Comments on: The Lancet study on Iraq – it hasn’t gone away you know.

By: Heiko Gerhauser

Heiko Gerhauser — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:26:41 +0000

Dan, “From May 2003 to the end of June 2004 there was no Iraqi government- the Coalition were ‘occupying forces’ as defined in the Geneva Convention and therefore obliged to count and publish civilian deaths. They did not do so.” http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 The coalition forces say that they fully complied with the Geneva Conventions when they were occupying forces. The above link is to the full text of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons. Putting a number on civilians killed is very difficult, when there is no functioning state apparatus to do this job. And, while I think that the coalition forces could have done a better job at showing in detail how they analyse their actions to minimise the loss of innocent life, which they say they do their utmost to achieve, I also understand that it may be better not to publish estimates that are so unreliable as to be worthless. When the state apparatus had been reestablished, the Iraqi Ministry of Health did start counting civilian deaths with the Coalition Provision Authority still formally in charge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ifs/hi/newsid_4220000/newsid_4222300/4222353.stm (I quoted this link already earlier in this thread) You say that the Iraqi Health Ministry has been ordered to stop publishing information. Not so, and neither do their figures show that most of those killed have been killed by coalition forces. The BBC has officially apologised for misreporting what the Iraqi Health Ministry actually reported. They report that 3274 people have died from terrorism or military activity in the second half of 2004. This figure includes Iraqi security forces (those have been published separately, and I believe they make up over a third of the total, though I would have to check that figure out), and some insurgents. The Iraqi Ministry of Health does distinguish between terrorist activity, and military activity. Some insurgent activities are not labelled as terrorist acts, and security forces and civilians killed in those actions are not counted as victims of terrorism. “Secondly you are alleging ‘A 100,000 deaths from bombing would be something deserving of an awful lot of attention.’ No part of the Lancet study ever said that there were 100,000 deaths from bombing. That’s a straight lie on your part.” I don’t say here that the Lancet study alleges 100,000 deaths from bombing. They say that 100,000 excess deaths is conservative, and that most death was from violence, and most violent death was caused by coalition airstrikes, and that a majority of the victims were women and children. What I said was that 100,000 deaths from airstrikes would be something worthy of a lot attention. The Lancet certainly leaves the possibility hanging that that many might have died from airstrikes, even if that’s not the central estimate, and if it was a serious possibility it would deserve a lot of attention. I mean it really would. Finally, I do care about the Iraqi people and honesty and truth. Why do you have to suggest lower motives just like that?

By: Heiko Gerhauser

Heiko Gerhauser — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:39:05 +0000

Now onto the Iraqi Health Ministry figures. They don’t measure the same thing the Lancet study tried to measure. For what they do measure, however, my belief is that they are extremely accurate, because I also believe that the underlying bureaucracy is sound, and people who bury their dead will need to report those deaths officially. Now, if you believe that things are so terrible in Iraq that people get buried without any paper work, or at least that this happens in the “war zones” of the country, I have to say that this is not my understanding of how the system works. Unlike you I trust the Iraqi government to do its data collection job well, I just don’t think that they’d publish an incomplete account from hospitals full well knowing that 90% of all dead would be buried without anybody ever bothering to tell the state about it.

By: Heiko Gerhauser

Heiko Gerhauser — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:19:00 +0000

Hi jot, I think it is quite reasonable for Iraqi authorities to publish estimates. Of course, coalition forces should assist them in this task, whenever they can. To simplify, you seem to think that the “insurrection” represents the good guys, I don’t.

By: Heiko Gerhauser

Heiko Gerhauser — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:08:07 +0000

Clearly, the comparison with Northern Ireland has been rather unhelpful in the discussion. Most of the things people here seem to think I want to be saying with that comparison, which is indeed poor in most respects, I didn’t in fact want to say. So, Dan and rs, let’s just dump this comparison. The only thing I wanted to say with it was that an administration can produce reliable figures even in trying circumstances. All that stuff about, how Northern Ireland compares in other respects, I largely agree it doesn’t.

By: dan hardie

dan hardie — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:05:11 +0000

Actually, I should expand the offer to Heiko. The main, though not the sole, reason why Northern Ireland cannot be compared to Iraq in re estimates of deaths is my point that ‘in Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles there was still a functioning health bureaucracy, a free of charge National Health Service and a functioning Coroner’s Court system, and bodies could not be buried in any cemetery without a lawful Death Certificate.’ Hence the govt. figures were accurate, funerals being a very big deal in Northern Ireland. No doubt Heiko will come back with some bone-stupid rejoinder like ‘How do you know the IRA gave funerals to all their dead members?’ Because I come from an Irish family and I know for a fact that funerals give the IRA a collective hard-on, is why. Since this is the key reason why the comparison is invalid, if Heiko can cite sources that disprove my argument re Death Certs he will also receive a £100 cheque. A number of people were murdered and buried in hidden locations by the IRA; the same occurred in an intra-UVF feud- but in all cases, the missing were reported via the (again, still-functioning) Missing Persons procedure, criminal investigations were opened and they had been legally assumed to be murdered, and entered in the casualty stats, long before the bodies were found -which, in some cases, they still haven’t been.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:51:33 +0000

