650.000 Iraqi dead since invasion

Late last year Blair & Co rubbished an October 2006 article in The Lancet which estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died of violence since the American- and British-led invasion in March 2003. Immediately after publication, the prime minister's official spokesman said the study "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate". Foreign secretary Margaret Beckett said the Lancet figures were "extrapolated" and a "leap". President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report".

This week, the BBC reported that the government's own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was reliable.
Scientists at the UK's Department for International Development concluded that the study's methods were "tried and tested". Indeed, the Hopkins approach would likely lead to an "underestimation of mortality". The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study". The prime minester's advisor wrote that "the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

From the Lancet article:

We estimate that almost 655 000 people -- 2·5% of the population in the study area -- have died in Iraq. Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century, and should be of grave concern to everyone.

The opening phase of the war alone is estimated to have cost 100,000 Iraqi lives. Since the official ending of hostilities, the proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has gradually diminished, but the actual numbers have increased every year. In other words, the Iraqis have gradually taken the lead since the government has introduced rule by deathsquad and the insurgents have learned to develop and use high-explosive devices.

All in all, this is a war crime of monstrous proportions committed both by, and under the auspices of, the occupying force of the Americans and the British, aided and abetted by several governments including my own. I wonder if aynone cares, really. The number of 655,000 (give or take a few hundred mass-graves) is after all an abstract, the victims are Iraqis, we never get to see the pictures on our front pages. It's just so much blood under the bridge, isn't it?

25 million to go !


:hmg:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seriously, what do you expect us to do with this ? I've always been opposed to the invasion, at least to the way it was planned and carried out, I should now be even more opposed ? I should be outraged ? Every day we hear reports of dozens to hundreds of people dying, a few dozen people feel a lot more real than 655.000 and four years feels like an awful long time, whilst a day is short. It's interesting that we have figures now, but seriously, what to do about it ? Even if I was American or British, this wouldn't make me support a withdrawal, since that will probably result in even more deaths. :no:

Key word.. ESTIMATE. You and Tribs should go pick out some drapes or something for your apartment in Tehran.

Quote:

---

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

---

Were saving lives :laugh4:

Quote:

---

The repeated assertion that the US is killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is a dangerous lie perhaps most offensive to the memory of innocent Iraqis who have indeed died in the hundreds of thousands while those for "peace"-- a peace of death-- stood by silently. It is also deeply offensive to the families of the 13 US soldiers killed while accepting the false surrender of Iraqi soldiers or coming to the aid of Iraqi taxi drivers.

---

LINK

This is from 2003 so dont use his figures of deaths since the start of the war.

I seriously doubt that 600,000 figure anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Key word.. ESTIMATE. You and Tribs should go pick out some drapes or something for your apartment in Tehran.

---

Are you implying that Adrian hates freedom? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Key word.. ESTIMATE. You and Tribs should go pick out some drapes or something for your apartment in Tehran.

---

We were thinking of an apartment in the Twin Towers.
Oops, it's gone.. These Third World types have no regard for human life, do they?

This article was debated here at the time. I agree with the DfID "scientists" that there was nothing obviously flawed about the Lancet study (and a refereed academic journal like the Lancet would generally not publish an obviously flawed study). However, the estimate does appear high compared to that from other sources - newspaper and morgue reports, other surveys etc. Trying to understand why it might be too high, my impression was that the most likely problem was the relatively small number of clusters (50) used in the sample. While this would not bias the study estimate up per se, it might make it an unreliable estimator.

However, I was struck by the recent opinon poll of Iraqis though, with half of the 5000 respondents reporting that they had experienced a friend or relative being killed or kidnapped since the occupation.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/FINALTables.pdf

Quote:

---

Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

---

Way to go Gawain :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: do you ever bother to check even the simplest of things contained in links you post ?
Obviously not since Cass is clearly talking bollox in that article :yes:

Quote:

---

This is from 2003 so dont use his figures of deaths since the start of the war.

---

This is by some fool who invents numbers to make a point so don't use his figures period .:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Were saving lives :laugh4:

---

So in the 24 years of Saddams regime as many as 125 died each day. This is using the highest calculations of 125 not 70. In 24 years there are 8640 days, that means that in total one milion and eightythousands have died (or even as low as 604800 using the 70 figure).

Now during invasion and occupation by the coalition in four years around 600000 have died. Give or take 100000 doesnt change the picture much. Imagine if this coalition were in Iraq for 24 years...

Saving lives, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

25 million to go ! Seriously, what do you expect us to do with this ?

---

Like I said, who cares?

Thank you for reminding me why I haven't been in the backroom for so long!

Hundredthousands of Iraqi civilists killed; all you do is to discuss if it might have been some more or less. Or if Saddam had been even more effective in killing Iraqis.

It's a discussion forum. We discuss things. If you (or anyone else) wants to stop the occupation, join a lobby group.

But I do agree that to decide to mull this statistic as opposed to the deaths per year due to malaria, or TB, or cholera is rather odd.

People are dying all over the world for all sorts of pointless reasons and (generally) we in the developed world choose to do little or nothing about it.

~:smoking:

People are dying and there are a lot of them dying. And they are not dying because of Cholera or any other desease. The dead numbers are a consequence of decisions made in New York, Washington, London, Berlin and other places.

