Lancet's Iraq body count debunked

[Ziggurat]

And the real problem with this is that we end up debating numbers and methodology - and end up avoiding contemplating just how horrific day to day life is and has been for the average Iraqi.

Yes. And we all know how much the world knew and cared about conditions in Iraq prior to the invasion.

 

[Beerina]

500 deaths a day, huh? Gawrsh. This is worse than I thought!

 

[NoZed Avenger]

500 deaths a day, huh? Gawrsh. This is worse than I thought!

Those numbers a bit didgy-looking, as well.

Of course, IIRC, the researcher involved with the Lancet study was also involved in compiling those numbers, as well.

 

[Praktik]

Yes. And we all know how much the world knew and cared about conditions in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Going back decades to the beginning of the Baath revolution (though we could ask ourselves how much the British cared for the average Iraqi a hundred years ago) you're right.

Which is why its preposterous to assert that an unbroken line of callous Western policy all of a sudden "switched" to a policy of humanity towards the Iraqi people.

Just as it is foolish to argue whether 100 000 or 800 000 Iraqi deaths were "worth it" - does an American really have any idea of what the same per-capita death rate would do the the fabric of the United States?

Whats it like dodging a cruise missile or a sedan packed with explosives?

Whats it like kneeling on the floor with your hands on your head in your living room while 19 year old Americans shout orders at your wife and children on a faulty tip from an informant?

Whats it like to have to boil your water every day for years on end?

I argue that prior to 2003 - that the world did pay a lot more attention to Saddam's atrocities - heck, we had 12 years of repetition on the horrors of his regime from defectors, politicians and media personalities.

But the context was usually missing and drawn with broad strokes - often failing to note that the 12 years prior to 1991 he was doing the exact same stuff but with little to no comment at all. The campaign of demonization was more about how bad Saddam was (because it served policy ends) rather than what life was like for Iraqis, or how cruel the sanctions regime was for the "little guy" (most concerns with the sanctions program revolved around its effectiveness re: WMD, and corruption, with little focus on the abhorrent increase in child mortality and decreases in life expectancy, deaths to treatable disease, etc).

The Iranian threat was deemed severe enough that the Iraqi people could pay the price for the rest of the world to live without an empowered Iran in the 80s.

I wonder if Canada or Belgium were asked to make the same sacrifice to contain Iran - if they'd think it was "worth it".

In the 90s, we talked a bit more about torture and "repression" - but the end was to demonize Saddam - not to work at an understanding of life for the average Iraqi.

 

[FireGarden]

To place any confidence in the resulting numbers, ESPECIALLY when they conflict so dramatically with other sources (including the UNDP survey, which also used sampling methods but was FAR more exteinsive and did measure demographic information), is foolish, whether or not there was any deliberate misconduct at any stage.

What do you mean by dramatically?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_answers_from_les_roberts.php

This UNDP survey covered about 13 months after the invasion. Our first survey recorded almost twice as many violent deaths from the 13th to the 18th months after the invasion as it did during the first 12 (see figure 2 in the 2004 Lancet article).

The second survey found an excess rate of 2/1000/year over the same period corresponding to approximately 55,000 deaths by April of 2004(see table 3 of 2006 Lancet article). Thus, the rates of violent death recorded in the two survey groups are not so divergent.

The Lancet-2 data upto April 04 gives 55,000 deaths.
The UN survey gave 18,000 to 29,000, and one of its authors (while critical of Lancet-2) says that the UN's number was likely an underestimate:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/10/is_iraqs_civilian_death_toll_h.html

The JHU study, [Pedersen] noted, asked Iraqis only about mortality. The U.N. study asked Iraqis about many aspects of their living conditions. Pedersen said his study probably underestimated deaths caused by the war because the interviews did not focus on the issue, while the Lancet article probably overstated them because no other subject was discussed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Going back decades to the beginning of the Baath revolution (though we could ask ourselves how much the British cared for the average Iraqi a hundred years ago) you're right.

Which is why its preposterous to assert that an unbroken line of callous Western policy all of a sudden "switched" to a policy of humanity towards the Iraqi people.

There is not, and has never been, a "Western" policy towards Iraq. There has been US policy, there has been British policy, there has been French policy, etc. But never a "Western" policy. But US policy towards Iraq has indeed changed quickly, and more than once. Whether that change is motivated by sympathy for Iraqis is a separate question from whether the change is better for them or not.

Just as it is foolish to argue whether 100 000 or 800 000 Iraqi deaths were "worth it" - does an American really have any idea of what the same per-capita death rate would do the the fabric of the United States?

It would be terrible. And what would living under a brutal dictatorship do to the fabric of US society? That likewise would be terrible. Evaluating a course of action without also evaluating the alternatives is of little use.

In the 90s, we talked a bit more about torture and "repression" - but the end was to demonize Saddam - not to work at an understanding of life for the average Iraqi.

Of course not. Reporting from within Iraq which might have revealed such issues was deliberately suppressed by CNN (read my previous link if you didn't already for some details). No, we did not pay attention. And to be brutally honest, why should we have, and what good would it have done anyways, when no one was willing to do the only thing (deposing Saddam) that could actually change it? It was official US policy under Clinton to promote "regime change", but nobody actually intended to do it. I cannot honestly blame people for ignoring a problem no one was going to fix.

But now we forget what we never paid attention to, and most of us have no point of reference to compare the current hardships with the hidden horrors of the past. And because CNN is now telling us bad news that they kept secret before, many of us conclude that things have only been bad in Iraq since the invasion.

 

[Praktik]

There is not, and has never been, a "Western" policy towards Iraq. There has been US policy, there has been British policy, there has been French policy, etc. But never a "Western" policy. But US policy towards Iraq has indeed changed quickly, and more than once. Whether that change is motivated by sympathy for Iraqis is a separate question from whether the change is better for them or not.

Well, all Western policy in Iraq, whether its been French, British or America has some similarities.

The main one being that self-interest of the Western power (British, French, American) under study has always trumped the concerns for the life of indigenous Iraqis. Whether we're talking about the original creation of Iraq, what happened to Feisal and his Son, the Iran-Iraq war, the 1991 invasion or the invasion in 2003 - the concerns of western powers was what motivated their actions.

This shouldn't really need repeating, the history regarding this fact is so obvious. Nor is it really all that remarkable that powerful countries act in immoral and hypocritical ways as they further their self-interest (nor is America all that unique for behaving this way). But many are under the delusion that the US went to war in 2003 because of a genuinely felt concern for the Iraqi people - when this was at the bottom of a list topped by security and geopolitical concerns.

"Concern for the Iraqi people" was a fig leaf - and not a motivator - for all Western powers that have involved themselves in the country.

 

[Praktik]

Of course not. Reporting from within Iraq which might have revealed such issues was deliberately suppressed by CNN (read my previous link if you didn't already for some details). No, we did not pay attention. And to be brutally honest, why should we have, and what good would it have done anyways, when no one was willing to do the only thing (deposing Saddam) that could actually change it? It was official US policy under Clinton to promote "regime change", but nobody actually intended to do it. I cannot honestly blame people for ignoring a problem no one was going to fix.

I did read your CNN link - but its not as if there weren't brave reporters on the ground in Iraq in the 80s (such as Robert Fisk and other international reporters) bringing us stories. But most of them put a client regime in a bad light, and maybe even put the Iranians in a sympathetic light (the gassing, the unprovoked war of aggression against Iran by Iraq) and so we didn't hear all that much, and if we did, it definitely wasn't from Dan Rather or other mainstream figures. You had to flip to the back of the A-section or do a little digging to find it.

I also have an issue with your last sentence in the above quote. Who was "ignoring" a problem? Wasn't there a "containment" strategy happening?

Maybe there was no good way to "fix it", and maybe the act of "fixing" would make things worse. Actually thats exactly what happened in 2003.

The containment strategy devastated Iraqi society, the 2003 invasion devastated Iraqi society. The Iran-Iraq war devastated Iraqi society.

Look - I have no problem with people justifying American actions in Iraq on the basis of geostrategic concerns, security concerns or financial concerns - that all makes sense to me and you can argue for those reasons. Just don't pretend that in 2003 the Bush administration broke with decades of policy that focused on those "self interest" goals to implement a policy of selfless concern for the Iraqi people - and don't pretend that servicing the needs of security and geostrategy don't come with some fearful moral costs (and fatal costs for those ground under while "the great game" is played).

 

[a_unique_person]

TShaitanaku, you are the one who simply dismisses the analysis because you think it comes from the wrong political source.

Which is ironic since the article concentrates on political motivations.

 

[danielk]

"Concern for the Iraqi people" was a fig leaf - and not a motivator - for all Western powers that have involved themselves in the country.

I agree. The lack of intervention against similarly murderous dictators elsewhere shows that human rights concerns are unlikely to have been much more than an additional justification for the invasion. Unfortunately, I think it is also a fig leaf for most of the so-called progressives who rally for immediate withdrawal, and distort reality to match their own selfish political goals.

 

[danielk]

Which is ironic since the article concentrates on political motivations.

Actually not that much, considering the level of partisanship I have come to expect of American politics. I think they actually undermine their case by featuring Bush in the teaser quotes. However, apart from stuff like that, the article presents a decent summary of the counter arguments. If you cut the political crap, there still remains a strong case against the Lancet study.

 

[Ziggurat]

I also have an issue with your last sentence in the above quote. Who was "ignoring" a problem? Wasn't there a "containment" strategy happening?

The containment strategy was intended to address the possible threat Saddam posed to his neighbors. It was not intended to, did not, and could not, address the plight of Iraqis themselves. That is the problem which that sentence refered to, the problem which the world at large ignored. And again, I don't blame people for that. If nobody is going to solve a problem, it's quite reasonable to put it out of mind.

Maybe there was no good way to "fix it", and maybe the act of "fixing" would make things worse. Actually thats exactly what happened in 2003.

Opinions on that differ, and the final decision will depend upon the long-term outcome which is far from written in stone.

The containment strategy devastated Iraqi society, the 2003 invasion devastated Iraqi society. The Iran-Iraq war devastated Iraqi society.

