Study Reveals 4.5M Deaths From US Invasions Post 9/11

[activeStick]

The country who loves to profess to be a leader in human rights, rule of law, etc is actually the greatest threat to world prosperity and peaceful stability. A Brown University group of researchers found that due to the US, and the 20 years they stayed in the region afterwards, some 4.5M people have died because freedom/democracy. It's no wonder that despite the majority of us in the west not seeing our coalition (which is led by the US) as a destabilizing force that brings devastation, death and poverty, the vast majority of the world at 3 billion-ish does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...hanistan-iraq/

The full death toll of violence in the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone of the broader global war on terrorism, remains difficult to determine. But it has long been surpassed by an even larger and more opaque figure: the indirect count of people who have died as a result of post-9/11 conflicts’ far-reaching ripple effects, such as ensuing waves of violence, hunger, the devastation of public services and the spread of disease.

The accounting, so far as it can be measured, puts the toll at 4.5 million to 4.6 million — a figure that continues to mount as the effects of conflict reverberate. Of those fatalities, the report estimates, some 3.6 million to 3.7 million were “‘indirect deaths” caused by the deterioration of economic, environmental, psychological and health conditions.

Similar to what the far-right in Japan continue to do with deaths they caused during WWII across Asia, US and its allies also like to keep the numbers low.

Compiling estimates for just direct civilian casualties in these wars can be politically fraught: Death counts by Washington and its allies are often far lower than those in local reports.

The bolded, below, is a staggering number.

According to their latest assessment, more than 906,000 people, including 387,000 civilians, died directly from post-9/11 wars. Another 38 million people have been displaced or made refugees. The U.S. federal government, meanwhile, has spent over $8 trillion on these wars, the research suggests.

Just awful.

But Savell#said the research indicates that exponentially more people, especially children and the most impoverished and marginalized populations, have been killed by the effects of war — mounting poverty, food insecurity, environmental contamination, the ongoing trauma of violence, and the destruction of health and public infrastructure, along with private property and means of livelihood.

[GGG]

Determining whether deaths were intentional and who bears direct responsibility is outside the scope of the study, Savell said.
“You can’t separate out who caused the death because there’s lots of different warring parties” and other complicating factors, from authoritarian rule to climate change, Savell said. “The point is to say the U.S. has been involved in these really violent wars. There’s been an intensification as a result of U.S. involvement. And at this point, the issue is really: How do we come to terms with a sense of responsibility?”

I think the last paragraph of the article is important when doing the calculus on this. This study does not assess the non-intervention scenario or if all following deaths are in the US hands.

Iraq 2 was still a humanitarian disaster. But I think Syria and Somalia are a more interesting discussion

[blankall]

Obviously the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea.

However, you also have to put a lot of the blood on Saudi Arabia and Iran's hands. Yes, the USA created the instantly that allowed Iran to get involved, but Iran and Saudi Arabia have been the main funders of many of the militant groups who actually did the killing.

[OldDutch]

So we shouldn’t help Ukraine? Am confused if US/West now has blood on its hands for each death vs letting a tyrant steamroll them?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

So we shouldn’t help Ukraine? Am confused if US/West now has blood on its hands for each death vs letting a tyrant steamroll them?

The US has international blood on its hands for sure, but there are limits with what they can do on that front and they are already pushing them.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

The US has international blood on its hands for sure, but there are limits with what they can do on that front and they are already pushing them.

It does kind of seem like the USA has learned their lesson.... For now that is.

Iraq was, at least in part, sold to the US public on the grounds that removing a tyrant would lead to a formerly oppressed population entering democracy. We know that's a fantasy now. Now the US's involvement is much more low key and subversive.

[JohnnyB]

How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years

...

Experts agree that the period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. Comprehensive population censuses carried out by the colonial regime beginning in the 1880s reveal that the death rate increased considerably during this period, from 37.2 deaths per 1,000 people in the 1880s to 44.2 in the 1910s. Life expectancy declined from 26.7 years to 21.9 years.

In a recent paper in the journal World Development, we used census data to estimate the number of people killed by British imperial policies during these four brutal decades. Robust data on mortality rates in India only exists from the 1880s. If we use this as the baseline for “normal” mortality, we find that some 50 million excess deaths occurred under the aegis of British colonialism during the period from 1891 to 1920.

Fifty million deaths is a staggering figure, and yet this is a conservative estimate. Data on real wages indicates that by 1880, living standards in colonial India had already declined dramatically from their previous levels. Allen and other scholars argue that prior to colonialism, Indian living standards may have been “on a par with the developing parts of Western Europe.” We do not know for sure what India’s pre-colonial mortality rate was, but if we assume it was similar to that of England in the 16th and 17th centuries (27.18 deaths per 1,000 people), we find that 165 million excess deaths occurred in India during the period from 1881 to 1920.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...illion-indians

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Can we now do Russia/Soviet Union, China, Germany and Japan? Not an argument based on whataboutism, but rather I would need to understand a baseline of deaths attributed to world powers.

Heck, throw on Canada to see what a minnow can be responsible for.

[MegaErtz]

I didn’t see anyone complaining when the USA jumped in to save the world from Nazi Germany.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

I didn’t see anyone complaining when the USA jumped in to save the world from Nazi Germany.

You must be the oldest member on CP to have been around during WW2. Tell us some stories, great-grandpa!

