"Iraq: The Hidden Human Costs"

I just read this very significant book review by Michael Massing (the New York Review of Books, Volume 54, Number 20 · December 20, 2007). Reviewing two books that deal with the invasion of Iraq, the review does a pretty good job of conveying how brutal such a battle is, and how many civilians were killed by the invaders. It makes the point that Americans who were not there do not appreciate the cost to the Iraqis of the invasion. It also suggests the psychological costs to the soldiers who were there.

The initial attacks on occupied towns with irregular resistance fighters were brutal, and the volunteers in the service became inured to the violence they were using and indeed intensified it as the threats they faced increased in importance in their minds.

From the point of view of this blog, focusing as it does on knowledge, the following paragraphs from the review are especially salient:

As probing and aggressive as the reporting from Iraq has been, it is subject to many filters. There are, for example, "family viewing" standards that make it difficult for journalists to write frankly about such sensitive aspects of military life as the profane language soldiers often use. It's also hard for journalists to get an accurate sense of what soldiers really think. Through embedding, reporters have enjoyed remarkable physical access to the troops, but learning about their true feelings is far more difficult, all the more so since soldiers who speak out too freely can be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Finally, there are limitations imposed by the political climate in which the press works. Images that seem too graphic or unsettling can cause an uproar. When, for instance, The New York Times in January 2007 ran a photo of a US soldier lying mortally wounded on the ground, the paper was angrily accused of showing disrespect for the troops. More generally, the conduct of US soldiers in the field remains a highly sensitive subject. News organizations that show soldiers in a bad light run the risk of being labeled anti-American, unpatriotic, or—worst of all—"against the troops." In July, for instance, when The New Republic ran a column by a private that recounted several instances of bad behavior by US soldiers, he and the magazine were viciously attacked by conservative bloggers. Most Americans simply do not want to know too much about the acts being carried out in their name, and this serves as a powerful deterrent to editors and producers.

I wonder whether we can begin to understand the hidden human costs from books written by an American soldier and an American reporter. Surely they saw human costs that were hidden from those of us at home.

But, as I understand it, the excess mortality in Iraq since the war is not primarily due to people killed in action by American troops. Think about the human cost of a child who doesn't get enough food for a couple of years, who is too often sick due to the living conditions he/she faces with his/her family, and who dies ultimately for lack of medical care that once would have saved him/her. Who measures that human cost?

Or think of the millions of Iraqis who are living in other countries as refugees. The girls who have been forced into prostitution, the kids who have been denied schooling, the adults who can't find decent jobs. How often are they sick? What is the "excess" morbidity and mortality among these people? Who counts the human costs?

How about the other countries that are suffering economic problems as a result of the war in Iraq? These are poor countries, and any loss of economic growth in them results in real losses in their poorest population - losses that may well be measured in hunger, illness and even death. These are truely hidden costs.

I think if Americans really understood and appreciated the costs of the war in Iraq, they would act differently!