Mr. Walt AGAIN comments beyond both his experience and expertise. As I have commented before Mr. Walt neither reads or understands Arabic.

Mr. Walt hasn't been exposed to Arab or by extension Muslim Media in indigenous languages and certainly not on a daily basis so he has little or no idea what themes are played out. Consequently, Mr. Walt is in no position to judge the merits of Mr. Friedman's commentary or dismiss his contention of a narrative in quotes.

Since I can read and understand Arabic, and on numerous occasions watch Arab channels I think I can say with no lack of experience there is indeed great merit to Mr. Friedman's contention.

I just find it ironic that when I met Mr. Friedman in the 80s and commented on the same phenomena and pointed it out to him as a primary obstacle to peace between Arabs and Israelis he was far less comprehending.

I think that Mr.Walt makes a good work even only for calling Friedman article "fatuous".Friedman as a pundit has a great influence to naive readers, he is considered an "authority".In fact Friedman would had to argue with David Brooks who only one week before ,also in NYT,declared without an hesitation that US is in war with Islam.And someone should to be blind not to see that every event which happens Zionist propaganda try to link with Islam. Hassan the soldier who killed 13 at Fort Hood did it because he is a Muslim although he is a Muslim for Palestine.Being from Palestine could not explain such an act but being Muslim makes all very clear.

"the United States is not solely to blame for the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after the 2003 invasion."

Well, the UK can take some share of the blame but the blame for everything that has happened in Iraq since 1990 is the US/UK's fault. As you well know Stephen, both Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck both resigned from their posts in charge of the oil-for-food programme saying that the US/UK policy was deliberate genocide.

Regarding the sanctions, some quotes:

"These sanctions...represented ongoing warfare against the people of Iraq. They became, in my view, genocidal in their impact over the years, and the Security Council maintained them, despite its full knowledge of their impact, particularly on the children of Iraq." (John Pilger, 'Who Are The Extremists?', Daily Mirror, August 22, 2003)"

"Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years - it's a deliberate ploy... That's why I've been using the word 'genocide', because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I'm afraid I have no other view at this late stage." (Interview with David Edwards, May 2000, http://www.medialens.org/articles_2001/iraqdh.htm)

Regarding the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, I would remind you of the illegality of that invasion which was a crime against peace, a war of aggression according to international law. I don't think I need to remind you of the Nuremberg trials and principles of international law. A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing". This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

That is to say that those who initiated the war of aggression on Iraq (US/UK) are responsibe for everything that happened afterwards.

Mr. Wait, you write:

"sometimes innocent people die as a result of actions that may in fact be justifiable"

Are you ok if that casualty were you? Or someone in your family?

If you are not, then another problem Muslims have is that the blood of a non-American is not the same as the blood of an American.

Death of 3000 Americans led to 12-32000 casualties in Afghanistan to "catch bin laden" and you are ok with that? Would you stand by this statement if America and Arab world were swapped with the same scheme of events, i.e. 9/11 followed by operation in Afghanistan?

redundant deleted

redundant deleted

It's been so long since I've had a good thought about Tom Friedman that I try not to think of him at all. Professor Walt's opening line, "Tom Friedman had an especially fatuous column in Sunday's New York Times. . . ," so stumped me that I had to take a break before reading his excellent article.

Is it possible that any one of Mr. Friedman's columns could be more fatuous than any other of his columns? Is Homer Simpson more fatuous in one show than in another? Are The Three Stooges sillier in one short feature than in another?

Professor Walt is in a way praising Mr. Friedman, saying that he has outdone himself--reached beyond his previous limits, broken his own record, achieved new heights of fatuity. It is a complement of sorts, an offhand certificate of achievement: Tom Friedman is even more fatuous than we thought possible! Bravo, Tom! Well done! Way to go! High fives all around!

Now that I've read the article I shall try once again not to think of Tom Friedman. But if I do happen to think of him (he does seem to intrude himself into reasoned discourse, doesn't he!). . .if I do, I shall think of him as a man who has surpassed my wildest expectations of him. In that way I can think kindly of him though, unlike Professor Walt, I would never dream of reading a word he ever writes.

It's been so long since I've had a good thought about Tom Friedman that I try not to think of him at all. Professor Walt's opening line, "Tom Friedman had an especially fatuous column in Sunday's New York Times. . . ," so stumped me that I had to take a break before reading his excellent article.