You should rather discuss, if these decisions were right under the fact of these numbers (regardless if they are a bit too high or too low).

Maybe you come to the conclusion that the decisions had been right. That would be fine to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Like I said, who cares?

---

Well, what are YOU doing about it then ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Well, what are YOU doing about it then ?

---

I am trying to make sure that my government will not support yet another reckless and profoundly stupid military adventure in the Gulf, directed this time against Iran, in the hope of avoiding another such massacre among both soldiers and civilians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

People are dying and there are a lot of them dying. And they are not dying because of Cholera or any other disease. The dead numbers are a consequence of decisions made in New York, Washington, London, Berlin and other places.

---

The money would save millions if spent on helping those with easily treatable conditions. Merely as they are dying because of inaction makes it no less wrong; spending money on one thing of course means it isn't spent elsewhere.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I am trying to make sure that my government will not support yet another reckless and profoundly stupid military adventure in the Gulf, directed this time against Iran, in the hope of avoiding another such massacre among both soldiers and civilians.

---

Well, my government never supported the Iraq war and no party (that I would vote for anyway, but I actually believe it's no party at all) supported the war or further military action.

So I've done my democratic duty, what now ? Protest marches in Brussels ? Like they make a difference...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

So I've done my democratic duty, what now ? Protest marches in Brussels ? Like they make a difference...

---

Don't worry, I won't set your genitals on fire if you don't. It's up to you, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Don't worry, I won't set your genitals on fire if you don't. It's up to you, isn't it?

---

O well, I don't feel too guilty about my lack of action either. But your initial post seemed pretty accusing to us all, so i was wondering what exactly you were calling for.

I thought that question was also more interesting than the endless debate about the numbers by people who've probably never read a statistics handbook in their life...*cough* no offense guys :jester:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

You should rather discuss, if these decisions were right under the fact of these numbers (regardless if they are a bit too high or too low).

---

You can't discuss under "the fact of these numbers" if the fact is not a fact. And it's not a matter of "a bit too high or too low". IIRC, the other estimates put the post-invasion Iraq death toll at below 100,000; the Pentagon apparently puts it below 50,000.

The old thread on the Lancet report is here, BTW:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70717

Does it matter if it's 650,000 or under 50,000? That depends on your moral judgements. It matters at least a little to me. And presumably it would be of some concern to the disputed 600,000 Iraqis whether they have been killed or are not.

Quote:

---

The dead numbers are a consequence of decisions made in New York, Washington, London, Berlin and other places.

---

And Baghdad, to be fair. And whereever else the bombers, hit squads and others are planning the next atrocity. The Lancet attributes only 1/3 of the casualties to Coalition forces. I am afraid criticising the decision to invade Iraq looks almost as academic as discussing the casuality statistics.

I don't know enough to say if I think that number is too high. What I do know is that there's been far too much killing, period.

One thing I am not seeing from my limited sources of information is a strong effort by the Iraqi people to "step up" to the plate and take control of their own country. Right or wrong I don't know, that's just my perception. Further, if that perception is correct, I'd be curious to know if that is a symptom of the citizenry's apathy (which I highly doubt) or the UN/US's reluctance to hand over any form of control or effectively train people do this type of activity. At some point the nation and it's people need to step up and take control of their own destiny, and the US/UN has absolutely zero right to prevent or hinder this.

Whatever the case, I fully support completely pulling out by '08 regardless of the situation. It's been far, far, far too long, and if progress hasn't been made it's either the fault of the US-led administration, the Iraqi people, or both. To those who respond that we shouldn't leave a job half done, my reply is that if that's the situation by the pullout deadline, then we (the US) have far too many problems of our own to fix with our own inept, greedy government before we can even hope to aid another nation. At the very least, we did remove Saddam and the Baathist party from power, which I firmly believe Iraq is far better off without, period, even if it means a semi-state of anarchy.

/shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

One thing I am not seeing from my limited sources of information is a strong effort by the Iraqi people to "step up" to the plate and take control of their own country. Right or wrong I don't know, that's just my perception. Further, if that perception is correct, I'd be curious to know if that is a symptom of the citizenry's apathy (which I highly doubt) or the UN/US's reluctance to hand over any form of control or effectively train people do this type of activity. At some point the nation and it's people need to step up and take control of their own destiny, and the US/UN has absolutely zero right to prevent or hinder this.

---

Partly this is due to there being no such thing as the "Iraqi" people. The country is artificial and made up of a number of ethnic and religious rivalries. Add to the fact that the institutions they did have were dismissed, the interference of external countries and the desire of some to evict an unwelcome occupation, and you have some of the reasons why the Iraqi people are not united enough to challenge the vested interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Partly this is due to there being no such thing as the "Iraqi" people. The country is artificial and made up of a number of ethnic and religious rivalries. Add to the fact that the institutions they did have were dismissed, the interference of external countries and the desire of some to evict an unwelcome occupation, and you have some of the reasons why the Iraqi people are not united enough to challenge the vested interests.

