Iraq casualty count by Lancet

[theloniusfleabag]

A recent estimate by The Lancet estimate Iraqi casualties at 100,000. Hard to believe, given the much lower estimates of other organizations, and the relatively small study base. However, there is no question that the number of casualties is soon going to (if it has not already done so) surpass the numbers blamed on Saddam's regime. The Lancet claims that the average Iraqi is 58 times more likely to die a violent death post-invasion than before it.

It shall be hard to prosecute Saddam, with an ostensibly worse regime 'in power', after his removal.

Vae Victus!

[August1991]

I'm surprised Lancet, a British journal, has let itself get pulled into what is a political debate - not a medical question.

The article was released to the press before being posted on the web or published. Was it peer-reviewed?

The lead researcher is pointedly against the war and said he wanted this research to get the widest press possible because, as he said, whoever wins the election will have to deal with this problem. IMV rather, the guy has an agenda.

The data over-represented Fallujah and this was removed. I believe the 100,000 figure includes it though.

Looking at the data itself, and the way it was collected, the chance for bias is so great that it cries out "subjective". In addition, the 100,000 number is an extrapolation from about 100 deaths.

Where the data is particularly suspect is the way it compares pre-invasion and post-invasion. The nature of oppression under Saddam would not be detected by simply asking family members if someone died by torture. In fact, death because of food sanctions, for example, would show up as being due to natural causes.

In a country of 25 million like Iraq, one would expect about 250,000 deaths (10 per 1000) in a year. Other estimates put the war's death tally at about 25,000.

I am not belittling this in the least. As Stalin horrificly said, 'one death is a tragedy, the death of 20,000 is a statistic'. Whether 25,000 or 100,000, that is wrong.

My answer to the Left on this is: "What are we supposed to do?" We can't just stand aside any more. We can't pretend there is no problem. Let us argue about how to proceed.

Michael Moore at least has admitted that invading Afghanistan made sense. I was against the invasion of Iraq but I will not condemn Blair and Bush for having decided otherwise.

Lastly, in US political terms, I don't think this report matters much. Domestic factors are more important in the election and after the Twin Towers attack, many Americans couldn't give a damn about foreign body-counts. They view this as a war against them, against Americans, and they are determined to show the enemy who is stronger.

[Black Dog]

100,000 dead Iraqis: should we believe it?

This study is an extremely well-conducted and analyzed piece of research. Like most high-quality research, it has potential limitations and the paper's Discussion section details possible interferences with the accuracy of the results. The authors argue convincingly that none of these limitations invalidate their basic findings of high excess deaths following the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In fact, they argue, based on arguments somewhat different from those I present here, that the real number of excess deaths may be even higher than their 98,000 estimate.

So, have excess 100,000 Iraqis died since the invasion? I don't know for sure. But this study convinces me that it is extremely likely that many tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, far more than the Iraqi Body Count estimate that I had previously relied upon. Noted Middle East scholar Juan Cole came to a similar conclusion.[31]

We researchers never consider a single study to be the definitive word on a topic. We always like to see a number of studies, using somewhat different methodologies and carried out by researchers with different biases. The authors clearly recognize this desirability and do not present their study as the last word on Iraq mortality rates. (See the excellent interview with one of the study authors from the New Republic Online.[32]) Near the end of their paper they call for "confirmation by an independent body such as the ICRC, Epicentre, or WHO" (p. 7). The British-based NGO, Medact has endorsed the call for independent investigations.[33] Medact further points out that this study only examines Iraqi deaths and that "experience suggests that at least three times as many people are injured as are killed in conflict." Thus, it is likely that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been wounded in the last 18 months.

In the absence of this confirmation, this study remains the best estimate of Iraq deaths. Its finding are truly horrifying. Recent reports indicate that the US is placing a far greater reliance on air power as a way of reducing Coalition casualties.[34] If this study's findings are at all accurate, the result of these policies will be even higher Iraqi civilian casualties. The continued US war in Iraq cannot be justified on any conceivable humanitarian grounds when many tens of thousands of Iraqis are being killed and many more injured. Surely, this study should be a wake up call for all those, regardless of their opinions about the original justifiability of the war, who sincerely are concerned about the fate of the Iraqi people. The looming attacks on Falluja and Ramadi suggest that, in the absence of world outrage restraining this Coalition action, the death and injury toll will soon be rising far higher.

