Lancet's Iraq body count debunked

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?
Looking at indirect responsibility certainly is an arguable position, but you take it to an untenable extreme when you use it to trump direct responsibility.

And I will argue all day about your 'damage to the infrasturcture' comment. There was precious little attributable to the invasion. The majority of infrastructure problems arose during years of Saddam's neglect; the US showed up and took responsibility just as things were going to pot and needed fixign. The large minority of remaining problems were due to the looting, which I agree the US should have taken greater action to stop.
 
Looking at indirect responsibility certainly is an arguable position, but you take it to an untenable extreme when you use it to trump direct responsibility.

And I will argue all day about your 'damage to the infrasturcture' comment. There was precious little attributable to the invasion. The majority of infrastructure problems arose during years of Saddam's neglect; the US showed up and took responsibility just as things were going to pot and needed fixign. The large minority of remaining problems were due to the looting, which I agree the US should have taken greater action to stop.

Hehe - "extreme" - eh? I don't think i said that it "trumps" direct responsibility - in fact I was careful to draw out that ultimate responsibility rests with the guy driving the car filled with explosives and stated explicitly that America did not send him on his mission.

My only point was that indirect responsibility should still make these deaths attributable to America's war of choice, and that the quote by Cicero was not as unreasonable to me as it was to him because of this.

And I think when I mentioned infrastructure, I didn't say "damaged by American bombs", though this did have a measurable effect however small. Even if infrastructure was abysmal under Saddam - and this was exacerbated by UN sanctions supported by America - the fact is that in war conditions, the infrastructure was surely not going to get any better than it was under Saddam, it was going to get worse. And that's what happened. You even concede the looting was out of control because of American force levels - so where's our disagreement on this score really?

So I still think its fair to attribute some of these types of deaths to the American invasion and occupation - especially if we consider that low force levels also allowed for a greater degree of sabotage from the insurgency.

My main point is that the total number of deaths attributable to America's Iraq Policy is much higher than the many thousands killed directly by American bombs, missiles, bullets and shrapnel - we should also consider the overall condition of the country, and how the invasion unleashed forces that increased the Iraqi death count.

Whether directly or indirectly, America is responsible for this blood. You can equivocate all you like - but its not going to change that fact.
 
Last edited:
Hehe - "extreme" - eh? I don't think i said that it "trumps" direct responsibility - in fact I was careful to draw out that ultimate responsibility rests with the guy driving the car filled with explosives and stated explicitly that America did not send him on his mission.

My only point was that indirect responsibility should still make these deaths attributable to America's war of choice, and that the quote by Cicero was not as unreasonable to me as it was to him because of this.

And I think when I mentioned infrastructure, I didn't say "damaged by American bombs", though this did have a measurable effect however small. Even if infrastructure was abysmal under Saddam - and this was exacerbated by UN sanctions supported by America - the fact is that in war conditions, the infrastructure was surely not going to get any better than it was under Saddam, it was going to get worse. And that's what happened. You even concede the looting was out of control because of American force levels - so where's our disagreement on this score really?

So I still think its fair to attribute some of these types of deaths to the American invasion and occupation - especially if we consider that low force levels also allowed for a greater degree of sabotage from the insurgency.

My main point is that the total number of deaths attributable to America's Iraq Policy is much higher than the many thousands killed directly by American bombs, missiles, bullets and shrapnel - we should also consider the overall condition of the country, and how the invasion unleashed forces that increased the Iraqi death count.

Whether directly or indirectly, America is responsible for this blood. You can equivocate all you like - but its not going to change that fact.
I think there is sloppy thinking at work.

Premise: Regardless of motive, invasion will result in more immediate deaths and more middle-term deaths than would result without invasion.

I think we agree on that in principle.

Where I think you are being sloppy is in leaving it at that, as if that alone is enough to draw a conclusion regarding culpability as opposed to responsibility. (I know you have not used that term, but the implication is clear)
 
Huh? Roberts has a definite percentage of Iraqis deaths due to the coalition, but the other 69% is unattributable?

I think the "other" means fighters other than the coalition. ie: Iraqis, al-Qaeda, etc. That becomes clearer in context. Lancet-2 specifically names car-bombs, etc, as causes of death.

other (than the coalition) gets blamed for 24%

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.

Where blame can be attributed, that is the case.
31 > 24

But that is a different claim to: Roberts said "500 Iraqis die every day, not from Iraqi on Iraqi violence, but from coalition bombs and artillery."

So have you changed your claim?
 
Everything has consequences, including well-intended, well-considered actions.

