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: 32173
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
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: leveller, scrapper2 (#21)
i'm amused
beachy, we are still waiting for the ron brown kookery. are you going to put up or not?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Beachy is just the wrong kind of kook. I still think TLBSHOW would be better.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Sure it does. Or are you telling us that you wouldn't risk one innocent life to save the lives of a hundred others? It certainly was a terrorist haven. We know now that al-Qaeda was busy planning mass casualty attacks against the US and its allies from the safety of Iraq long before we invaded. The Jordan chemical bomb plot trial proved that. Those terrorists admitted to meeting with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the invasion to plot the attack ... an attack whose goal was to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman. Now I think a rational person calls Iraq a safe haven under those circumstances. Especially given that Iraq's government was aware those people were operating inside Iraq. And I think a rational person would consider that an attack involving a weapon of mass destruction. We did find weapons of mass destruction that Saddam denied having. That binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED proves it. And the ISG said they had a witness they deemed credible who said Saddam moved WMD related items to Syria in the months before the invasion. And other sources say that happened. It is a fact that at the time of the invasion Iraq was still working on banned long range delivery systems, which even the Iraqi who headed the program said he thought was for delivering WMD. It is a fact that the ISG said Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought by the ISG to be related to WMD. It is a fact that the reason this happened has never been explained. Given those fact, I don't think any rational person could claim the administration lied about Iraq being a threat in terms of violating an agreement not to pursue WMD and in terms of being a potential source of WMD to terrorists. The apparent connection between the anthrax attack, Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent named al-Ani has never been adequately explained. Anything but. It has been a killing ground for thousands of al-Qaeda and thousands of their associates. Why just today it was announced that the #1 al-Qaeda in Iraq was wounded and his deputy killed. The truth is that because we invaded, al-Zarqawi was put on the run (and eventually killed), which probably is what kept him from overseeing and making sure the Jordan bomb plot was a success. And it certainly kept him from planning and launching another such plot. I can think of one without even blinking. Saddam and his sons are dead. On top of that millions of Iraqis are now going to live a life where they can prosper instead of being under the thumb of the Sunnis and Saddam's regime. Oh sure. A man who ordered a chemical attack on Israel during the first gulf war at a time when Israel wasn't even a combatant in that war was not a threat. A man who defied an agreement to not even pursue WMD but who continued to do so for over a decade was not a threat. A man who started TWO wars of aggression in one of the most vital areas of the world was not a threat. A man who when losing one ordered the torching of whole oil fields was not a threat. A man who committed genocide against his own countrymen, using WMD no less, was not a threat. A man who harbored terrorists who had attacked the US (such as one of the 1993 WTC bombers) was not a threat. A man who funded terrorists around the world was not a threat. A man who continued friendly contacts with al-Qaeda after 9/11 was not a threat. A man who APPLAUDED the destruction of the WTC towers was not a threat. Why is it I don't believe your assessment of him? This is untrue. We did no such thing. Even Tariq Aziz, right hand of Saddam and a person who was present at the meeting where you folks claim Saddam was given a greenlight, said publically this notion is silly. He said Saddam was under no illusions. He knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US. If it weren't Iraq, it would be something else. And most of them are dying there. Better there, under conditions where we can apply the full weight of our military, then somewhere else where we can't.
The sort of peace we had before WWII? But if risking those lives saved far more, wouldn't that be a good reason? The fact that those saying this want to cut and run while knowing full well that the number of Iraqis killed will skyrocket after we leave is not disgraceful?
ROTFLOL! That was Neville not Wilt. Show us from those sources how they determined those who died were civilians? Because they weren't wearing a uniform? And in the case of those who were innocent civilians, let's not forget who it was who actually killed them.
It's 1938 all over again, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of Wilt Chamberlain. ROTFLOL! That was Neville not Wilt. Are you certain? Please cite your source.
"To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq." Show us from those sources how they determined those who died were civilians? Because they weren't wearing a uniform? And in the case of those who were innocent civilians, let's not forget who it was who actually killed them. You doubt our own source? After pointing me to the url, are you now demanding that I prove the accuracy of the source that you cited? Must I carry on both sides of the argument? If so, I want a cut of your RNC paycheck.
You have to be joking. ROTFLOL!