---

True enough, but that seems to be a catch-22 no? On one hand you have a nation that's fractured across many many lines and probably incapable of self-governance, yet you also have a nation (I'll just blame this on the US because let's face it, it largely is our fault) standing in to try and referee what may very well be an impossible situation to resolve? If we stay, we keep losing troops and garner more and more animosity from the rest of the world, yet we can never dig ourselves out? However if we dont' stay, the region will probably destabilize to the point where "Iraq" as we knew it will never exist again, and for that matter maybe shouldn't. Perhaps, as you pointed out, the international community is trying to enforce arbitrary borders where there shouldn't be any? I don't have any idea nor well-informed opinion on this matter, but my gut-reaction to this is that you are probably right, and it's just an unwinnable situation no matter what. :no:

Well I've always maintained that there is one thing that all humans do exceedingly well... none of us can outwit our own mortality.

How can that estimate be 10 times more than what was collected at http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position . While I understand that the body count website only counts reported deaths or bodies found its really hard for me to believe that 90% of the supposed deaths from the statistical survey would have been missed by this website, thats hundreds of thousands of extra deaths. Believe me, I feel any civilian deaths at all is terrible but am I really a fool for not believing the far higher body count? While the body count site is not an official survey or anything their method seems like a good way to track deaths and I imagine it'd be far more accurate than any estimate.

It'd be interesting to know what the percentage of deaths is in the various ethnic/religious groups seperately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

How can that estimate be 10 times more than what was collected at http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position .

---

That's because they're bloody amateurs. Here is what they say about their sources: 'Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources.'

Online media reports?

Serious researchers do their research on the ground. Hands-on. Like the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq for instance, which does body-counts in morgues. As in: dead people on slabs.

They counted 34,452 violent civilians deaths for 2006 alone.

Since many bodies don't make it to morgues and many victims of police, army and militia killings are not properly (if at all) reported for obvious reasons, the Johns Hopkins number seems quite realistic.

Their numbers also indicate that since 2003 an average of ten Iraqi policemen per day have been killed.

From their report:

At least 470,094 people have been forcibly internally displaced
since the bombing in Samarra on 22 February 2006. Baghdad alone has 38,766 displaced individuals. In its Emergency Assessment on 11 December 2006, IOM noted that extreme violence has prevented access to IDP communities and made the provision of aid assistance very difficult.

If they can't even reach the internal refugees, how could they come up with a realistic number of dead except by running round morgues? By using the Johns Hopkins method, which has been tried and tested and has 'best practice' status.

If this keeps up, the war can be won. It's easy to occupy uninhabited ruins and desert!

Quote:

---

the Pentagon apparently puts it below 50,000.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


I guess the might of the American Armed forces is not that deadly after all huh?

With repports like that, of cource there will continue to be resistance...I bet you terrorist movements tell to their recruits that amercans cant shoot...4 years and only managed to kill 50,000.

50,000 is a fraction of the Army of Saddam, who had in 1987 the fourth largest army in the world.

:inquisitive:

Lets be serious now.

I suggest this to everyone that posted in this thread for one reason or another:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9619C8B63

very good read :)


As for the Estimate argument...

Its an estimate which means, it is not an exact number and which means there is a certain degree of error, usually a maximum of -+ or - 10%.

So if its not 650 000 its 585 000 or 715...but we cant affirm that with absolute certainty so we make an estimate in between the lowest and highest.

An estimate does not equal to false. Carefull there.

Quote:

---

One thing I am not seeing from my limited sources of information is a strong effort by the Iraqi people to "step up" to the plate and take control of their own country. Right or wrong I don't know, that's just my perception. Further, if that perception is correct, I'd be curious to know if that is a symptom of the citizenry's apathy (which I highly doubt) or the UN/US's reluctance to hand over any form of control or effectively train people do this type of activity. At some point the nation and it's people need to step up and take control of their own destiny, and the US/UN has absolutely zero right to prevent or hinder this.

---

Before the war started the European allies and many other cautioned the US that Iraq was like a bag full of marbles and if that bag was destroyed the marbles would spill out in all directions.

That being said, the decisions were made. Good or bad we shall know in the near future.

Now...I think for the process of self-determination of the Iraqui people to start, any external influence must not be present, otherwise there will always be someone that blaims any position anyone takes that remotelly ressembles to be a US position of being a puppet of the US, sold to the US etc etc etc.

Democratization is a process that the people of Iraq will have to make alone and for themselves.

Just like Americans did for themselves, just like French did for themselves, and so many others that went from any oligarchy or monarchy to democracy.

And I would think that Americans would know and understand that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suraknar

50,000 is a fraction of the Army of Saddam, who had in 1987 the fourth largest army in the world.

:inquisitive:

Lets be serious now.

---

The size of the Iraqi army is almost irrelevant here. By the time of the invasion, it was much depleted from its 1987 level and more or less seemed to melt away. The Lancet study is about civilian deaths. All sources show death rates after the invasion were at their lowest in the first year of occupation (which included the brief conventional war period).

Quote:

---

Its an estimate which means, it is not an exact number and which means there is a certain degree of error, usually a maximum of -+ or - 10%.

So if its not 650 000 its 585 000 or 715...but we cant affirm that with absolute certainty so we make an estimate in between the lowest and highest.

---

The paper puts the range at 393,000-943,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Serious researchers do their research on the ground. Hands-on. Like the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq for instance, which does body-counts in morgues. As in: dead people on slabs.

They counted 34,452 violent civilians deaths for 2006 alone.

