I was reading a post comparing military deaths under Bush to military deaths under Clinton*, when a thought occurred to me. While interviewing Cheney -- whose defense of the administration was not only justified, but brilliant** -- Jim Lehrer asked about the 100,000 civilian casualties.

This raises three questions in my mind.

1) Where did the 100,000 number come from? I have seen numbers all over the place on Iraqi civilian casualties. From absurdly high numbers such as several million, meaning something like 5% of Iraq died int he war, all the way down to maybe 5,000, which seems a bit low for a war fought largely by terrorists striking civilian targets. I have my doubts about this particular number, if only because 100,000 is such a nice, round number. It has obvious appeal to reporters and those trying to make "an impact" with a big number, so I am suspicious of the 100,000 number, though it is possible.

2) How do we define "civilian"? In a traditional war it is easy. if they have on a uniform, they are military, if not, they are civilian. True, soldiers on leave or off duty are counted as civilian, but the overlap is very small, and by and large the counts are accurate. But in this war, after Saddam's army disappeared, no one has been in uniform on the other side. So how do we distinguish between civilian and military? And whose word do we take? If the military says Ali was shooting at them, and Abu Bakr says Ali was not, is Ali a civilian or military casualty? And if there is an air strike on a terrorist hideout, and they find 20 bodies, how do we count them? Are the women and children civilians? But what about those women and children who carry bombs or shoot at soldiers? It just seems this type of war makes it impossible to define with clarity what is a civilian casualty, and that, for those seeking to skew the numbers, that lack of clarity makes it easy to find whatever numbers you want.

3) Even if we accept the 100,000 number, how many civilians did Saddam kill in a given year? Among the Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Shiite dissidents, I have a feeling that many would gladly trade 100,000 deaths in 6 years for the many more deaths they would have experienced under Saddam. Also, recall that Saddam not only killed directly, but he drained swamps to starve out Marsh Arabs, as well as allowing the UN to maintain blockades while draining off aid money to build palaces. So those starvation deaths the left liked to blame on Bush were actually better laid at Saddam's feet, as he could have stopped them by either not embezzling money or complying with the UN mandates and having the blockade lifted. Yes, the UN enforced the blockade, but only because without that pressure Saddam would have remained a threat to his neighbors and others.

All of which makes me think that those who find the 100,000 "civilian deaths" deplorable are reacting to emotional propaganda and not truly thinking this through at all. Why do those Iraqis count more than the Kuwaitis Saddam killed, or Iranians, or his own people? Why do they matter more than all those Saddam would have killed had there been no invasion? Or had the sanctions been lifted? It is regrettable that civilians died, but many, many times that would die if we had followed the left's policy of coddling Saddam.

Which is, sadly, the policy Obama is proposing in dealing with Iran, as well as Hammas. Which means, sooner or later, we will get to learn first hand just how many can die when we try to treat terrorists and dictators with kid gloves.

---------------------------------------------------------

* My one concern is that this number is slightly misleading. Unless I am reading the captions wrong, they are comparing Iraq war casualties to all casualties of any kind under Clinton. That is comparing apples and oranges. A more fair comparison would be all casualties under Bush to all casualties under Clinton. It would still likely favor Bush, but it would not be as dramatic as the "2 to 1" that is being used on many blogs to promote this article.

** In the past, even before he was Bush's vice president, my wife and I both were huge fans of Cheney. During the vice presidential debates, he offered brilliant arguments, though the news coverage largely ignored them as they were lengthy and complete, things the news hates. Sadly, during the last 8 years, when I would tell people I was a Cheney fan, even conservatives would often act surprised. Much as with Phil Gramm, conservatives are so used to lickspittle politicians they can't accept people who tell the truth. (And, sadly, in the case of Fred Thompson, they can't understand a politician who serves reluctantly instead of salivating after power like a starving hound.)