And people are responsible for all the consequences of their actions -- even the consequences they tried to avoid. That's what being the decider means: the buck stops there.

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 not average out the 300,000 number over Saddam's years in power? (I still want to know the source of that number. I'm not accusing anyone of making it up, btw -- I've heard it before.)

The CIA factbook 2002 data gives a death rate of 6.02 per 1000
http://www.bondtalk.com/factbook2002/geos/iz.html

Lancet-2 came up with 5.5 per 1000 for a period before the war. (I don't remember the range they gave, or the exact period it applied to).

However, many people blame Clinton and the sanctions for the high death rate in Iraq before the war. And, of course, if the death rate pre-war turned out to be 10 or 11 per 1000 that wouldn't change what the death rate became after the war. It would lead to a difference in the excess deaths due to the war -- not the number of deaths.

Would anybody defend the war by saying, "Loads were dying needlessly before and they're still dying needlessly now. So what's to complain about?"

Then there's Lancet-2's finding that more than half of deaths they recorded where due to violence -- not to ill health, etc.

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

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
That site assumes a constant rate of under-reporting by IBC and tries to update the Lancet finding to give an up to the minute estimate. Obviously, that's very rough and ready. Which leads to the most important question: why have there been so few of these surveys? Why does the richest, most powerful nation in the world rely on NGOs to count the dead in war?

I think the US has a duty to fund a much bigger survey than any we've had so far.

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

If it could be proved that there was no better way to bring about such an improvement.
 
Originally Posted by TShaitanaku-
Without the US invasion, are these events likely to have occurred?
<snip of irrelevencies/red-herring concerning Russians and Germans>

Then where is the problem with accepting that The US invasion and manner of our occupation bears a major responsibility for precipitating these situations?


Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
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.

I didn't say "all military experts," I clearly stated,"all the military experts familiar with occupation and insurgency issues." Which should clearly exclude Franks, Rummy and Bremer.


Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
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)

I see your first response quite clearly, though what you believe it demonstrates seems to be at serious odds with supportive reasoning for your prior claims and assertions.


Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
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?

(that looks like only a single, multipart counterargument,...but regardless)

The sample for the year prior to the invasion were done to establish a pre-invasion baseline.

The al-Anfal incidents happened back in '88 or nearly a decade and a half prior to the invasion and would be largely considered too remote to have been of any value and an outlier in its nature. Is there any reason to believe that conditions in the year leading up to the invasion were unusually quiet with respect to Saddam's activities in Iraq? You have to realize this wasn't a political ploy to make Saddam look beneficient, this was an attempt to find out how many deaths had occurred between when the US invasion started and when the study was completed in 2006

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

Who has made this assumption? where? and where is the evidence of greatly lowered Iraqi deaths during the "Surge"?

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

By what convoluted stretch of reasoning?

If I kick your door down and kill your children and then stop any further killing, does that justify me kicking your door down and killing your children?
 
Read a fantastic article by the always reliable Michael Massing in the New York Review of Books on the way to work today.

The article, "As Iraqis See It" covers the McClatchy bureau in Baghdad, and a blog they run where Iraqis are the content providers, giving a crucial look into their everyday life.

The blog is here and I get the feeling it will become a regular part of my digital rotation.

The article is here.

And here are some highlights from the article:

"Inside Iraq" specializes in such stories. The entries on it are rarely edited, and the English is left intact. "You can hear the way they think and speak, untouched," Fadel says. The emphasis, she notes, is on telling personal stories rather than expressing political views. Even so, the blog is full of passion, irony, bitterness, and outrage, qualities that help get across the dark realities—and unfathomable costs—of the occupation with an immediacy that Americans are rarely exposed to. It's the occupation as seen through the eyes of the occupied.

Some of the postings deal with the daily challenges posed by a society suffering a precipitous physical decline. "I just would like to tell you that this is the 7th day that we don't have water in our neighborhood," observes one writer in an April 14, 2007 entry. (It, like many of the contributions, carries no byline—a security precaution.) The lack of water results from the lack of electricity, which is needed to keep the water pumps going. Fortunately, the blogger notes, he can afford the fuel for a private generator. "Yesterday," he writes,

almost all our neighbors came to our house asking for water. We kept our water pump working for hours and we couldn't do anything but providing people with water until 11 pm. I could see happiness and Thanks Allah, my family gained many nice prayers from our neighbors who were really thankful.

