'I lead an organisation which seeks to ensure every person killed in armed conflict is identified, recorded, and acknowledged.' Photo: by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Casualties of war: Rachel Taylor counts the cost
‘I find this debate deeply frustrating.’
Public discussion about the casualties of the violence in Gaza is widespread. A change to the way in which the UN publishes data led to accusations that fatality numbers were being manipulated; but in fact there had been no significant change, just a poorly-communicated switch in how they were presented.
I find this debate deeply frustrating. Like a magician misdirecting the audience with a sleight of hand, politicians and the media direct public fury into arguments over whether, for example, the percentage of female victims is two per cent higher or lower than that claimed a week ago. In the meantime, the fact that thousands of people have been killed – a fact which nobody disputes – becomes of secondary importance. Nobody can see the wood for the trees when they’ve all been chopped down. And the axe man keeps coming.
Even when we know it’s a misdirection, thinking about death in terms of numbers can be very comforting. Statistics replace names and faces, covering human suffering with a sanitising veil. Doctors must sometimes detach themselves from the humanity of their patients to be able to maintain a professional objectivity, but when we deduct humanity en masse, mass inhumanity ensues.
Since the second world war, the majority of people killed in armed conflict globally have been not soldiers but civilians. The days when armies fought each other in defined battlefield areas are long gone and seem almost quaint. It is right to acknowledge and emphasise the terrible toll of armed conflict on civilians, but this should not mean dehumanising or devaluing the deaths of military personnel and other combatants.
In 2022, the annual global death toll from armed conflict more than doubled. At 311,228, it reached its highest level since the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The majority of those killed were military personnel – Ukrainian, Russian, Ethiopian and ethnic Tigrinya soldiers. Does that make a difference?
The distinction between civilian and combatant is legal, not moral. When a Ukrainian taxi driver becomes a soldier defending his town from Russian invasion, his inherent human value does not change. Most Russian soldiers are conscripts – young, terrified, and with no choice about participating in this war. In Tigray, a militia man today may have been a farmer yesterday. Whichever day he is killed, his family will still mourn.
I lead an organisation which seeks to ensure every person killed in armed conflict is identified, recorded, and acknowledged. The point of this work is to recognise the unique value of each individual, regardless of who they were or what side they were on. When next you hear disputes on casualty numbers, percentages, demographic ratios, and civilian losses, challenge yourself to look closer. Venture deeper into the wood and you will hear the sound of each tree falling.
Rachel is the executive director of Every Casualty Counts.
