Known Unknowns

Ann Althouse:

The number of Americans who have died in the Iraq war...

... has now surpassed the number who died in the 9/11 attacks.

ADDED: A key question -- with an unknowable answer -- is: How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?

Leaving aside the curious "path of fighting back" construction (against whom were we "fighting back" in Iraq), we can probably estimate the "unknowable answer" here by projecting forward based on the total number of Americans killed in Iraq-sponsored terrorist attacks from 1991-2002: Zero. To be generous, a handful of American soldiers might have died trying to enforce the no-fly zones had there been no invasion.

Via Scott Lemieux.

Comments

It is sad beyond imagination that the answer "zero" is not a point of universal consensus.

Posted by Steve | December 26, 2006 4:30 PM

It doesn't matter if you think the answer is zero. This is exactly the same as the Padilla-blinking thing from a few weeks ago. Since the outcome of this unexplored branch of history is not knowable, it's arrogant for you liberal hippies to say it's zero. This unknowable truth must therefore lie in the nonpartisan ground beyond the liberal world where it's zero and the conservative world where NYC was wiped out by a nuclear-tipped Scud.

Posted by neil | December 26, 2006 4:38 PM

we can probably estimate the "unknowable answer" here by projecting forward based on the total number of Americans killed in Iraq-sponsored terrorist attacks from 1991-2002

Just like we could have on 9/10/01 estimated the number of Americans to be killed by al Qaeda over the period 9/11/01 to now by projecting forward from the number killed in the period from, say, 9/11/91 to 9/10/01, right?

Hey, we can also estimate the damage from anthropogenic global warming over the next 100 years by projecting forward the damage over the past 100 years!

Posted by Al | December 26, 2006 4:40 PM

I should have known better than to follow the link, as its leads to a WWII-Iraq feedback loop in the comments that is utterly resistant to logic. Or history. Or just facts in general.

Posted by Matthew C | December 26, 2006 4:42 PM

About 2.5 years ago I predicted that the country would turn against the war when this grim milestone was passed. I'm glad the country changed its mind sooner, but sad that the death toll of Iraq did, in fact, pass that of 9/11. I still think the media fallout of the milestone is going to be significant. Bush is lucky it happened in what is probably the quietest media week of the year and when Congress is out of session.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | December 26, 2006 4:54 PM

Just like we could have on 9/10/01 estimated the number of Americans to be killed by al Qaeda over the period 9/11/01 to now by projecting forward from the number killed in the period from, say, 9/11/91 to 9/10/01, right?

Al Qaeda had killed hundreds of Americans by then, dumbass.

Posted by Chad Okere | December 26, 2006 5:05 PM

Mother of God . . . the real "unknowable" question is (in classic Althouse syntactically-stunted style): How many future terrorist attacks would we have avoided had we not chosen the path of needlessly inflaming an entire region in a major distraction from actual national security threats?

Posted by AJ in DC | December 26, 2006 5:09 PM

As I asked at the Queen of The Silly's site, how many American lives could have been saved if only we had sent the Pope to the moon?

They're logically equivalent questions, and I would argue that fewer lives would have been lost on a Pope-moonshot.

Posted by fishbane | December 26, 2006 5:11 PM

Al Qaeda had killed hundreds of Americans by then, dumbass

Um, no.

Posted by Al | December 26, 2006 5:16 PM

You may be thinking of Hezbollah - until 9/11, they held the record for most Americans killed by a single terrorist group - and they racked up most of their kills in a single barracks bombing in Lebanon.

Yes, of course the unknowable is "how many Americans would otherwise have been killed, etc." The unproven presumption being that not fighting back would have led Al Qaeda to press their advantage and engage in additional attacks on American soil, and that taking the fight to the Middle East forestalled that. That's the problem with Reality - there is no way to go down a different branch and see the might-have-beens.

Posted by Russ | December 26, 2006 5:34 PM

Um, no.

Probably right about one hundred.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 26, 2006 5:41 PM

I don't think it's possible to commit terrorism against soldiers in barracks.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 26, 2006 5:44 PM

al-Qaeda attacks were growing progressively bolder in objectives, regardless of the initial body counts. Extrapolating from that past behavior would reveal much, while focusing on Iraq's attacks on Americans would not suggest a major threat (almost none actually).