An entry from mid-June describes the "vacation" the writer was forced to take as a result of a curfew imposed on Baghdad. "I lived the daily suffering of my family for whole three days," we're informed. Breakfast has to be cooked for everyone at the same time in order to conserve the precious propane gas. Next comes the daily cleaning of the house—turned into an ordeal by the lack of water. There's no electricity, and with the temperature outside 45 degrees centigrade (113 degrees Fahrenheit), the house is suffocating. At 2 PM the electricity comes on for three hours, and the writer takes a bath, followed by a nap with his son:

I just put him between my arms and slept trying to enjoy the moments of having cool air of my room air cooler in spite of the bad smell of the sewage system that flow over.​

When the electricity goes off, he reads a book. At 8 PM, when the power returns, the family watches TV, especially the news channels in Iraq, but the blogger sits in another room because he wants to see "a comic movie or a song just to forget for a while the terrible situation of Iraq." Around midnight, when the generator goes off, everyone heads to the roof to sleep because it's too hot inside. "I can say that my three days vacation deserves to be No. 1 worst vacation because I experienced the typical Iraqi day," the post concludes.

...

Not all the posts are so morose. Some note with satisfaction that certain parts of Baghdad are reviving as a result of the US troop surge. In a November 10 entry, for instance, a blogger tells of visiting his brother a few blocks away. For more than a year, he writes, his neighborhood, Amil, had been ripped apart by sectarian violence, with some streets abandoned to snipers. But two weeks earlier, with the start of meetings between sheiks representing Sunnis and Shiites, the violence had begun to subside, and on his way to his brother's he walked along some streets

I wouldn't dare to pass a week ago. I also noticed the two cafes on my way open, with great surprise, one of them filled with customers.... I was really happy to see this happens having our traditions and habits come back again.

Recently, a number of similarly hopeful entries have appeared on "Inside Iraq." On December 14, for instance, a blogger noted how

Yesterday morning I made a tour to different areas in Baghdad which I would never think or dream to pass through a year ago.... To my surprise, I saw the highway full with traffic having cars of all kinds even trailers comparing it with the last few months which was almost deserted of all kinds of cars even the military ones. I am really happy to see and feel the security situation becomes better and better.

Such posts are greatly outweighed, however, by those expressing anger and gloom, exasperation and despair. The overwhelming sense is that of a society undergoing a catastrophic breakdown from the never-ending waves of violence, criminality, and brutality inflicted on it by insurgents, militias, jihadis, terrorists, soldiers, policemen, bodyguards, mercenaries, armed gangs, warlords, kidnappers, and everyday thugs. "Inside Iraq" suggests how the relentless and cumulative effects of these vicious crimes have degraded virtually every aspect of the nation's social, economic, professional, and personal life...

...

...the United States is not spared on the blog. On the contrary, it is the subject of almost constant comment—most of it negative. Frustration, indignation, resentment, fear—these are the emotions most frequently aroused by the occupation. One major source of grievance are the US military patrols and convoys that are forever hurtling across Baghdad. Motivated by a legitimate fear of car bombs, the Americans insist that while they are on the road, all cars must remain a safe distance away. If anyone gets too close, or makes too sudden a move, the Americans will often open fire. Though rarely mentioned in the US press, such incidents have claimed untold hundreds of Iraqi lives, and the fear of adding to the total is a constant theme of the blog, as in this entry from October 18, about being in a minibus caught in a traffic jam:

During our 10 minutes waiting to pass the intersection, I saw a US army convoy, four Humvee vehicles and two 4wheel drive cars among them. OMG, Not again. Everybody was watching the convoy carefully praying so hard that they pass over peacefully.​

While everyone is focused on the convoy in front, a passenger looks in back and sees that another, consisting of four Stryker armored vehicles, is approaching. "Death in front, death behind," he warns, and the passengers, looking behind them, are terrified. When the two convoys pass without incident, they give thanks to Allah. "It was the longest ten minutes I ever lived," the blogger notes.

The whole thing is worth a read - and I think this blog serves a critical function in helping us - living our warm, insulated lives - to understand better (though we could never understand completely) the trials and tribulations of life in Iraq. Something all the hair-splitting and equivocations over the "real" number of dead Iraqis misses by a wide margin.
 
