Yesterday, The Lancet (a British medical journal) published the results of a study conducted by Johns Hopkins University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, entitled “The Human Costs of War in Iraq”. Of course, today the GOP is saying that's its all political maneuvering...but let's assume truth--it's likely correct, which is what's causing all the fuss...

Ok. All right, already. I’ve had enough. This warmonger culture must stop. Soon.

Today, The Lancet (a British medical journal) published the results of a study conducted by Johns Hopkins University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, entitled “The Human Costs of War in Iraq”. It estimates, fairly accurately, that about 655,000 Iraqis have died from war related reasons, over a 40-month period (from March 2003 through July 2006). This number is over and above the number of deaths that would have ordinarily occurred in Iraq, sans war. The report provides some interesting statistics, namely:

· The 655,000 represents 2.5% of Iraq’s total population.
· Most of the deaths have occurred for Iraqi males, aged 18 to 44.
· Civilian deaths are estimated to be 53,000.
· Coalition forces are believed to be responsible for 31% (or 203,000) of the total deaths.

We all know that statistics are of little significance without numbers to compare them to. So…let’s compare.

The report also notes that:

· 200,000 have died in Darfar, Sudan due to war related activities in the past 31 months.
· 3 million civilians died during the Vietnam conflict.
· 3.8 million have died in unrest in The Congo.
· 25% (or 200,000) of the population in East Timor was lost due to war related causes.

Finally, the report indicates, “The number of persons dying in Iraq has continued to escalate with each year...Gunfire remains the most common reason for death, though deaths from car bombings have increased from 2005. Deaths from non-violent causes have increased for 2005 and 2006 suggesting a trend in deaths due to deterioration in health services and the environment health threats, as well as decreasing access to health services.”

Well! The old adage ‘war is hell’ seems inadequate. At least in hell, you live.

In any case, one thing is clear. War, since the late 20th century, has accounted for the deaths of at least 8 million people worldwide. And that number is pitifully low, since it only represents the wars that were given in this study. The conflicts in Bosnia, Panama, and Nicaragua, for example, are not included.

So what, you say? More people died in Vietnam than Iraq, so we’re getting better at war.

Maybe.

And, you say, we had to stop Saddam because we thought he had chemical weapons.

True.

So, this is not as bad as it looks, you conclude.

Well…not quite.

Our world thrives on trade. We have passed the day when we can create our own “Tranquil Haven”, wherein we grow our own food, make our own clothes, and leave the battles of the world to others to solve. The Kuwait engagement showed us that war is no longer a case of one nation against another. Now, it’s a majority of countries in the world against one or, as in the case of terrorists, a few.

And, why is that a big deal?

Well, let’s go back to your school days. What was the most frequent cause of fights among students? I’ll bet it was poor communication. He said, she said, they said, she did, he did, etc. And probably, only a small fraction of the gossip was true . Still, after a certain point it didn’t matter. There was going to be a fight--pride was at stake.

We first fought with our fists. Then, we learned that more damage could be done with knives, rocks, wood or cut glass. Next, we realized that if the same group stayed together, they could always protect themselves from ‘bullies’. Thus, the modern day gang began.

The gangs realized that they could profit from their strength by using intimidation, leading to all types of criminal behavior. At that point, the simple fight between adolescents became a mini-war, full of ammunition...and dead bodies.

My argument is this…there are too many places in the world still operating with poor communication. Conflicts are being fought over grudges that are centuries old—so old, in fact, that the current warriors don’t even know what the beef is about. However, when nations are involved, we call it war. Other countries join a gang/coalition when their national interests are threatened.

And therein lies the rub. I can’t think of any conflict currently going on that doesn’t affect our national interests. For example, we now know that a bomb dropped in the Sudan could subsequently cause a blistering cold winter in the U.S. Midwest, or a summer drought. In addition, what happens to the average folks caught in a war-torn country? They immigrate. And they need social services, health care, etc., until they can find a job and rebuild their lives.

Want more examples of war’s affect on all of us? Ok. In almost all conflicts, men aged 18-35 have the highest casualty rates. Well, with say 10% of the eligible bachelors dead, who do 18-35 year old women in that country marry and have children with? Believe it or not, studies have proven that competition for a spouse increases worldwide when the pool of men globally decreases! And, there’s an increase in the instances of women giving birth to children fathered by multiple men, indicating that mate-sharing might be going on.

Get the picture?

The truth is that most of us see the changes caused by war, but just don’t realize it. For example, 35-50 year olds in the U.S. may notice that the workplace has become more competitive due to the infusion of immigrants into their professions. And, that their children are interracially (and interculturally) dating more. But they may not realize that the reason for this is the instability in the other regions of the world.

By the same token, the 51-70 year olds in a developed country may find it difficult to maintain their retirement nest egg, and begin to search for investments that will preserve capital while generating income. But they note that worldwide volatility in the market makes it difficult to manage their own investments, and take more risks. So, they keep much of their money in lower yield, lower risk investments, and opt to save more money. Yes, Virginia, war affects the stock market, particularly when oil or natural gas is involved.

Of course I realize that these are generalizations. But, I think I’ve made my point. War impacts all of us in some way. And that’s the best argument for why it has to stop. I don’t want my life ruined by some gang on the other side of the globe that has decided that it wants power, prestige, land, or...WHATEVER.

Do you?

Think of it this way—war disrupts trade routes. So, your company’s business could decline due to prolonged war. That means you could see smaller raises, find that the goods you purchase are more expensive, or worse yet, lose your job.

Peace and political stability promote economic prosperity. That means that you don’t have to wait until you get onto Wheel of Fortune to get the car of your dreams.

Now, how much do you want peace?

See you at the top!

Wendi