---

But there's the rub - the Lancet estimate for excess violent deaths in June 2005-June 2006 is about ten times that (skimming the article we have about 27m Iraqis x 12/1000 violent mortality rate in Table 3 = 326,000).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

But there's the rub - the Lancet estimate for excess violent deaths in June 2005-June 2006 is about ten times that (skimming the article we have about 27m Iraqis x 12/1000 violent mortality rate in Table 3 = 326,000).

---

Here's the answer that Les Roberts, one of the researchers, gave to the BBC:

"There have to be ~300 deaths per day from natural cause even if Iraq was the healthiest 26 million people in the world. Where are those bodies? When the MOH [ministry of health] in Iraq is perhaps recording 10% of them, why should they be doing better with politically charged violent deaths. Yes, I think almost nothing is getting reported outside of Baghdad where things are worse."

link

Alrighty, got it, thanks AdrianII.

Most people don't care about civilian deaths because a million civilian deaths mean nothing to them when placed next to concepts like "spreading freedom" and shoving democracy down the throat of Muslim nations.

I bet the number is even higher than 650 000. I'm betting there are a lot more war crimes in existence committed by US soldiers like the Haditha massacre and the Abu Gharib tortures/rapings/murders that get covered up and not reported at all.

Offtopic:

Don't know exactly why, but this thread and the discussion reminds me of that one joke... Airliner crashes into a graveyard. 5,000 bodies recovered so far. :no:

/Offtopic

*Sigh* We've been through all this before... but I guess it's been dragged out less often than global warming, so we shouldn't complain... :wall:

As econ21 points out, the survey itself has a huge window of casualties based on the study. Of course, deceptively, the only number mentioned is 650,000. The study has been widely criticized and the lack of objectivity of the Lancet has been well documented. Iraq Body Count, itself an anti-war group has criticized the numbers. Here is a more recent report that's critical of the study. The cluster-type methodology has applications, but it's the specific circumstances and the sample that's questioned in this case.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point to the possibility of “main street bias” – that people living near major thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus, the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet study authors initially told The Times that “there was no main street bias” and later amended their reply to “no evidence of a main street bias”.

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the “three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.

“The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.”

If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of The Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war. Dr Richard Horton, editor of the The Lancet is also antiwar. He says: “I believe this paper was very thoroughly reviewed. Every piece of work we publish is criticised – and quite rightly too. No research is perfect. The best we can do is make sure we have as open, transparent and honest a debate as we can. Then we'll get as close to the truth as possible. That is why I was so disappointed many politicians rejected the findings of this paper before really thinking through the issues.”

Knocking on doors in a war zone can be a deadly thing to do. But active surveillance – going out and measuring something – is regarded as a necessary corrective to passive surveillance, which relies on reports of deaths (and, therefore, usually produces an underestimate).

Iraq Body Count relies on passive surveillance, counting civilian deaths from at least two independent reports from recognised newsgathering agencies and leading English-language newspapers ( The Times is included). So Professor Gilbert Burnham, Dr Les Roberts and Dr Shannon Doocy at the Centre for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, decided to work through Iraqi doctors, who speak the language and know the territory.

They drafted in Professor Riyadh Lafta, at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, as a co-author of the Lancet paper. Professor Lafta supervised eight doctors in 47 different towns across the country. In each town, says the paper, a main street was randomly selected, and a residential street crossing that main street was picked at random.

The doctors knocked on doors and asked residents how many people in that household had died. A person needed to have been living at that address for three months before a death for it to be included. It was deemed too risky to ask if the dead person was a combatant or civilian, but they did ask to see death certificates. More than nine out of ten interviewees, the Lancet paper claims, were able to produce death certificates. Out of 1,849 households contacted, only 15 refused to participate. From this survey, the epidemiologists estimated the number of Iraqis who died after the invasion as somewhere between 393,000 and 943,000. The headline figure became 650,000, of which 601,000 were violent deaths. Even the lowest figure would have raised eyebrows.

Dr Richard Garfield, an American academic who had collaborated with the authors on an earlier study, declined to join this one because he did not think that the risk to the interviewers was justifiable. Together with Professor Hans Rosling and Dr Johan Von Schreeb at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr Garfield wrote to The Lancet to insist there must be a “substantial reporting error” because Burnham et al suggest that child deaths had dropped by two thirds since the invasion. The idea that war prevents children dying, Dr Garfield implies, points to something amiss.

Professor Burnham told The Times in an e-mail that he had “full confidence in Professor Lafta and full faith in his interviewers”, although he did not directly address the drop in child mortality. Dr Garfield also queries the high availability of death certificates. Why, he asks, did the team not simply approach whoever was issuing them to estimate mortality, instead of sending interviewers into a war zone?

Professor Rosling told The Times that interviewees may have reported family members as dead to conceal the fact that relatives were in hiding, had fled the country, or had joined the police or militia. Young men can also be associated with several households (as a son, a husband or brother), so the same death might have been reported several times.

Professor Rosling says that, despite e-mails, “the authors haven’t provided us with the information needed to validate what they did”. He would like to see a live blog set up for the authors and their critics so that the matter can be clarified.

Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her letter to The Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed. She wrote: “Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat, this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households, obtaining informed consent and death certificates.”

Does she think the interviews were done at all? Dr Hicks responds: “I’m sure some interviews have been done but until they can prove it I don’t see how they could have done the study in the way they describe.”

Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews “took about 20 minutes”. The journal Nature, however, alleged last week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: : “I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don’t actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can’t rattle off basic information suggests they either don’t know or they don’t care.”