Also, there were foiled al-Qaeda plans such as the Millenium Plot, and others in the Middle East, that would have resulted in more US casualties had they not been disrupted.

The Cole and Khobar bombings were al-Qaeda led (or supported) attacks that resulted in American deaths even if not considered "terrorist" attacks because of the military targets. Thus, they are relevant to respond to Al.

Counting those two incidents, you could safely attribute around 55 American deaths to al-Qaeda between 1995-2000.

For the record, non-American deaths would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 250.

Posted by Eric Martin | December 26, 2006 5:55 PM

Also add WTC1 attack and the embassy bombings (that may on it's own rack up more than 350 non-american fatalities).

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 26, 2006 5:57 PM

By my count, the embassy bombings resulted in 257 dead total, 12 being Americans. That was part of my tally. Cole was 17 Americans. Khobar 19 Americans, 1 non. Riyadh, 5 Americans, 2 non.

I left out WTC I because I don't think you could attribute that to al-Qaeda per se, but certainly it was a proto-version of Saudi/Egyptian radicals with some of those parties eventually migrating to al-Qaeda upon its formation/merger with certain Egyptian groups.

Posted by Eric Martin | December 26, 2006 6:04 PM

I guess in Al's head, "we'll just never know" how many Iraq-sponsored terrorist attacks there might have been if we had left Saddam's regime in power.

But it still blows my mind to see people argue that, somehow, the war in Iraq has stopped al-Qaeda from perpetrating attacks on American soil. Somehow, we've distracted them all into Iraq, where they can fight heavily armed American soldiers instead of defenseless civilians!

Posted by Steve | December 26, 2006 6:13 PM

Hmm, there were 6 Americans killed in WTCI. 12 Americans were killed in the embassy bombings. 17 Americans were killed aboard the Cole. Khobar Towers was a Iran/Hezbollah operation; there is hardly any evidence al Qaeda was involved at all. Perhaps there were a few other American deaths here or there; I doubt it totals to 50.

Also, Eric Martin is wrong, I think, when he writes that al Qaeda's objectives were "growing progressively bolder in objectives". After all, the target of the very first major al Qaeda plot against the US - the World Trade Center - was the same target as that on 9/11. Follow-ups to the WTCI plot in 1993 included plans to blow up the UN building. The second major al Qaeda plot - Bojinka - was virtually the same as the Millenium plot.

Posted by Al | December 26, 2006 6:21 PM

Khobar Towers was a Iran/Hezbollah operation; there is hardly any evidence al Qaeda was involved at alll

You are high. Who told you that?

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 26, 2006 6:24 PM

You are high. Who told you that?

Everybody.

The 9/11 Commission said that al Qaeda may have given Iran some unidentified logistical help, but they didn't provide any evidence to suppoprt that.

Posted by Al | December 26, 2006 6:37 PM

Matt's reference to Iraq-sponsored terrorist attacks from 1991-2002 does not take into account the fact that a (relatively small) number of those killing us in Iraq are foreign fighters. Many of these, it seems fair to note, contra the president's assertions, would not have been terrorists had we not chosen to invade and occupy Iraq, but were radicalized by that very decision.

But a small number would have been terrorists anyway -- i.e. those al Qaeda members who active in the organization prior to the war. It's hardly inconceivable to assume that had they not become engaged in the Iraq war, in which, after all, they could foresee having an important political and military impact (which they have indeed done, especially if they were responsible for the Samarra bombing this past February, as they seem to have been), they might have been motivated to attack the US mainland itself, or else our embassies or airliners. Perpetrating such attacks is, after all, largely what al Qaeda's very purpose has been (fighting the far enemy). Steve in comments above and liberals in general should acknowledge as much.

