Lancet's Iraq body count debunked

[gumboot]

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.

It's also worth pointing out that if you take the IBC as a sampling only, it's still a MUCH bigger sample than the Lancet study, and therefore more accurate. But when you multiply out the IBC statistics to the Lancet numbers you run into major discrepancies in cause of death (specifically insurgent or coalition caused), and there's also major issued with Lancet aspects for statistics that can be determined precisely - such as the number of death certificates issued.

Which ever way you slice it, the Lancet numbers simply don't add up.

-Gumboot

 

[The Fool]

It's also worth pointing out that if you take the IBC as a sampling only, it's still a MUCH bigger sample than the Lancet study, and therefore more accurate.

I'm No Stats wizz but I don't think that this is necessarily the case. Once you have a representative sample then it does not automatically follow that increasing the size is going to make it more accurate. If you want to make adverse conclusions on the sample size you would need to show that the Lancet sample was not big enough to be representative....That it was too small or cherry picked or something. If it was not too small and not cherry picked then a sample size that is much bigger is not automatically any better.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Lancet is claiming that around 1 in 42 people have died. Given the bloodshed, is that unreasonable?

 

[danielk]

The Lancet is claiming that around 1 in 42 people have died. Given the bloodshed, is that unreasonable?

The IBC people think so. Have you read their critique? It's a quite compelling reductio ad absurdum.

 

[a_unique_person]

That a country in chaos and civil war can be analysed using such methods as the IBC is absurd.

 

[Garrette]

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

Define "due to." Are car bombings in the market place or mosque where there are no US or coalition forces "due to" the occupation?

 

[Garrette]

The Lancet is claiming that around 1 in 42 people have died. Given the bloodshed, is that unreasonable?

Am I misreading this question? It seems to be asking

Given that a lot of people have died, isn't it reasonable to think a lot of people have died?

 

[danielk]

That a country in chaos and civil war can be analysed using such methods as the IBC is absurd.

Huh? Have you actually read their critique of the Lancet study?

Also, did you really mean to say "well then let's just make up some numbers"? Because that's what it sounds like.

 

[a_unique_person]

Have you read the defense of the study I posted?

There has been a countrywide problem with

1) criminal elements. When a dictatorial system is in place and breaks down, the criminals come out of the woodwork.
2) civil war, which usually involves a lot of bitter bloodshed.
3) ethnic cleansing. The forced movements of populations using violence, as the Balkans shows, can be extremely bloody.
4) ongoing insurgency.
5) civil disorder and chaos.

It's a lot more than just car bombs and what we see on the news about attacks on the US forces.

 

[Beerina]

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?

I am being sarcastic; glad you picked up on that.

I am just amazed at how some people can twist every single event around until, finally, whew! The US is to blame!

It's like a religious person looking to uphold the literal truth of the Bible or the existence of God. Keep twisting and twisting and twisting until some surface argument supports their conclusion: God exists, or the US is bad.

 

[FireGarden]

It's also worth pointing out that if you take the IBC as a sampling only, it's still a MUCH bigger sample than the Lancet study, and therefore more accurate.

But they are sampling different things.
The Lancet sampled the population. IBC samples the news. It's a very big sample of the news and therefore gives a very accurate picture of the news. But it does not sample the population. It does not give you a per capita death toll, it gives you a per news-article death toll.

More to the point, all experience indicates that such counts will under-estimate the total number of deaths. Surveying has been considered to be much more accurate than such counts. It was considered accurate when used in Congo, Sudan and many other places. But, suddenly, when used in Iraq it runs into so many walls. Why? During other wars, governments have been wrong about the number of dead. Why is the Iraqi government so able in this department?

[...] and there's also major issued with Lancet aspects for statistics that can be determined precisely - such as the number of death certificates issued.

How are death certificates counted? Who prints them? Who hands them out?

There are so many things that a bereaved family member cannot do without a death certificate for whoever died. Can they even bury their loved one in a cemetery without a death certificate? Can you just turn up with a dead body and say “Here, would you bury this for me?”

Then there’s insurance, inheritance, etc.
So the bereaved will make sure they get a death certificate. What happens after that? The counting isn’t automated, as far as I know. How many other jobs does an Iraqi doctor have to do. He HAS to give out the death certificate, because the family won’t leave him alone until he does. What does he do after that?



And, to top it all off, Les Roberts has given a measure which would blow Lancet-2 out of the water: the ratio of violent/non-violent deaths. IBC gives about 20,000 violent deaths a year. Iraq has a death rate of 5.26 per 1000 per year according to the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2066.html

That gives about 140,000 deaths a year.
Lancet-2 recorded 547 post-war deaths, about 300 of them violent. (Amongst 12,801 people in the survey). That's a very different ratio of violent/non-violent deaths.

So what is the actual ratio? I would have thought this was easy to get hold of. But reports from morgues/cemeteries don't give enough infomation.


http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,16290565-1702,00.html

THE number of dead Iraqi civilians counted at the Baghdad morgue hit 1100 in July, the highest toll in recent history, a British newspaper reported today, blaming the daily violence.

