Comments on: Deaths in Iraq

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:19:39 +0000

If “hypocracy” was a word in actual use, and not a typing error for hypocrisy, it would means something like “lack of power/government”, i.e. the result of small government policies. In any case Bush intentions had nothing to do with the welfare of Iraq civilians. They did not even try to determine the casualties amongst them, which would have been an essential first step. DSW

By: jet

jet — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:41:30 +0000

8,000 to 200,000 deaths and you settle on 100,000 and say “see, we were right, Bush is worse than Saddam for Iraqis.” And then you have the gall to point at exaggeration and hypocracy on the right. What a bunch of unserious clowns.

By: Ragout

Ragout — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:20:44 +0000

Yes, Chris, there is some level of Iraqi deaths that would convince me that the war was a mistake. But this study doesn’t change my belief that the war probably reduced the number of Iraqi deaths. The Iraq War got rid of two major causes of death: the sanctions and Saddam. I’m very skeptical of this study because other studies of pre-war Iraqi mortality produced very different numbers than the Roberts et al study in Lancet. When you compare the various studies, I think it may be that the Iraq War did reduce “excess deaths” of Iraqis. Certainly, the fact that Roberts et al come up with such different number than the other studies is something they should have discussed, but didn’t. See my blog post on the topic.

By: vernaculo

vernaculo — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:04:18 +0000

“…like human beings and wondered, whatever your stance on the war, what it might say about the tactics being used.” Tactics are a symptom, the numbers are a symptom, the body count is the result of a disease no one seems to be able to name. I’m convinced that the present state of Iraq, the economic ruin, the infrastructure fragmentation, the essentially non-existent military, was the purpose all along. Mission Accomplished. Bin Ladin surfaces today and says flatly 9/11 was caused by US injustices. Interestingly, hardly anyone with a strong opinion of the rightness or wrongness of the current “war on terror” could name those injustices, whether real or not. Those sincerely intent on “fighting terrorism” would do well to look to its cause.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:02:30 +0000

Sarcasm aside, not that Sebastian’s post deserves better< :i> Sure it does. Haiku time! Square jaw, steely eyes! Heroes uncowered by The death of others.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:51:10 +0000

So if we exclude the Fallujah outlier, Sebastian doesn’t feel the need to address the report because there is a 2.5 percent chance that the death toll could be under 8000 and a 2.5 percent chance it could be over 200,000. Gotta narrow that confidence interval before Sebastian would feel the need to discuss the use of military tactics that might be slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians. I admire the sense of priorities, the firm adherence to statistical rectitude, without any criticism, one might add, of the occupying power that refuses to issue even dishonest counts of civilian casualties. If there’s even a few percent chance that we’re only talking about a death toll 3 times higher than 9/11, he can’t be bothered. Worse than its sample size in Sebastian’s eyes is the fact that it relies on interviews with surviving family members. Horrors. What a novel and unprecedented approach. Who ever would have thought we’d sink so low as to talk to people who claim to have lost loved ones to American military action. When talking about enemy atrocities, sure, no evidentiary standards necessary in that case. No need for a detailed explanation of methodology. That’s different. Sarcasm aside, not that Sebastian’s post deserves better, it’d be nice if people responded to this article like human beings and wondered, whatever your stance on the war, what it might say about the tactics being used. Maybe bombs and helicopter gunships aren’t the best way to fight terrorists in an urban environment?

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:24:13 +0000

According to the report:

The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included.

Frankly when your statistical range is 8,000-194,000 I don’t feel the need to address the report until you can safely narrow it down. And when your statistical method relies purely on interviews, enough said.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:17:44 +0000

Abb1, Oct. 29th: Ray is correct - there weren’t any notably grievous human rights violations in Iraq before the invasion, so Iraq can not be the base for this conclusion. Abb1, June 13th: Just the fact that merits of torture are being seriously discussed indicates that the American society is plunging into barbarism. Of course it could be two different posters, using the same pseudonym. Or perhaps "barbarism" is a far milder term, in this poster's lexicon, than "notably grievous human rights violations." Or perhaps somebody's sense of proportion is horribly skewed.

By: james

james — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:28:14 +0000

For any issue, an argument that makes use of bad sources looses value. An exaggerated or flawed count contributes to people ignoring future concerns.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:15:22 +0000

It’s silly to say that flawed estimates caused a lack of interest in Afghan civilian casualties. There’s just not that much interest in the US in how many people we or our proxies kill. We get embarrassed when it is done in an exceptionally disgraceful way that makes its way onto the front pages of the world’s press. Other than that, some lefties make a fuss over it, but mainstream America doesn’t care, except to the extent that it might increase recruitment for Al Qaeda.

By: james

james — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:24:52 +0000

The number of civilian deaths in a war needs to be kept in the public view. There is a tendency to ignore problems that occur in far away places. One concern is over the accuracy of this total. If it turns out the count is flawed, the general public will ignore future concerns in this area. Lets not forget how Marc Harold’s flawed count in Afghanistan harmed the issue there. Is the Lancet methodology correct? Are the implied assumptions correct?

By: peter ramus

peter ramus — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:20:45 +0000

I’ll grant you there may be a loophole they’ve been flying those B-52’s through all these years, catfish. All I’ve got really is this: Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children. However, the researchers stressed that they found no evidence of improper conduct by the Coalition soldiers. Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery. Which sentence doesn’t belong?

By: catfish

catfish — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:10:20 +0000

Peter, This issue of aerial warfare and the geneva accords has not come up on the bits of the blogosphere that I read. I’ld be interested to see it fleshed out and debated in this particular context. Do you have any links?

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:08:04 +0000

Speaking of simple points eluding people, I should have paid more attention to that little note at the bottom about how to avoid double-posting.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:02:44 +0000

Note to Steve—Yes, the rest of us are capable of doing basic arithmetic and had already done that calculation and wondered what it meant. One possibility is that the study is flawed in some way—perhaps memories of the survey respondents were wrong or they lied. Though of course this estimate seems at least as firm as any estimate of the number of enemy atrocities. You don’t see too many stories questioning how we know the death toll under Saddam. I’d like to know what those statistics are based on—for some odd reason you only hear the methodological details when an accusation is made against the US. You know, it’s also possible that the reason this 100,000 figure comes as a shock is that the media simply doesn’t do an adequate job reporting the bombing our forces do on urban areas. Is any reporter badgering the Pentagon for statistics on the bomb tonnage dropped on Iraqi urban areas? If there is, I haven’t seen evidence of it. Another point, made by Juan Cole, is that the Iraq Body Count statistic of 16000 maximum is, if anything, a bare minimum because it’s only based on Western reporting and we simply don’t know how many deaths never make it into the papers. That falls into the category of “Duh”, but this simple point manages to elude some people.