Is it possible that any one of Mr. Friedman's columns could be more fatuous than any other of his columns? Is Homer Simpson more fatuous in one show than in another? Are The Three Stooges sillier in one short feature than in another?

Professor Walt is in a way praising Mr. Friedman, saying that he has outdone himself--reached beyond his previous limits, broken his own record, achieved new heights of fatuity. It is a complement of sorts, an offhand certificate of achievement: Tom Friedman is even more fatuous than we thought possible! Bravo, Tom! Well done! Way to go! High fives all around!

Now that I've read the article I shall try once again not to think of Tom Friedman. But if I do happen to think of him (he does seem to intrude himself into reasoned discourse, doesn't he!). . .if I do, I shall think of him as a man who has surpassed my wildest expectations of him. In that way I can think kindly of him though, unlike Professor Walt, I would never dream of reading a word he ever writes.

The United States is founded upon the notion that it liberates people from tyranny and that it must defend the bastion of liberty it has created for Americans from evil tyrants who have always dominated mankind. To this end, the United States has been waging war on the rest of the world for its entire history. This Napoleonic mission was not created by Napoleon. It was created by the United States which came into existence before Napoleon. Americans need to take a look at what Washington has been doing all these years and what they have been asked to do on Washington's behalf. Americans may come to the shocking realization that the United States is not the world's moral leader and never was. Washington is just another tyrant and it always was.

Now that Obama has committed the US to 34,000 more troops in Afganistan, and the new strategy of defending(?) population centers is the same old Soviet strategy -- how many more wedding parties can we soon add to Dr. Walt's numbers?

To remind, the unraveling of the Soviet empire started in Afganistan. Regan took credit for outspending the sapped-by-the-Afgan war Soviets on military muscle, and thus toppling the Evil Empire. It costs the US one million dollars to keep one soldier in Afganistan for one year. Can the US afford it, financially and morally?

I agree that the hate have been created by the number of death in the muslim world BUT more so by the unrestricted and unquilified assistance of USA to the State of Israel.

Does reality matter when it is a matter of spin and the ultimate public perception?

Put aside facts and logic for a moment and think about it. Friedman's narratives are simplistic, palatable, and widely propagated. That of a Walt, using this as an example, are complicated and uncomfortable, and in terms of comparative impact amount to less than a fart in the wind.

Now, think of who is paying Tom's bills.

The answer to this question is very simple....Not enough.

Steve,
you missed Friedman's money quote:

His statement: "Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence..."

And you know what THAT is called? Terrorism.

I think the idiot Friedman made a similar statement about Gaza.

-- i.e. using violence to send a political message of "deterrence".

In fact, John Tirman of MIT has found that our actions have led to the deaths of about one million Muslim civilians in Iraq alone.

And that is no myth.

Your numbers of muslim deaths are waaaaaaaaay underestimated. More than an order of magnitude.

See:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12150

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

by John Tirman

Global Research, February 3, 2009
The Nation

We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration. Looking at the empirical evidence of Bush's war legacy will put his claims of victory in perspective. Of course, even by his standards -- "stability" -- the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it's too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major unresolved issues, like the status of Kirkuk.

We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis -- more than half of them refugees -- or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.

The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 "excess deaths" (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths -- from health emergencies, for example -- or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million "excess deaths" as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.

This gruesome figure makes sense when reading of claims by Iraqi officials that there are 1-2 million war widows and 5 million orphans. This constitutes direct empirical evidence of total excess mortality and indirect, though confirming, evidence of the displaced and the bereaved and of general insecurity. The overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about 1 million dead -- in one way or another, affecting nearly one in two Iraqis.

By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as a victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and it should caution us against the savage wars we are prone to. Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can honestly face the damage we have wrought and the responsibilities we must accept from it.

John Tirman is Executive Director of MIT's Center for International Studies.

Bush made apology of failed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.This failed intelligence might cost million dollars to US budget but it ensued human killings and riots like culture in the state so who is at greater loss.A simple apology of civilized leader is equivalent to piles of dead bodies of victims of failed intelligence.
Proofs are available that Osama bin laden and other alqeada leaders were part of CIA team but when US issued their search warrants all have worn invisible caps.A civilized country and group of army destroyed the culture,civil infrastructure and mass destruction of three Muslim countries in search of their wanted criminals.Is it an justified act or cover up of war crimes?
You spread hate and death in settle areas and expect friendly gestures from Muslims..Before finalizing
your sentiments for targeted community first see that what life they are facing after start of war on terror in their surroundings.