[…] The death toll was up from about 800 in July last year and 700 during the same month in 2003, according to the left-wing daily.

By comparison, equivalent figures for July 1997, 1998 and 1999 - during the leadership of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein - were all below 200, The Independent said.

Many of today’s corpses were badly mutilated, meaning that between 10 and 20 per cent of them were never identified, the newspaper said.

Since January, the medical authorities have buried 500 nameless bodies.

From 200 to 1100.
The Lancet-2 report only reckons the death rate went from about 5.5 to 13.3 per 1000.

So how many morgues closed? Why this big increase in the arrivals at one morgue? And that was from 2005 — much less violent than 2006 or 2007.

 

[Trakar]

Define "due to." Are car bombings in the market place or mosque where there are no US or coalition forces "due to" the occupation?

Without the US invasion, are these events likely to have occurred?

If we had not disbanded the civil and military authorities and used sufficient occupation forces (as per the suggestions and general mandates of all the military experts familiar with occupation and insurgency issues) to pacify and maintain order in Iraq after the war was won, are these events likely to have occurred?

Were these types of events occurring in Iraq prior to the US invasion?

The lancet studies only report deaths above and beyond the rates at which they were occurring prior to the invasion.

 

[Cicero]

Back in October, 2006, Hassan Mneimneh, director of documentation, Iraq Memory Foundation and Anthony Cordesman, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, found Les Roberts, coauthor of a new study in the Lancet medical journal on Iraqi mortality since the 2003 invasion, 600,000 figure unsupportable. Roberts admitted the release of his study was politically timed.

Under Saddam's reign, the generally accepted number of violent deaths was 300,000. Roberts had to come up with a figure that exceeded this number and so he had to estimate that 500 Iraqis die every day, not from Iraqi on Iraqi violence, but from coalition bombs and artillery. What better way to make the coalition appear more evil than Saddam then doubling the number of Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam's rule.

Where are these 655,000 bodies? That is 2.5% of the population.

 

[Trakar]

I am being sarcastic; glad you picked up on that.

I am just amazed at how some people can twist every single event around until, finally, whew! The US is to blame!

It's like a religious person looking to uphold the literal truth of the Bible or the existence of God. Keep twisting and twisting and twisting until some surface argument supports their conclusion: God exists, or the US is bad.

I don't see anyone here "blaming the US"

Though there are many short-sighted leaders who seem to have exploited and mismanaged multiple aspects of US foriegn policy and military operations in regards to this situation, in what appears to have been an effort to acquire personal and domestic gain from the situation.

 

[FireGarden]

Under Saddam's reign, the generally accepted number of violent deaths was 300,000. Roberts had to come up with a figure that exceeded this number and so he had to estimate that 500 Iraqis die every day, not from Iraqi on Iraqi violence, but from coalition bombs and artillery.

Where in Lancet-2 does it say that?
Table 4 of the report lists the cause of violent deaths as:
Coalition 31%
other 24%
unknown 45%

So where did you get your version of the report?
And that's 300,000 deaths due to Saddam over how many years?

 

[Cicero]

Where in Lancet-2 does it say that?
Table 4 of the report lists the cause of violent deaths as:
Coalition 31%
other 24%
unknown 45%

So where did you get your version of the report?
And that's 300,000 deaths due to Saddam over how many years?

Huh? Roberts has a definite percentage of Iraqis deaths due to the coalition, but the other 69% is unattributable? He can't say that these are displaced people, kidnapped people, and wounded people? Roberts said himself back in October, 2006, on NPR's Diane Rehm show that the U.S. is indeed responsible for the majority of dead Iraqis.

 

[Praktik]

Roberts said himself back in October, 2006, on NPR's Diane Rehm show that the U.S. is indeed responsible for the majority of dead Iraqis.

And I don't have an issue with that. As another poster mentioned, even the death by suicide bombing of a family in a crowded market by Sunni extremists can be blamed on the US.

Now of course there are some important caveats - the US did not deliberately send that Sunni extremist into the market in order to kill Iraqis, and an American did not personally kill the victims.

But in creating the conditions for the Sunni insurgency - by invading and occupying (and doing a ◊◊◊◊ job of the occupation part) - America is indirectly responsible for those deaths. Heck, you could even include damage to infrastructure during the war and the elevated number of miscarriages, infant mortality rates and death due to treatable disease - since these numbers are obviously not going to be as high as under conditions of war.

As that other poster said, how many suicide bombings occurred in Iraq under Saddam? The sunni's were well taken care of then, no need for armed conflict.

Now - you might have another take on this - but I think you should be able to concede that looking at "indirect responsibility" is at least an arguable position.

And what's the source for the 300 000 under Saddam's reign? Does that include the elevated number of deaths under the sanctions regime due to deprivation? Does it include deaths from his war of aggression against Iran?

 

[Cicero]

And I don't have an issue with that. As another poster mentioned, even the death by suicide bombing of a family in a crowded market by Sunni extremists can be blamed on the US.

Now of course there are some important caveats - the US did not deliberately send that Sunni extremist into the market in order to kill Iraqis, and an American did not personally kill the victims.

