650.000 Iraqi dead since invasion

[Adrian II]

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?

[doc_bean]

25 million to go !

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

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.

[Vladimir]

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?

[Adrian II]

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?

[econ21]

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

[Tribesman]

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 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

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 .

[Sjakihata]

Were saving lives

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?

[Adrian II]

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

Like I said, who cares?

[Franconicus]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Franconicus]

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.

[doc_bean]

Like I said, who cares?

Well, what are YOU doing about it then ?

[Adrian II]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[doc_bean]

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...

[Adrian II]

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?

[doc_bean]

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

[econ21]

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.

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.

[Whacker]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Whacker]

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.

[Samurai Waki]

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

[spmetla]

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.

[Geoffrey S]

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

[Adrian II]

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.

[BDC]

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

[Suraknar]

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.



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.

[Suraknar]

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.