And the corpses? Professor Burnham says that, according to reports, mortuaries and cemeteries have run out of space. He says that the Iraqi team has asked for data to remain confidential because of “possible risks” to both interviewers and interviewees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The money would save millions if spent on helping those with easily treatable conditions. Merely as they are dying because of inaction makes it no less wrong; spending money on one thing of course means it isn't spent elsewhere.

~:smoking:

---

What are you trying to say? That it is alright to go into Iraq and start a chain reaction that kills hundred thousands because we do not save other lives although we could?:skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Does it matter if it's 650,000 or under 50,000? That depends on your moral judgements. It matters at least a little to me. And presumably it would be of some concern to the disputed 600,000 Iraqis whether they have been killed or are not.

---

Indeed, that is a big difference. Then why is it so hard to get reliable data?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

And Baghdad, to be fair. And whereever else the bombers, hit squads and others are planning the next atrocity. The Lancet attributes only 1/3 of the casualties to Coalition forces. I am afraid criticising the decision to invade Iraq looks almost as academic as discussing the casuality statistics.

---

I haven't critizised the invasion (at least not in this threat). All that I was trying to say is that the number of death people (what ever the true numbers may be) are a consequence of the invasion (as well as of the decisions in Berlin and Paris). To make your mind if any of these decision was right, you have to estimate what would ahve happened if ... . Of course it is even more difficult to make a realistic scenario here. Nevertheless, this is the think that should be discussed, in my opinion. Was the decision right. Which governments did the right things? What could have done better? And what can be done now? The killing is still ongoing, isn't it?

I do not have an answer to all these questions. That is why I stepped into the backroom after a long time again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The study has been widely criticized and the lack of objectivity of the Lancet has been well documented. Iraq Body Count, itself an anti-war group has criticized the numbers.

---

Do you actually read threads before you contribute?

The study may have flaws, but it is the best we have. As I said the Iraq Body Count is ridiculous. They make estimates based on online media reports. If the UNMAS count over 30,000 violent dead people on slabs in one year, where does that leave the 60,000 total of BodyCount. Let alone the official 50,000 of the Pentagon?

Like others observed, this sort of nitpicking on the first serious study that has been done is pathetic. It shows disregard for the truth, for human life and for the future consequences of government lies.

That is a huge figure. What ever the number it is to be regrated but there is a tendency to over estimate and it does not help end these things. It makes people cry that the people with the numbers have an agenda.

The killing needs to stop but there is no reason to think that it will just because the Americans and others leave. In fact it could get worse.

There is little sense to place blame, it doesn't bring the dead back to life.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

There is little sense to place blame, it doesn't bring the dead back to life.:no:

---

I bet that's what Saddam would say if would posthumously participate in teh Backroom.

:skull: 'Look fellows, I can't bring my victims back to life. So what are y'all yapping about? Placing blame is sooo yesterday! Besides, my own body count says it wasn't half as bad. Those other guys have agendas, you know.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Most people don't care about civilian deaths because a million civilian deaths mean nothing to them when placed next to concepts like "spreading freedom" and shoving democracy down the throat of Muslim nations.

I bet the number is even higher than 650 000. I'm betting there are a lot more war crimes in existence committed by US soldiers like the Haditha massacre and the Abu Gharib tortures/rapings/murders that get covered up and not reported at all.

---

I don't think so. Maybe occasionally, but I think most the killings are the result of death squads and bombings.

I mean in the south in Basra most (the big) British activity takes place against government organisations and groups.

Whole thing is just turning into a typical messy civil war. Go look up any civil war. It's always full of brutal massacres, executions, murders, rapes, so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Whole thing is just turning into a typical messy civil war. Go look up any civil war. It's always full of brutal massacres, executions, murders, rapes, so on.

---

That's one more instance of what Saddam would say, and has said in various ways on many occasions.

:skull: 'Look, I was involved in a war against merciless separatist forces and rival gangs and tribes, Kurds in the North, Shiites in the South, Wahhabis in the centre, and all of them were supported by outside forces: Iran, Syria, Turkey, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Britain. What did you expect me to do - respect the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Pullease!'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Then why is it so hard to get reliable data?

---

Well, that's not a mystery really, is it, when you consider the state of Iraq? Foreigners cannot travel freely there - even the Green Zone is being regularly attacked. Independent or official Iraqi estimates are also problematic given the targeting of the Iraqi professional class (e.g. university professors), the police and officials.

Quote:

---

To make your mind if any of these decision was right, you have to estimate what would ahve happened if ... .

---

That's what the Lancet study has done - the 650,000 figure is an estimate of excess deaths, ie above what would have happened if the invasion did not take place. That's why the issue of 50,000 or 650,000 is rather interesting and is relevant to the political questions that concern you (and all of us).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

If this keeps up, the war can be won. It's easy to occupy uninhabited ruins and desert!

---

And if those 10 Iraqis can decide and vote on who should lead them, then we got democracy! Mission accomplished! :skull:

Every Iraqi either we or the various factions kill, is one less jihadi we have to worry about in the future when we pull out. Jeez people, what's the problem?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

j/k

When the US Leaves, Its gonna Make Somalia look like Two Fluffy Panda Cubs playing together in a zoo... but I think the US is helping stall the inevitable, rather than exacerbating the whole situation.

