HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The Parade of the Body Bags
by
Paul de Rooij
Dissident Voice
August 2, 2003
The
body count used to be an integral part of warfare — that meant counting the
bodies of the enemy. RAF fighter pilots
would adorn their airplanes with kill signs, Israeli soldiers put notches on
their guns for each Palestinian killed, and the American military reveled in
body count statistics in Vietnam. Now
body counts are out; they are considered ill advised when dealing with a
passive but anxious home population.
Perhaps populations eating TV-dinners in air-conditioned environments
don’t have the stomach for the truculent warrior-speak of yesteryear. Certainly, the propagandists serving the
Pentagon must have determined that body counts should be phased out; it is
better not to cause anxiety among the American public.
But
guess what, this author does body counts, “coalition” body counts. I will dispense with the ritual provisos
that one doesn’t mean the soldiers any harm, etc. The fact is that the number of US-uk soldiers killed is a good
indicator of how the occupation is progressing in Iraq. It will indicate whether this war is a
bloody quagmire, or if the dust is settling on the rubble.
The history of their body count
The
rituals of war and its glorification have certainly changed. Ancient warriors ate the hearts of their
victims, and so on. We will skip the
long list of gory practices; they are pretty repugnant. One just must remember that several medals
in the recent past were bestowed mostly based on a body count – the German Iron
Cross during WWI had this implication.
(The British and Americans, obviously more civilized, handed out medals
for valor.) During the Vietnam War,
General Westmoreland elevated the body count to a statistic meant to measure
the performance of his army. The daily
bulletins included body counts to show that the war was being won. Ultimately this backfired, and as Gabriel
Kolko put it: “… [body counts] simply horrified ever-larger sectors of American
and world opinion [1].”
Consequently, the body count was phased out. Today questions about enemy body counts are something that annoys
generals — they are acutely aware of the image they must portray to sell their
wars. During the next war, the media
will have learned this lesson, and it will be considered impolite to pose such
questions. General Tommy Franks won’t
have to state the obvious, that the US military no longer issues enemy body
counts for public consumption.
Our body counts
On
May 1, 2003 when Bush Junior landed on the aircraft carrier, he officially
announced the end of the war. Like
Moses before the parting of the Red Sea, he commanded the war to end. But no Iraqis were present who could indeed
enforce an armistice; no Iraqi is obligated to stop fighting, and the
hostilities will continue for the foreseeable future. It is evident that there is a full-fledged guerilla war, and that
things may be getting worse.
The
media tends to focus on the last casualty, and doesn’t put it into
perspective. For a public so accustomed
to see stock charts with trend lines it would be informative to see the body
bag chart to determine how the war is progressing. This is the purpose of graph below [2]. The columns in red indicate US-uk soldiers
killed by hostile action, and the blue sections are “other” causes. Note that the trend line indicates an
increasing death toll. Projecting the
trend line out through the 200th day of occupation would imply 2.2 daily US-uk
deaths (current average = 1.3). In
other words, the situation is worsening and the death toll is going to be
significant.
Changing the color of the bodies…
During
the early 1970s, the American death toll became a major reason for the
increasing opposition to the Vietnam War. One of the ploys Nixon used to extend the war was to shift the
responsibility for the conduct of the war onto the South Vietnamese. This became known as the Vietnamization of
the war, a.k.a., “changing the color of the bodies.” It is already evident that the US wants to implement the same
policy in Iraq. From the Indian press
it is clear that Washington would love to obtain a large contingent of Indian
troops, and pressure has been exerted on India to prove its “you are with us”
credentials. It would be most natural
to utilize Indian or Pakistani troops because some of them already have
substantial experience in the area. In
some Gulf countries, the police force has many Indian nationals. Saudi Arabia finances at least one Pakistani
division that would be likely used either for external defense or internal
repression. The US would like to use
these mercenary forces to reduce its own exposure. Another solution in the offing is the creation of Iraqi units
loyal to the Americans — reportedly 12,000 strong. Wholesale killing would remain an American specialty, but the
retail side would be spun off to pliant mercenaries.
The
US is also busy horse-trading to get more foreign troops on the ground. It must have offered something to Japan
because it has offered a contingent to be stationed in a “non-war zone” in
Iraq. When Prime Minister Koizumi was
asked where this would be, he answered that he did not know! [3] Japan won’t contribute US$15bn as it did
after the 1991 Gulf War, and this time some of its soldiers may be the
expendable currency – Japan is in a recession after all. Other countries joining this pathetic effort
are: Spain, Poland, Hungary, The Netherlands… and a wee island in the Pacific
may send an entertainment corps, maybe some hoola hoola girls for the troops.
Although
some noises have been made about the introduction of United Nations troops,
this will be resisted by the US. The
problem with the UN is that it would want some say in political and economic
matters, and thus UN troops will be a last resort. It is only when the resistance to the American rule becomes
excessively bloody that the intervention may be spun off to the UN.