My answer to the Left on this is: "What are we supposed to do?" We can't just stand aside any more. We can't pretend there is no problem. Let us argue about how to proceed.

Immediate military withdrawl. There's simply no way the current situation can be salvaged.

Here's a fascionating article by Martin van Creveld, authour of The Transformation of War, the definitive book on what's become known as Fourth Genration warfare. Here he looks at how the lessons of Vietnam (as viewed through the lense of Israeli general and war correspondant Moshe Dyan) ar ebeing ignored in Iraq today.

Some people claim that the US won the War in Vietnam, to which I can only say that I strongly disagree. Others argue that Vietnam differed from Iraq, saying that it was essentially a conventional war that was lost because the American civilian leadership failed to provide its Armed Forces with proper strategic direction. It is of course true that there are considerable differences between the two. Still, recalling Dayan’s observations, I think there are three main reasons why the similarities are more important.

First, according to Dayan, the most important operational problem the US Forces were facing was intelligence, in other words the inability to distinguish the enemy from either the physical surroundings or the civilian population. Had intelligence been available then their enormous superiority in every kind of military hardware would have enabled them to win the War easily enough. In its absence, most of the blows they delivered – including no fewer than six million tons of bombs dropped – hit empty air. All they did was make the enemy disperse and merge into the civilian population, thus making it even harder to find him. Worst of all, lack of accurate intelligence meant that the Americans kept hitting noncombatants by mistake. They thus drove huge segments of the population straight into the arms of the Viet Cong; nothing is more conducive to hatred than the sight of relatives and friends being killed.

Second, as Dayan saw clearly enough, the campaign for hearts and minds did not work. Many of the figures being published about the progress it was making turned out to be bogus, designed to set the minds of the folks at home at rest. In other cases any progress laboriously made over a period of months was undone in a matter of minutes as the Viet Cong attacked, destroying property and killing “collaborators.” Above all, the idea that the Vietnamese people wanted to become Americanized was an illusion. All the vast majority really wanted was to be left alone and get on with their lives.

The third and most important reason why I think Vietnam is relevant to the situation in Iraq is because the Americans found themselves in the unfortunate position where they were beating down on the weak. To quote Dayan: “any comparison between the two armies… was astonishing. On the one hand there was the American Army, complete with helicopters, an air force, armor, electronic communications, artillery, and mind-boggling riches; to say nothing of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and equipment of all kinds. On the other there were the [North Vietnamese troops] who had been walking on foot for four months, carrying some artillery rounds on their backs and using a tin spoon to eat a little ground rice from a tin plate.”

That, of course, was precisely the problem. In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old – even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife – will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces – whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on – things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.

In other words, he who fights against the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat; if U.S troops in Iraq have not yet started fragging their officers, the suicide rate among them is already exceptionally high. That is why the present adventure will almost certainly end as the previous one did. Namely, with the last US troops fleeing the country while hanging on to their helicopters’ skids.

[maplesyrup]

blackdog........I have seen those horrific figures as well.

Unfortunately I don't see anything that will stop the US unless it is there own citizens that are dying in too high a number. And baring some major catastrophe to the US troops I think the US is just in the beginning stages to conquer the planet.

I think we should start calling a spade a spade. It is the executives of multinational corporations that are the warmongers, that are making all these decisions to use their killing machines.

[Argus]

A recent estimate by The Lancet estimate Iraqi casualties at 100,000. Hard to believe, given the much lower estimates of other organizations, and the relatively small study base. However, there is no question that the number of casualties is soon going to (if it has not already done so) surpass the numbers blamed on Saddam's regime. The Lancet claims that the average Iraqi is 58 times more likely to die a violent death post-invasion than before it.

I think Fred Kaplan's take on this "100,000" figure is best stated.

On the Lancet study

His argument is thoughtful, intelligent, logical and coherent. I do not think any intelligent person could read it and not heavily question the Lancet study.

