Examination of the current state of Iraq

[Rambuchan]

Many people on here claim that the US/UK invasion of Iraq was worth it. I totally disagree. The invasion has wrecked that country and has jeopardised notions of peace in the Middle East. Moreover, we've wasted huge amounts of money from our own treasuries on this debacle and emboldened the terrorist cause yet more. Just as all us nay-sayers said it would before the invasion took place.

Anyway, this thread is concerned with whether that invasion was actually worth it, from an Iraqi perspective on the fundamentals of daily life. It's concerned with the facts and figures, not the spin placed on them. So, let's examine the facts and figures relating to the state of Iraq now.

Each box below deals with a significant aspect of daily life in Iraq. In the spoilers I have put graphs to illustrate further. Most figures are from a UNDP / Iraqi Government Survey from 2004, made available through a BBC info share but there are other sources which are referenced on those graphs.

Security

The US announced major combat operations were over in Iraq in May 2003, but violence has continued in Iraq, despite the transition to an elected Iraqi government.

No-one knows exactly how many Iraqi civilians have died in acts of war since the invasion. By March 2006, most unofficial estimates ranged from 17,000 to 38,000, although one study in October 2004 put the figure close to 100,000. In the same period, more than 1,800 US troops had died in hostile incidents.

Spoiler :

Reconstruction

Wars, sanctions and looting have left Iraq's infrastructure in ruins.

Reconstruction efforts have been hampered by insurgent attacks, with many projects stalled and funds diverted to meet rising security costs. US officials say the total reconstruction bill is likely to spiral well above the $55bn estimated in 2003.

Electricity generation at best meets half of estimated demand and fell below pre-war levels in early 2006. A 2004 survey found just over half of households had a stable supply of safe drinking water.

Spoiler :

Oil

Iraq has the third largest proven crude oil reserves in the world and is the least explored of the oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries.

Oil accounts for more than 60% of GDP, but the industry faces serious problems resulting from years of sanctions and under-investment.

Spoiler :

Health

Sanctions, wars and slashed budgets had left Iraq's once impressive health system in tatters by the start of the 2003 invasion. Facilities suffered further damage and looting during the war.

In 2004, child mortality had more than doubled since 1990, life expectancy was eight years below the regional average and 25% of under-fives were malnourished.

Spoiler :

Cost of living


The UN says 25% of Iraqis are totally dependent on the food rations that most of the population receives.

These provide about 80% of recommended daily calorie intake in the form of wheat, rice and beans. No meat, vegetables or fruit are included.

Petrol is heavily subsidised, but periodic shortages since the 2003 war have meant long queues at times.

Prices have risen since the invasion, but wages are also up dramatically – although unemployment remains high.

Consumer goods have poured into Iraq, with car ownership reported to have doubled since 2003 and mobile phones and satellite television spreading rapidly. However, in a 2004 UN survey, only 20% of households said they had any savings.

Spoiler :

Education

War and economic decline have taken their toll on Iraq's once-admired education system. Literacy levels are lower among 15-year-olds than among 35-year-olds.

An estimated 25% of primary-age children do not attend school, according to the World Bank, although US figures show primary school enrolment up 20% since 2000.

In 2003, half of Iraq's 15,000 schools needed major rehabilitation or complete rebuilding, according to the ministry of education.

USAid said it had rehabilitated nearly 3,000 schools by late 2005, the number it had aimed to upgrade in six months.

Spoiler :

Do you think the facts and figures support the view that Iraqis have benefitted from the invasion? What other comments on these facts would you like to make?

 

[Samson]

I agree with you on the value of the war in Iraq. However when making this judgement you need thed situation prior to the war to comare it to. For example, how many people died in "hostile incidents" in the 3 years prior to the invasion (I suspect it was fewer than the 3 yaers after it).

 

[Rambuchan]

That's a fair point Samson. However, you don't need those figures to see how much "the coalition" has ruined Iraq since the invasion (failing to live up to its promises of better the lives of Iraqis). And you don't need those figures to see how we're continuing to drive that country into the ground. Just from 2003 to today you can see how it's gone. But yes, if anyone has comparable pre-invasion figures, please post them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Most of your points, while perfectly true, I think are misinterpreted. Saddam has pretty much wrecked that country for the past 20 years, whether it be directly by his own hand, or by his actions that brought about sanctions against his country and people. Indeed, much of the data cited here is concerning results of the sanctions imposed on Iraq since the Gulf War. Invading and taking on those deconstructive things, such as literacy rate and UN food rationing do not mean that the US caused those things because o the invasion, it is only that now we are forced to deal with it, since we are trying to rebuild that country. Iraq sucked long before we got there, so its not fair to claim that its our fault now that we are the ones assuming responsibility for the cleanup of this mess.
Also, we've only been there about 5 years, you've got to give these things more time. Never in history has a nation been able to be rebuilt and underway in such a short time. Maybe in 20 years we can make a more accurate determination as to whether this was really the smart thing to do. To make that decision now, while work is still underway, is to be irresponsible.