On the other hand, al Qaeda probably would not have killed as many Americans in such attempts as have died in Iraq, given increased airline security, intelligence operations, and stepped-up visa restrictions (as contrasted with the foreign-language, foreign-culture fog-of-war dynamic manifest on the ground in Iraq), leaving Althouse's post of academic rather than policy significance, and possessed of a misleading and disingenuous implication. Because something is unknowable, it need not be imponderable. The contrary attitude -- the one-percent doctrine -- has not served our intelligence analysis or our foreign policy or our military readiness well.

Posted by mdo | December 26, 2006 6:54 PM

It's been said before but still holds. The historical implications of 9/11, Iraq and Terrorism (and however one mixes these terms) have been grossly exaggerated. There were far, far greater existential dangers to different peoples and countries in the past.

The above discussion lists deaths in the dozens, hunderd and thousands. For historical comparison - here are total deaths in other wars (low end estimates from wikipedia). (And no bogus caveats about how every life matters - of course they do, there were just more of those lives in earlier times).

WWII - 62 million
WWI - at least 15 million
Second Congo War 3.8 million
Korean War - 2.5 million
Khmer Rouge - 1.7 million
Iran-Iraq War - 1 million
Liberia Civil War (where I just returned from) 220,000 of total population of 3million

Spanish Flu 25million
HIV/AIDS 15million

Um, and we're still talking in the hundreds and thousands in the "Global War on Terror" +/- Iraq, right?

Posted by Adi | December 26, 2006 7:10 PM

Steve in comments above and liberals in general should acknowledge as much.

It seems quite unlikely to me that a given terrorist would choose to go to Iraq in order to blow up civilians, or take pot shots at an American soldier, as opposed to engaging in a high-profile attack on an American embassy or some target on American soil. And, indeed, if we truly tricked the terrorists thus by invading Iraq, we could have accomplished the exact same "objective" by staying in Afghanistan and finishing the job there.

But let's assume there's a 1% chance that some of the foreign fighters in Iraq would have successfully carried out the next 9/11 if we hadn't invaded. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis must die or be forced to flee their country so that we can avoid that 1% chance?

It's indicative of a certain moral emptiness to support a war on such speculative grounds and then try to justify it after the fact by saying "gosh, who knows what bad things might have happened otherwise?"

Posted by Steve | December 26, 2006 7:13 PM

You're awfully nonchalant about the deaths of human beings, Al. Are you volunteering?

Posted by Shab al-Sham | December 26, 2006 7:22 PM

We don't need to guess if another path would have had a different outcome, we have one before us: Clinton's legacy.

The US was attacked at the beginning of the first term of Clinton and Bush. Of course Bush had more intelligence to go on than Clinton (had he chosen not to ignore it). The results so far:

A few dozen dead under Clinton, more than 6 thousand dead under Bush.

And Al, you do admit that if Chamberlain hadn't appeased Hitler, but attacked instead, that a weakened Germany may have decided not to attack Russia, and Europe would now be divided between the Commies and the Nazis, right? No? I'm shocked.

Posted by epistemology | December 26, 2006 7:47 PM

Althouse knows every moronic screed she writes will be echoed across the blog world...mini-Coulter is no dummy.

Posted by alphie | December 26, 2006 8:03 PM

There is no evidence put forward that ever linked Iran with Khobar. Not "everyone" believes that, Louis Freeh believes that (and that's enough reason to have doubts right there) and if he has evidence he's never produced it.

Saudi Arabia said that and we either believed or pretended to believe that. Saudi Arabia blaming Iranian agents rather than internal dissidents is just rain on a Sunday morning.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 26, 2006 8:13 PM

Al,

Interesting that you attribute WTCI to al-Qaeda when most don't consider Ramzi Yousef to have been an actual al-Qaeda member - nor was the attack guided or funded by al-Qaeda.

Yet you throw out the Khobar atttack because according to your belief (not universally held), there was ONLY logistical support from al-Qaeda. This may be true. But even then, interesting standard there Al.

Posted by Eric Martin | December 26, 2006 8:51 PM

Since most people still think the invasion of Afghanistan was a good idea, the relevant comparison is the time in between the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to the time after the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 26, 2006 9:20 PM

Speaking of projections: How many Presidents of the U.S. have been hanged for the crime of being a genocidal sociopath? None? Damn, I guess that trend line favors Bush. Can we start a new trend? Soon please?

