Iraq casualty count by Lancet

[Tawasakm]

And for those who can match them in terms of quality, ie the British or Germans

You seem to have forgotten Australia. Small but highly trained.

[caesar]

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.

Where did you get that figure???? Not the good buddy of the USA. As for the kurds that died; according to the American War college; at the time of this happening; it was accidental as Iran and Iraq were using different gases on each other. The college claimed that the kurds were suffering symptoms of IRAN gas. suddenly they change the whole story without any new evidence????

[caesar]

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

That is the same site that carries the Banner; we don't do body counts. ????? Get real

[caesar]

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

Yeah right. A Bunch of scared kids that shoot at anything that moves. Only the Americans have that much "friendly fire incidents"

I have a friend that works on an oil rig in Iranian waters. The only people they worry about are "The Americans"

[Tawasakm]

That is the same site that carries the Banner; we don't do body counts. ????? Get real

The banner contains a quote from General Franks, “We don’t do body counts."

Since the principal researcher is a freelancer working out of London I fail to see the point of your obection. It would appear that they are trying to do what General Franks is not.

Yeah right. A Bunch of scared kids that shoot at anything that moves.

Other militaries with different protocols have less friendly fire incidents. For instance in Vietnam Australian soldiers had less friendly fire incidents then US forces. They were not allowed to fire at a target before identifying it and were only allowed to fire three rounds before re-aquiring the target. There may well be room for improvement in this area for the US military (and I understand that they learned alot from Vietnam and instituted changes). Nevertheless I believe you are overstating the case. I don't think they are shooting at "everything that moves". They may well be scared but they are more then just a "Bunch of scared kids". Your summation seems to evoke the image of an undisciplined rabble of frightened adolescents running around shooting at things.

[KrustyKidd]

The only people they worry about are "The Americans"

Typical internationalist point of view. Like they are not supposed to worry about their own?

Where did you get that figure???? Not the good buddy of the USA

Amnesty international.

That is the same site that carries the Banner; we don't do body counts. ????? Get real

No wonder your arguemnts are out to lunch most of the time, you don't even recognize people that are your allies. Here are a few of the people who run the site, all peace activists. BTW, the banner you speak of is an anti US statement. If you relax a bit you wouldn't always be so wrong and might actually see the parody of Bush in that.

HAMIT DARDAGAN (Co-founder, principal researcher and site manager). He has been chair of "Kalayaan" a human rights campaign for overseas domestic workers in the UK, which led to significant enhancement in their legal rights.

JOHN SLOBODA (Co-founder, associate researcher and archivist) In 1999-2000 he worked with the Committee for Peace in the Balkans, and researched effects on the civilian population of the NATO bombing campaign. Since September 11th 2001 he has been responsible for the daily peaceuk.net mailing list disseminating critical non-violent perspectives on "the war on terror". He is a founder member of the Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations (Naspir), and a local delegate to the Stop the War Coalition. He is currently Web Resources Manager for Peace News, and in January 2004 was appointed Executive Director of Oxford Research Group.

KAY WILLIAMS (Senior researcher and archivist). She runs a mailing list for those in the Keele and Newcastle-under-Lyme area of Staffordshire who are interested in local and national anti-war activities.

BÜLENT GÖKAY (Project consultant) is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Keele University. He is co-founder and core researcher of the Keele Southeast Europe Unit. He has authored many books and articles on global politics, the Middle East, Balkans and Central Asia, including A Clash of Empires: Turkey between Russian Bolshevism and British Imperialism (1997), The Politics of Caspian Oil (2001), Eastern Europe Since 1970 (2002), and The Most Dangerous Game in the World: Oil, War, and US Global Hegemony (2002), and is co-editor of the forthcoming book, War, Terror and Judgement: 11 September 2001 (Feb 2003).

TORBEN FRANCK (Webmaster) is a musician and peace activist. He is webmaster for www.peaceuk.net, www.humanshields.org as well as Iraq Body Count. He has recorded a track (with Joe Wilson) for the recent Stop the War CD compilation, issued in December 2002. He is a delegate to the Stop the War National Conference.

MARC HEROLD (Research consultant) is an Associate Professor of Economic Development, International Affairs and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire, USA,  In December 2001 he released a widely cited study of the human costs of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan "A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting"), updates to which may be found at:

GLEN RANGWALA (Legal consultant) is a lecturer in politics at Newnham and Trinity Colleges, Cambridge University. He is trained in political theory and international law. His doctorate, from Cambridge University, was in political and legal rhetoric in the Arab Middle East. He is also published on a number of other themes, including international humanitarian law, comparative human rights law, Iraq and nuclear weapons.

DAVID FLANAGAN (Technical consultant) is author of java script: The Definitive Guide (among other standard works) and wrote the JavaScript code for Iraq Body Count that keeps our Web Counters updated while making them easy for webmasters to install.

PETER BAGNALL (Tech consultant & user support) is currently a postgraduate student at Lancaster University studying computer science and psychology. He spent two years working as a software design consultant in Silicon Valley, and before that four years as a network research engineer for British Telecom. His professional interest is using technology to provide real benefit to society, rather than just to develop flashy gadgets. His thoughts on ethics, politics and technology can be found on his website.

TRANSLATORS FOR PEACE is a free association of translators from all countries and of all nationalities. The Association was founded in 1999, during the Kosovo war, by a group of Italian translators who decided to dedicate a portion of their time to translate and publish information regarding the costs of modern technological wars in terms of human lives, the environment, democracy and human rights.

ERIC CLARKE (Assistant researcher) is professor of music at the University of Sheffield, where he does research and teaching in the psychology of music. He was an active member of Camden CND in the 1980s, and is a member of Amnesty International.