It
is also clear that there are a fair number of foreign nationals in the US
army. Among the casualties since May
1st there are four foreigners (Polish, Guyanese, Mexicans). One of these received the US nationality
posthumously. What an honor! Why didn’t CNN or Fox film the spectacle of
a coffin where the US flag is bestowed on the remains of the foreign mercenary?
For
the color of the bodies in the US-uk casualty list, see the following table:
Post May 1st US-UK body colors |
||
|
Race/ethnic Group |
Number |
Percentage |
|
White |
79 |
65% |
|
Afro-origin |
14 |
11% |
|
Hispanic |
13 |
11% |
|
Other |
1 |
1% |
|
NA |
15 |
12% |
|
Foreign nationals * |
4 |
|
|
Note * There are quite a few others before this date. Evaluation
of race was done by author – as imperfect as this determination is likely to
be. See [2]. |
||
Delight over bodies
It
is obvious that the American casualties in Iraq receive ample coverage in the
Arab media, and this is received with relish in some quarters [4]. Reports from the Middle East suggest that
folks may be cheering the casualty reports.
On
July 23rd Robert Fisk wrote from Iraq: “To the shopkeepers and the drinks stall
workers, it was just an explosion […].
They thought that a second, wounded soldier must die, and they said that
with enthusiasm.” [5] In other words, if the Iraqis are
cheering the killing of American soldiers, then the occupation forces will
loath admitting their losses on a daily basis.
This may explain why the US army
is harassing Al Jazeera journalists, and will likely shut down their offices in
Iraq.
Body
counts going, going…
Here
is a prediction: within then next few months the body count for US-uk troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan will be phased out.
First, the daily reminder that American troops are being killed is
something propagandists must dislike intensely. Long before the US-election campaign starts in earnest, we will
find that the body count in Iraq will be something that will disappear. Second, the delight the body count causes in
some quarters must also be of some concern for the propagandists. Whereas body counts of yesteryear referred
to the enemy, the current US-uk body count is having undesirable effects.
The
first evidence that the home-team body count is being whitewashed has to do
with the “cause of death”. There are
increasing reports that soldiers killed due to hostile action are listed by the
Pentagon as killed in accidents [6]. A clear example is the killing of Sgt. Christopher
Coffin – listed as “died […] after his vehicle ran into a ditch on July
1st”, however other reports state: “his convoy was hit by an improvised
explosive device”. There are far too
many fatalities with the Humvee (the military SUV) – its record certainly
suggests the need for the promotion of safety belt usage. There have been 19 traffic-related
fatalities, most of them Humvee rollovers.
However, this author suspects that its associated fatalities are likely
to be from hostile action. Other causes
like: “…responding to a civilian call when his vehicle rolled over,” are
suspicious -- the US military responding to a “civilian call”? Hmmm…
Soldiers stepped on a landmine near the airport, but then the landmine
was supposedly planted before May 1st; presto, this was classed as an accident.
[7]
One
doesn’t have to go further than the CentCom
and DefenseLink reports to
determine that whitewashing of the casualty figures is taking place. CentCom usually issues a press release when
there is a US fatality without issuing the name, and with a cursory explanation
of the circumstances. After notifying
the next of kin, DefenseLink issues a press release with the names of the
victims and a broader explanation of the cause of death. The bright lights hired by the Pentagon
don’t realize that in some instances the cause of death is reported as hostile
by CentCom, but then as an accident in the DefenseLink release. For example, on May 26th the CentCom lists a
cause of death as a “landmine or unexploded ordnance”; a few days later this is
listed as hitting unexploded ordnance, thus accidental. There is a disparity in about a dozen of the
CentCom and DefenseLink announcements [8]. Furthermore, by the time the incidents are
reported by DefenseLink, the cases of wounded soldiers have been expunged. The title of one communiqué: “Third Armored
Cavalry Regiment Convoy Ambushed” (May 26), but one must read the body of the
press release to find that one soldier was killed. NB: usually the press release title indicates the
casualties. So, one must now read all
communiqués to find references to casualties.
Robert
Fisk reports: “…they have failed to report a mass of attacks and assaults
against patrols and bases in and around Baghdad.” [9] Although
attacks where Americans were killed are reported by the Pentagon, other
incidents aren’t. The situation
surrounding the British contingent is much the same – scant reporting from the
field on hostile actions.