[Argus]

My answer to the Left on this is: "What are we supposed to do?" We can't just stand aside any more. We can't pretend there is no problem. Let us argue about how to proceed.

Immediate military withdrawl. There's simply no way the current situation can be salvaged.

I see. So what do you believe would be salvaged by this? Certainly there would be fewer US soldiers killed. But I doubt that is your objective. What do you believe would happen in Iraq afterwards? Do you believe all the violence would suddenly stop and Iraqis would then be able to rebuild and live together in peace? Because I believe that civil war would break out, the present unelected government would fall, and the various religious factions would then fight it out, resulting in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths.

[Chloe]

"US is just in the beginning stages to conquer the planet."

Maplesyrup, what kind of arguement is that. The US, as much as you would like to think their on the path to "conquering the world", is nowhere even close to that.

I've noticed the EU getting bigger and bigger, if you ask me they're probably going to be the next World Governement, but then when you have France honoring Arafat after all he's done (the bad outweighting whatever good he's done), then we'll have a catastrophe on our hands.

[Chloe]

What do you say to that?

[Tawasakm]

maplesyrup:

And baring some major catastrophe to the US troops I think the US is just in the beginning stages to conquer the planet.

I did not think that the US had anywhere near the amount of resources needed to pull that off. Or even the desire or intent. What, may I ask, has led you to this conclusion? I assume you didn't just pluck it out of the air - please join the dots for me.

Argus:

No doubt you are correct that an immediate US withdrawal would lead to immediate chaos. Do you think a staged withdrawal (say over 18 months) might work?

As to the statistics (which tend to give me headaches) the data from the Lancet certainly seems to fall short of being meaningful. That was a good link Argus.

theloniusfleabag:

It shall be hard to prosecute Saddam, with an ostensibly worse regime 'in power', after his removal.

The man is certainly guilty of committing atrocities against his own people. I can't possible see any difficulties in prosecuting him.

The difficulty is in prosecuting the 'worse regime' (which from context I am judging you think is deserved) as you call it. Whatever George Bush is guilty of I don't believe he is ordering Iraqi citizens who oppose him to be tortured. I don't doubt there is a general intent on behalf of the US to avoid civilian casualties as far as is possible without compromising their own safety. I'm sure there are also 'mistakes' and 'burnouts' (as I call it when a soldier has had too much and lashes out). These notwithstanding, and without belittling the meaning of those deaths, I can't see that Saddam's conduct could be considered similar, in any way, to that of the US. The President, arguably, can be impeached for other reasons but not for that. Breaking the terms of the Geneva convention for instance and violating prisoner rights etc.

Don't misunderstand me; I was dead against invading Iraq (and pro Afghan invasion) but I simply can't see that the US (even with corporate greed and, dishonesty and misrepresentation at the top) could be considered to be operating in a manner even remotely similar to Suddams regime.

[caesar]

Lastly, in US political terms, I don't think this report matters much. Domestic factors are more important in the election and after the Twin Towers attack, many Americans couldn't give a damn about foreign body-counts. They view this as a war against them, against Americans, and they are determined to show the enemy who is stronger.

Shows how sick self centered and arrogant Americans are. We are all citizens of the world and have one life to live; Iraqi, Iranians live a much harder life than us but they do have the right to live just as much as any American.

[caesar]

Whatever George Bush is guilty of I don't believe he is ordering Iraqi citizens who oppose him to be tortured.

Don't bet the farm> Most people that he allows to be tortured he doesn't know but let's ask Saddam about his treatment eh.

[Chloe]

It goes both ways Caesar,

SOME Amecians couldn't careless about what happens to people in Iraq as long as their land is safe and secure, but it also goes for Iraqi people and Iranians, they couldn't careless if American aid workers were being killed in their streets, or the beheading of Americans not involved in the fighting occur just as long as they make their point that they hate America. People blame America for the mess that is happening but it doesn't justify the killing that people on BOTH sides are doing. Iraqis are suffering but their people aren't helpin the situation either.

My point is this, don't generalize people by saying Americans are selfish. Not all of them are. SOME Iraqis are just as much to blame for the sensless killing as are SOME Americans.

[Tawasakm]

Whatever George Bush is guilty of I don't believe he is ordering Iraqi citizens who oppose him to be tortured.

Don't bet the farm> Most people that he allows to be tortured he doesn't know but let's ask Saddam about his treatment eh.

Well considering his treatment of prisoners of war and so forth it is possible that I am being naive about his policy toward Iraqi civilians. I still doubt that they are behaving like Suddam however.

It is perhaps fortunate, then, that I have no farm to bet.

[caesar]

Iraqi people and Iranians, they couldn't careless if American aid workers were being killed in their streets, or the beheading of Americans not involved in the fighting occur just as long as they make their point that they hate America

Well Chloe, I can certainly understand the Iraqis hatred for an occupying force that has been killing their friends and relatives (collateral damage)

What have the Iraqis done to the USA to deserve this. If the Americans were able to turn Afghanistan over to to the Afghans (despite the fact that country was and is still full of terrorists) why did they not turn Iraq over to be ruled by Iraqi s???????????????????? Control of oil

[maplesyrup]

It is all economics, it has always been economics, and it always will be about economics, whether it was WW I WW 2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq War 1 or Iraq War 2. All this hocus pocus about religion, culture, whatever, is nonsense. It is just the tools that the rich use to divide the poor.

The US depends on certain materials (i.e OIL) to keep their economic engine running, and they will stop at absolutely nothing, that gets their way.

I always laugh when I hear Bush talking about wanting to spread democracy. Especially after the circus we have seen in the US during the last two presidential elections. If Bush was so concerned about democracy why doesn't he go after Saudi Arabia, China, etc.? Well we all know the answers to that. Democracy is one of those good word in those good words, bad words marketing strategy schemes. These guys don't believe in democracy, they just know that the rich must stay in power, so they can keep themselves rich.

Keep you eye on the planet's oil reserves and you will know where the US is, or is going, next.

[Argus]

I did not think that the US had anywhere near the amount of resources needed to pull that off. Or even the desire or intent.

Here I disagree - partially. I think the US does have the resources to pull it off, though not quickly. If they applied themselves on the level they did in WW2, where they fielded some 20 million men with less than half their present population, I believe they could, barring someone's use of nukes, conquer the world. I do agree, however, that they utterly lack the desire to do so. It would require a resolute national will, and only a fraction of them would have any such desire.

No doubt you are correct that an immediate US withdrawal would lead to immediate chaos. Do you think a staged withdrawal (say over 18 months) might work?

If they can pull off an election which is seen locally as fair, and put in place a government which has widespread support, especially from Shiite religious leaders and the Kurds, and the neccesary muscle to protect itself and Iraq from the bombers, then the US could go without the place falling apart.

However, I'm not at all confident there is the national spirit of compromise to allow Iraq to survive a US departure. There is a lot of ambition for their own state among the Kurds, for one thing, and any attempt by the Shiites to put in place a theocratic form of government, or a government which pays heavy heed to their beliefs and not those of the Sunnis and Kurds is bound to bring about civil war.

[Argus]

Keep you eye on the planet's oil reserves and you will know where the US is, or is going, next.

The US could fairly easily take over the likes of Venezuala or Nigeria. For that matter, the tiny gulf states, little more than city states, would be a snap - far, far easier than Iraq. Oddly, they haven't done so.

[Stoker]

What have the Iraqis done to the USA to deserve this. If the Americans were able to turn Afghanistan over to to the Afghans (despite the fact that country was and is still full of terrorists) why did they not turn Iraq over to be ruled by Iraqi s???????????????????? Control of oil

When did the coalition invade and takeover Afghanistain? 2001-2002. When were the elections held? Just recently.

When did America invade Iraq? 2003. When will the elections be held....two months.

The US could fairly easily take over the likes of Venezuala or Nigeria. For that matter, the tiny gulf states, little more than city states, would be a snap - far, far easier than Iraq. Oddly, they haven't done so.

Or drill in the protected parks in Alaska.......or invest in further oil and gas exploration in western Canada

[Tawasakm]

If the Americans were able to turn Afghanistan over to to the Afghans (despite the fact that country was and is still full of terrorists) why did they not turn Iraq over to be ruled by Iraqi s?

That does seem to be the plan. Also the fact that Afghan did hold free elections indicates some sincerity in the rhetoric of the US. In other words it bodes well for Iraq. (Sorry that I only quoted one question mark)

Argus,

If they applied themselves on the level they did in WW2, where they fielded some 20 million men with less than half their present population

Could they do that and equip them aswell as their forces are now? Could they maintain their level of training with so large a force? How much would that twenty million actually bolster their forces? If its just a matter of numbers then China has them beat. If its a matter of technological superiority then can they maintain that while trying to field so large a force?

[caesar]

That does seem to be the plan. Also the fact that Afghan did hold free elections indicates some sincerity in the rhetoric of the US. In other words it bodes well for Iraq. (Sorry that I only quoted one question mark)

A little too delayed; especially considering their reasons given for invading Iraq proved to be bogus. Gotta get them oil contracts all tied up first eh.

[caesar]

Could they do that and equip them aswell as their forces are now? Could they maintain their level of training with so large a force? How much would that twenty million actually bolster their forces? If its just a matter of numbers then China has them beat. If its a matter of technological superiority then can they maintain that while trying to field so large a force?

The USA forces now are not well trained or we would not have seen so many "friendly fire" incidents that were NOT done during the "heat of battle" Britain's forces did not have that problem. Where are their leaders??? Sitting back safe and sound in America. It is a joke blaming and prosecuting some young person for the widespread torture of prisoner held my American forces.

[Tawasakm]

A little too delayed; especially considering their reasons given for invading Iraq proved to be bogus. Gotta get them oil contracts all tied up first eh

What, in your view, would constitute a proper timetable then? I don't think it is a simple thing to setup. I agree with you that the reasons for invasion were largely bogus, and they should have focused more on Bin Laden, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they do is bogus. Iraq (regardless of who's fault it is) is a mess. Would it really have been possible to hold free elections before now?

As to the question of oil I think the US would get the contracts they want either before or after the elections since they will be propping up the government and nation at least initially. They have nothing to gain from delaying the elections in that regard.

Australia has done something similar with East Timor - they are making too much money from that nation.

[August1991]

I don't mean to change the subject but the following site has a rebuttal of the 100,000 Lancet stat.

Iraq Body Count

They put the civilian death toll at about 15,000 of which about 4,000 occurred since May 2003.

[KrustyKidd]

Gotta get them oil contracts all tied up first eh.

Most of the oil is going to non US interests both economic and rcieving, so what are you on about?

They put the civilian death toll at about 15,000 of which about 4,000 occurred since May 2003.

Saddam killed over 300 thousand of his own not counting wars in just under 15 years. That's 1600 a month just to have Saddam's peace. To undergo this 'horror' the USA is portrayed as bringing the Iraqis, they have averaged less than five hundred and dropping.

[Argus]

Could they do that and equip them aswell as their forces are now? Could they maintain their level of training with so large a force? How much would that twenty million actually bolster their forces? If its just a matter of numbers then China has them beat. If its a matter of technological superiority then can they maintain that while trying to field so large a force?

Well, obviously, as I said, it would have to be a national challenge that the entire population believed in. Because in order to field that number of properly equipped they would have to raise taxes considerably and turn the entire nation onto a war footing, as they did in WW2. The US industrial system can certainly equip an enormous army, but probably not if it has to keep churning out civilian SUVs, fashions, makeup, pet toys and video games.

The USA forces now are not well trained or we would not have seen so many "friendly fire" incidents that were NOT done during the "heat of battle"  Britain's forces did not have that problem.

US military forces are extremely well-trained in comparison to most other nations' militaries, particularly third world nations. They are well-disciplined and well-trained. Man for man, they are simply better than 90% of the rest of the world. And for those who can match them in terms of quality, ie the British or Germans, well, the Americans outnumber them and have generally better equipment. Friendly Fire incidents happen in all major conflicts, to the British, as well.

The Chinese army is bigger, but as we've seen, mere numbers aren't that important in modern warfare. And the Chinese army is badly organized, poorly equipped, and badly led, with a history of defeats. They got their asses kicked by the Vietnamese last time they actually tried to fight anyone, and took hugely disproportionate casualties in Korea against the UN army.