See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 36128
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 398.
#3. To: leveller, ALL (#0)
Let's bring a little rationality to a new topic here at FD4UM. This isn't the first report on Iraqi deaths by Les Roberts of John Hopkins to be published by the Lancet. The first one (in which Les was the lead author) claimed 100,000 excess deaths occurred in the first 18 months after the invasion began. This study was *peer reviewed* by the Lancet ... who editors apparently didn't read the report since they proceeded to advertise the first study as saying 100,000 CIVILIANS died during that time, when the study didn't say that at all. But their saying this led thousands of conspiracists and numerous leftist media reporters to claim 100,000 civilians had been murdered by Bush and the evil United States. In interviews that Les Roberts gave on that first report, he allowed the 100,000 civilian deaths perception to stand uncontested. For example,here (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/14/154251#transcript) is an interview he did with DemocracyNow, a far left media outlet (curious how he could never find time for an interview on a conservative outlet). In it, the interviewer (Gonzalez) says to Roberts "Last year, the prominent British medical journal, Lancet, published a study estimating that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died because of the war. The study determined that the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the U.S. invasion. We are joined in Washington by the lead researcher of that report, Dr. Les Roberts, who is an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.". Les Roberts response didn't correct the misinformation about the study in Gonzalez's statement. He let the assertion that the study concluded a 100,000 civilians died stand. I think he did that because Les Roberts is DISHONEST and has an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda. He has from day one, as you will see. His dishonesty in the above interview continued when discussing the methodology he used. For example, he said, regarding the interviews with Iraqis on which the study was based, "And at the end of the interview, if they had reported someone dead, on a sub-sample, we asked, can you show us the death certificate? And about 82% of the time, they could do that. And we found that the death rate after the invasion was far, far higher than before." He doesn't mention that only in 2 out of 30 homes claiming deaths did they even ask for a death certificate. Nor does he tell his listeners the reason stated in the report why they didn't ask (fear that they would be hurt by those they asked). And reading that transcript, you will notice that he doesn' t mention the fact that such organizations as WHO and the UN (hardly Bush advocate's) published pre-war mortality rates (a VERY important number in arriving at the estimated number of excess deaths) that were significantly different from what his study found. In fact, his report neither noted or attempted to explain why it's pre-war mortality estimate was so markedly different. The John Hopkin's researchers in the first report said 5 per 1000 per year. Well it turns out that the UN and WHO, in very large studies conducted before the invasion, said 7-8 per 1000 per year. By the way, the Lancet had previously blessed those WHO and UN estimates as correct ... perhaps because at the time doing THAT was hurt the US governments image. Now there are many more criticisms one can make about that first report. But let's move on to the second report ... the one claiming 655,000 excess deaths. That one has all the defects mentions above plus others. For example, the second report claims that 92% of those interviewed in their study who claimed deaths in their families (of any kind) since the beginning of the war were able to provide death certificates to prove it when asked. So if the John Hopkin's study methodology is statistically valid, one would expect death certificates from about 92% of 655,000 deaths should be available if someone goes looking for them. That is over 600,000 death certificates. Of the total number of deaths claimed, the John Hopkins report said "601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006." So according to John Hopkin's, most of the death certificates should relate to violent causes. Now as far as I know, death certificates in Iraq are only issued by the hospitals and morgues. This is what the LATimes (not a friend of Bush or the war) seemed to indicate in June of 2006 when they reported (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deathtoll25jun25,0,4970736.story?coll=la-home-headlines) that they made a comprehensive search for death certificates throughout Iraq. And you know what they found? Less than 50,000. Here's what they reported. "The Times attempted to reach a comprehensive figure by obtaining statistics from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry and checking those numbers against a sampling of local health departments for possible undercounts." The article went on to say "the Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate. Relatives claim the body directly from the hospital and arrange for a speedy burial in keeping with Muslim beliefs. If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate. Health Ministry officials said that because death certificates are issued and counted separately, the two data sets are not overlapping. The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137." So here's the question. Where are the missing death certificates? About 500,000, if one subtracts out the non-violent deaths. For that matter, where are the missing bodies? Where is ANY hard proof (photographic, video, eyewitness reports by journalists, ANYTHING) to prove over 600,000 people have died from violent causes as claimed? I'll tell you. Such proof doesn't exist because the John Hopkin's studies are BOGUS. It's the result of a group of researchers (some of whom have admitted they disliked Bush and the War) who hired people in Iraq (who they described as HATING Americans) to gather the data. I think this reviewer of Robert's study (From http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006694.php) summed it up best: "In contrast to the amiable persona Roberts projected to his sympathetic Chronicle interviewer, Roberts comes across here as committed to exposing the American government's moral culpability in invading Iraq. More than that, Roberts' contention that Americans are passionately hated by the Iraqis he met and worked with ought to raise a red flag. It was those same Iraqis, acting as interviewers and team managers, who recorded and conveyed the surveyed families' impressions of the identities of those who killed their close relatives." The results are tainted because they were reviewed and published in a journal that not only lied about the first study (claiming it showed 100,000 CIVILIANS died in the first 18 months of the war) but whose editors admit they fast tracked the peer review process so that it could be published before an election and negatively affect the outcome against Bush and the GOP. The methodology was tainted by expecting the sunnis who bore the brunt of the invasion and who hate Americans (because we freed the rest of Iraq from their tyranny) to tell the truth about casualties. And the study is still being tainted by proponents who willfully hide all these facts every time they cite the numbers in order to promote their agenda. In summary, I'd be very cautious about citing Les Roberts or the Lancet results to prove anything. You might end up only embarrassing yourself. How the Lancet Cooked the Numbers Another bogus body count from those who brought us the last bogus body count!
