanies our wars.
According to the MIT researcher, the lack of compassion also manifests itself in the virtual absence of civilians in Hollywood films, documentaries and novels: "The entertainment industry rarely portrays these wars, and if it does, it almost always focuses on Americans." A commendable exception was Clint Eastwood's 2006 Letters from Iwo Jima, a film that shows the war in the Pacific during World War 2, specifically the fierce battle for the island of Iwo Jima, from the point of view of the Japanese defenders, quoting from letters written by the soldiers to relatives back home.
The myth of the border
Moreover, polls on attitudes towards civilian casualties are rare in the US. If there were any, the results were "astonishing", according to Tirman. A Harris poll in 1968 found that four percent of Americans supported ending the war in Vietnam because of civilian casualties. When the AP news agency asked Americans in 2007 about the number of dead Iraqis, respondents estimated the average number of casualties at 9890 - at a time when the actual number may already have been several hundred thousand. Other polls in 2007 and 2008 found a clear majority of Americans in favour of withdrawing troops from Iraq, even if it increased the risk of civil war: "Today, there is virtually no support for reconstruction assistance in Iraq or Afghanistan - no campaigns by major aid agencies, no willingness to take in Iraqi refugees." The US response to so many dead in Iraq, to five million displaced people and a destroyed country, John Tirman concludes is "frighteningly indifferent."
According to the MIT researcher, "the frontier myth" (a term coined by cultural historian Richard Slotkin) influences America's attitude towards civilian casualties. This myth holds that the use of force is just and right when it comes to subjugating or destroying savages whose land Americans are trying to conquer: "For centuries, the frontier myth has been one of the most resilient national narratives." Accordingly, in Korea and Vietnam, "slant-eyed" Asians were the savages to be subjugated; in Iraq and Afghanistan, Muslims or militant Islamists were the representatives of lawless cultures to be civilised.
The victims are to blame
John Tirman quotes political pundit Robert D. Kaplan, who wrote in a 2004 opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal: "The Red Indian metaphor is a thought-provoking one that causes discomfort among representatives of the liberal nomenklatura; but it makes sense to Army and Marine field officers because it perfectly reflects the challenges of combat in the early 21st century." It was not for nothing that the military code name for the operation to kill Osama bin Laden in Abottabad, Pakistan, in May 2011 was "Geronimo".
According to Tirman, the most conclusive explanation for America's disinterest in civilian victims of war is the psychological theory of a "just world". According to this theory, people assume that the world should be orderly and rational. If this is not the case, they perceive a negative event as a deviation from the norm, which explains America's reaction to the violence in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan: "When the wars started going badly and the violence escalated, Americans didn't take notice or blame the victims." In the case of civilians, the public ignored high death rates, displacement and destruction because such phenomena were not consistent with their self-image and their view of America's role in the world.
But such an attitude has serious consequences, according to John Tirman: "Perhaps the most important consequence is that indifference allows our military and political leaders to pursue further interventions." In any case, Republican presidential candidates in the USA are currently calling unchallenged for bombing the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities instead of continuing to rely on diplomacy in the nuclear dispute with Iran. But a new attack in the Gulf would again have unforeseeable consequences.
Six million killed in US wars since 1945 | Journal21
Comments