Democracy for Vancouver

Thanks Mike and Mike for helping to inform our community about the Iraq mess and its misrepresentation in the mainstream media.

Militarism protested

The Feb. 25 AP story “War poll” reported that Americans grossly underestimate the number of Iraqis killed since our 2003 invasion. The story alluded to, but failed to mention specifically, the only scientific study of casualties in Iraq. The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, published it in Oct. 2006. The world’s most experienced scientists on doing casualty surveys in active wars conducted the study.

They estimate, as of July 2006, 655,000 deaths in Iraq in excess of the death rate before the invasion. That is 2.5 percent of the population. An equal percentage of the U.S. population would be 7.5 million. Of the Iraq deaths, 600,000 were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire. Among children, 54,000 died of violence. Airstrikes killed half of these children. The insurgents don’t do airstrikes.

Additionally, 2 million Iraqis are now refugees in other countries and about 1.7 million more are internally displaced (UNHCR.org). The numbers of deaths and refugees in Iraq dwarf those in the terrible conflict in Darfur. All these numbers sear my conscience every day and explain why I had to stand in protest of my nation’s militarism during the recent Gen. Peter Pace’s Marshall lecture.

Mike Ellison

Vancouver

Defining support varies

Matt Lynn’s definition of support for our troops, which in a Feb. 21 letter, “No longer united,” he equates solely with unconditional and unwavering support of an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation, is exceedingly narrow. I submit that expression of support for our troops is a far more subjective endeavor and is largely a function of support for the manner in which our troops are deployed.

Setting aside a fact that which Lynn may choose to ignore, Americans are as united against this war now as it was united for it four years ago, how does support for a failed policy support our troops? How does support for a plan to send even more improperly trained and equipped military personnel into a civil war support our troops? How does denial of recovery time between extended tours of duty support our troops? How does support of an escalation plan which is opposed by a majority of military and intelligence experts support our troops? How does refusal to our leaders accountable for this debacle support our troops? How does vast underfunding of the VA support our troops?

A bumper sticker is neither necessary nor sufficient for showing support for our troops. There are many ways to express support for our troops, irrespective of support for Bush’s Iraq policy.

Michael Turnauer
VANCOUVER