Heiko, I simply can’t accept that you are an honest person. ‘The coalition forces are there at the request of the legitimate Iraqi government. They are therefore not occupation forces.’ From May 2003 to the end of June 2004 there was no Iraqi government- the Coalition were ‘occupying forces’ as defined in the Geneva Convention and therefore obliged to count and publish civilian deaths. They did not do so. Secondly you are alleging ‘A 100,000 deaths from bombing would be something deserving of an awful lot of attention.’ No part of the Lancet study ever said that there were 100,000 deaths from bombing. That’s a straight lie on your part. ‘The Iraqi Health Ministry is tracking deaths from military operations and terrorist activity and is publishing figures for both.’ Again, you’re either lying or a fool. The Iraqi Health Ministry is compiling such figures but was ordered in September by Iyad Allawi’s government to stop publishing them. As you have failed to notice, when the figures were published the Health Ministry stated that two thirds of civilian deaths were caused by Coalition troops, not by terrorists. And as has been pointed out to you so many times that you cannot be unaware of the objections: Firstly they are not tracking excess deaths, nor even deaths from violence, but deaths from violence reported to hospitals (ie they may exclude any violent deaths where corpses didn’t go to hospitals and even more importantly they do not track rises in deaths from such factors as lack of antibiotics, worsening sanitation, etc); Secondly many corpses from air or artillery strikes are rather unlikely to be brought to hospitals because- you know what?- there’s not much left of a human being after you fire a 155mm shell at him or bury him in a house with an ASM (and we didn’t use airstrikes or artillery in NI) ; thirdly it is a Muslim custom to bury the dead as soon as possible; fourthly in Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles there was still a functioning health bureaucracy, a free of charge National Health Service and a functioning Coroner’s Court system, and bodies could not be buried in any cemetery without a lawful Death Certificate. Unlike you I a) have studied Northern Irish history in considerable depth;b) have Northern Irish friends and relatives and have visited the place, before and after the ceasefires; c) have served with men who did tours of duty in NI. Your comparisons of NI with Iraq merely show you to be ignorant or dishonest. Small arms fire is not comparable to the use of artillery or air strikes: it is both more accurate (don’t embarrass yourself arguing with me on this one) and has no comparable ‘area effect’- which is why the British Army in Northern Ireland used neither of the latter two tactics, ever. Not even Most Oppressed People Ever types like the whining and historically ignorant H. Farrell have claimed otherwise.(£50 to you if you can prove me wrong on this point: no, £100.) And that’s it: final answer. I am a busy man, and you are a dishonest one. I will be offline for the best part of a week, so have the last word, little Heiko.If you do come up with a source for ‘British artillery or air strikes in Northern Ireland, 1969-present’, email it to me and the cheque is yours. ‘More stats’, however, seems like an honest guy and I hope Dsquared will answer him.

By: RS

RS — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:24:40 +0000

“And while the Iraqi Health Ministry may not be quite as good at collecting those accurately as the British government in Northern Ireland, my assumption would be that for civilian deaths their figures are by far the most accurate.” But the comparison is untenable. Northern Ireland, while suffering from a good deal of violence at the height of the Troubles, was never a warzone. Iraq was invaded, and even after the invasion was completed, substantial areas were still effectively warzones. The very areas where civilian infrastructure was not working are the areas where civilian deaths would be expected to be highest. Let me make my point clear, Northern Ireland was not a warzone during the troubles, terrorists carried out attacks on civilians and security forces but the civilian infrastructure continued largely as it always had (state killings of civilians were therefore very small, because it was a domestic security operation, not a war). Iraq was invaded and conquered by another country, and is still suffering from major endogenous acts of armed resistance. The comparison is ludicrous.

By: RS

RS — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:07:55 +0000

“of course, Northern Ireland isn’t Iraq (though I should think Sinn Fein do remember the British invasion, the Orange marches rather effectively remind them every year).” Oh, so you’re talking about the similarity of Iraq, under US/UK occupation, and Ireland, during the 17th Century invasion of William of Orange, those ‘Troubles’, you should have said!

By: JoT

JoT — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:02:40 +0000

“…you’d hardly argue that the US is under occupation by Germany with it being the duty of the German government to compile statistics on murder, death rates etc. in the US” Heiko I think you can bet money on it that if U.S. murder and death rates were in any way related to the presence of the German troops, Germany would be expected both to divulge to U.S. authorities everything it knew about deadly incidents directly involving Germans and to do all it could to help discover any other deaths connected to their presence which had escaped detection. And if this troop presence was so unpopular – partly due to its deadly impact on the population – that it produced a bitter and violent insurrection to expel it, then I think the sensible thing would be for the Germans to immediately declare their intention to pull their troops out of the USA and begin doing so, while making every amends for the unholy mess they had created.