No. The source I posted simply states that IRC "CLAIMS" 49,000 civilian deaths, BI "REPORTS" 62,000 and the LATIMES "REPORTED" 50,000 civilian deaths. That's doesn't mean the author of the article I posted believes those numbers either. Which is why I asked you to supply the basis for each saying those were all civilians who were killed. Is that hard to understand? But at least you aren't trying to defend the 655,000 number any longer. So perhaps we can conclude that I am right in questioning the accuracy of this thread's article, "Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit".
beachy, i can't understand why you won't go over your kooky ron brown and wmd stuff. did your mom throw out all your old newsmax articles or something? also, it's very cowardly of you to have so many people on bozo. the other kooks we've had here didn't bozo anyone.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
i read on LP that you can prove ron brown's plane was shot down by a ufo. this is the kind of nut ball stuff we enjoy hearing you rave and rant about.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
your bozo count is much higher than ponchy's was at this point. you need to start putting out or you will just be more trouble than you are worth.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I think the lesson here is that if the obsessed kook has earned the name of "loser", don't expect him to be intelligent or funny. Just obssessed. I think we should be a little more careful about the kooks we recommend. I confess that it was I who first raised the idea and I now admit that Beachy is a witless dumbshit. I made a mistake. I am sorry.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
maybe we should be the ones to boot him. it is sort of our fault. christine shouldn't have to do it.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Is it your position that no civilians have been killed in Iraq? Or is it your position that those killed have not been innocent? Or is is your position that "our leaders" have pegged the Iraqi death toll with accuracy?
Are you certain? Please cite your source. You have to be joking. ROTFLOL! Joking? You misunderestimate me, sir. I'm fairly certain it was Wilt. You're going to have to learn to trust me on matters like this, BAC.
It's not just about oil.
In Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's book about the Iraqi war, Plan of Attack, Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the operation, famously called Feith the "dumbest f****** guy on the planet."
christine: i'm amused Leveller, you've "met" the one and only scrapper - at least, a scrapper of my creation. I chose the number "2" to mean "too" as I am a "scrapper, too." Darn, it doesn't sound so clever now that I've had to explain it, sigh.
Me 2.
;)
Of course not. Why would you make such a ridiculous assertion? Or course not. Why would you make such a ridiculous assertion? Of course not. However, the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions by you.
You need to learn the difference between assertions and questions. All of which you failed to answer sufficiently.
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
and you have an old newsmax article to prove it?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
He's not going to offer any alternatives. All he has is that it's less than Saddam was killing. You watch. It's absurd but that's where it's heading.
national enquirer? a freeper thread maybe?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
his own. but he will tell you that he is a lot smarter than the guys at johns hopkins while he is at it that and his yellow dog eared newsmax articles are proof positive.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Distinctions so fine have no place on this thread.
Don't scare him off. He's earning overtime.
He knows damn well what was implied in your asking those questions, but he gave the flippant "of course not" to waste your time to get you to ask another question.
That's why he's going to answer your question with a question.
when people laugh at the goofy sources you use to support your arguments. things such as the hysterical wingnut websites you cited above. why don't you tell the people that there is an evil conspiracy to keep support for your ideas out of the objective press? this wouldn't be any more kooky than your wmd or ron brown conspiracy theories.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
While we're waiting for that question, perhaps you could entertain a question about what your logo is all about.
The number isn't all that important - it's massive and a continuing U.S. War Crime! Iran's next; right BAC. That's why the "BAC Pack" arrived so suddenly. You're an "Advance Party" of disinformationists; right? C'mon BAC - you can be a LITTLE bit honest, can't you?
Cover art from an early 20th Century anarchist pamphlet. Maybe late 19th Century. I used to have the link to the original source, but lost it somewhere in the hard drive.
They don't make anarchists like that anymore.
You would have left Iraq a safe haven for terrorists so they could plan and launch attacks like the one in Jordan where tens of thousands of dead were the goal, rather than invade even if the cost were only 1. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists. Even the 9-11 Commission, try as they may to whitewash the ill-considered decisions of GWB and Congress, admitted that Saddam was not dealing with AQ or any other terrorists. Also Iraq was so weakened by sanctions since the first Gulf War it was no threat to the US or its neighbors. As for the Iraqis brutalized by Saddam - are we any less brutal than Saddam was to Iraqis - have you looked at news reels lately of Iraq's neighborhoods - just shells of buildings standing and hundreds upon hundreds of thousands dead and wounded and our gov't has only been "in charge" for 4 years - our annual kill rate has been a lot higher than Saddam's who was in charge for 24 years. Also why was Saddam's brutality in particular our problem? Please don't get all holier than thou with me regarding Saddam's crimes. Let's face it, our gov't tolerates the same or worse violence against civilian peoples by other despots/regimes than what was perpetuated by Saddam - actually some of the most brutal regimes we even refer to as our dear allies and we prop up with financial aid. For example, Israel brutalizes the Palestinians 24/7 - do you suggest we attack Israel and forcibly remove its gov't to "free" the Palestinians for humanitarian reasons? Israel attacked its neighbor, Lebanon, twice already, most recently this summer, displacing 950,000 Lebanese civilians, killing 1000 Lebanese civilians, destroying homes and apartment blocks and valuable infra-structure like the airport, hospitals, schools, roads, leaving unexploded cluster bombs behind that will murder innocents for who knows how many years to come and will contaminate ground water sources as well. Israel had far more UN resolutions passed against it than Saddam ever had - again, I ask you if we follow your humanitarian reasoning for invading Iraq, why don't we invade Israel and do its neighbors and the people it terrorizes and poaches land from a giant humanitarian favor? Israel's ongoing violent aggression against the Palestinians and the Lebanese has been Bin Laden's best recruiting tool. As a result, one could say that it is Israel that poses the greatest danger to America's national security. The longer Israel is allowed to keep doing what it does against civilian Muslims, the more numbers of radicalized anti-American, AQ-sympathetic Muslims there will be because we turn a blind eye to the senseless cruelty, the war crimes Israel perpetuates on a regular basis.
what a well reasoned factual post, scrapper.
