You should consider that the overall death rate in post-Saddam Iraq will be much lower than the current death rate, which makes the current civilian casualties worth while. Even many Iraqis support this calculus.

For the record, I'm anti-Republican and very anti-Bush, but I am marginally pro-war.

-Chris (also from Atlanta and also a former resident of Home Park)

I'm not sure that this will be the case. I don't believe that our occupation of Iraq will be accepted passively with no resistance, perhaps even terrorist resistance, possibly even terrorist response by Iraqis outside of Iraq. Further, I have seen speculation that after years of repression there will be many reprisal attacks against the former oppressors, even if the USA grants clemency. Beyond that, the destruction of the infrastructure could lead to many deaths until it can be repaired.

A lot also depends on who is left in charge. If we withdraw quickly (as Bush is wont to do, see Afghanistan) then a new brutal dictator could arise. If we stay to enforce the peace (and democracy? Yeah, right, imposed democracy) then our colonial governor should be less brutal, but there might be other deaths depending on how peacefully order can be maintained.

I've heard that Saddam has killed 150,000 people in 10 years with another 850,000 deaths due to sanctions (compared to total deaths? Or are all deaths during the last 10 years attributed to Saddam or sanctions?). The 85,000/year deaths due to sanctions could have been allieviated by removing sanctions. How many thousands will be killed in the war? Depending on the strength of the resistance (and current reports indicate that the Iraqi army is resisting more as the invading force approaches the capital) and the strength of the attack it could be many thousands, especially if you count people who die from thirst, hunger, disease, etc. while the chaos of street warfare engulfs Bagdad and relief efforts are unable to reach those who need help.

Thank you for your post. I've checked out your blog and found the Atlanta web ring of which I was unaware. I'll check that out.

It's true that another murderous dictator may take over, but what I meant was that the probability that a peaceful state will develop (regardless of whether democracy is installed) is greater than 50%. The situation in Afghanistan is disappointing but it is relatively peaceful there.

Peaceful? (hmmm, I seem to have disabled links in my comments, try http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=CC0FCD30-B776-4A07-A9FC346624695BCE) Of course, some of this increased violence in Afghanistan is due to resentment over the war with Iraq, but doesn't that just provide another reason why we shouldn't have invaded in the first place?

I don't have any confidence in this administration's ability to create a good governmental structure in Iraq. I expect to see a system where Haliburton and other Republican friends will have lots of influence and the best interests of the Iraqi people will only be a secondary consideration.

While I was adamently opposed to the war before it started (and still believe that it was unnecessary, illegal, and a bad idea all around), now that it has started I'm not sure what the best thing to do would be. I have an image of someone reaching into a hornet's nest in order to get something and then being unable to decide whether it is better to leave their hand inside the nest where it is getting stung or withdraw the hand which will unblock the opening allowing the hornets to attack other areas than just the hand. Having made a bad decision, there are no good choices for backing away even though it might not be good to stay. I just wish we had an administration that could look beyond their own selfish interests (OK, I admit they also consider their friends' interests, even if they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else's) when making decisions which affect so many people.