Geesh, y'all miss the reality being fed us by the Bushies. Things have been so wonderful and safe in Iraq since our occupation that the 3-4 million Iraqis deserting the country is because they don't grasp how safe it really is. If only they would have given our ever evolving strategy the opportunity to prove to them just how inept the US administration was, but is now in its last thoes of incompetence - then maybe they would have stayed to become a part of the hidden statistics of civilian deaths. What a bunch of life loving cowards.
:balloon2:

Imagine, prefering life over the perfect democracy Bush gave them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Do you actually read threads before you contribute?

The study may have flaws, but it is the best we have. As I said the Iraq Body Count is ridiculous. They make estimates based on online media reports. If the UNMAS count over 30,000 violent dead people on slabs in one year, where does that leave the 60,000 total of BodyCount. Let alone the official 50,000 of the Pentagon?

Like others observed, this sort of nitpicking on the first serious study that has been done is pathetic. It shows disregard for the truth, for human life and for the future consequences of government lies.

---

(Quoting because coherence is easier to argue against.)

Plenty of people have criticised this study, therefore we have to acknowledge it's limitations and possibly very high level of inaccuracy. Further, a serious study is not a reliable study in every case.

With that said, should we not turn our thoughts to what can be done about this? Then we can all write to our various representatives.

So I'd like to make three points of order to begin with:

1) Recardless of wether we should or shouldn't we are currently involved in a Police Action in Iraq. The rights and wrongs of the decision to go to war have no bearing on what we do now.

2) We are not fighting a war in Iraq, we are trying to stop one, so any solution needs to be focused on controlling the situation, improving the lives of everybody in Iraq and not on trying to kill all the insurgants.

3) The legality of the war we fought in 2003 is irrelevant. Talking about it now is just clouding the current issue, which is how to move foward.

So, bearing that in mind, what do we need?

More troops, engineers, MPs and lots of money pumped into reconstruction. We also need to get the other Arab countries actively involved because we need to claw back some legitimacy.

Currently there are a lot of whites in the area who in general have no grasp of the culture or language of the region. The people are also mainly Christian which is another factor in the region. This easily creates a "them and us" feeling for the locals, and of course hostility in the peacekeepers.

OK, so as you said moving forward, and not backwards.

First off a UN led force. For starters only helmets get changed, but it is easier for countries to join a UN force than to be seen to side with America.

Then we need to get some people in who understand the language or culture of the region. Possibly America might have to fund the troops, but best if it doesn't have to be on the front line - for everyone's sake.

I think that this would improve chances of success, but not guarantee it. If the country is given the best shot at peace and prosperity i don't see why the rest of the world should disproportionately focus on this problem as opposed to any others. Does a third force need to sit between two groups and get shot at for 5, 10, 20 years with the animosity of both the groups?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

1) Recardless of wether we should or shouldn't we are currently involved in a Police Action in Iraq. The rights and wrongs of the decision to go to war have no bearing on what we do now.

2) We are not fighting a war in Iraq, we are trying to stop one, so any solution needs to be focused on controlling the situation, improving the lives of everybody in Iraq and not on trying to kill all the insurgants.

3) The legality of the war we fought in 2003 is irrelevant. Talking about it now is just clouding the current issue, which is how to move foward.

So, bearing that in mind, what do we need?

More troops, engineers, MPs and lots of money pumped into reconstruction. We also need to get the other Arab countries actively involved because we need to claw back some legitimacy.

---

Maybe you could elaborate a bit on the legitimacy/legality part, because, to me, if I understand it correctly, it seems like a logical contradiction.
Let me explain: first you say that the legality of being there is irrelevant now; then you say that we need to claw back some legitimacy.
While I understand that they are two different words, the semantics of "legality" and "legitimacy" seem rather identical to me in this context, but perhaps that is not what you meant.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Do you actually read threads before you contribute?

---

Do you read responses before firing off over-emotional replies?

You're certainly right that the study has flaws- serious flaws at best, outright fraud at worst. It's reassuring, though, that you've taken it upon yourself to be the ultimate authority on whose studies are serious and whose are joke- I will of course defer to your self-proclaimed expertise. :bow:

Quote:

---

Like others observed, this sort of nitpicking on the first serious study that has been done is pathetic. It shows disregard for the truth, for human life and for the future consequences of government lies.

---

How is substituting one set of lies for another such a great improvement? We're allowed to dismiss the government figures, but anyone who questions the Lancet? Well, they're just pathetic. :dizzy2:

Xiahou, the study is here, feel free to criticize the methadology.

Surely you know that scientific research comes under heavy fire from lots of critics who are just making :daisy: up. The evolution debate comes to mind. So why do you accept the frequent criticism of the study as evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

How is substituting one set of lies for another such a great improvement?

---

Data. We call them data, not lies. And one set is better than the other because the one set was acquired by best practice research on the ground and the other was not. The point is moot only if you indulge in total moral relativism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Let me explain: first you say that the legality of being there is irrelevant now; then you say that we need to claw back some legitimacy.