Posted by steve duncan | December 26, 2006 9:41 PM

mini-Coulter is no dummy

If she's not dumb, she's damn good at staying in character.

Posted by djw | December 26, 2006 9:44 PM

I'm concerned about the possibility that we've all been baselessly assuming that the trend in # per captia of US citizens eaten by lizard aliens is going to remain as static as it's historically been.

Posted by NBarnes | December 26, 2006 9:44 PM

The term terrorism is getting to mean nothing anyway. I just heard it used about a Somali bombing of a town. That is, it was an official military action. If terrorism means any action against civilians, even that committed by an official military action, then Hitler bombing Britain during the Blitz, or for that matter the US bombing Berlin. Or maybe it's only terrorism when we don't like it?

Terrorism is a tactic, not a war. And there's little chance it can be used to kill as many Americans as that war did in the 1940s. We're acting like scared chickens. I am appalled and yet amused at all these supposed tough guys who say that we're under greater threat than the Axis powers posed. Balderdash. Just because Bush can't figure out a way to deal with terrorism doesn't mean it can't be dealt with. He couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag.

Posted by paycheck | December 26, 2006 10:58 PM

Steve,
You don't seem to understand that I oppose the war, and largely for the reasons you cite. But I do admit that there are terrorists fighting us there. The National Intelligence Council (Jan. 2005) and the CIA (this past autumn, I believe) have said terrorists are using our occupation as a training camp for their education in insurgency tactics. This circumstance is another of the reasons I oppose the war -- it's harming our national security.

Posted by mdo | December 26, 2006 11:03 PM

Interesting that you attribute WTCI to al-Qaeda when most don't consider Ramzi Yousef to have been an actual al-Qaeda member - nor was the attack guided or funded by al-Qaeda.

As the 9/11 Commission states, bin Laden was just one of many Islamist militants in a network in those days - al Qaeda wasn't the overarching group it was later. But the 9/11 Commission also points out that it would be misleading to ignore the many connections between bin Laden and people like Ramzi Yousef and his uncle Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And KSM funded the WTCI attack in part. So, yeah, that's close enough for me.

OTOH, there is virtually no evidence that AQ was involved in Khobar towers. I certainly do NOT believe that AQ provided logistical support for Khobar - the 9/11 Commission says only that thre are "some signs" (that AQ played "some role" - an unknown role. The 9/11 Commission says that evidence of Iranian involvement is strong. (The staff of the commission says that the Khobar operation was carried out principally if not exclusively by Saudi Hizbollah, which was financed by the government of Iran. And that it is unclear whther bin Laden played any supporting role.)

Posted by Al | December 26, 2006 11:07 PM

You don't seem to understand that I oppose the war, and largely for the reasons you cite. But I do admit that there are terrorists fighting us there.

What makes you think I don't understand that? And of course there are terrorists from outside Iraq fighting us in Iraq. That doesn't stop me from labelling as baseless the assertion that if we hadn't cleverly lured them into Iraq, they might be blowing up the Empire State Building today.

Posted by Steve | December 26, 2006 11:09 PM

ahh, but would there have been a 9/11 if the US hadn't armed the mujahadeen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and enabled al Qaeda to attack us?

Posted by della Rovere | December 26, 2006 11:23 PM

Well, we can make a forward-looking prediction of the number of non-NBA-related comments in which Al will not be an utter tool, based upon his past performance. Really, he was much better before he died.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 26, 2006 11:45 PM

The 9/11 Commission says that evidence of Iranian involvement is strong.

What they said was Iran may have played a "as yet unknown" role. They don't know anything that the Saudis didn't tell them.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 27, 2006 12:02 AM

Althouse was so crazy on her latest bloggingheads.tv appearance with Jonah Goldberg.

Posted by Mike | December 27, 2006 12:09 AM

Shorter Al: If countries are a security threat, we must invade. If there is no evidence whatsoever that countries are a security threat, we must invade, since history provides no guidance to evaluate a country's future actions.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | December 27, 2006 12:22 AM

Steve,
I misunderstood; apologies. But let me ask a question that may clarify where any disagreement lies: What do you suppose the preexisting al Qaeda operatives would have been doing had we not invaded? To be sure, some would have focused their attentions on regional battles and plots. But it seems to me likely that some number would have again sought to target the United States for the same reasons the nineteen others had done. What do you think?

Posted by mdo | December 27, 2006 12:36 AM

What do you suppose the preexisting al Qaeda operatives would have been doing had we not invaded?

Like I said earlier, they probably would have been fighting us in Afghanistan. Once we successfully wrapped up things in Afghanistan, I would have favored taking the fight to al-Qaeda in places where they were, as opposed to places like Iraq where they weren't. So presumably that's what would have kept them busy.

Folks like Zarqawi who weren't part of al-Qaeda prior to the invasion of Iraq probably would have been pursuing their terrorist ambitions in Jordan and elsewhere.

I'd note that al-Qaeda had lots of members for all those years prior to 9/11, and yet we didn't see attack after attack after attack on the homeland.

Posted by Steve | December 27, 2006 1:16 AM

Zarqawi was kinda sorta part of al-Qaeda before the invasion, but more as a punk kid with a gun and hatred for Saddam. He was a nobody. He only became a somebody with the invasion. After that, Zawahiri (sp?) and bin Laden started chiding him for being reckless and asking people to donate to their al-Qaeda - the real al-Qaeda - and not to Zarqawi. It was the evil version of those Frenchman in Vichy France who only opposed the regime in their hearts while doing nothing, but after the war would talk of their connections to the Underground.

Posted by Reality Man | December 27, 2006 3:42 AM

This line of thinking is bizarre and I wonder why it continues to this day. It's like every right winger just up and forgot about Afghanistan. We DID push back, we DID take the fight to the enemy, we DID change our policy to be pro-active instead of keeping our heads in the sand, and then...we went into Iraq.

The idea that it's Iraq or bust is dangerously wrong-headed.

There's all this chest thumping and fingering waving about how some people don't want to fight the terrorists, ect, ect, but it completely ignores our country's united front against Bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan.

People seem obsessed with trying to create the notion that there's a line in this country, with people who want to fight terrorists on one side, and weak-kneed pussies who don't understand the threat on the other side. But as our (very recent) history shows, it's just not the case.

Posted by John | December 27, 2006 6:02 AM

"People seem obsessed with trying to create the notion that there's a line in this country, with people who want to fight terrorists on one side, and weak-kneed pussies who don't understand the threat on the other side. But as our (very recent) history shows, it's just not the case."

No, you're wrong. There IS a line between those in this country who want to fight terrorism and the weak-kneed pussies who don't understand the threat. It's just that our projectionist freinds on the right are wrong about where the line is drawn--the weak-kneed pussies are the ones who wanted to fight Iraq rther than the terrorists, because they believed that Iraq would be easier, and play better on TV.

Posted by rea | December 27, 2006 7:02 AM

The obvious riposte is, how many Americans are going to die in terrorist attacks that would not have happened if the U.S. didn't decide to embed itself in unending war in the Middle East?

Posted by neil | December 27, 2006 7:13 AM

I posted something similar at Delong's place. Does nobody find it odd that we are talking exclusively American deaths when we are talking about a war in a foreign country?

There are other deaths involved here right?

Posted by theCoach | December 27, 2006 9:07 AM

No, Scott, I would say:

Shorter Al: "Annihilate the moon!"

Posted by JP | December 27, 2006 2:35 PM

This thread is a perfect example of just how ignorant the American public is about al Qaeda and terrorism.

You people are simply ignorant.

Of course, coming from MY's blog, I wouldn't expect anything else.

Posted by Ignorance is not bliss | December 27, 2006 2:49 PM

ahhhhh....now I see. I was confused, but after reading 'Ignorance is not bliss's post, everything is clear.

Posted by theCoach | December 27, 2006 2:56 PM

ahhhhh....now I see. I was confused, but after reading 'Ignorance is not bliss's post, everything is clear.

You know I had the exact same reaction. With incisive logic like that how can we doubt the soundness of invading Iraq? On to Iran!

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 28, 2006 12:56 AM