Last edited:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this WHO survey identifies "civilian violent deaths" attributable to Invasion/occupation, whereas the Lancet survey numbers, I believe, include a broader category of all civilian deaths. Once infrastructure elements are destroyed (hospitals, water treatment, medicine delivery, etc.,) even what we might consider minor medical conditions, ailments and injuries can, and often do, become lethal. It would not at all surprise me if the aggregate of all these other non-violent deaths brought the totals up more in line with the Lancet study.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this WHO survey identifies "civilian violent deaths" attributable to Invasion/occupation, whereas the Lancet survey numbers, I believe, include a broader category of all civilian deaths. Once infrastructure elements are destroyed (hospitals, water treatment, medicine delivery, etc.,) even what we might consider minor medical conditions, ailments and injuries can, and often do, become lethal. It would not at all surprise me if the aggregate of all these other non-violent deaths brought the totals up more in line with the Lancet study.

I thought the total was different, also. But it turns out that, while Lancet-2 reported an increase in non-violent death, most of that 650,000 headline figure of excess deaths was due to violence. 600,000 of it, according to Lancet-2.

crude death rates, after invasion: 13.3 per 1000 per year
crude death rates, before invasion: 5.5 per 1000 per year
Excess death rate: 13.3-5.5=7.8 per 1000 per year

violent death rates, after invasion: 7.2 per 1000 per year
violent death rates, before invasion: 0.1 per 1000 per year
Excess violent deaths: 7.1 per 1000 per year

So most of the excess deaths were due to violence.

The 300 violent deaths out of 547 reported deaths stat I gave earlier includes non-violent deaths that would have happened without the invasion. My apologies if that was a source in your error.
 
The NYTimes answers one of the questions I asked earlier. It seems you CAN turn up at a cemetery with a dead body and ask for it to be buried:

At the same time, Iraqi officials have asserted that they made improvements in their ability to track fatalities using morgue counts and other means. One shortcoming has always been that the corpses of many victims, if they are identifiable, are taken by family members straight to the cemetery, bypassing the morgue and hospital. Yet Iraqi authorities say that relatives still have an incentive to obtain a death certificate because it is required for inheritance, for government compensation, and for other purposes.
 
Are you claiming the coalition bombed hospitals and water treatment facilities?

American bombs hit Red Crescent maternity ward.

US aircraft hit a Red Crescent maternity hospital in Baghdad, the city's trade fair, and other civilian buildings today, killing several people and wounding at least 25, hospital sources and a Reuters witness said.
The attacks occurred at 9.30am (0630 BST) and caught motorists by surprise as they ventured out during a lull in the bombing. At least five cars were crushed and their drivers burned to death inside, Reuters correspondent Samia Nakhoul said.

Sewage plant bombed by American planes.

One of the main sewage plants in the town was inexplicably bombed during the war and then picked to the bone by looters. It has been repaired but has no generator to allow it to run.​

And that was just in 2 minutes of googling.

It also happened in Afghanistan:

My tabulation for October 31st enters a figure of 15 civilians dying in a bombing attack of a Red Crescent hospital in Kandahar. Three different assessments were made in the aftermath:31

1. The Taliban claimed the raid killed 11 people;

2. The Pentagon said the strike missed both the hospital and another Red Crescent building nearby, and commented "it was a legitimate terrorist target, intentionally struck.."

3. Journalist later saw a large crater in the center of the clinic and hospital vehicles crushed by collapsed masonry. One doctor reported 15 dead and 25 seriously injured.32

Faced with such discrepancies, to me the most credible source is the doctor: 15 died
 
Last edited:
Are you claiming the coalition bombed hospitals and water treatment facilities?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,928078,00.html?=rss
and admittedly this is but one example quickly pulled up. I seriously doubt that any US forces deliberately targeted anything that they knew to be a hospital, and most of the damages to hospitals were undoubtably done by looters in the immediate aftermath of invasion, but again, with the proper security and planning in place, that wouldn't be an issue.

As to water treatment facilities, the issue gets more murky. Many of them were shut down prior to the invasion due to the sanctioning of the chlorine necessary to keep them in operation. Some were adjacent to the power switching stations necessary for their functioning and suffered collateral damage, and some, appear to have been directly hit, whether through misidentification or intent.
 
And people are responsible for all the consequences of their actions -- even the consequences they tried to avoid. That's what being the decider means: the buck stops there.
Excellent. So you hold the insurgents and suicide bombers responsible for deciding to be insurgents and suicide bombers.

Or don't you?


FireGarden said:
Why not average out the 300,000 number over Saddam's years in power?
Okay.


FireGarden said:
(I still want to know the source of that number. I'm not accusing anyone of making it up, btw -- I've heard it before.)
Don't know. I didn't post it.


