In Wartime it's better to be a Soldier than a Civilian

by Jim Moore

05/6/2003

The next time there's a war I will join the armed forces with no question, doubt, or trepidation. That's because I know that there's less chance of being killed if I'm in uniform fighting on the frontline, than if I'm in civvies, sitting on a stool in my back yard, milking the goats..

This isn't some wild, outlandish calculation on my part.. This is a bone-hard fact of life that hardly needs more proof than the civilian head count (dead, that is) that just surfaced (forgive the pun) in Baghdad, Iraq.

The civilian death toll at the 19 Baghdad hospitals was at least l,101---mostly women and children. The hospitals also report that another 1,255 dead were "probably" civilians---also women and children Civilians who didn't make it to a hospital are buried in shallow graves in various locations throughout the city

So much for the deceased. What about wounded civilians? Oops, almost forgot those. Yes, there were more than 6,800 civilians, many of whom probably wish they were dead.

A semi-contrite Pentagon spokesperson, while calling even one death "too many", condescendingly reported a pacifying statistic that said, compared to past wars the Baghdad's civilian casualties were relatively low. 

No kidding? That's a bit like saying that losing only 37,000 men in Korea was "better" than the 55,000 men we lost in Vietnam. Or the 55,000 soldiers we lost in Vietnam were nothing compared to the many more thousands of American servicemen killed in World War II.

I mean, if you're at war, do you measure your effectiveness by counting the people you DIDN'T kill? I guess that's one way of keeping score. 

After reviewing the casualty numbers in Iraq, I can just hear General Tommy Franks saying "Congratulations, men. You're getting better at it. Do it exactly the same way next time!"
Although there was some Iraqi firepower, several Iraqi doctors said they thought that U.S. weapons were responsible for most of the casualties. A reasonable assumption, I venture, with our "shock and awe" ordnance going full blast. 

Could the Iraqi death toll be even higher? Absolutely, because hospital records show that another 1,255 dead were "probably" civilians, including women and children. And none of these Baghdad death tolls include civilians who died in other parts of Iraq.

Add to this the horror of the wounded. Dr. Basim J.Al-Shaeli, an Iraqi surgeon, said, "During the invasion, I was performing ten operations a day, around the clock. While I was doing this, the shooting was going on outside. I was insisting that the patients be taken home a day after they were operated on because the demand for beds was so great; we were always overcrowded. So, no, our records are not perfect, but they're accurate."

Doctor K.Al-Naimi's take on it is this: "For us doctors it was a very difficult time. We could not get the blood or the medicines we needed. At times, there were wounded lying in the streets, but we couldn't get to them."

Meanwhile, The Bush administration announced it would make no effort to tally Iraqi dead, either civilian or military. Makes sense. Not much there to wave the flag for.

In contrast to Iraqi CIVILIAN losses of more than 2,500 dead and 6,800 wounded, American SERVICE personnel killed in the war amounted to 125. With those kind of odds I'd be nuts not to shed my business suit for a military uniform If nothing more, I'll stand a better chance of seeing my grand-kids grow up.

Of course, an argument could be made that these civilian deaths in Iraq were minimal when compared with the U.S. firebombing of Tokyo ( the results of which I saw personally), or the bombing of Dresden, Germany, both in World War II, where tens of thousands of civilians were killed. 

But then, in that war we were fighting for our lives in a DECLARED war, weren't we?,--- not doing an imperialistic skirmish in a small country that never threatened us, and couldn't reach us if they lived next door.

American service personnel getting killed, though minimal in number, unfortunately has to be expected in a war. But what did killing or wounding 9,000 Iraqi civilians, many of them women and children, accomplish?

Considering the cost in civilian lives, damn little, in my book.

Bottom line: I would never want to be a civilian in a country that a foreign army is setting "free." I'll take the safety of military service any day. 




Jim Moore
Jmoore1819@aol.com