Hearts, Minds and Bodies in Iraq

If you’re wondering why we don’t seem to be winning the war for the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq, or of the Islamic world in general, a study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health might provide a clue. Actually, about 100,000 clues.

As reported in the October 29, 2004 online edition of Britain’s highly respected medical journal, The Lancet, researchers randomly surveyed over 7800 Iraqis about deaths in their households during the 14 months before and the 18 months after the American invasion. The research involved actual interviews with the families involved, and the researchers verified what people reported to them through death certificates or other documents.

It’s worth noting that the study deliberately chose not to base their estimates on deaths in Falluja, because so many people had been killed there that they would make estimates for the whole country unrealistically high. It’s also worth noting that the study was completed and published before the re-invasion of Falluja slated to start in the second week of November, 2004.

According to the researchers, a conservative estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians who have died since the U.S. invasion, above and beyond normal, expectable deaths from heart attacks, strokes, and chronic illnesses, is a striking 100,000. That’s 100,000 civilians, people much like you and me, whose major concern was keeping themselves and their families fed, clothed, and alive.

Most of the extra deaths, 84% to be precise, were violent deaths caused by “actions of the Coalition forces,” and 95% of those violent deaths were due to air or artillery strikes. The majority of the victims were women and children.

Interestingly, the researchers emphasized that these extra civilian deaths were not due to improper conduct by Coalition troops, but were simply side-effects of normal military operations.

By way of perspective, the population of the United States is 11.6 times that of Iraq. If a catastrophe of some kind killed 1,160,000 Americans in the course of 18 months, or about 65,000 of us every month for 18 months, we might feel something like the Iraqis do.

Or, if we think about how radically the 3,000 deaths that we suffered on 9/11 have changed us, it might help us to understand how 100,000 lives cut short may have impacted Iraq.

It should not come as a surprise that war is a pretty blunt instrument for winning hearts and minds, or that the bodies of 100,000 Iraqis may not provide the best foundation for a new democracy.

Reference: "Mortality before and after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey." Les Roberts et al., The Lancet, October 29, 2004.

Link to Etalkinghead.com

Delusions of Righteousness: What's Wrong with Bush's Vision of America?

In their rush to go to war in Iraq, President Bush and his advisers appear to have been in the grip of a profound misconception. Underlying our invasion of Iraq and the unilateral foreign policy it exemplified is the belief that we are better because we're a democracy; that because of our lofty values we have rights other nations do not. "Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth," says Bush. "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country."

Noble words. But the sobering reality is that we are not better, not entitled by Heaven, because we're a democracy. Rather, we're blessed with democracy because our founding fathers knew that we are no better than others, that we are just as prone to tyrannize, terrorize or torture as humans have always been.

The founders of the nation knew that an American president given too much power could rule just as despotically as any king or Czar. They recognized that an American army inadequately governed could act just as brutally as the Romans or the Turks. They understood that an American jurist, unchecked, could rule just as arbitrarily and cruelly as Judge Jeffries or Torquemada. They foresaw that in times of crisis, we too could believe that our mass arrests, our brutal interrogations, our secret proceedings, even our tortures and murders, were justified.

It was precisely the founders' steely pragmatism, their unflinchingly realistic assessment of the weaknesses we share with every other nation that led them to enshrine the rule of law, safeguard freedom of belief, speech and assembly, protect suspects with due process and habeas corpus, forbid cruel and unusual punishment, and institute the elaborate system of checks and balances that defines our government.

If we have managed at times to act better than others, domestically or internationally, it's because of the institutions those farsighted pragmatists constructed--the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the creaky, complicated clockwork of our government.

Today the nation is split down the middle because the President bulldozed miles beyond any legitimate mandate his razor-thin election victory gave him. He stamped his own radical vision on the economy, the environment and our international relationships and obligations. Backed by neoconservative theorists who believe that after the fall of communism we can and must dominate the world, he has dragged the United States into an ill-conceived, costly, and immensely risky war. In the name of liberty, he and his administration have created a concentration camp for the disappeared at Guantanamo, eroded our freedoms at home, and fostered—until it blew up in their faces—abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

President Bush and his advisors share a kind of blindness with true believers of every kind. They are quick to see evil in others, but never recognize it in themselves. "Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories," said Bush last November. "They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin." But Bush and his circle assume without question that our legacy will be different.

The arrogance that leads one nation to strive to dominate the world is the steady diet of tyrannies, but deadly poison for a democracy. Democracy is based on the recognition that government must legitimize every voice. A unipolar world with us, or anyone else, permanently in charge, represents the exact opposite--a bleak battleground with no allies, only resentful and restive underlings. Being a great democracy does not, in fact cannot authorize, empower, or prepare us to run the world. It should instead spur us to observe and empower international laws, including the Geneva Convention, to strengthen rather than scrap international agreements, and to support the United Nations and other international institutions that allow the voices of all nations and groups to be heard.

We urgently need to regain our courage and our sense of who we really are. We need to remind ourselves that we can fight terrorism without becoming torturers, that we can defend liberty without sacrificing our freedoms or trampling on those of others, and that, emboldened by our values and institutions, we can inspire and even lead the world, but never by attempting to dominate it.

The coming election is our last, best chance to say no to Bush's radical and distorted vision of America.

A Thousand Deaths

More than a thousand American soldiers have died in Iraq. That's a lot of lives cut short.

History may conclude that these thousand lives were given in a great cause. If, as President Bush envisions, democracy takes root in Iraq, stabilizing the Middle East and making the United States more secure, then those soldiers' families, and the rest of us, can take comfort.

Unfortunately, those goals seem nearly unreachable. The President and his advisors have gotten too many things wrong. They told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that our troops would be welcomed as liberators, that we could win the war quickly and easily, and that liberating Iraq would reduce the threat of terrorism. Wrong on all counts.

And they tell us that Iraq is not like Vietnam. I hope not, because by the time we left Vietnam, we had lost fifty-eight thousand American lives and our society was being torn apart.

Next Tuesday’s election should really be a referendum on one question--have these brave men and women given their lives for a great cause, or were they victims of a tragic miscalculation?

The election is the last chance for our voices to be heard before more thousands die.

What Do Cosmologists Do?

What Do Cosmologists Do?

For a week last summer, most of the world's leading cosmologists met at the University of California, Davis. Stephen Hawking was there, but so were more than a hundred other theorists and researchers. I was particularly interested in Alan Guth, Paul Steinhardt and Andrei Linde, who created and developed the immensely successful theory of cosmic inflation.

In case you've had other things on your mind, here's a quick review. Our Universe was born in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Inflation kicked in ten-to-the-minus-thirtieth of a second later. In a minute fraction of a second, the universe ballooned from way smaller than the nucleus of an atom to a billion light years across . I know it sounds crazy, but it happens to make sense of almost everything we know about the universe--the formation and clustering of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, and the degree to which the universe is almost perfectly poised between expansion and collapse.

The science was fascinating. But what really struck me was watching a hundred utterly brilliant men and women solving equations and theorizing and arguing--in some cases passionately--about how the universe might have begun and evolved thirteen billion years ago, or how it might end trillions of years from now. I didn't know whether to be amazed, awed or amused.

In the end, however, this strange gathering made me feel extraordinarily good about being human. Not just that there are some wonderfully brilliant people out there, but that they, and we, do care about things that have nothing to do with eating, sleeping, mating and making a living. The war going on in Iraq makes me painfully aware of how close we are to our animal roots. A hundred cosmologists doing their thing reminds me that we've also grown some branches that reach the skies.

Robert Adler

How Much Is the Iraq War Worth to You?

How much is the War in Iraq worth to you?

Watching newscasts, I've noticed that immediately after the announcer says something like, "The candidates are disputing whether the Iraq War has cost $200 billion or $400 billion," I've already forgotten the amounts. Even when a huge number like that sticks in my head, it doesn't mean much. I understand what I can buy with the $84 in my wallet, why I’m waiting to buy that 6-megapixel digital camera I've been drooling over, or how long it will take my wife and me to pay off our mortgage. But it's hard to grasp the hundreds of billions the Iraq war is costing, this year's $477 billion deficit, the $1.75 trillion U.S. budget, or the $7.4 trillion national debt.

It occurred to me that these amounts would make more sense if reporters specified how much they were costing each of us. It wouldn’t be hard. Anyone can Google the current U.S. population (around 295 million), the number of households (around 105 million), or the number of taxpayers (around 100 million). Simple division produces numbers that make a lot more sense, at least to me.

Let's take our 7.426 trillion dollar national debt. Divided equally among every man, woman and child in the U.S. those trillions boil down to just over $25,000. I'm relieved to realize that I could handle my share if needed, although I guess it would be tough on children, the poor, most seniors, and even many people filling those new service jobs. The load does seem heavier if we figure what it represents for each household (almost $71,000), or each taxpayer (just over $74,000). But at least we can understand it.

Let's tackle this year's U.S. budget of $1 trillion 750 billion. Each citizen should pitch in $6,000 or so, each household around $16,000, and each taxpayer around $18,000. I guess not all of us are paying our share, since tax revenues are falling way short of government expenditures—hence the deficit. Per person, this year's $477 billion deficit comes to $1600; per taxpayer, $4900; and per household, $4400. I'm not thrilled that my wife and I are taking on an additional $4400 to $9800 of debt this year (depending on whether you count us as one household or two taxpayers). Still, I'm sure that the government isn't spending any more than it thinks necessary. And, since my wife and I don't have children, why should we worry about who will have to pay for that added debt?

Just like President Bush and Senator Kerry, I had some trouble finding exact figures for the cost of the war in Iraq. I located a War-in-Iraq cost counter (http://www.costofwar.com/) that read $139,678, 787,255 when I looked at it, although the last six digits were spinning by so fast it was hard to keep up. Another site said that Congress has appropriated $160 billion so far, and plans to toss in an additional $70 billion after the elections. Since the war is likely to drag on, maybe we should go with the larger figure of $220 billion.

If every man, woman and child were billed, each of us would owe around $750. Every household's share would be around $2050. And each taxpayer's share is about $2250 so far.