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. The burden of 650G innocent Iraqi deaths has been lifted from our shoulders, to be replaced with the burden of only 50G or 60G innocent civilian deaths. It no longer matters that Bush launched an elective war of aggression, in the absence of any imminent critical threat to our national security. It no longer matters that Iraq had never attacked us and was not about to do so. It no longer matters that W's henchmen cooked the NIE to justify an illegal war. None of that metters, because 50G deaths don't count.
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians. Second, would you be as upset if only 10 "innocent" deaths had resulted from toppling Saddam and making sure Iraq couldn't be used with as a terrorists safe haven? At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?
Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies. How ironic that now a few years into this "war", you are playing down the number of dead in Iraq, and you appear to be implying that the "few" who really have died since the US invaded may not be innocent. What a joke. No one is going to buy this one, no one.
Prove this, Diana. And by the way, are you familiar with the Black Book Of Saddam? Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't. Care to explain to us where that binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED came from? Is the ISG lying when they state they have a credible witness who said WMD related items were moved to Syria before the invasion? Can you explain to us why Saddam's regime went to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD if there were no WMD or WMD programs? No, I'm disputing a SPECIFIC number. One that is so ridiculous that I'm surprised you'd be taken in by it. Don't mischaracterize what I've said. I neither said or implied that. Do you have to resort to mischaracterizing my statements to win this debate? Why don't you, instead, try to challenge the specific facts I listed in post #123. The joke will be on you folks if you don't even attempt to dispute the facts I listed in post #123.
Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't. Are you serious? Are you saying that was never said right before the war? Has it been wiped from the media records or something?
Yes, I'm serious. Prove that US officials claimed Iraq could launch missiles to the US.
If you look upthread you will see where I posted Tony Blair's 45 minute claim and it's refutation in the Guardian Unlimited UK. You will also see a link posted by someone else to a video of "someone in the administration" who you might recognize making the same bullshit claim. Your bluff's been called. Take your lumps like a man, for Chrissakes.
He didn't say anything about launching a missile to the US. That was Diana's claim.
I said that it was said by someone right before the war, and then you said something like you bet I couldn't prove anyone in the US administration said it. Then bluedogtxn brought up it was Tony Blair who said it, you were being a trickster!
This is what you said: Sorry Diana, but you clearly implied that the administration said Iraq had the capability of launching missiles TO THE US in 45 minutes. So I was perfectly justified in asking you to prove that someone in the administration said that. Now if you wish to retract the claim. Fine. Then we can move on.
Sorry Diana, but you clearly implied that the administration said Iraq had the capability of launching missiles TO THE US in 45 minutes. So I was perfectly justified in asking you to prove that someone in the administration said that. Now if you wish to retract the claim. Fine. Then we can move on. not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies." ****** that was added on, and I did not say specifically who said this as I didn't know. I just know it was said on FOX and other media outlets to scare the American public into thinking we were under an immidiate threat of being hit by Saddam's super missles which he didn't have. However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
This statement by you: "Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies." clearly points the finger at the Bush administration. And my challenge to you is quote ANYONE in the Bush administration actually claiming that "Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes". More than likely it was said by someone on the left trying to create an issue ... just as it was the left who created the issue of Iraq being an "imminent" threat. The Bush administration never said that and Bush specifically said in his pre-war SOU speech that Iraq was NOT an "imminent" threat. No they haven't. I dare you. QUOTE exactly what Bush (or any administration official) said in this so-called proof by other posters. For some reason, none of those who are *helping* you on this matter seem willing to do that. ROTFLOL!