Here
is an emerging trend: Tracking the
number of dead in Reuters, AP, or BBC already yields a higher number of
casualties than those reported by the Pentagon – admittedly there is a small
discrepancy at present. [10] July 28th is an interesting example; early in the day, the BBC
reported two combat fatalities, but later on, the BBC Online altered its
reports to show one fatality and one accidental death. Furthermore, the delay between the date of
the death and the date of a confirmation also has increased – reporting may
soon be offered on a weekly basis [11]. And finally, there is no accounting for the
wounded soldiers and what has happened to them. All told, expect the war in Iraq to become like the wars in
Orwell’s 1984; these were only used to stoke jingoism and rile the crowd, and
would occasionally yield a glimpse of a captured enemy in a cage on
display. Every other facet of those
wars was not reported on. In Iraq, soon
too reporting on the daily carnage will be a thing of the past – wars will be
something occurring far away, and the plight of the mercenaries fighting them
will not be something the home crowd will have to know anything about.
The
BBC is also reducing the reported death toll.
On July 16th a BBC Online article stated: “Thirty US troops have been
killed as a result of hostile action since US President George W Bush declared
major combat over on 1 May.” After
complaining to the BBC that the number was exactly 92 US-uk casualties (42% of
which had been killed due to hostile action [12]), the
BBC helpfully changed this to: “More than 30…” The disingenuous excuse was that
they were only reporting the hostile action casualties, but even this was
wrong. Similarly, the July 20th
article stating: “… deaths bring to 151 the number of American soldiers
killed in action since the start of the war”, is wrong too because it excludes
“other” deaths. NB: these fatalities
wouldn’t have occurred if these folks weren’t in Iraq. The soldiers killed clearing mines are classed
as accidental and are not included in the BBC’s death tally! How does the BBC explain that it is
excluding British soldiers from its tally? What we witness here is a crass whitewash operation; this is
dishonest and it serves to downplay the severity of the situation.
Support the bodies
One
factor that was instrumental in ending the Vietnam War was the home crowd
hostility and questioning of their military.
Nothing tarnished morale more than the hostile reception soldiers
received during their home leave.
Soldiers found that it was best not to wear their uniforms to avoid
being spit at. During the US-Iraq war
one of the most hideous and effective propaganda ploys has been to push the
message: “support our troops”, and to downplay the alternative slogan “support
the war”. The longer the occupation
drags on and the larger the number of body bags the more this distinction will
be emphasized. The military is an arm
of government used to implement policy
– it is odd to state that one is called to support one, but not the
other.
As
Michael Moore said, if you support the troops then this must mean bringing them
home — alive. If one supports
the troops — and most are decent well-meaning folks — then the best thing one
can do is to clamor for a substitution of US troops by UN troops with a wide
mandate. This is the only measure in
the short term that will stop the misery of the Iraqi people. All the other options under consideration by
the Americans are bloody dead ends enforced by mercenaries.
During
the Vietnam War, the US army was made up primarily of conscripts, and many
soldiers went to war without much choice.
The slogan “support our troops” made sense then. Today the US army is a professional army
(NB: propagandists refer to it as a volunteer army), and the reasons for
serving are varied. When troops are
quoted as saying: “this is just a job, and now I want overtime pay…” or (July
19th)“I signed up for fighting and killing…” then one should reevaluate one’s
support. When American soldiers,
erstwhile liberators, state (July 21st): “God, how I hate these people
[Iraqis]” or “I hope this war doesn’t end before I get my first kill” then
decency dictates a revaluation of this war.
Michael Guerrin paints a similarly depressing image of the US military
as mixture of trophy hunters and mercenaries. [13] It is incongruous to “support our troops”
now in a democratic society opposed to wars of aggression.
It
is your body on the line too
Ask
yourself this: has the war against Iraq improved your security? The security staff at the major London airports
is working under the assumption that there is an increased threat, and this is
as good an indicator as any. There is a
distinct trend of Israelization of our societies – the creeping introduction of
fences, spy cameras, walls, and distrust.
Deep injustices perpetrated in far corners of the world have a tendency
to engender violence no matter how high the “security fences” are built. For very selfish reasons — one’s own safety
— there are grounds to reevaluate the American occupation of Iraq, and its
policy in the region.
Americans
will certainly understand this argument: the safety of their pocketbook (shriek!)
is at stake too. Take 145,000 American
troops, 12,000 UK troops, a 12,000 strong Iraqi gendarme, and multiply these by
the requisite wages. [14] Multiply this figure by three to reflect the backup personnel
needed to support front line troops.
Estimate the number of casualties and multiply by the number of your
choice for each body bag. Add this up,
and under a favorable scenario, this will cost US$15bn for this year
alone. This is just the “labor” cost;
it doesn’t include other things like the air conditioning system for Proconsul
Paul Bremer’s palace. Now start adding
the equipment and transport costs.
Congress estimates the occupation cost is in the US$ 4bn/month
orbit. Iraqi oil revenues will be
partly absorbed to cover these costs, but eventually it may come out of
Americans’ pockets too. If the scenario
isn’t so rosy, then it will be time to sell the SUV.