Scrapper2 for president.
How many 4um threads reach 80 posts? How many are punctuated with posts such as scrapper2's post 78? Diversity of opinion, however ridiculous, breeds adversarial debate and close analysis. 4um can tolerate that.
Comments (82 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestscrapper2 who is scrapper1?
#42. To: BeAChooser (#10)
#43. To: Morgana le Fay (#42)
beachy, we are still waiting for the ron brown kookery. are you going to put up or not?
#44. To: bluedogtxn, ALL (#11)
"At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?"
Number has nothing to do with it.
It's obvious by now, to anyone who is not a Bushbot, that the Administration lied about Iraq being a "terrorist haven"
lied about "weapons of mass destruction"
lied about any connection between Iraq and 9-11
As for making sure Iraq couldn't be used as a safe haven, what the fuck do you think it is now?
There hasn't been a single good thing accomplished here.
He was no threat to us
when WE greenlighted his invasion of Kuwait.
Iraq is the terrier's recruiting poster.
Young Saudis are catching rides to Iraq just so they can take a shot at a real-live US GI.
#45. To: kiki (#13)
an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda would actually be a pro-peace agenda
those numbers represent actual people whose lives were cut short for no good reason.
the fact that we kill and don't even know who or how many is disgraceful.
#46. To: leveller, ALL (#21)
It's 1938 all over again, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of Wilt Chamberlain.
"To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq."
#47. To: BeAChooser (#46)
#48. To: BeAChooser (#46)
The first source that you cited in your post #3 above stated the following:
#49. To: leveller, ALL (#47)
That was Neville not Wilt.
Are you certain? Please cite your source.
#50. To: leveller, ALL (#48)
You doubt our own source?
#51. To: BeAChooser (#50)
(Edited)
#52. To: BeAChooser (#50)
#53. To: BeAChooser (#50)
#54. To: Morgana le Fay (#53)
(Edited)
#55. To: Minerva (#54)
#56. To: BeAChooser (#50)
So perhaps we can conclude that I am right in questioning the accuracy of this thread's article, "Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit".
#57. To: BeAChooser (#49)
That was Neville not Wilt.
#58. To: SKYDRIFTER (#37)
(Edited)
#59. To: christine, leveller (#41)
leveller: scrapper2 who is scrapper1?
#60. To: scrapper2 (#59)
sigh.
#61. To: scrapper2 (#59)
#62. To: leveller, ALL (#56)
Is it your position that no civilians have been killed in Iraq?
Or is it your position that those killed have not been innocent?
Or is is your position that "our leaders" have pegged the Iraqi death toll with accuracy?
#63. To: BeAChooser (#62)
(Edited)
Of course not. Why would you make such a ridiculous assertion?
#64. To: BeAChooser (#62)
the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions
#65. To: BeAChooser (#62)
the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions by you.
#66. To: leveller, BeAChooser (#64)
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
#67. To: BeAChooser (#62)
#68. To: leveller (#64)
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
#69. To: SmokinOPs (#63)
learn the difference between assertions and questions.
#70. To: SmokinOPs (#66)
He's not going to offer any alternatives. All he has is that it's less than Saddam was killing. You watch. It's absurd but that's where it's heading.
#71. To: leveller, BeAChooser (#69)
Distinctions so fine have no place on this thread.
#72. To: leveller, BeAChooser (#70)
Don't scare him off. He's earning overtime.
#73. To: BeAChooser (#62)
#74. To: SmokinOPs (#72)
he's going to answer your question with a question.
#75. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#62)
Of course not. However, the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions by you.
#76. To: leveller (#74)
(Edited)
While we're waiting for that question, perhaps you could entertain a question about what your logo is all about.
#77. To: SmokinOPs (#76)
an early 20th Century anarchist pamphlet. Maybe late 19th Century.
#78. To: BeAChooser, robin, leveller, Burkeman1, bluedogtxn, Brian S (#9)
You would have left Saddam in place to murder tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis every single year, rather than toppling him at the cost of even 1.
#79. To: scrapper2 (#78)
#80. To: scrapper2 (#78)
#81. To: christine (#79)
.
.
.