 

[nonconformist]

Most of your points, while perfectly true, I think are misinterpreted. Saddam has pretty much wrecked that country for the past 20 years, whether it be directly by his own hand, or by his actions that brought about sanctions against his country and people. Indeed, much of the data cited here is concerning results of the sanctions imposed on Iraq since the Gulf War. Invading and taking on those deconstructive things, such as literacy rate and UN food rationing do not mean that the US caused those things because o the invasion, it is only that now we are forced to deal with it, since we are trying to rebuild that country. Iraq sucked long before we got there, so its not fair to claim that its our fault now that we are the ones assuming responsibility for the cleanup of this mess.
Also, we've only been there about 5 years, you've got to give these things more time. Never in history has a nation been able to be rebuilt and underway in such a short time. Maybe in 20 years we can make a more accurate determination as to whether this was really the smart thing to do. To make that decision now, while work is still underway, is to be irresponsible.

Iraq has "sucked" in the last 20 years, primarily because of the sanctions put on them.
Iraq has always generally been quite ahead of most of the Middle East.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

right, but the sanctions are not something we did to cripple Iraq, and it was in fact an international venture. Saddam brought about those sanctions, which were imposed by the UN, not the US. Saying it's the USA's fault that Saddam caused sanctions to be brought on his country, and thus his country sucking, is a rediculous attempt at a jab at the US, as if there isnt enough of that going around these days

 

[Ellipsis Jones]

you don't need those figures to see how much "the coalition" has ruined Iraq since the invasion (failing to live up to its promises of better the lives of Iraqis). And you don't need those figures to see how we're continuing to drive that country into the ground. Just from 2003 to today you can see how it's gone.

I'm not trying to be glib or antagonistic here, but didn't you say in your original post that you wanted to deal with "the facts and figures, not the spin placed on them?" We do need those pre-war figures to make any kind of quantitative comparison. Otherwise it's all spin and empty assertions like "you can see how it's gone." You're begging the question.

Anyhow, I'll go through section by section and raise some issues that jump out at me. I'm not trying to make the case that the war improved things, but I don't think it's fair to say (based on the info given here) that the war has made things worse.

Security

No-one knows exactly how many Iraqi civilians have died in acts of war since the invasion. By March 2006, most unofficial estimates ranged from 17,000 to 38,000, although one study in October 2004 put the figure close to 100,000.

The 100,000 figure comes from a study not worth the paper it was printed on. The other estimate - 17,000 to 38,000 deaths in the three years since the invasion - means there were approximately 6,000 to 13,000 civilian deaths per year. The most common conservative figure I've seen for civilian deaths under Saddam is about 300,000 - which is around 10,000 a year. Based on those figures, the death rates pre- and post-invasion are roughly comparable. This doesn't take into account war deaths, including the roughly one million casualties of the Iraq-Iran war which Saddam Hussein instigated.

Due to the nature of the old Baath regime and the current conditions in Iraq, it's extremely hard to get reliable numbers for either time period. Wikipedia cites a couple of incidents, though, which seem to give a good feel of the numbers:

In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children.

In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

The lowest estimate given here is of 150,000 civilian deaths in the latter half of Saddam's reign, for these two campaigns alone. The high estimate surpasses 300,000 - again, for these two incidents alone.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind when looking at these figures is that under the new Iraqi government, there is a chance for things to get better. Saddam was just as brutal in 2003 as he was when he came to power in 1979. Furthermore, the Iraqi people had his sons to look forward to. Decades of the serial raping, mass murdering Hussein scions awaited them, whereas now there's a period of violent anarchy followed by a nascent democracy and hope for a better future.

Reconstruction

Electricity generation at best meets half of estimated demand and fell below pre-war levels in early 2006.

Looking at the graph there, it's been above pre-war levels as often as it's been below. A couple of points to consider:

1) Electricity (and water, as I understand it) is now being distributed in an equitable fashion, whereas under the old regime, Baghdad and Sunni areas received precedence, and the Shia majority got the shaft.

2) Demand for electricity has risen dramatically because the Iraqi economy is growing and Iraqis are buying more electrical goods.

It's unfortunate that electricity production hasn't risen to meet this demand, but it's no lower than it was before the war either. As for water:

A 2004 survey found just over half of households had a stable supply of safe drinking water.

This says nothing about what percentage of households had safe drinking water before the war.

Oil

Production is down slightly compared to just before the war, that's true. It's up compared to the prior ten-year average (which includes the period shortly after the first gulf war; I'm not sure if that makes it a good point of comparison or a poor one).

I think the current situation is significantly better, though, because pre-war oil profits were enriching Saddam Hussein through the Oil-for-Food scam. Current oil sales are not being used to prop up a dictator. In fact, there's talk of an oil trust being set up similar to the one Alaska has, which would see every citizen receiving a share of the national oil money.

I don't know if this is what you'd consider "spin", but I think it's a point that bears consideration. I don't deny that oil production is still lower than it was immediately before the war.

Health

Sanctions, wars and slashed budgets had left Iraq's once impressive health system in tatters by the start of the 2003 invasion.

