ANTIWAR DEFLATION: A “study” by a group of “medical experts” reported in the New Scientist reports that an Iraq war could produce 500,000 casualties, mostly civilians.

This is progress. Before the Afghan war the usual suspects were claiming that millions would die. Now they’ve trimmed their hyperbole to a mere half-million. Another five or ten wars and maybe their estimates will start to approach reality.

I wonder, though. After reading a piece in The New Yorker (not on line) about German civilian casualties in World War Two, and then this post by Jim Henley on not going far enough in the Afghan war, it occurs to me that trying so hard to prevent civilian casualties might be a mistake. I’m all for minimizing civilian casualties to the extent possible, consistent with winning the war. But if people are beaten so bloodlessly that they don’t feel beaten, and have no real reason to dread a confrontation with the United States, is this really a good thing?

UPDATE: N.Z. Bear says I’m wrong. But my point isn’t that civilian casualties are inherently good, but that we shouldn’t let fear of civilian casualties cause us to lose the war. And I think that’s something we’re at risk for.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader writes:

As it stands right right now we are not out to defeat the Iraqi people, just their dictator. If, after he is removed, they elect another threat to the US then it will be necessary to defeat the Iraqi people. We don’t usually hold the people responsible for their tyrant’s behavior. If they start to become like the people of Palestine, supportive of terrorism, then they would definitely need to feel defeated.

Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say, more or less. Though we held the Germans responsible for Hitler, and wreaked far, far worse damage on them than anything the Iraqis are likely to experience.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Donald Sensing has a long and thoughtful post in response to my thoughts above.