Today's Papers over at Slate reported another case of how the U.S. has tried to downplay Iraqi civilian deaths, which is typically the m.o. during war time. All the same, as I discuss here, we ignore the approximately twelve thousand civilian deaths (one response noted some of these might have been involved in attacks on our forces; suffice to say a good enough proportion did not) at our peril.
This is not really just a question of morality, though it strikes me to be part of the equation. It is one of pragmatic concern over what the people in the region feel, and the need for us to have a full understanding of what is at stake. If one thousand military deaths affects us so much, alleged good cause notwithstanding, how will a whole lot more (even without taking into account the fact we have ten times the population as they do) affect Iraqis and others in the region?
---
BTC News has another good discussion on the ultimate "end game" of this conflict. Her cite of a new support group for whistleblowers is also notable, especially since I just started a book on the Pentagon Papers, and Daniel Ellsburg is/was intimately involved in both efforts. The book is entitled Inside the Pentagon Papers, edited by John Prados and Margaret Pratt Porter. It starts off well, overall providing a succinct summary of the events and their meaning with first person interviews and other source material adding a special perspective. The lessons taught are clearly applicable to current day events.