No they haven't. I dare you. QUOTE exactly what Bush (or any administration official) said in this so-called proof by other posters. For some reason, none of those who are *helping* you on this matter seem willing to do that. ROTFLOL! You really do see all the posters on this forum as so beneath you, don't you. You see all of us as cookie-cutters of one another, all being exceptionally stupid and dull, objectifying all of us. That attitude and the shallow thinking that goes along with it is what's going to bring down the neocons in the end (and probably the rest of us because of them, gee thanks), they tend to underestimate the abilities of those they decide to make their enemies. It's like a blind spot they have, one which for instance does not keep them from repeating mistakes they should have learned from history, like invading Afganistan, as no one will be able to take down those people. But to people like you, all Others are stupid and insignificant so in your minds' they should be easy to conquer, and as usual it just doesn't turn out that way. I won't knit pick with you, it's impossible because my nature is not dishonest enough for me to be able to stoop to your level playing word games. You know something was said to the American people to scare them into thinking that Saddam had the capability to attack within 45 minutes and cause great calamity to our country. That message was loud and clear and indeed has been proven by those posters "helping" me.
Go on Diana ... quote EXACTLY what Bush (or any administration official) said that makes you think they said missiles could be launched from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes. That is what you very clearly claimed. If you can't, then I think you either misunderstood what was said or it is you were the one playing word games.
The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year. Iraq has already used weapons of mass death against another country and against its own citizens. The Iraqi regime practices the rape of women as a method of intimidation, and the torture of dissenters and their children. And for more than a decade, that regime has answered Security Council resolutions with defiance and bad faith and deception. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html Radio Address by the President to the Nation Among the evil committed by the Bush regime against the Iraqi people, are the very deeds he claims Saddam's regime was committing. As Rumsfeld put it, after watching the Abu Ghraib: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14864 What is shown on the photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added. A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." Rumsfeld then commented, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
There are no replies to Comment # 398. End Trace Mode for Comment # 398.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10.
#4. To: BeAChooser, ALL (#3)
Where are the missing death certificates? About 500,000, if one subtracts out the non-violent deaths. For that matter, where are the missing bodies? Where is ANY hard proof (photographic, video, eyewitness reports by journalists, ANYTHING) to prove over 600,000 people have died from violent causes as claimed?
#8. To: leveller, all (#4)
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. The burden of 650G innocent Iraqi deaths has been lifted from our shoulders, to be replaced with the burden of only 50G or 60G innocent civilian deaths. It no longer matters that Bush launched an elective war of aggression, in the absence of any imminent critical threat to our national security. It no longer matters that Iraq had never attacked us and was not about to do so. It no longer matters that W's henchmen cooked the NIE to justify an illegal war. None of that metters, because 50G deaths don't count.
#119. To: BeAChooser, leveller (#8)
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
#129. To: Diana, ALL (#119)
Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam.
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
the non-existent WMD
How ironic that now a few years into this "war", you are playing down the number of dead in Iraq,
and you appear to be implying that the "few" who really have died since the US invaded may not be innocent.
What a joke. No one is going to buy this one, no one.
#161. To: BeAChooser (#129)
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
#181. To: Diana, ALL (#161)
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't.
Are you serious?
#183. To: BeAChooser (#181)
#193. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, ALL (#183)
If you look upthread you will see where I posted Tony Blair's 45 minute claim
#195. To: BeAChooser, bluedogtxn (#193)
He didn't say anything about launching a missile to the US. That was Diana's claim.
#199. To: Diana, ALL (#195)
I said that it was said by someone right before the war,
"Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies."
#232. To: BeAChooser (#199)
"Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies."
#289. To: Diana, ALL (#232)
I did not say specifically who said this as I didn't know.
I just know it was said on FOX and other media outlets to scare the American public into thinking we were under an immidiate threat of being hit by Saddam's super missles which he didn't have.
However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
#336. To: BeAChooser, All (#289)
However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
#365. To: Diana, ALL (#336)
I won't knit pick with you, it's impossible because my nature is not dishonest enough for me to be able to stoop to your level playing word games.
#398. To: BeAChooser, Diana, SKYDRIFTER (#365)
[George W. Bush]
Replies to Comment # 398.
