It has occurred to me in recent days that the U.S. should make compensation payments of some sort to the families and/or survivors of civilian dead in the war in Iraq. The numbers themselves attest to the unprecedented attention paid by coalition troops to minimizing civilian deaths, but those thousand or so innocent people are still just as dead.
In fact, the numbers (variously estimated to be between 1000 and 1500) make it realistic and economically quite manageable to make significant payments for each civilian death. Gregg Easterbrook of TNR makes the case in his latest Best Laid Plans column, and compares the cost to that of our bombs. An excerpt:
Considering the cost-no-object ordnance showered on Iraq, it would be an outrage if we didn't pay at least a relatively small amount for those wrongly killed. If 1,300 is the number, the United States could even pay $100,000 per death for a total expense of less than one night's bombing during the campaign. In addition to being the right thing to do, think of the effect such payments might have on Arab public opinion--communicating that we really do care about typical Iraqis, and that, unlike Arab governments, which kill without compunction, we really do grieve over our errors.
Easterbrook is consistently good, so read it all. And while I'm at it, it seems to me The New Republic has been a consistent, principled, and rational voice for American liberalism during this war. I would like to think that they better represent the views of mainstream Democrats in the U.S. than do the more "visible" Hollywood types. Based on GWB's most recent approval rating of 73%, I suspect they do.
Posted by dan at April 16, 2003 01:13 AMI agree with this idea we should compensate the families of the wrongfully killed in Iraq. This could bring about positives and negatives. One positive that comes to mind is that using some simple accounting, we can come up with a reasonable estimate of how many civilians we actually killed as opposed to what the Iraqi Information Minister says.
On the negative side, I'd venture to guess that those who have lost loved ones may not be the peace loving Iraqi's they once were. We could very well finance terrorism on ourselves. My guess... it'll never happen. We have "given" American blood, resources, and time in the name of our own freedom as well Iraq. Everyone benefits including those who lost a family member in this war.
Posted by: steve yurick at April 16, 2003 04:41 PMWhy in the world would the US do this? Exactly what would this accomplish?
What reason could you have for thinking we "should" do this? You feel bad that people were killed in a war, so we should throw some quick cash at them? That'll make them happy and love democracy and America?
Yes, there were valiant steps taken to avoid civilian casualities, but they couldn't be completely avoided. Their family members in Iraq are sad. We feel bad that it happened. Move on.
Posted by: alw9 at April 18, 2003 02:09 AMOne reason for thinking that we should do this is to reinforce the (true) notion that the motive for our action was honorable and morally sound. We don't make war because we like it, or because we need a proving ground for our new weapons. We did it to depose a dangerous, brutal dictator, and we regret that innocent Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the process. Paying reparations just demonstrates our regret in deeds, instead of just words. If we are to ever win "hearts and minds" in the Arab world, we have to start somewhere. By the way, I read today that some U.S. official has indicated that we are not planning to do any such thing.
Posted by: dan at April 18, 2003 03:18 PM