With these more understandable numbers in hand, each of us can now meaningfully ask if we think we're getting our money's worth with this war.

Personally, I'd have to say no.

I don't feel any safer, especially now that it’s clear that Saddam Hussein didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, and didn't have much contact with the people I'm most worried about--Osama bin Laden and other Islamist terrorists. There still seem to be a lot of them, maybe even more than before the war, and they are still pretty successful at blowing people up.

I also don't feel better about the situation in Iraq, what with more than a thousand U.S. soldiers having been killed and lots more wounded. It’s not macho to admit it, but I also don't feel very good about the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who've been killed despite our soldiers’ very real efforts to target combatants only. (If I remember correctly, we had a problem like that in Vietnam too.) All those dead and wounded Iraqis may be one of the reasons our program to secure and rebuild Iraq isn’t going all that well.

President Bush and his advisors tell us that our international reputation and relationships were not as important as our need to go to war in Iraq. I’ve tried hard to think that way too. Still, I keep remembering presidents like Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan who somehow managed to be strong and statesmanlike at the same time. I can't get it out of my mind that even though we are by far the most powerful nation militarily, it's still worth something to be on reasonably good terms with as many other countries as possible.

So, even though I did not like Saddam Hussein, I personally would rather have kept my $2250 and just skipped the war in Iraq.

I might have added the money to my retirement account, or brought my car in for the repairs I've been putting off, or maybe my wife and I would have traveled somewhere. It probably would have been easier to find a country where everyone wasn't angry with the United States. And, even if my $2250 had to go to the government, I'm pretty sure I'd feel better if it had been spent on teachers and schools, on health insurance for all those people crowding emergency rooms, on the Headstart program, or even, strange as it sounds, to help cut the deficit.

No, the war in Iraq has definitely not been worth $2250 to me. Actually, I wouldn't have bought it at half the price.

Robert Adler

Death and Your Vote

Think about death. Your own death. What emotions does that stir up in you?

Now that I’ve gotten your attention, I want to tell you about a very interesting piece of research concerning two things of interest to all of us right now--death and voting.

Psychologists at Rutgers, Skidmore, the University of Arizona, and the University of Colorado asked 190 people of various ages and ethnic backgrounds to vote for one of three hypothetical candidates for governor, based on a one paragraph statement from each contender. Each candidate’s statement began with the phrase, “I will be the perfect governor for this great state because . . .,” but differed in order to present one as task oriented, one as relationship oriented, and one as charismatic. (F. Cohen et al., “The Effects of Mortality Salience on Evaluations of charismatic, Task-Oriented, and Relationhship-Oriented Leaders,” Psychological Science, December, 2004.)


The task-oriented candidate’s statement depicted a pragmatic governor, someone who would set high but reachable goals and work efficiently to realize them. “I do not promise to change the world; the goals set out before us are realistic yet challenging. . . I will implement statewide plans to provide the resources to get the job done.”

The relationship-oriented candidate’s paragraph reflected someone who would listen, who emphasized communication and cooperation, and who would respond compassionately. “I worry about the citizens’ well being. . . I encourage all citizens to take an active role in improving their state . . . Everyone’s contributions are recognized and appreciated.”

The charismatic candidate’s statement revealed a leader with vision, someone who emphasized what citizens can do for the good of the state, someone who is willing to take chances to achieve great things. “I work hard to communicate my vision for this state to my constituents. . . I am willing to take some chances to show my voters how things can be improved . . . You are not just an ordinary citizen, you are part of a special state and a special nation and if we work together we can make a difference.”

The 95 individuals who made up the control group, the people who had not been told to think about death, strongly preferred the efficient, task-oriented candidate (48 percent of the vote), followed by the empathic, relationship-oriented candidate (43 percent). The demanding, visionary, charismatic leader, the one who would make every follower feel special, garnered a meager four percent (as usual, there were a few undecideds).

But there's a catch. The 95 people who had been politely asked, a half-hour before voting, to think about their own death, to “. . . describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you,” voted very, very differently. Suddenly the charismatic leader, the one who would make followers part of a grand vision, who planned to change the world, looked a lot better.With death in the background, the charismatic candidate won nearly eight times as many votes, surging to 31% of the total. The visionary's gain came largely at the expense of the soft, relationship-oriented candidate, whose share fell to 21%, but also cut into support for the practical, task-oriented contender, whose votes fell to 43% of the total.

What if this research finding holds true not only for a hypothetical race for governor, but for a real race, say for the presidency of the United States? What happens if we substitute an experimenter's instruction to think about death for a few minutes to constant reminders of the threat of terrorist attacks and the carnage of war? What if one candidate, the one with a simple, clear vision of how the world ought to be, frequently makes statements like this? “We cannot forget that the terrorists remain determined to kill as many Americans as possible, both abroad and here at home, and would like nothing more than to use the world’s most deadly weapons against us.”

Could the same effect click in? Could millions of people who feel terrified actually vote for a candidate who is both terrifying them and promising them that he, and only he, can lead them to safety?

Nah! It’s just a piece of academic research. People must act much more rationally in the real world, where they have a variety of real issues to weigh.

By the way, which candidate are you voting for on Tuesday?

Robert Adler