Indeed. Sucks to be Iraqi.

Look - I have no problem with people justifying American actions in Iraq on the basis of geostrategic concerns, security concerns or financial concerns - that all makes sense to me and you can argue for those reasons. Just don't pretend that in 2003 the Bush administration broke with decades of policy that focused on those "self interest" goals to implement a policy of selfless concern for the Iraqi people

I never did pretend that. In fact, I didn't make any claims about what motivated the administration. I frankly don't care why Bush decided to invade. But I do care about the effects, and humanitarian concerns do enter into my own evaluation of events.

- and don't pretend that servicing the needs of security and geostrategy don't come with some fearful moral costs (and fatal costs for those ground under while "the great game" is played).

I don't pretend that either. I am well aware that decisions of war carry moral costs, often tremendous costs. But the decision not to act is not free of cost either, and those costs can be terrible too.

 

[Praktik]

I don't pretend that either. I am well aware that decisions of war carry moral costs, often tremendous costs. But the decision not to act is not free of cost either, and those costs can be terrible too.

I'm sorry that I cast aspersions on your outlook while I was riding my high-horse - I guess I wasn't really sure where you were arguing from.

it just seemed to me that in all the back and forth on the Lancet, we were missing the forest for the trees, and wondered if you thought the real number of dead was lower, if that made the invasion qualitatively "better" than otherwise.

While I guess we could say 100 000 is better than 300 000 which is better than a million, even the lowest number there is probably better cast as "the least worst", instead of the "best" - all are equally unfathomable in their horror for someone writing a world way.

 

[Puppycow]

Lancet or the study's authors?
The editor of Lancet has said that if clear evidence of misconduct is presented to The Lancet, they would be happy to go ask the authors and the institution for an official inquiry, and that they would then abide by the conclusion of that inquiry. Unfortunately , so far all that has arisen are politically laced commentary and aspersion from the typical sources who are uncomfortable with the report's conclusions.

"Clear evidence of misconduct" seems like a pretty high bar. That mysterious data cluster #33 would seem to be pretty strong evidence to me, but perhaps not to the Lancet.

Suggesting the report's critics are only "the typical sources" is doubtful. Are you including the anti-war group Iraq Body Count in "the typical sources"? Are they schills for the Bush Administration?

 

[Earthborn]

The Iraq body count is useless.

The Iraqi's themselves come up with a far higher number.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/11/11/1786178.htm

Note that the Iraqi count is a count of all excess deaths, while Iraq Body Count is a count of reported civilian deaths directly attributable to the war. That makes the IBC not useless but more limited in scope. The numbers are not comparable as they are count very different things. It should also be noted that they defended the earlier study published in Lancet which came up with a count of 100 000 excess deaths in 2004.

Considering that this quite a while ago, and assuming (for simplicity's sake) a constant deathrate of 50 000 a year, one can guesstimate that in 2006 when the article in your link was published, a study similar to the first Lancet article would give a number of about 200 000 excess deaths, and would be about 250 000 today. Of course, take my calculation a la manchete with a grain of salt.

 

[danielk]

Note that the Iraqi count is a count of all excess deaths, while Iraq Body Count is a count of reported civilian deaths directly attributable to the war. That makes the IBC not useless but more limited in scope. The numbers are not comparable as they are count very different things.

Edit: Removed original post. Sorry, I don't know what had hit me. You were obviously talking about something else.

 

[Trakar]

TShaitanaku, you are the one who simply dismisses the analysis because you think it comes from the wrong political source.

Not the wrong source, just not a substantive and scientifically or statistically compelling refutation. I dismiss it as political opinionation, because that is all it is. There is no there there, just a lot of hot air.

 

[Trakar]

Furthermore, I would like to apologize for murdering many Germans and Japanese during WWII. Bad U.S.! Bad! Bad!

You aren't seriously trying to say that you believe the Iraqi people were and are the opposing forces in the US invasion and continuing occupation of iraq, are you?

BTW how many Germans and Japanese civilians died due to the US occupation forces after VE and VJ days?

 

[Trakar]

"Clear evidence of misconduct" seems like a pretty high bar. That mysterious data cluster #33 would seem to be pretty strong evidence to me, but perhaps not to the Lancet.

Suggesting the report's critics are only "the typical sources" is doubtful. Are you including the anti-war group Iraq Body Count in "the typical sources"? Are they schills for the Bush Administration?

Bush is not the only actor with an agenda to push, or behind to cover on such issues, and IBC only records bits and pieces from printed press notices, while this is better than nothing, it is hardly something that could or should be expected to be accurate when we are talking about a war zone, where food, water and power are more immediate and important concerns than accurate and complete reporting and record keeping.

 

[gumboot]

If the Lancet study is accurate the Iraq Occupation has been more bloody (in terms of percentage of in-theatre population) than either of the World Wars. This notion is absurd, especially considering that those doing most of the killing in Iraq (insurgents and foreign terrorists) are armed with suicide vests, AK-47s and RPGs, rather than heavy bombers, long range artillery, and tanks.

-Gumboot