Amen. I wrote to the NYT essentially the same points. But also,we are perceived to be complicit in "stealing" resources (i.e.OIL) from Saudi Arabia - the royal family is despised for this, remember?, we are promoting un-Muslim moral codes on sexual relations, education, and self-promotional capitalism - which is opposed to the fatalistic acceptance of "The Will of Allah" which is central to Islam, we send(allow) the missionaries of faiths which oppose Islam to their lands, we promote a separation of faith and state - extremely opposed by Islam, and our claims about 9/11 are not believed by most of the world, even the "West", and for good reason if you look at the facts.
Hate us because of some perverse "Narrative"? Let's try to see it from their point of view, Mr. Freidman!

"...but plenty of Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, and foreign infiltrators were pulling triggers and planting bombs too."

I was right with Stephen Walt until this remark.

What is the matter with North Americans - when will they get into their tiny little brains that almost all Iraqi Kurds ARE also Sunnis?

Until Walt and so many other US commentators can be bothered to get their ethno-centric heads around the fact that being an Arab and being a Sunni is not one and the same thing, we can expect to learn little of any substance about the age old problems of the Near East from blogs like this.

The notion of why they hate us goes actually both ways. I have heard the question many times in the Arab and Islamic worlds. Now, I am certainly familiar with Prof. Walt's writings, but not with his educational methods, so, I can't say if catachism is part of it or not, but to reduce the emotions of over 300 million Arabs in 22 states, and over 1.3 billion Muslims in 57-58 states is really a process of over-reductionism. Albeit it makes for a great blog discussion method.

Question: How many Muslims has China killed in the last 30 years?
Answer: We don't know because they are a ruthless totalitarian communist state.
The Point: We didn't create the problems in the muslim world with the backward economies and tin pot dictators. In fact we do more than anyone else in fixin the problems they create. Don't like America and think everything is our problem? Move to China and write the same article about them. Hope you enjoy your extended stay in prison without representation.

Ok, so I don't know your column and just happened across your writting. One must remember history, those who refuse to remember are doomed to repeat it. Have you read the Kabala or what they call it? Do you know what the muslum believe? If you don't want to be a american then get the hell out, just move to iran or iraq and see how they live. If you look at your chart, the numbers don't add up, and look at your Bias. When its the muslums side its Civilians, but when its inocent american you use thier occupation they were civilians also not just contractors, they were hard working americans. In times of war only the civilians are counted. Do you do that for WWII, I guess we should not have killed those innocent Nazi's soldiers, who killed all those jews, lets have a tally for that shall we. Or should you tell my father that he should have let that japanese soldier kill him instead of the other way around. War is War and We are at WAR!!!!!! THERE CAN BE NO DIVIDED ALLEGIANCES HERE, WE HAVE ROOM FOR ONE FLAG THE AMERICAN FLAG. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN I REPEAT GET THE HELL OUT. A COUNTRY DIVIDED CANNOT STAND, HENSE THAT WHY WE ARE COLLAPSING.

If counting bodies proved who was virtuous, and who wasn't, Hitler would be the lesser of the genocidal criminals of the last century. It is just a trite method, a silly way for Walt to try to prove his point of view.

Walt would prefer a US that set aside all thought about values, yet he uses comparative numbers, and the normative slope they create, to suggest the US engenders the hate and opposition that confronts us. This is typical of realists. They claim this disinterested, higher position in the argument about what to do, then troop out whatever manipulative data they can to support themselves.

Realists drain intention and motivation away from international politics by definition. Everyone is rational, thus those who hate us are rational. It's a deductive circle. If Walt put this hatred and intention to damage us at the center of his analysis, and looked at its actual history, he would discover it to be not a reaction to recent US behavior but a longstanding feature in Arab reactions, and Muslim reactions, to those who fail to submit to their conceptions of God.

But that is not what Walt has set out to find, so he doesn't look for, or see it. He wants to smugly sit and look down on all the peons who feel patriotism, who serve their country, and who understand that our enemies really believe what they say they believe.

America is a xenophobic juggernaut. It's government believes that a "god" (christian god) has sanctioned all of its actions. It's leading media outlets campaign endlessly for war, simple-mindedness, reactionary thinking, and a sickening amount of nationalistic pride.

Everyone doesn't hate America because they kill people.

Everyone hates America because it never shuts up, it always thinks it is right, never questions itself, and never stands to reason.

