Legal Commentary

The question is particularly poignant today, because the politics surrounding withdrawal of troops from Iraq require one to identify the ideal ratio of U.S. citizens? deaths averted to foreigners? deaths averted. Sadly, no one wants to ask this question candidly.

Take withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. There seems to be a widespread consensus would result in increased mortality of Iraqis. No one can accurately determine how many more people would die in the wake of U.S. withdrawal from increased ethnic cleansing, deterioration of health and sanitation services, or even starvation. But does even the most avid proponent of immediate U.S. withdrawal deny that the death rate would worsen after the departure of U.S. troops, with resulting excess deaths? To deny this truism would be to pay an extraordinary compliment to the Bush Administration, by accepting their claims that Iraq is making progress towards stability ? something that, I assume the MoveOn.org crowd would be reluctant to concede.

But let us be as optimistic as possible and assume that the effects of such a departure would be minimal ? say, a mere 5% increase in Iraqi deaths from the intensification of ethnic cleansing, increased flow of refugees, breakdown of the health and sanitation system, etc. (I realize that a 5% estimate seems ridiculously low, but I am trying to be conservative in my guesses to appeal to the proponents of immediate withdrawal).

How many extra Iraqi deaths would a 5% increase entail? It depends, of course, on the base. Estimating the current excess mortality in Iraq as a result of the current civil war is obviously controversial. But, again, let us assume high figures, in order to win maximum agreement about the costs of our departure from the proponents of immediate withdrawal (who presumably think that the war is going very badly). One of the highest estimates comes from the 2006 Lancet Study , which estimated 655,000 excess deaths between 2003 and 2006, or roughly 220,000 excess deaths per year. The Iraqi Ministry of Health's rival study offers the lower estimate of 150,000 deaths over three years, or roughly 50,000 per year.

Let?s split the difference and say that an average of 135,000 Iraqis have been dying annually as a result of the invasion and ensuing civil disorder. A 5% increase in deaths would, therefore, constitute about 6,750 extra dead Iraqis. The United States has taken 4,000 mortal casualties over five years, or 800 U.S. deaths per year. This figure does not count civilian contractors, so let?s add a fudge factor of 25%, making the annual U.S. death toll of 1,000 per year.

It seems to me, therefore, that a supporter of immediate withdrawal would have to believe that one saved American life is worth at least six extra Iraqi deaths. (My guess is that an intellectually honest assessment of the costs of withdrawal would be much higher ? more along the lines of 10:1 or 20:1 -- but, again I am trying to make my numbers as uncontroversial as possible).

Is there any way to defend the notion that an American?s life is six times as valuable as an Iraqi?s? if so, can such a defense offer a persuasive account of the proper ratio of value of foreign-to-American-lives that ought to guide U.S. policymakers? I?m assuming there is some limit to the greater weight that we accord to American deaths ? that even the most adamant fan of MoveOn.org would agree that continued U.S. casualties would be worthwhile to avert, say, a Rwanda-style genocide. But what is that limit? That is, how many Iraqis? lives are equal in worth to a single American?s ? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000?

Just curious.