By: Heiko Gerhauser

Heiko Gerhauser — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:50:56 +0000

A little nugget as an addition: German troops are stationed in the US. They are mostly there, because Germany is quite crowded and so low flying training missions aren’t very popular there. While I’ve heard a few people say that they feel “uncomfortable” about their former ennemy having troops stationed in the US, you’d hardly argue that the US is under occupation by Germany with it being the duty of the German government to compile statistics on murder, death rates etc. in the US ;-) I know the comparison is, rather less than perfect, but it’s still a nice little nuggest of information surprisingly few Americans are even aware of (the Bundeswehr flying over Arizona).

By: Heiko Gerhauser

Heiko Gerhauser — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:24:14 +0000

Hi Dan, because for me it’s all about helping Iraqis, I think that information about how coalition forces could do better is absolutely vital. A 100,000 deaths from bombing would be something deserving of an awful lot of attention. This study extrapolates from 3 reported bombing incidents, completely unjustifiably so in my opinion. My own impression is that frightened American soldiers engaging in small arms fire represents a much, much more serious issue than aerial weaponry. The coalition forces are there at the request of the legitimate Iraqi government. They are therefore not occupation forces. Their status is the same as in Germany, and as in Germany, it is the duty of the national government to compile national statistics, which is indeed what is happening. The Iraqi Health Ministry is tracking deaths from military operations and terrorist activity and is publishing figures for both. Those include Iraqi security personnel and all victims believed to be civilians, though some insurgents or terrorists are likely included as well. Let me repeat, I agree with you. We need good information. The trouble is this study does not provide good information, the extra informational value of it is pretty close to zero. Or at least that’s what I believe after long discussions about the study and its methodology.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:45 +0000

‘More stats’ seems very honest to me, but on one matter entirely wrong. On the matter of priorities, it really is a false antithesis to say, as ‘more stats’ does, that ‘People should shut up and forget about the Lancet study for the moment, while concentrating on the things that really matter such as reconstructing Iraq.’ If we are to have successful reconstruction and security policies in Iraq- the two being entirely inseparable- then we need to know a)if there have been significant rises or falls in the excess death rate (since if it’s going up we’re doing a lot of things wrong and v.v.) and b) what the likely causes are of any rise or fall in the excess death rate (so that we can reverse any policies that seem to be leading to more excess deaths and reinforce any policies that seem to be lowering excess deaths: eg stop f**ing using f***ing artillery and airstrikes in urban areas*, and maybe do something more effective about clean water, antiobiotics supply etc). The occupation forces should be producing estimates of civilian death rates: both because they are obliged to under the Fourth Geneva Convention and because it is, for Christ’s sake, good policy for the reasons stated above. We do indeed need more surveys, as more stats seems to say (problem: data collection in Iraq right now seems a leetle dangerous) and we do also need debate on the best available study, ie the Lancet study, because if there are problems with that study then we need to design them out of further projects. (P.S.: Before any clown tells me I’m pinning the blame entirely on the Coalition forces for any rise in deaths: no, I’m not. I’m saying that the Coalition has a duty to plan and implement policy that will decrease the death rate over time, and that can’t be done without adequate information on what the death rate is.)

By: Heiko Gerhauser

Heiko Gerhauser — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:14:08 +0000

Hi rs, of course, Northern Ireland isn’t Iraq (though I should think Sinn Fein do remember the British invasion, the Orange marches rather effectively remind them every year). However, the comparison relates to the reliability of statistics for deaths, when there is a functioning state apparatus in place. And while the Iraqi Health Ministry may not be quite as good at collecting those accurately as the British government in Northern Ireland, my assumption would be that for civilian deaths their figures are by far the most accurate. What’s the basis for claiming they undercount by a significant amount? And if you admit they might make mistakes, how about considering the possibility of an overcount? Dsquared has a habit of time and again castigating any attempt at seeing reasons for an overcount with the Lancet study with the rejoinder that an undercount might be just as likely.

By: RS

RS — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:06:37 +0000

“I don’t see why the numbers presented by the Iraqi Health Ministry should be seen in a much different light than those of the British government for the conflict in Northern Ireland, where at the height of the conflict and on a per capita basis similar numbers of people were killed in terrorist and military activity.” I must have missed the British invasion of Northern Ireland, I think even Sinn Fein would laugh at the comparison.

By: Heiko Gerhauser

Heiko Gerhauser — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:22:16 +0000

Hi more stats, on the demographics, I presume you are giving this as just example of the many potential errors that can be introduced (household composition, not sampling locations like prisons, misunderstandings on the part of the interviewer or interviewed etc…). A single person lying can result in a difference of ten thousand or even more in the estimate, either way of course, and that applies both pre- and post liberation. On mortality, I think the balance of evidence is very clearly that violent death has gone up. For other causes, I don’t think we’ve got enough information yet.