They are the fat, stupid bully of all the nations. Gluttonous, Self Serving and Ugly.

A total hypocrisy. With no class left. It's output has that cheap "american" feel to it. Sameness, and an overall lack of imagination.

It's educational system is the worst of all developed nations. Where students are bribed into their lackluster post secondary educations by boobs, beer and football.

Portrayed as a free democratic nation, but more closely resembles and acts like a military dictatorship (which it is to the rest of the world).

It's not red white and blue. It's Take. Take. Take.

America Sucks and cannot recognize it, and therefore, cannot redeem itself. That is why I hate it.

Prof. Walt:

When you kill tens of thousands of people in other countries -- and sometimes for no good reason -- you shouldn't be surprised when people in those countries are enraged by this behavior and interested in revenge. After all, how did we react after September 11?

Bin Laden in an interview with Al Jazeera's Tayseer Alouni a few days after 9/11:

Who said that our children and civilians are not innocent and that shedding their blood is justified? That it is lesser in degree? When we kill their innocents, the entire world from east to west screams at us, and America rallies its allies, agents, and the sons of its agents. Who said that our blood is not blood, but theirs is? Who made this pronouncement? Who has been getting killed in our countries for decades? More than 1 million children, more than 1 million children died in Iraq and others are still dying. Why do we not hear someone screaming or condemning, or even someone's words of consolation or condolence?

The only thing we seem to disagree on are numbers.

Interesting debate. Where its in earnest, that is. Just a point in case it wasn't completely obvious:

-At least one person is posting in this forum under a variety of names. Syntax, vocab, other little cues---its the same person.

-Perhaps unsurprisingly this person is posting items that are "provocative". Certainly they are getting a rise outta some people.

-He posts in response strings to make it appear as though several folks are in agreement with his position. See , this fosters the appearance of propriety; one guy spouting off is a nutjob; five people agreeing with that position adds legitimacy.

Forums are great places to exchange ideas but they can also be manipulated to just piss off a bunch of people. Maybe this guy is just a bored student working on his rhetorical skills and his ability to piss people off for the fun of it---people do weird stuff for entertainment. Maybe something more sinister....who knows.

Anyways, don't let him get you in a lather---its the whole point of what he's doing. This pops up a bit on these forums and something to keep in mind.

Cheers!

Because a story plays into the insane oppressed Muslim narrative, it is true, and it is our fault. If a madman screams that he creates gravity with his will, and an apple falls, is the madman omnipotent? Or is the premise created so that the narrative fits?

I agree that Friedman sucks, but his idea is valid. Euros have killed Muslims, Muslims have killed Muslims, Mongols killed lots of Muslims, Tamerlane killed Muslims. Of all these, America's killing of Muslims stand out because Americans care what people think.

We should ignore the whingeing of the masses, the discontented, and the malaise-stricken. The Arab and/or Muslim media screams about American/Zionist/whatever conspiracy behind every bad turn of fortune. Let them think that we are this omnipotent and malignant; who cares what these people think. Like anti-Semitism, it will find a reason for hate, and if there is none, one will be manufactured. Blood libels exist in spite of logic. Let the trolls respond to every anti-Walt, pro-American comment here. These same yahoos scream "Sabra and Shatila" like Lebanese Christians weren't chopping and shooting. Listen to the Arab media, listen to Urdu news programs. Hear how insane what is considered intelligent discourse there is. Or don't.

The academia is full, textually full of morally corrupt individuals that, based on the tenure they obtained, often under false pretense, are trying hard to make a name for themselves and thus substantially improve their income. If being famous is not possible (because they don't actually deserve it), than being notorious will also serves.

Some academics might accuse their progenitors of being involved, say, in white slavery; others might select the Pope as a target even though they are Catholics. And then there are those Jews, reminiscing of the Kapos (Jews that used to torture Jews in the Concentration Camps), which decided to attack other Jews - current renamed Israelis - in the hope that Muslim organization will agree to fund the "projects" they promote.

These academics, that produce only scandals picked up by the brown press rather than serious research published in professional journals, are trying hard to copy Jimmy "the Dhimmi" Carter. They will not be able to get the same "retainer" from Muslim organizations as the ex-President, but maybe something will "drop in their hats" if they try.

There is no doubt that tenure is an indecent arrangement that the average citizen does not enjoy - a discriminatory set-up to favor a restricted group while harming the majority. This approach must end if freedom is to prevail.

Given any thought to how many Muslims killed by Muslims?

when sadam was given a 48 hrs to get out of iraq before the invasion, in order to save HIS OWN PEOPLE from the destruction that was coming, he did not give a hoot. He rather welcomed the destruction of his own people than surrender himself alone!!!. That is how much this guy loved his own. Just imagine if sadam had said, I love my country and my people and will not sacrifice them for my own safety! A despicable dictatorship. Sadam was the cause of all this killing guys!!!

I found this in the Gaurdian...................

"Salaam,
It seems not only the wording is incorrect inregards to my country Afghanistan, but also the intentions.

Firstly, corruption begun, when the first interim government was formed in 2001 in Kabul at the grand loya jirga. Where I witnessed the manipulation of foreign governments. A vote was takan before the proceedings got underway,three quarters of the delegates from around the country voted to have the former King returned to power in the government. This process shocked the organisers and hence the elderly King was worked over through the night and the next day to comply with the wishes of those who wanted him to play the puppet. Hence not only the former King arrived hours later than planned for his heart was dark but also when he spoke his microphone was switched off so most of the delegates could not hear what he had to say, except for the part of supporting Kazai.

Delegates new [sic] they had been done over, from this point there was no loyalty to anyone or anything, remember for Afghans it was the only time Peace reigned and they understood that system.

Not that I am personally in favour of a monarchy returning, but please remember we are a deeply rooted, traditional society where respect and courtesy are paramount. Not that most people would understand that, also remember to have a person non political role holds great weight in our community which means someone of high moral and spiritual worth is looked upon with respect.

The issue of a new representative to suit the world community, so power can be bypassed the current President will only make more anger within govenment and community and this will mean many more game playing will occur and government will be even weaker as a result.

Also I ask the question why are we all talking of a foreigner to hold this position and why are we talking of a man...when there are great formidable Afghan educated woman, even from highly respected bloodline families that would curry more power for governance than any man and certainly any foreigner.......

Whether its recognised or not woman hold extraordinary power in our society, and this is another issue not addressed by the world at large.

So I pose the question, think Afghan and then perhaps you may find the right path that suits all concern.

Respectfully yours
Shams

Here is my comment about the Gaurdian article "
US bid to bypass Karzai's Afghan go'vernment upsets allies

Appointment of 'high representative' in Kabul forms part of Barack Obama's latest strategy

"OOOOOO the "O" hubris, or some ass-holebrook drug fantasy..... Heroine or Hubris, Which is more destructive..... These f@#*kin neocons are gonna be sorry if they try this crazy idea .. Disaster!!!!!!!

Hey what are they tryin 2do....wreck the whole effort and lay it on Pres. "O"...?????

THANK YOU Stephen Walt for your BRAVE approach to America becoming a client state of AIPAC...

I think your # of Muslims killed is way too low.... What about the Lancet #s ????????? More like a million......

P.S. Why is your sign-up so security crazy..?? It required me to have a TWENTY character password and it took me more that ten minutes to get it to satisfy the requirements... I have hundreds of thousands behind six character password... Don't you want people to subscribe.??

Thank You for Your work on our behalf. T Ward

I know that this doesn't really pertain to the worldview of the article, but it should. There were about 60 Muslims who were murdered on 9/11.

http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm

If the numbers are to be believed, e.g. 5 million orphans, then we are most likely planting the seeds for Arab muslims to continue in their hate of the U.S. for generations. Perhaps, American foreign policy should shift into a scenario of total war and the complete elimination of the culture that serves as an incubator of the 'narrative' spoken about in these posts. This would also force those that feel that it is Ok to use war as a punishing mechanism to more carefully consider their position, while also spurring foreign governments to better consider their tolerance of violent factions within their borders. Us Americans just might not be able to solve the worlds problems. So we may benefit if others feared our involvement to the degree that they took responsibility for their own destiny, instead of using our involvement as a rallying point and/or excuse for continual dereliction of their duty to determine their own destiny.

I don't know why the NY Times still keeps Friedman around. He lost credibility a long time ago.

I can't believe this guy's a Harvard Professor! Where does he get this garbage? His numbers are totatlly confused.
Desert Storm: We killed 50,000+ Iraqi SOLDIERS in a SHOOTING WAR.
UN Sanctions: A UN idea, not just the US, and the "100,000+" killed are based on Iraqi propoganda. In fact, Iraq was agriculturally self sufficient. Saddam shut down the farmers to make an excuse to plead for food. If people starved its because of that bastard.
By far the worst stat is the 100,000 killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He ought to be convicted of supporting terrorists because of claiming this alone. By far the most people killed in OIF were killed by Moslem terrorists. Those figures vastly dwarf any killed by US forces (and Blackwater bozos) for good reason, malice, or accident. Some people can say we started the bloodbath by invading Iraq. That's understandable but warped view. But to say that we're directly responsible for every bomb some Moslem jackass placed in a Baghdad marketplace is just plain stupid.

"Sticks and stones may break our bones, but facts will never sway us." - Neocon Creed

i find it positively peculiar that you do not list deaths from the seige of sarajevo, or srebrenica, where the US/UN forces literally watched, inactive, as muslims were slaughtered. To allegorically watch, one might dismiss the deaths as not clearly linked enough to US/Western action to put them in the "dead @ our hands" column, but to literally watch, w/ soldiers yards away, is omission of action enough for me to place the Jugo wars in the muslim fatalities column.

The author cited statistics of Muslim deaths caused by the US which included a large majority of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Muslim terrorists. For example, of the figure of Iraqis killed since 2003, over 90% of the fatalities were caused by terrorists actions, not the US. See iraqibodycount.org for a breakdown of who-killed-whom. In fact, in Iraq the US is leading the fight to protect the Iraqi civilians from the Islamic terrorists.

The death toll among Iraqis during this war is still less than the death toll of Iraqis during Saddam's vicious reign. For example, in the Anfal campaign Saddam murdered over 300,000 Kurds.

If the author alleges that the Muslim world hates the US because of these deaths, then surely the Muslim world should hate their fellow Muslims even more. Since 1945, in the multiple wars between Muslim states, or in civil wars within Muslim states, some 11 million Muslims have died. By Walt's logic, Muslims should hate the Sudanese for slaughtering the Muslim civilians of Darfur, instead, the Arab League defends the regime in Khartoum, just as they defended Saddam during the long years of his brutal rule.

The fact remains, clumsy though the strategy has been, the US has liberated 50 million Muslims from tyrannical rule in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both those countries the enemies the US is fighting have been responsible for killing the vast majority of civilians by directly targeting schools,mosques, hospitals and markets.

A better explanation is needed to explain why the Muslim people hate the US and not the Islamic extremists who are murdering millions of innocent Muslim civilians.

To Farmer,

re; Srebrenica

There were no US troops near Srebrenica during that genocide. The only UN forces present were some 400 lightly armed Dutch troops under UN orders not to intervene. You cannot blame the US for the gutless moral hypocrisy of the UN.

Asked by kurtsanger@aol.com on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:20pm

Answer:

Since 1945, about 11 million Muslims have been killed in wars between Muslim states or in civil wars within Muslim states. Compare that to the 42,000 Muslims (mostly soldiers of the various Arab states who have attacked Israel) killed in Arab/Israeli conflict during that same period.

It's good to have some perspective.

Steve,
you missed Friedman's money quote:

His statement: "Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence..."

And you know what THAT is called? Terrorism.

I think the idiot Friedman made a similar statement about Gaza.

-- i.e. using violence to send a political message of "deterrence".

In fact, John Tirman of MIT has found that our actions have led to the deaths of about one million Muslim civilians in Iraq alone.

And that is no myth.

Your numbers of muslim deaths are waaaaaaaaay underestimated. More than an order of magnitude.

See:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12150

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

by John Tirman

Global Research, February 3, 2009
The Nation

We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration. Looking at the empirical evidence of Bush's war legacy will put his claims of victory in perspective. Of course, even by his standards -- "stability" -- the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it's too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major unresolved issues, like the status of Kirkuk.

We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis -- more than half of them refugees -- or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.

The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 "excess deaths" (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths -- from health emergencies, for example -- or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million "excess deaths" as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.

This gruesome figure makes sense when reading of claims by Iraqi officials that there are 1-2 million war widows and 5 million orphans. This constitutes direct empirical evidence of total excess mortality and indirect, though confirming, evidence of the displaced and the bereaved and of general insecurity. The overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about 1 million dead -- in one way or another, affecting nearly one in two Iraqis.

By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as a victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and it should caution us against the savage wars we are prone to. Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can honestly face the damage we have wrought and the responsibilities we must accept from it.

John Tirman is Executive Director of MIT's Center for International Studies.