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Can we now do Russia/Soviet Union, China, Germany and Japan? Not an argument based on whataboutism, but rather I would need to understand a baseline of deaths attributed to world powers.

Heck, throw on Canada to see what a minnow can be responsible for.

Sadly we could start by counting the ~5000 children who were kidnapped from their parents only to die in residential schools.

There after we could count the ~1,200 chinese who gave their life building the railroad.



History paints a bleak picture for most countries. I love my home but am often humbled by it.

[nik-]

I'm a little confused. Brown's own estimates put it at about 937000 for the region from 2003-2023. This is direct war deaths, and not the entire scope of the study, but that's a pretty big vague delta.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...1/WarDeathToll

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

I didn’t see anyone complaining when the USA jumped in to save the world from Nazi Germany.

Well the Nazi's were committing genocide, Iraq was just in Halliburton's way.

[CroFlames]

Feel free to create new threads if you wanna talk about Stalin, nazis or British colonialism. Just because someone made a thread to talk specifically about Afghanistan/Iraq and this doesn't minimize any other time period of human suffering.

Anyway,

The invasion of Iraq is 2003 was and is a crime. Unequivocally, it was the wrong decison and morally wrong. It was a humanitarian disaster and NATO and the United Nations did not back the mandate. The human suffering was staggering, but I actually question those numbers from OP. How can all those indirect deaths be attributed to the invasions? For instance, was the rise of ISIS a direct result of the invasion? Maybe, maybe not. The Syrian & Somali conflicts? Really hard to say.

The direct war deaths in Iraq are already too high and it was a tragedy, and the USA needs to wear this. Don't think we need to try to tag onto number though.It would never happen, but I wish Bush and others would have been held accountable at an international court. Likewise, because of politics Obama somehow won the Peace Prize while he was commander in chief of a military fighting two simultaneous wars. But I digress.

The interesting part with the USA is that even though sometimes they will act like a non-Western country should/would, their administrations change every 4 or 8 years and so you don't end up like Russia. Thankfully, the Bush era "only" lasted 8 years and not 20+ if they were a true authoritarian state.

Having said that, I sleep better at night knowing the might of their military and that we are good friends with them.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Feel free to create new threads if you wanna talk about Stalin, nazis or British colonialism. Just because someone made a thread to talk specifically about Afghanistan/Iraq and this doesn't minimize any other time period of human suffering.

Anyway,

The invasion of Iraq is 2003 was and is a crime. Unequivocally, it was the wrong decison and morally wrong. It was a humanitarian disaster and NATO and the United Nations did not back the mandate. The human suffering was staggering, but I actually question those numbers from OP. How can all those indirect deaths be attributed to the invasions? For instance, was the rise of ISIS a direct result of the invasion? Maybe, maybe not. The Syrian & Somali conflicts? Really hard to say.

The direct war deaths in Iraq are already too high and it was a tragedy, and the USA needs to wear this. Don't think we need to try to tag onto number though.It would never happen, but I wish Bush and others would have been held accountable at an international court. Likewise, because of politics Obama somehow won the Peace Prize while he was commander in chief of a military fighting two simultaneous wars. But I digress.

The interesting part with the USA is that even though sometimes they will act like a non-Western country should/would, their administrations change every 4 or 8 years and so you don't end up like Russia. Thankfully, the Bush era "only" lasted 8 years and not 20+ if they were a true authoritarian state.

Having said that, I sleep better at night knowing the might of their military and that we are good friends with them.

Many good points but missed the most vital IMO. The invasion of Iraq also literally had nothing to do with their proposed justification. They had a legit beef when 9-11 happened, but then they chose the complete wrong country to wage war against. It made no sense at the time, and continues to not make any sense.

This would be like Ukraine declaring war on Egypt after Russia invaded it.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by jammies

You must be the oldest member on CP to have been around during WW2. Tell us some stories, great-grandpa!

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

I also don't get this post.

So it happened a long time ago so we aren't allowed to acknowledge it?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I also don't get this post.

So it happened a long time ago so we aren't allowed to acknowledge it?

The wording of it implied that the poster was there. Just a joke.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Many good points but missed the most vital IMO. The invasion of Iraq also literally had nothing to do with their proposed justification. They had a legit beef when 9-11 happened, but then they chose the complete wrong country to wage war against. It made no sense at the time, and continues to not make any sense.

This would be like Ukraine declaring war on Egypt after Russia invaded it.

I thought I made that point clear in the 2nd paragraph. The invasion of Iraq was 'justified' by claiming they had of WMDs and the international community rejected the claim. They invaded anyway in the name of democracy.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Heck, throw on Canada to see what a minnow can be responsible for.

Typically, about half of Canada's weapons exports go to the US, Canada has been cashing in big-time on all their wars of empire. This is being upset by how many weapons we now sell to Saudi Arabia, contributing to the deaths of 377,000 Yemeni since 2015. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-...lict/war-yemen


We all have blood on our hands due to complicitness!

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by Matata

Typically, about half of Canada's weapons exports go to the US, Canada has been cashing in big-time on all their wars of empire. This is being upset by how many weapons we now sell to Saudi Arabia, contributing to the deaths of 377,000 Yemeni since 2015. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-...lict/war-yemen


We all have blood on our hands due to complicitness!

I dont have blood on my hands.