A question about the war in Iraq...

[BrianB]

I realize that politics and religion are not exactly the most welcome topics on AK, but I couldn't find any prohibition against asking a question like the following in THOR's "Off Topic" forum rules, so here goes:

Does anybody know where I can get a truly accurate estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians that have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion? And by "civilians" I mean innocent men, women, and children - NOT enemy combatants, insurgents, terrorists, etc.

The estimates I have seen range from as "few" as 10,000 (U.S. sources) to well over 100,000 (Middle East sources; the recent Lancet study). The truth, no doubt, lies somewhere in between. Can anyone direct me to anything vaguely resembling an "unbiased" figure?

 

[ProAc_Fan]

It's odd I just heard a radio host ask the exact same question. No one could provide an accurate response. I do agree it is probably somewhere in the middle of the 2 figures you quoted. Everybody has an agenda so any figures not backed up with convincing proof would seem meaningless to me anyway.


Mike

 

[BrianB]

Hiya, Mike!

What got me thinking about this was a bumper sticker that I saw yesterday - it was one of those "ribbon" stickers (the kind that typically say "Support Our Troops"), and it read "Freedom Is Not Free".

Personally, I don't think that Iraq has much to do with the freedom of U.S. citizens - unless you drive a gas-guzzling SUV, that is - but this bumper sticker really got to me. What exactly is meant by "not free"? Are we talking about the 1000+ U.S. troops that have been killed during this occupation? Or are we talking about the number of Iraqi innocents that have been killed, which falls somewhere between 10 times and 100 times the number of our own military losses?

Earlier today, I asked an acquaintance of mine how she felt about the loss of 10,000 Iraqi civilian lives during our occupation of Iraq - and again, this is the "conservative" body count, which is still more than three times the number of civilians that we lost on 9/11. And do you know what she said? "Well, that's a shame, but I'm glad that Saddam is no longer in power." I then asked her if she would feel exactly the same way if 10,000 U.S. civilians (innocent men, women, and children - and NOT Marines, Reservists, etc.) had been killed during this operation. She responded with one of the most hateful looks I have ever been given by a fellow human being.

How do YOU spell "racisim"?

Cheers,
Brian

 

[radiolee]

From Mark Twain, and it applies to both sides-

Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out...and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel. ..And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"--with his mouth.

- What Is Man?

 

[Fisherdude]

I'm also looking for an accurate count of current US casualties.

Clay

 

[Andyman]

I'd be interested in how many of that number have been killed by overt terrorist/insurgents actions via car bombs, assassination, beheadings, etc as opposed to I guess what the military types refer to as "collateral damage"

 

[merrylander]

Quote without comment, from today's Washington Post:

US Military casualities 1,217 fatalities, 4,904 wounded

Allied military casualities (Britain & others) 146

US civilian fatalities 67

Iraqi Fatalities 14,453 minimum 16,603 maximum

 

[tubino]

Brian,

There will always be a large discrepancy in the low-high range because of the range of assumptions: deaths due to dystentery and diarrhea, for example, may be directly related to war-damaged water supplies, but are usually left out of casualty counts.

Having said that, keep in mind that the Lancet report (of 100K+ death estimate) attempts to only report the "excess deaths" due to VIOLENCE. You can see some pie charts on type of death in this BBC story on the Lancet Report. Also, contrary to much of the popular media coverage hints, the Lancet Report was 1) peer-reviewed and judged to be consistent with accepted scientific methods, and 2) is based on CONSERVATIVE assumptions. The real count might be considerably HIGHER than 100K. You can read the Lancet Report in PDF here.

It's only 8 pages.

 

[tubino]

Correction on Lancet Report

I inadvertently got it wrong about cause of death being LIMITED to violence. Here it is from the BBC story I linked to:

"Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.

Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

So yes, MOST of the 100K excess deaths were due to violence, but the estimate was not restricted to that.

I'm trying to post while watching a 12-month-old, hence the screwup.

 

[Reel 2 Reel]

Those numbers above would be considerly lower if the Iraquis themselves would help us to rid their country of the insurgents....by helping taking care of them themselves...

If an average person...who is happy to have Saddam out of there, would let the Iraqi police know of some of the people who are causing the problems.............not tell our own troops......but their police......it would help keep civillian casualties down....

And if the insurgents want us out of there so bad...just stop blowing things up and killing people...we would leave a lot sooner...but they just dont understand the concept I guess....

And as for the information...just dont take the word of the media....everybody knows they all spin the facts around ...just to sell more ......all they really want is ...all your money!!!......

 

[grumpy]

"The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing"."



Come on a 1000 homes speaks for a whole country. Sounds like propaganda to me...

All I am saying is the dipshits who published that report were to lazy to actually do some some real research.

 

[WhiteSE]

That number seems awful high to me.....Its not impossible, but it must be a statistical program they are using...

Also, shame on the populace that allows the insurgents to blend in, and make it worse for themselves.

Its all a crying shame, really!

 

[tubino]

Those numbers above would be considerly lower if the Iraquis themselves would help us to rid their country of the insurgents....by helping taking care of them themselves...

I'm sorry, but this is patently naive and unfair. In the latest New Yorker you can read what happened in the early days after the invasion: competent Iraqis who wanted to help in reconstruction were targeted by the Baathists, as were their families. For their families' sake, many choose not to cooperate with the US against insurgents -- and so it began tipping the wrong way. The root problem, IMO, is that the civilian administrators (particularly Rumsfeld) overruled the military planners who -- using successful and failed models of occupation and reconstruction -- accurately predicted that security could not be managed without some 250,000 troops minimum. The truth-tellers were systematically shut out, and reality was ignored.

As for the accuracy of the Lancet Report, remember that it is almost the only NON-MASS-MEDIA account you have. To dismiss the one scientific peer-reviewed account as "propaganda" is worse than giving up on any attempt to figure out what's happening. I'm sure there are valid rebuttals from the scientific community, but dismissal as propaganda is the cheap way out. If Grumpy wants to delve into the statistical methodology, fine, but first you have to understand the model, how it was derived, and how accurate it has been in previous use.

Yes, 100,000 civilians, mostly women and children is a high number. If you want to put what is happening in Iraq in a comparative perspective using population numbers, see Juan Cole's comparison (I can add link later). If you want a historical perspective to understand Iraqi perception of US concepts of liberation and freedom, remember that when asked about the study showing that 500,000 kids under FIVE had died due to the UN sanctions, Sec of State Albright replied, "We think it's worth it." I have not heard any explanation of why half a million kids dying of dysentery etc. helps the cause of freedom.

 

[styler]

the war

*personal political views edited out*

This post seems to be on track with statistics and reporting. It has nothing to do with how much competency (or lack thereof) our President has. - Russ

 

[tubino]

Iraq Body Count

For Brian,

The most solidly grounded survey of deaths in Iraq is the Iraq Body Count, where they compile names and statistics from hospitals and morgues. They have a count of around 15K (min and max on either side). Iraq Body Count

I don't think counts from Fallujah will be out for at least a few more days. AFAIK, the Red Crescent isn't in there yet.

Obviously it isn't easy to get these numbers. I have no idea how the Lancet report researchers were funded, but I don't recall seeing body armor on a grant proposal, and I've seen a few.

 

[styler]

edited post

my political views were edited from my post. sounds like censorship. my point is that some of these numbers are compiled and released by this administration and of course is relevant to the discussion. our government is not revealing this information to the people. why? ae we supposed to believe that the pentagon, state dept, and head of US red cross (a politcal appointee) do not have accurate numbers. doubtful. our administration has an agenda to withold this information from the american public. they censor reporters and access to this information. many reasons why... would support for this war drop if the general public were fully informed of the casualties? not to mention the fact that subsidiaries of halliburton and KBR were involved in illegal trade with iraq under sanctions. give me a break. our govt is not transparent, thats why we cant get good numbers on casualties.

 

[ProAc_Fan]

Sometimes I'm really happy to be a tree hugging, peace loving, Canadian. This of course, is not to denigrate the scores of you Americans that I'm proud to call friends. I'm not sure how I'd feel about this war if I was living in the US. I do drive a gas guzzling SUV though and I have no guilty conscience for doing so. :thmbsp:

Mike

 

[DanTana]

I'm sure Saddam Hussein killed far more as their dictator, on one attack where he used poison gas on a village in northern Iraq, I'm sure the death toll was nearly as high as the total of the entire war thus far. The mass graves found after the war began were a grim reminder of the kind of tyranny the Iraqi people suffered. I believe most the insurgents now are non-Iraqi's, and Al-Quaida, and I feel it is better to kill them there than have to kill them on our soil or worse by suicide attacks.

 

[tubino]

I'm sure Saddam Hussein killed far more as their dictator, on one attack where he used poison gas on a village in northern Iraq, I'm sure the death toll was nearly as high as the total of the entire war thus far.

I don't think the numbers bear that out, but I *would* wager that if you subtract the deaths under Saddam while the US supported him, the 2003-now numbers are definitely larger. Saddam's gassings occurred with US support (Rumsfeld), and the largest number of deaths occurred during the Shi'ia uprising after the first Gulf War, with tacit approval of the US.

Either set of numbers, and possibly both combined, are smaller than the number of "excess deaths" that occurred over ten years of UN sanctions.

 

[dickard]

It's interesting to read through all the posts on this topic and see how many times people have mentioned that they are 'sure' that the statistics can't be all that bad.
Why are you "sure?"
I'm "sure" that you can't be "sure" because you are essentially pulling assumptions out of thin air. I understand that it may make you feel more comfortable to think that it's not all that bad, however that's both extremely naive and unfortunately typical.
I think the term 'insurgent' is also a little too convenient. I mean, if some Iraqis happen to be killed by US troops, it's a lot easier to assume that they are insurgents than to question whether or not you're mindlessly slaughtering civilians.
My thoughts.

Rich