In other words, Iraq's "once impressive health system" was "in tatters" before the coalition forces arrived in 2003.

In 2004, child mortality had more than doubled since 1990

That time span covers 13 years of Saddam Hussein, and 1 year of the Coalition Provisional Authority. The graphs and information presented here have almost no bearing on the question of whether the invasion was beneficial. If the BBC is suggesting they do, I'd say that's rather dishonest reporting.

Cost of Living

Consumer goods have poured into Iraq, with car ownership reported to have doubled since 2003 and mobile phones and satellite television spreading rapidly.

This is the only bit of information that compares pre-invasion Iraq to the current day, and it's saying that things have improved.

Education

Yet again, almost zero comparison to how things were before the war. The only statistic that does give a comparison is favorable to the post-war situation:

US figures show primary school enrolment up 20% since 2000.

Also, this is kind of bizarre:

War and economic decline have taken their toll on Iraq's once-admired education system.

"Once admired" - when? By whom, precisely? Have we forgotten what a vile propaganda factory the Iraqi school system really was?

I mean really, go back to the original post, and read over those last three sections again. Things might indeed be worse now than they were before the war, but the BBC gives us nothing to support that idea. Instead we get a creepy nostalgic veneration of Baath medicine and education.

- - - - -

Ultimately, I don't think any of us can really say how things compare between present day and pre-war Iraq. We haven't lived it, and the information coming out of Iraq tends to be sketchy. The Iraqis seem to be more optimistic than the BBC, though:

Time will tell.

 

[Winner]

I think that Iraq as a country doesn't have any future, it will have to be divided, either by force or by other means. Sunnis simply don't like the new reality, in which they don't rule the country. Their lives will get worse and this will fuel the insurgency. The most stable part of Iraq will be most probably the Kurdish territories.

 

[Samson]

Security



The 100,000 figure comes from a study not worth the paper it was printed on. The other estimate - 17,000 to 38,000 deaths in the three years since the invasion - means there were approximately 6,000 to 13,000 civilian deaths per year. The most common conservative figure I've seen for civilian deaths under Saddam is about 300,000 - which is around 10,000 a year. Based on those figures, the death rates pre- and post-invasion are roughly comparable. This doesn't take into account war deaths, including the roughly one million casualties of the Iraq-Iran war which Saddam Hussein instigated.

Due to the nature of the old Baath regime and the current conditions in Iraq, it's extremely hard to get reliable numbers for either time period. Wikipedia cites a couple of incidents, though, which seem to give a good feel of the numbers:

The lowest estimate given here is of 150,000 civilian deaths in the latter half of Saddam's reign, for these two campaigns alone. The high estimate surpasses 300,000 - again, for these two incidents alone.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind when looking at these figures is that under the new Iraqi government, there is a chance for things to get better. Saddam was just as brutal in 2003 as he was when he came to power in 1979. Furthermore, the Iraqi people had his sons to look forward to. Decades of the serial raping, mass murdering Hussein scions awaited them, whereas now there's a period of violent anarchy followed by a nascent democracy and hope for a better future.

I shall only talk about this one, as it is by far the most important. The thing is, Saddam had done most of his vicious killing prior to and just after the '91 war. During the 3 years prior to the invasion there was little internal oposition so the rate of people killed in "hostile action" was much lower that during those periods. Of course we can never tell how many people he would have had killed if we did not invade, but I think it is safe to say that without significant internal opposion it would have been lower than under the new administration.

 

[boarder]

Just wanted to say what a great post,well thought out and informative.
Thank you for the enjoyable read.

 

[Archbob]

Unfortunately, it seems that the Shia's will eventualy take control of Iraq regardless of these democratic elections.

I hate to say it, I much prefer a sunni dictatorship than a Shia one.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What I'm afraid of is the Shi'a turning it around into the same thing that the sunnis did to them. Thats what will probably happen, it's a shame they can't be a little more mature, and run an equal state with eachother. I mean, you don't see Protestants and Catholics duking it out nowadays because they of this kind of thing. Granted, we did do that along time ago, but we grew out of it. The most rediculous part of this is the difference between the two, shi'ites and Sunnis. You know what the difference is, the reason they hate each other so much? When Abu Bakr died, they had a disagreement as to who was to be the next Caliph. The Sunnis favored one guy, the Shi'ites the other guy. That was 1400 years ago, and they still hate eachother for it. They are so much like children.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@Ram

Samson brought up a good poitn in his first post. Actually, we do need those figures of what the country was like in years prior to make a comparision. That would be considered the "control" group, while the post-invasion years would be the "experiment"

just saying cause its what I do, sorta

 

[Rambuchan]

Yeah Jericho, I know they're needed - but where are those figures to be found? Just asking you cos it's what you do, kinda.

Ellipsis Jones: Looks like you've put a damn good post together there. I've read through some of the links and it's interesting, thoughtful material. Thanks. I'm posting sporadically today, cos I'm trying to get my work out before England's world cup game. I'll come back to it soon, well worth looking at and thanks again for the excellent offering.