---

I had the same reaction. Yes, I agree with PVC that debating the legitimacy of the invasion is rather pointless now. But the perceived lack of legitimacy by many (most?) Iraqis does have implications for the way forward. It's the strongest argument for getting out - if Coalition troops are not seen as legitimate, it's likely their presence will make things worse rather than better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Maybe you could elaborate a bit on the legitimacy/legality part, because, to me, if I understand it correctly, it seems like a logical contradiction.
Let me explain: first you say that the legality of being there is irrelevant now; then you say that we need to claw back some legitimacy.
While I understand that they are two different words, the semantics of "legality" and "legitimacy" seem rather identical to me in this context, but perhaps that is not what you meant.:inquisitive:

---

Well, put simply when we wnet in there at least some, maybe most, of the Iraqis were fairly happy to see us, which grants the ousting of Saddam with a certain amount of legitimacy, because the Iraqis were clearly happy about it.

Now, however, most of them hate us. That is, as has been noted, the best arguement for getting out.

So we need to claw back some legitimacy in that we need to convince the Iraqis we're a good thing, blowing up schools and shooting people at roadblocks doesn't do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, put simply when we wnet in there at least some, maybe most, of the Iraqis were fairly happy to see us, which grants the ousting of Saddam with a certain amount of legitimacy, because the Iraqis were clearly happy about it.

Now, however, most of them hate us. That is, as has been noted, the best arguement for getting out.

So we need to claw back some legitimacy in that we need to convince the Iraqis we're a good thing, blowing up schools and shooting people at roadblocks doesn't do that.

---

I think they just want security. Normalcy. To be able to walk to the shops without being shot/kidnapped/blow up/dragged off by security services.

I do believe this study is the best estimate of the mortalities in Iraq. It's not the final word, nor a hard undisputable counting of bodies. But is based on methods that are best practice. Similar but even less accurate methods than this have been used to establish mortality figures of other conflicts, past and present, yielding numbers which are commonly accepted as reasonable, 'best' estimates.

Causes, reponsibilaties, what if scenarios and such are an altogether different issue. For me, the invasion is not so much the dynamite itself, but rather the spark that set off a powder keg. Which doesn't mean that this absolves the allies of responsibility. Don't light a match if you smell gas and all that. An explosive situation can be defused too.

Without the invasion having happened, I can think of realistic scenarios that either would've resulted in an even greater tragedy, or in a 'soft landing' for post-Saddam, post-Baathist Iraq.
But we'll never know what would've happened.

'kay, thank you for the explanation, Phillipvs. I guess I wouldn't call it legitimacy in that case (that either exists already, or it doesn't, period; we can't just "create" it), but I think I understand what you are trying to say.

Gilbert Burnham MD, PhD, and lead author of the study stated that less than 4000 people were surveyed and then the results were applied to the total population of Iraq (26 million). In defense, he also stated that his methods were at least as reliable as any political survey. Spoken like a true statistician. Although we all may disagree on many things, I think that we all agree on the value of opinion polls. The facts are that about 50,000 bodies have been counted. So the only factual statement is that the death toll lies between 50K and 26 million.
What is it that Burnham really wants said, or implied? More people are dying now than before, so we are doing more harm than good and the decision to do something in the first place, was obviously wrong. The U.S. led coalition was wrong to have gone to war. Everything since then is our fault.
If there is a fire in a neighborhood, one might go and help put it out. Someone else, more cynical, might point out that more houses are now burning than when one started (perhaps because of the lack of help one gets in putting out the fire). This is not an argument to stop trying to put out the fire, because it will eventually spread to one’s own house (and everyone else’s, BTW).
People who use right and wrong as some kind of litmus test want the rest of us to believe that there is a perfect world where this matters. I live in the real world. I hope that the people of Iraq become a strong democracy with our help. I hope that they realize that as Kurdistan, little Iran and Sunniland, they would forever be the puppets of their stronger neighbors. I hope that Muslims the world over will eventually see jihadists as blood-sucking parasites who butcher their own children. Hope is the life blood of the real world. The “we should only do the right things” perfect world doesn’t need hope, because it is well, perfect.
It might have been argued that the U.S. was wrong to try to force democracy on Germany, Japan and Korea. We never should have occupied those places. The Germans are too warlike and Asians will never accept or deserve democracy. We’ll only lose world respect by even attempting this. Oh well!
Some people use the tools of cynicism, sarcasm and indecision to shackle the rest of us. However, some of us aren’t afraid to do things and suffer the consequences. The other people should politely get out of the way and let us finish what we are doing.

Lets assume (ass-u-me) that the number of Iraqi deaths since the 'coalitions' occupation is a mere 50,000 and not +300,000. Doesn't that alone put those responsible for this fubar in the same catagory (of murderer) they put Saddam? I mean, Saddam and sons were certainly tyrantical mass murderers - so what does it make those that have created an atmosphere for civil conflict that has justified (for the combatant factions) the murdering of those that think, worship, or are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?

10-15% of the Iraq population have fled to other countries (Jordan, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, SaudiArabia), mostly the middle-class, because Iraq is less safe now then it was under Saddam. As a matter of fact, (even) many Shia feel a twang of nostalgia for the 'good old days' under Saddam when they could walk the streets unmolested, go to work with out fear, send their children off to school knowing they would return home safe, got to a market without bomb barriers obstrusting the view, etc.

So, what exactly have we accomplished aside from deposing Saddam and installing an imperfect disfunctional democracy (if one can truely call it that)? A killing field, that is what the coalition has accomplshed, and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Data. We call them data, not lies. And one set is better than the other because the one set was acquired by best practice research on the ground and the other was not. The point is moot only if you indulge in total moral relativism.