But in creating the conditions for the Sunni insurgency - by invading and occupying (and doing a ◊◊◊◊ job of the occupation part) - America is indirectly responsible for those deaths. Heck, you could even include damage to infrastructure during the war and the elevated number of miscarriages, infant mortality rates and death due to treatable disease - since these numbers are obviously not going to be as high as under conditions of war.

As that other poster said, how many suicide bombings occurred in Iraq under Saddam? The sunni's were well taken care of then, no need for armed conflict.

Now - you might have another take on this - but I think you should be able to concede that looking at "indirect responsibility" is at least an arguable position.

And what's the source for the 300 000 under Saddam's reign? Does that include the elevated number of deaths under the sanctions regime due to deprivation? Does it include deaths from his war of aggression against Iran?

As even Roberts admits, it is incredibly difficult to get a handle on accurate deaths in Iraq, either under Saddam's reign, or under the coalition's occupation. But since Roberts accepts the 300,000 figure, while still postulating the lancet 655,000, he accepts both figures to be of equal merit.

The same people who say that Bush 43 did not send in enough troops to Iraq in 2003 are the same ones who did not want Bush 43 to send in additional forces in 2007. That does seem contradictory.

Do you think the necessary mindset to foster suicide bombers happened in the space of a year, or is that a hallmark of a society already prone to such behavior? How many suicide bombings occurred under the Japanese and German occupation?

 

[Praktik]

As even Roberts admits, it is incredibly difficult to get a handle on accurate deaths in Iraq, either under Saddam's reign, or under the coalition's occupation. But since Roberts accepts the 300,000 figure, while still postulating the lancet 655,000, he accepts both figures to be of equal merit.

The same people who say that Bush 43 did not send in enough troops to Iraq in 2003 are the same ones who did not want Bush 43 to send in additional forces in 2007. That does seem contradictory.

Do you think the necessary mindset to foster suicide bombers happened in the space of a year, or is that a hallmark of a society already prone to such behavior? How many suicide bombings occurred under the Japanese and German occupation?

No I can agree with you that the society was already "prone" to such behaviour, given the underlying sectarian and religious climate of the country. But I don't think this changes anything regarding "indirect responsibility" for America having unleashed these forces that were kept at bay under Saddam's rule. If anything, should we accept that the society is "prone" to that kind of thing, then shouldn't planners have understood that fact and calibrated their strategy to it? But then again, Bill Kristol was filling their minds with tales of "secular Iraq" so I suppose this was yet another blind spot for the Bush administration.

And I don't really agree that the positions you mentioned regarding 2003 and 2007 are all that contradictory.

In 2003 - there were plenty of people that (both for and against the war) that argued if you were going to go in, you needed more troops in order to ensure security and enable an orderly transition.

By 2007, those that argued against the surge - but argued for more troops in 2003 - could potentially argue that "the damage was done", and that the whirlwind in Iraq had a better chance of dissipating with less (or no) American presence there (you know the arguments: the American presence is a "lightning rod", it prevents Iraqis from "taking control" and gives them a crutch, etc).

Where's the contradiction there? The climate and context was different - I think we can all agree that sending a lot more troops at the start would have been more effective than sending more troops later, after sectarian differences had many years to boil over with great cost in American and Iraqi lives. And I would just add that the "more troops" added in the surge is yet to be conclusively proven to have "fixed" the Iraq situation. I think its definitely fair to say it "improved" the situation, but there's shoes waiting to drop that haven't yet.

The larger point being that there isn't all that much contradiction if both those positions are held, depending on one's appraisal of the "facts on the ground", which I expect differs very much between someone like you, and someone who held both of those positions.

EDIT: so there's no more info on the details of that 300 000 figure for Saddam's rule? Not trying to be pushy here I'm genuinely curious as to its source and what was included/excluded in coming to that number...

 

[Garrette]

Without the US invasion, are these events likely to have occurred?

Nope. Without the Russian invasion of Germany, violent deaths of German civilians would have been far far lower than they actually were.

If we had not disbanded the civil and military authorities and used sufficient occupation forces (as per the suggestions and general mandates of all the military experts familiar with occupation and insurgency issues) to pacify and maintain order in Iraq after the war was won, are these events likely to have occurred?

Not all military experts. Tommy Franks agreed with Rummy. I'm not suggesting Rummy, Franks, or Bremer were right; I was there at the time and worked in the CPA building where Bremer was.

Were these types of events occurring in Iraq prior to the US invasion?

See my first response. Everything has consequences, including well-intended, well-considered actions. (Note that I am not arguing that the invasion of Iraq was either; I am demonstrating that your reasoning doesn't stand up)

The lancet studies only report deaths above and beyond the rates at which they were occurring prior to the invasion.

I am not qualified to debate their methods or statistics, so for sake of argument I will temporarily stipulate that their numbers are correct, but offer two counter-arguments:

1. Where is the cut-off, both start and stop?

Why did they ask questions only about the year prior to the invasion instead of including a time period covering the Anfal and other Saddam killings?

Why assume that the high numbers in 2006 will continue when Iraqi deaths during the surge were way down?

If deaths drop below the pre-invasion levels and stay there, would it justify the invasion?