FireGarden said:
The CIA factbook 2002 data gives a death rate of 6.02 per 1000
http://www.bondtalk.com/factbook2002/geos/iz.html

Lancet-2 came up with 5.5 per 1000 for a period before the war. (I don't remember the range they gave, or the exact period it applied to).
The new WHO survey agrees with Lancet-2 on pre-invasion death rates but disagrees on the post-invasion rate.


FireGarden said:
Would anybody defend the war by saying, "Loads were dying needlessly before and they're still dying needlessly now. So what's to complain about?"
None I know of. Certainly not me.


FireGarden said:
Which leads to the most important question: why have there been so few of these surveys? Why does the richest, most powerful nation in the world rely on NGOs to count the dead in war?

I think the US has a duty to fund a much bigger survey than any we've had so far.
Maybe. Talk to your Senator and Congressman. If you want the military to do it, still talk to your Senator and Congressman.


FireGarden said:
If it could be proved that there was no better way to bring about such an improvement.
I'll assume you're using a very very loose definition of "proved."
 
<snip of irrelevencies/red-herring concerning Russians and Germans>
You call it irrelevant because you do not care for what it demonstrates.


TShaitanaku said:
Then where is the problem with accepting that The US invasion and manner of our occupation bears a major responsibility for precipitating these situations?
Who said there is a problem with bearing major responsibility? Certainly not me. My position is acting as if any US responsibility absolves other parties of all responsibility.

A large dollop of responsibility for the US is fine. A free pass for others is not.


TShaitanaku said:
I didn't say "all military experts," I clearly stated,"all the military experts familiar with occupation and insurgency issues." Which should clearly exclude Franks, Rummy and Bremer.
Bremer and Rumsfeld aren't military. Bremer is not a military expert in any sense, though one could be forgiven for thinking Rumsfeld has some expertise. I differ strongly with your dismissal of Franks. I happen to think he blew it (and have said so numerous times on these forums), but that doesn't make him any less a military expert on these things than Brett Favre's record number of interceptions make him a non-expert on football quarterbacking.

Ah. But you said "familiar with occupation and insurgency issues," right? Great. Given that familiarity with that subject is rare in the Western world, I will be obliged if you name the subjects you had in mind. We can then contrast them with Franks.


TShaitanaku said:
I see your first response quite clearly, though what you believe it demonstrates seems to be at serious odds with supportive reasoning for your prior claims and assertions.
???
My "prior claims and assertions?" What, pray tell, are they? Do avoid building them of straw.

TShaitanaku said:
(that looks like only a single, multipart counterargument,...but regardless)
Oops. I'm frequently too sloppy for my own good. My apologies.


TShaitanaku said:
The sample for the year prior to the invasion were done to establish a pre-invasion baseline.
That much of statistics I am quite comfortable with. I am also comfortable in my knowledge that a time period's chronological primacy is not sufficient to make it an adequate baseline. It must also be representative.


TShaitanaku said:
The al-Anfal incidents happened back in '88 or nearly a decade and a half prior to the invasion and would be largely considered too remote to have been of any value and an outlier in its nature. Is there any reason to believe that conditions in the year leading up to the invasion were unusually quiet with respect to Saddam's activities in Iraq?
Reason? Yes. For a quick, top-of-the-head example you need go no further than trying to avoid providing reason for the invasion.

Proof? None at all.


TShaitanaku said:
You have to realize this wasn't a political ploy to make Saddam look beneficient, this was an attempt to find out how many deaths had occurred between when the US invasion started and when the study was completed in 2006
I "have to realize"? Not in the slightest. I have to realize that it is claimed to be so.


TShaitanaku said:
Who has made this assumption? [that the high death rate of 2006 will continue] where?
Perhaps no one. Perhaps I read too much into the arguments here. Great. That gets us back to the point about where the cut-off is.

If the invasion is a Bad Thing over 4 years but is a Good Thing over 20 years, which way shall we decide?


TShaitanaku said:
and where is the evidence of greatly lowered Iraqi deaths during the "Surge"?
Here. Here.


TShaitanaku said:
By what convoluted stretch of reasoning?

If I kick your door down and kill your children and then stop any further killing, does that justify me kicking your door down and killing your children?
Oh, my. It seems that faulty analogies are the order of the day. Let's add to your little tale some relevant tidbits about me killing some of my own children before you kicked down my door and about my having invaded our mutual neighbor's house and having raped his children a decade ago, and having failed to report to my probation officer since.

Do that and you may have something. Not enough, though. For that you'd need to go further like how after you kicked down my door you didn't kill my children but simply locked me in the closet and then were unable to prevent a couple of my children trying to kill the remainder.

There. Much better.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom