Home       Don't be lazy. Do the Arithmetic.
 'Collateral damage' is fine... somewhere else

Just what is an "acceptable" loss when it comes to civilian deaths in a war zone?  The latest reliable "low" count* is 11,000 Iraqi dead since March when Bush launched this war against an Iraqi population of about 23 million.

*[note: This report was prepared in October, 2003 -- a mere 35 weeks into the invasion.]

Don't be lazy.  Do the arithmetic:  In terms of percentage, these 11,000 Iraqi dead mean that .048% of the total population of Iraq has been killed in the past 35 weeks.

"Stuff happens..."

-- Donald Rumsfeld, Sec. of Defense

Iraq: .048% x 23 million

= 11,000 dead

United States: .048% x 292 million

= 140,000 dead

How can we grasp this number in human terms?  Maybe we should look at this rate of loss applied to something more familiar -- say, to our own families and neighborhoods.

We started this war with a population of about 292 million.  If we do the same arithmetic -- use the same percentage, but this time apply it against our larger population...  we can start to get a clear picture of what "minimal collateral damage" would look like to us.

Well, brace yourself, because our calculator shows that this level of violence would have resulted in 140,000 American dead since March. That's 4,000 new graves each week for the past 35 weeks.

Note: This number is only slightly less than the total American dead in the 14 years of Korea and Viet Nam combined -- 144,000.
And what would be our disposition toward this invading army, now occupying our streets and homes?
Top

Copyright © 2003-2005 Majority Visibility Project - Seattle We are activists, not business people selling gee-gaws on the Internet. These visibility images are political tools and weapons and are meant to be used as such by our community. In this light, MVP hereby grants individuals and not-for-profit groups use of our designs and photo images for NON-commercial purposes with no further notice required. All other rights reserved.