Truth is often the first casualty in war. While I don't trust the Bush spin on the rosy picture we get on the war, I will never trust the liberal media bias that wants above all for Bush to fail. That failure, by the way, would be EVERYONE'S failure.

The research was questionable, because it was based on English language news sources. Since the international media has been largely pro-Sunni Arab and against the removal of Saddam Hussein by force, the reporting of the war has emphasized stories that make the United States and its allies look bad. Naturally, this will exaggerate the number of civilian casualties. Reports like this only widen the gap between the reality on the ground (as reported by Iraqi media, and via email and blogs by soldiers and Iraqis), and an imaginary situation reported by foreign media.

But there seems to be some confusion here. Strategy Page seems to buy into the implication that American troops are responsible for all these deaths. Yet another source claims more accurately:

The survey, compiled from media reports, contends U.S.-led forces were responsible for more than a third of the deaths, the BBC said Tuesday. (emphasis added)

And:

The Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005 says 37 percent of all non-combatant deaths were caused by the U.S.-led coalition, most of those during the invasion.

Strategy Page is being unnecessarily defensive. It should be responding to the charge that 37% of those civilians killed were killed by American forces. I'm not saying I trust this number but Strategy Page is taking the bait. It seems to respond to the implication in the media at large that the American invasion is responsible for all these deaths. Of course that is absurd.

But the numbers have not been sufficiently tackled by Stragtegy Page. The second source quoted above only accounts for 82% of those killed since the invasion in 2003 (37% the result of the invasion, 9% the result of the insurgency, and 36% that of of criminal violence. I don't take any of these numbers as absolute but what about the remaining 18%? At the same time, Strategy Page is claiming that the number of 25,000 is itself an exaggeration but it doesn't offer any evidence to contract it in addition to not anwering the direct claim that the U.S. is responsible for 37% of that number.

Then the second source says:

. . . killings by anti-occupation and criminal elements also increased steadily over the entire two-year period, the survey reported.

Nomenclature is often dictated by bias: "anti-occupation"? Does that mean Sunnis who want Saddam back?

I find fault with both the left and right spin on these numbers. If the American-led invasion caused 37% of 25,000 deaths (or 9,250), that is indeed tragic, but the number pales by light-years the innocents killed by Allies during WWII, to name one obvious example.

Whatever the numbers are, let's remember why we fight. If we kill innocents, by accident in the fog of war, then why is it that we kill at all? Are our troops the same as, the moral equivalent of, the "anti-occupation" forces that want Saddam, or some Islamist cult, in power? Depending on what side you're on will determine the answer to that question.

No matter how tragic are civilian deaths, there is more to a righteous war than just killing.