Facile bravado
A
few weeks ago, Bush Junior issued a challenge to the Iraqi resistance: “Bring
them on”. Consider this: the president
misrepresented the war to everyone including the soldiers, the war was one of
aggression, and now he’s challenging the Iraqi guerrillas for a shoot out at
the OK corral. Bush’s posteriors are
not on the line, and his family will reap rich oily rewards. Never mind the ensuing flag-draped coffins;
these provide a useful backdrop for Bush’s patriotic posturing.
While
governor of Texas, Bush approved a record number of death penalty executions,
and he is quoted as saying that he didn’t lose sleep over it. The grotesque part of his current stance is
that he’s so blasé about expending the lives American soldiers, and chances are
he isn’t losing sleep over them either.
To catch his attention, then our Liberian friends have devised a pointed
form of protest; they are piling the dead bodies around the American embassy in
Monrovia. This would be a fitting
protest in Washington too. Perhaps a
long pile of body bags around the White House will catch the warmongering
neocons’ attention.
Paul de Rooij is an economist
living in London and can be reached at proox@hotmail.com
(NB: all attachments will be automatically deleted.)
© 2003 Paul de
Rooij
Endnotes
[1]
Gabriel Kolko, Anatomy of War, Pantheon Books 1985, page 196. Robert Fisk relates a curious parallel:
during the Iraq-Iran war Iraqi papers published many photos of dead Iranians,
but soon it became clear that Iraqis felt sympathy for the dead soldiers. Consequently, the Iranian body count and
statistics were phased out of the Iraqi media.
It is better to hate your enemy if you don’t see the consequences of the
war.
[2]
The data for this graph was obtained from Lunaville, CentCom,
DefenseLink, MOD and CNN (the first one is the best). If soldiers died of their wounds after an
attack, the event date is the date when the soldier died because the attack
dates are not always available. The
“hostile” category is derived from the DOD and MOD reports of the
fatalities. Race was determined from
the photograph of the victim; this is imperfect, but it is an attempt to record
this important statistic. There are
civilians working for the military are also counted as victims of this
war. There has been one British
civilian casualty thus far. Military
personnel based in the Gulf were also included here if they were support staff
for the war effort.
[3]
There are disturbing implications about this practice to obtain troops. The whole basis of international relations
is being undermined. Instead of
obtaining consensus via the UN, the US now favors individual deals. Thus, Japan will get preferential trade in
return for 1,000 troops.
[4]
Greg LaMotte, Arab Media Prominently Feature Attacks on US Soldiers in Iraq,
VOA News, July 14, 2003.
[5]
Robert Fisk, “No film rights. No heroic
tales. Just a bloody death in the
afternoon,” The Independent, July 23, 2003.
[6]
Democracy Now, July 18, 2003
addressed this issue. An important
account is Matthew Riemer, “U.S. media misleading
public on Iraq casualties,” YellowTimes.com, July 23, 2003.
[7]
For a long list of odd causes of death see: Greg Mitchell’s, “Soldiers Dead Since
May Is 3 Times Official Count,” Common Dreams, July 17, 2003
[8]
One can’t obtain an accurate number because there is no clear match between the
CentCom and DefenseLink communiqués.
There are some CentCom reports that don’t have a clear DefenseLink
follow-up, and there are DefenseLink listed fatalities without a CentCom
pairing. The 15 clear discrepancies are
obtained from a one-to-one comparison and where the victim is the same.
[9]
Robert Fisk, Americans fail to disclose all attacks on troops in Iraq, The
Independent, July 21, 2003.
[10] As an example, on July 15th a landmine
killed at least one soldier. The DOD
reports usually list the circumstances of death, but here is no report matching
the casualty found in The
Independent.
[11] This is very easy to verify. PowNet lists the date of
the announcement and the date of the fatality.
Suffice it to say that the divergence between the two is increasing.
[12] Out of 92 deaths 41 were combat related
(seven British soldiers). There were exactly
34 US soldiers killed in combat up to this date. Sure, this is “more than 30”.
NB: the BBC just needs to check the DefenseLink website to confirm these
numbers. NB: the folks killed in mine
clearing are not part of the 41 combat deaths.
[13] Michel Guerrin, Embedded Photographer: “I Saw Marines Kill
Civilians,” CounterPunch, April 16, 2003.
[14] To find out how much US soldiers earn see: “US soldiers’
conditions in Iraq.” British
soldiers earn less. The payments made
to the families of killed soldiers are pitiful.
Other articles by Paul de Rooij:
*
The Hydra’s
New Head: Propagandists, and Selling the US-Iraq War
*
Gretta
Duisenberg: An Activist in the Trenches
*
Propaganda
Stinkers: Fresh Samples From the Field
* Arrogant
Propaganda: US Propaganda During The First 10 Days of the US- Iraq War