---

One man's data is another man's lies, I guess. Personally, I'd be interested in hearing how managed to even collect 40 interviews per day. Even using the stated estimate of 15 minutes per interview it would take 10hrs a day. I find 15 minutes to be stretching the limits of credibility when you consider it would entail knocking on a door, introducing yourself, obtaining an informed consent for, going over the questionnaire, determining cause of death, asking for and receiving a valid death certificate, transcribing it, and walking to the door of the next house to start the process all over again. But then again, I apparently am pathetic. :juggle2:

Here's more criticism for you to dismiss:
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Rese...ity/index.html
Be advised, these researchers may be "pathetic".

Some seem to be ignoring the fact that an appropriate and otherwise reliable survey method can be used in an inconsistent or inappropriate manner. 47 clusters seems a very small number to draw conclusions about the entire country. Compare that with the 2004 UN survey that used 2200(?) clusters. That probably goes a long way towards explaining why their given range of deaths is actually greater than the low-end of the range, which brings me to another point- the number 650,000 is pure fantasy, the report gives a (large)range, 650,000 is obtained by just splitting the difference and is not at all statistically sound.

Again, I question the statistical accuracy of the report, the bias of the clusters, and the bias of the researchers. So go on with the comparisons to evolution deniers or flat earthers or whatever other guilt-by-association attacks you want to trot out. :rolleyes:

The only effect of fewer clusters is to widen the confidence interval, which is as you mentioned, quite large. However 393,000 is not significantly different from 650,000 with regards to the implications i.e. more people are dying than would have under Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The only effect of fewer clusters is to widen the confidence interval, which is as you mentioned, quite large. However 393,000 is not significantly different from 650,000 with regards to the implications i.e. more people are dying than would have under Saddam.

---

It's a bit more complicated than that though, isn't it?

If the clusters come from particually violent areas then they could really scew things. Currently the violence is not endemic.

Close enough in the densely populated areas AFAIK. Certainly there's parts of Iraq where there is very little violence, but then there's also very little people as many of those corners are basically desert...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Personally, I'd be interested in hearing how managed to ven collect 40 interviews per day.

---

It all depends on the number of interviewers you have. In response to questioning, the Lancet authors say the two survey teams together worked the 40 interviews in each day. In the Lancet article, each team is said to consist of two male and two female interviewers. That makes 8 interviewers to cover 40 households in a day.

If we assume a male and female interviewer paired up, we have 4 interview teams (as opposed to the 2 survey teams) for 40 interviews. That would be 5 interviews per interview team in the morning and 5 in the afternoon. It's rather fast, but not ridiculous given that the households were apparently all contiguous. The questionnaire probably was not much bigger than a single sheet (list of all people in household, now and previously; name; age; sex; deaths, date and cause of death).

If I were doing it, I would not pair up the men and the women as it doubles the time requirement. If each interviewer worked alone that would be 5 interviews per interviewer per day. That is eminently feasible, although still quite fast. I gather the interview teams were Iraqi, so I suspect they did it pragmatically as I would have.

I also suspect people are taking the 40 interviews/day reference rather literally. For many locations, travel time would be significant and the survey teams presumably had to stay in hotels overnight etc. In such circumstances, I can see the interviews being stretched over several days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The only effect of fewer clusters is to widen the confidence interval, which is as you mentioned, quite large. However 393,000 is not significantly different from 650,000 with regards to the implications i.e. more people are dying than would have under Saddam.

---

I think a difference 257,000 is significant, but you make up your own mind. And that's if you accept their statistics as otherwise valid. That doesn't address "main-street bias"(see previous post) and other serious criticism about the accuracy of the report.

The pre-war deaths portion of the study (5.5 deaths per 1000 under Saddam???) doesn't even pass the smell test. Submitted for you dismissal, is another criticism of the report, also from a war critic- not a supporter.

Quote:

---

Based on the household surveys, the report estimates that, just before the war, Iraq's mortality rate was 5.5 per 1,000. (That is, for every 1,000 people, 5.5 die each year.) The results also show that, in the three and a half years since the war began, this rate has shot up to 13.3 per 1,000. So, the "excess deaths" amount to 7.8 (13.3 minus 5.5) per 1,000. They extrapolate from this figure to reach their estimate of 655,000 deaths.

However, according to data from the United Nations, based on surveys taken at the time, Iraq's preinvasion mortality rate was 10 per 1,000. The difference between 13.3 and 10.0 is only 3.3, less than half of 7.8.

---

The Lancet and the authors of the report clearly have their own agenda. The admitted purpose of the report and the timing of it's release was to influence American elections. Unfortunately, it seems they may have let their personal agendas influence their work. When you're using such a small sample, working in the fog of war and end up with a result that is wildly different from other estimates, common sense would indicate that you look again at your numbers and methodology- not shove it out the door so that it's released in time for the election. :shrug:

hmm interesting. I read another article which just now mentions that the number isn't civilian casualties at all, like the 50,000 pentagon figure is. I guess I missed that. 60% were military aged men.

And your article makes some good points.

I'm rather relieved.

Why are you trotting this crap out AGAIN.

It was debated and shown to be useless propaganda. I would think you could find new stuff Adrian... :laugh4: