SM Profilee – Lt (now Captain) Neil Prakash is now a radio star. Sort of. PunditReview has a recording of a tribute to Neil carried on talk radio detailing the actions which earned him a Silver Star in Iraq. A few excerpts of which are quoted –
One thing you’ve gotta know about Neil – he runs to the sound of gunfire…. There were hundreds of men firing at his small platoon of 4 tanks… They tried to approach the tank and drop hand grenades into the hatches..The battle raged on for about an hour… all in all, Lt Neil Prakash’s platoon were hit by 23 IED’s and over 20 RPG’s. Prakash’s tank alone … took 4-8 direct RPG’s. Neil personally killed 8 machine gun and RPG teams and the platoon had 25 confirmed kills with an estimated 60 additional insurgents
For his valor on Jun 24, 1st LT Neil Prakash was awarded the Silver Star…. He was also later awarded a Bronze Star [for a different engagement]”
Now some will sneer about the Americanized pronounciation of brother Neil’s name – “Neil Prack-ish”. Others about the patriotic/romantic music in the background while his tribute is read. And still others will sneer about Neil’s engagement overall in the business of the Iraq war. Not me.
But hopefully, regardless of how you feel, we can take a moment to commend an individual who’s risked far more for an abstract cause than many of us who sit comfortably in our air-conditioned offices.
Neil was first covered in Sepia Mutiny’s youth back in November 2004 and that initial coverage was, in part, responsible for leading Neil to join the ranks of milbloggers. Neil recorded his exploits in a wonderful narrative style on his own blog – Armor Geddon – and a few posts have been expanded into a recently published compendium book written by milbloggers – The Blog of War.
Bravo.
Previous SM Coverage of Neil’s Silver Star. Neil’s blog entry on the eve of his foray into Fallujah.
Then I guess it’s obvious that this issue affects me greatly, if you aren’t enjoying my words or understanding them the way I intended. This is an exceptionally difficult time for my family– I don’t want my sister to fight a war I don’t believe in, no matter how grimly accepting she is of her lot…
…and yet…you did in a way, by mentioning it much like a lawyer dropping one forbidden question in seconds before it is objected to, right before withdrawing it. 🙂
It doesn’t make it tougher for ME to support our troops when things like that happen because I don’t like to tar thousands with a brush dipped in shit. Those Marines should get the most severe punishment possible for that atrocity; what they did was pure evil and I am the LAST person on this site who thinks rapists should get away with their crimes.
Yes, by then the Islamic Republics of Britain or France will welcome you… if you convert on entering…. 😉
And so delicately, with all the grace of a two-hundred pound ballet dancer, Vikram crosses the line…
Think of the bright side– you can’t be a macaca if it is the macacas who rule. 😉
FWIW, a [left-leaning] count of how many Iraqi’s have died since the invasion is ~45,000 — about 15K / yr. The number of killed annually by Saddam prior to invasion is 70,000/yr (also tabulated – but independently – by a very left leaning org).
So, US troops SAVED about 55K / yr.
Not to mention the next 25 years of backlash we will probably be facing. Thankfully, by then my ass will be out of America.
And I thought I was a terrible procrastinator!
Hey… you have to be pretty buff to lift some of those ballerinas… that 200 lbs is all muscle 😉
I wouldn’t be so sure… to paraphrase George Orwell… “Some Macacas are more equal than others”. Human nature.
Sorry, I haven’t being reading all the comments here since I’m at work. But I just wanted to make a quick remark on this. The state of inter-community tensions in India is not so bad IMO given the incredible differences that exist and the size of the population. Compare this with Europe (and even disregard the presence of people of non-European ancestry for a moment). It is very for a multi-cultural or multi-language country to exist in Europe. The Balkans are an example of a region divided by just subtle differences. Most of the little counrties in Europe are almost homogeneous, as if it ‘s a pre-requisite for peace.
The whole EU process, IMO, is moving Europe in the direction of India (though, of course, they aren’t looking to India as a model).
. Not to mention the next 25 years of backlash we will probably be facing. Thankfully, by then my ass will be out of America.
You may want to steer clear of the prediction business. People made the same pronouncements after Vietnam. Of course now, Vietnam and America have patched up their differences adn have military officer exchanges. In 1971, people thought India and Bangladesh would be friends forever. That didn’t turn out to be the case either.
The two are mutually exclusive, you make it seem like those who missed being killed at the receiving end of a daisy cutter or tomahawk missile would have been nixed by Hussein otherwise. These “you don’t support the war, what, do you support hussein?” comparisons are trite at best. Recall who supported Hussein 20 years back.
Actually Vinod, the “left leaning” body count you cite might be a gross undercount as it is based on press reports and not on proven statistical methods. The “This American Life” episode covers that as well. The 100,000 figure in the Lancet article is based on random sampling with a joint team including Iraqis who could perform the sampling necessary for a rigorous count.
Thanks for the post, vinod.
Got a chance to check out the audio on pundit review. Respek to Neil Prakash!
I knew i was going to regret dipping my toe into dueling stats…
BUT…
The Lancet study was widely criticized and was far higher than any previous count that came before it. The most even handed critique of the study was Wikipedia which notes, among other things, that the “proven statistical methods” yielded a 90% confidence interval of between 8,000 to 200,000. An absurd range. And that’s before you get into the question of focusing on Sunni Fallujans as your sample set…. etc. etc. etc.
No, I’m making a very big distinction b/t the number and types of folks that people like Cap Prakash are trying to kill and the ones that Saddam et. al. try to kill. That distinction is the heart of the matter.
No, I’m making a very big distinction b/t the number and types of folks that people like Cap Prakash are trying to kill and the ones that Saddam et. al. try to kill.
Big and a very conspicuous difference which many sadly refuse to accept.
Certainly, a complete calculus of net lives saved/lost would need to include a lot more variables than these two. How is the war affecting life expectancy indicators in Iraq? How many lives have been lost on account of social instability or violence not directly traceable to armed hostilities themselves? How many lives will be lost on account of increased terrorism (and the cycle of responses) committed by individuals radicalized by the war, and not just in Iraq but in other parts of the world? Could the Saddam Hussein regime have been displaced from power or contained in terms of its commission of human rights violations by other means less costly in their loss of life? Could US and coalition troops, and other resources used to fight the war, have been deployed in other parts of the world where they could have saved more lives per year? &c.
And don’t forget the question of time horizon — will loss of life traceable to the war, in Iraq itself or elsewhere, increase in the future to the point where the levels are equivalent to those under Saddam Hussein?
I’m not suggesting that I have answers to any of these questions. In fact, to the extent that some of these questions require consideration of a longer time horizon, none of us do yet, and for some of the other questions the data may simply be impossible to come by. But if we’re going to assess costs and benefits of the war based on some sort of formula about lives saved or lost, let’s make sure that we are putting all costs and benefits on the table for consideration.
Yes but that confidence interval when fitted to a bell curve showed a peak at ~98,000 deaths. Is it possible there were only 8,000 killed? Statistically yes (although that is laughable). It is most probable however that the true number of dead falls near the peak of the bell curve. Also, all data from Falluja was omitted from the study precisely because the number of deaths there were anomolously high.
The study was widely criticized before anyone bothered to actually read it and you are quoting chapter and verse the false misconceptions people had of that study. Statisticians who read it and were subsequently interviewed said it was sound.
Big and a very conspicuous difference which many sadly refuse to accept.
Nobody is making a moral equivalence between the killings by the US Soldiers and Sunni jihadist suicide bombers blowing up shitte pilgrims in Najaf. The people on the right like to make up this strawman, then hop on their bulldozer of moral clarity to crush the left’s phantom moral equivocation. Game’s over! Middle America has put down its beer long enough to realize that its not a choice between the US Soldiers and Sunni jihadist who swear allegiance to Zarqawi. The US as an occupying force had the duty to provide law and order in Iraq. That is the primary duty of any occupying force under International Law and Law of Common Sense. The US failed in doing that and as a result over 100 people are dying everyday in Baghdad. Someone has to take responsibility for that. Apparently, if we bring up this inconvenient fact, we are lily-livered liberals who want to surrender to the terrorists.
What I and other would have had them do is instead of taking the midpoint b/t 8K and 200K and printing a headline about 100K dead, they should have continued to survey more than 1,000 households. Their math / methods are correct given 1K households. Their choice of only 1k households is what’s wrong and that’s reflected in the ABSURD confidence interval… something you rightly indicate is “laughable” — BUT that’s precisely what their data says!!!!
For ex., if we look at BBC’s reports (pretty unlikely that anyone will call them pro-Bush / pro-War anytime soon.. but in this clime, who knows)
When their stat is 3x what the friggin “People’s Kifah” reports, something tells me that Lancet is the outlier here.
Sigh… there’s gotta be a better use of time than arguing stats 😉
JiltedManhood -” Most FOBs who emigrated to the US now lean conservative even though back in India they leaned liberal. Interestingly in India they were relatively privileged whereas in America they had to start anew and are relatively marginalized. Most desis born in the US lean liberal and are relatively privileged.”
Marginalized FOBs – Fareed Zakaria, Indra Nooyi, Rajat Gupta, Vikram Pandit, Ravi Mattu, Mira Nair, Arshad Zakaria, Jagdish Bhagwati,Ashley Tellis, Sashi Tharoor, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…..
Btw, you couldn’t be more wrong on the “FOBs lean conservative” comment.
Jai,
Thoughtful analysis.
I think we disagree on the fundamental point . For me, anyone who signs up to defend a nation, knowing that it is dangerous, is inherently honorable. I know that it does not seem rational. I agree with you that individuals in the military, who deviate from the norm are not honorable.
I agree. Also,We can safely assume that had Saddam allowed to remain in power, either Uday or Qusay would have become the next dictator. Given their past we also can assume that the mass graves would have continued for the next few years.
Abhi – If my comment offended you, my sincere apologies.
Anna: Very well said.
Ultimately, a Soldier did and he paid the price of moving against the current, including being called a traitor by his family and friends. The guy had to move away from his town, but doesn’t regret his actions. He informed CID of what was going on. Rumsfeld blew the guy’s cover in a press conference AS HE SAT AT A MESS HALL WITH HIS UNIT watching it on TV. CID had uptil then smuggled him in and out of interviews rolled in carpet to avoid his unit suspecting the ‘traitor’ among them. The dude has balls and even though his immediate peers feel betrayed, most military people I’ve come across on the web would serve with this guy anyday. One follows orders, but even those giving them are bound by rules of conduct that are above them. Leadership is about stewardship, not being the king, queen, or boss of your unit. People don’t exist to serve you, as a leader you ensure you put your team in the best position to complete the mission and ensure their mental and physical health even after the job is done.
Back to the focus of this thread, folks, read military history books. Particularly first hand accounts wherever and whenever you can find them. Lots of analysis abound with conclusions, but reading an account of war from a troop’s own state of mind is something different. Read it all -left, right, neutral, whatever and formulate your own positions. Ain’t no one, including myself, going an expert, but we’d all be better educated and informed for it.
It has brought perspectives and thoughts that were very alien to me and significantly improved upon the sources I can draw from to atleast approach a discussion on certain subjects.
Reading is FUNdamental.
Except these same EXACT methods when used to calculate civilian death in the Congo and Rawanda were accepted and cited by many governments in the world including the U.S. Again, pointing to the confidence interval is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because the confidence interval is high DOES NOT make the data wrong IF there is an explanation for it. In this case there clearly is an explanation. The most probable number of dead STILL falls close to the peak of the bell curve.
All the other “lefty sites” you cite are again basing their numbers on those reported to the media (as far as I know). It makes perfect sense that those could be gross underestimates.
Vinod, another explanation for the higher count is that there isn’t always an easy way to separate insurgent dead from civilian dead. Say you throw out all the data for male dead assuming every single one was an insurgent. Fully half of the 100,000 count were verified as women and children. In each case the researchers asked for a death certificate and I think I remember them reporting that 80% of the people they asked were able to provide a death certificate.
hate to be trite, but 2 wrongs don’t make a right 😉 (rhyme intentional)
How about we do the “standard” statistical game of taking the output from the variety of technqiues in the series the BBC published, throwing out the high and low numbers & taking the average? That would lead to an average of ~20K? 😉
The method was not wrong then and it is not wrong now. Who’s numbers do you trust more, those of academic statisticians or those of reporters? I’d offer you the choice of military’s numbers but the military doesn’t do counts (for obvious reasons).
Producing death certificates in Iraq [due to rampant corruption] is not exactly a miracle. And, one could argue that the insurgents in Iraq have every reason to falsify the death count.
Except the houses were chosen at random and visited annanounced. This drastically reduces the possibility of such obfuscation to the point that your hypothesis would be rendered invalid. Unless you believe that the vast majority of houses in Iraq have insurgents that have the money and skills to obtain forged documents.
“No, I’m making a very big distinction b/t the number and types of folks that people like Cap Prakash are trying to kill and the ones that Saddam et. al. try to kill. That distinction is the heart of the matter.”
So the US is just killing the “bad guys”? right? When you compare the death toll under hussein and the death toll under us military occupation/invasion and proceed to say the US soldiers saved X lives, the implication is they would have died under Saddam’s rule.
For the most part, Cap Prakash is trying to kill people that for the most part wouldn’t even be there if it wasn’t for Cap Prakash’s (and my) government invading.
In that case, I stand corrected, Abhi
abhi – the Lancet’s methodology was hugely controversial and subsequent studies (including those by the UN) did not come close to the same numbers. Shannon Love of ChicagoBoyz and, tellingly I can’t remember the pro Lancet accuracy guy’s name, had a back and forth on the ChicagoBoyz blog about the study. I suggest that’s a good place to start to read about whether it’s a good study or not.
As a pathologist, I wanted to know who wrote out the death certificate…..
Here are the Lancet paper criticisms.
okay statistician types: is cluster sampling a good method for studying heterogeneous phenomena like military violence? Technically, it could be hit or miss! Er, sorry.
If you could produce a death certificate, could you get paid by the US military or any other organization? Anyone know?
The US as an occupying force had the duty to provide law and order in Iraq. That is the primary duty of any occupying force under International Law and Law of Common Sense.
There I agree with you.
HMF,
Actually, I read somewhere that non-Iraqi portion of the insurgency is around 7-8%, a really small figure and contradicting (surprise, surprise) Rumsfeld’s early position that the Syrian and Iranian borders were fluid and most of the fighters are foreign. This is largely a domestic affair. But let’s not fret about this guilty conscience bit too much guys! Afterall, this is America, and more is better, 3 pseudo-states is better than 1!
Again, complete and utter dereliction of duty. It’s appalling that there are supporters of the woeful strategy and implementation of this war, not to mention the politicization advanced by military officers such as Tommy Franks. History will judge the planning and tactics of this war harshly regardless of where one lies on ‘shoulda’ questions.
in America they had to start anew and are relatively marginalized
I had meant to say and were relatively marginalized when they came here. Of course all of us FOBs eventually live the rich and famous American Dream like Zakarias, Nooyi e.t.c
I wanted to point out in my comment #96 and earlier comment that real reporting from fallujah was done by Rahul Mahajan and Dahr Jamail I was reading their updates as the Fallujah attack was going on. Rahul (and if I am not mistaken even Dahr) were inside Fallujah and in some hospitals during the beginning of the attack. I have nothing against the people in the military. Most of them are doing an honorable job as other people do their jobs honorably. My opposition is only to the war and decision makers and in particular attacks like Fallujah attacks. I think its very cold to say US invasion is saving 55k lives. How about the 100 per day that are dying now? Thats equivalent to a 9/11 type deaths everyday (taking in account population ratio)
I guess I misjudged the actual amount, it seems most are sunni arabs, but the leadership is certainly transported, a la the Jordanian, Zarqawi. What I’m curious about is if Prakash is facing some of the crap that James Yee has faced.
Nara,
Re: post #131
No, I actually do agree with you here. I mentioned this in the scenarios summarised previously where I think fighting would be honourable; defending a nation against unwarranted attack is very much a “just” cause for warfare, as mentioned in my previous post.
The basic difference lies in whether your army is defensive or offensive (as in aggressive). In that sense, I don’t think we necessarily disagree (please correct me if I’m wrong) — some situations involve morally justifiable warfare and tactics, some do not, but simply being a soldier per se does not automatically make one’s role intrinsically honourable. I’m talking about armies (both official and “unofficial” — the latter also referring to guerilla groups, militias, indeed jihadi outfits too) internationally and throughout history.
For example, modern-day jihadis think they’re “Soldiers of the Faith”, ie. mujahideen/”holy warriors”, but in the cases of terrorist groups I’m sure you agree that there’s nothing honourable about their actions, even though they may regard themselves as soldiers too.
That’s the point I was trying to make, although of course it applies in particular to various “expansionist” militaries and imperial armies in the past as well.
Jai,
I agree with you regarding the offensive vs. defensive categorization. But most of the time, these criteria are set by the civilian leadership not neccessarily by the individual soldiers.
Also, I define my soldier more narrowly. I do not include the mujahideen as they IMO are not defending a moral cause or a nation. I agree that morality is subjective.