NIKKI DIBBEN (Assistant researcher) is a lecturer in music at Sheffield University where she carries out research into music perception, and gender representations in popular music.

MARIANNE FILLENZ (Assistant researcher) is senior research fellow in neuroscience at St Anne's College Oxford and retired University lecturer in Physiology. She was a member of the national committee of Scientists against Nuclear Arms (SANA) and is a present member of Scientists for Global Responsibility.

CHARLIE FORD (Assistant researcher) was awarded a doctorate for his holistic critique of Mozart's Cosi fan tutte in 1989 and has since published on popular music. He is an active member of Amnesty International and an occasional contributor to peaceuk mailings.

JORDANA LIPSCOMB (Assistant researcher) is a retired litigation attorney and mother of two. Supporting member and event coordinator of Musicians Opposing War (MOW). She received her Bachelors of Arts degree from New York University in Russian Language and her Juris Doctorate Degree from Southwestern University School of Law. She is currently researching the legalities and criminal implications of this war and welcomes information and sources on this subject.

SCOTT LIPSCOMB (Assistant researcher) is a co-founder of Musicians Opposing War, a collective of Northwestern University faculty, staff, & students in the United States who came together for the purpose of expressing opposition to the War on Iraq, who believe that U.S. military aggression is likely to increase - not deter - terrorism on American shores, and who advocate seeking non-violent solutions to the world's problems through a consensus of peace-minded nations.

DARELL WHITMAN ( He has been a long-time peace and environmental in the U.S., and served on the national organizing committee of the Emergency Committee to Stop the War (Gulf War I) from 1991-1992.

ROWAN WILLIAMS (Assistant researcher) is a graduate in Modern Languages from the University of Cambridge. For a number of years she was Justice and Peace representative for the Anglican Community of St Francis, and a member of the steering group of the Justice and Peace Links of the interdenominational Conference of Religious. .

Anyhow, I'm tired of this idiocy. Get your facts straight, these are your people using an accredited methodology, I had no idea you thought well educated peaceniks were idiots. My my.

[Tawasakm]

The only people they worry about are "The Americans"

Typical internationalist point of view. Like they are not supposed to worry about their own?

Well from context he seems to be saying that Americans need to worry about others aswell as themselves. Hence the use of 'only'. I know Caesar can (and will) speak for himself but I personally can't interpret anything he has said to mean that he believes Americans should not care about American deaths.

I sympathise with his point of view. If we could somehow come to see ourselves as a "global community" and view all lives as equal things might be different.

How far is this practicable though? When cultures are so different in be very hard to incorporate 'them' into our idea of 'us'. While I am ideologically inclined to view all human life as equal I am also realistic enough to know that isn't the way I watch the news. When Australian forces entered East Timor I was, rightly or wrongly, more concerned about Australian then Timorese deaths (which is not to say I was not concerned about the East Timorese). Given that this is true I can hardly judge Americans harshly for being more concerned about their own citizens.

The true difficulty arises if what caesar postulates is true: which is that Americans ONLY care about Americans. Whilst this is often a popular notion my personal experience of American people contradicts this.

[Argus]

And for those who can match them in terms of quality, ie the British or Germans

You seem to have forgotten Australia. Small but highly trained.

Well I wasn't attempting a comprehensive list. Many western military forces have as good training as the Americans, no doubt includeing the Aussies.

On the other hand, experience is hard to beat. Virtually the entire senior leadership of the Pentagon experienced war first-hand as junior officers in Vietnam and other, lesser conflicts. Most of their mid level officers and a ton of NCO's are veterans of Gulf War One, and after this almost the entire US Army and Marine Corps will be veterans. Very few of the officers or men in European armies (incl Ausi and Canada) have real, wartime experience.

And there is something about institutional experience which beats the hell out of the book learning most of the rest of the world's mlitaries possess.

[KrustyKidd]

The true difficulty arises if what caesar postulates is true: which is that Americans ONLY care about Americans. Whilst this is often a popular notion my personal experience of American people contradicts this.

Yes, of course you are correct. As for the ridiculous notion that the US cares less for others than others do for the US, I would say that since it has been said by every left wing person at some time or another that the US is hated. Therefore, it would seem that the world is less human than the US, who, supposedly are doing this for money but do not hate anybody. Yet they are wiling to build, feed, sacrifice and give aid to those whom they do not hate. On the other hand, those who are supposedly 'better people' villify, hate, behead, belittle and actually undermine the US, whom they hate openly. I would say that to make a moral argument usiong this point is pure stupidness as no government has morals, good or bad.

[caesar]

The true difficulty arises if what caesar postulates is true: which is that Americans ONLY care about Americans. Whilst this is often a popular notion my personal experience of American people contradicts this.

That was NOT my statement. Someone else said that American only care about America; I said that therefore Iraqis had a greater right to care about fellow Iraqis and their country being occup9ied as the American are the aggressors and occupiers.

I don't think ALL American are selfish and self centered; about 50 % of them did strongly voice their displeasure with Bush and this unnecessary hostilities in Iraq. First they would be concerned with their own young people giving their lives or being left maimed for an act that is not making America safer.

[KrustyKidd]

First they would be concerned with their own young people giving their lives or being left maimed for an act that is not making America safer.

No attacks on US soil since 2001. Better than a lot of freedom loving places who didn't enter the war.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

No attacks on US soil since 2001. Better than a lot of freedom loving places who didn't enter the war.

Good to hear from you again, wrong though you may be.

Spain was attacked for the sole reason of being in bed with the US regarding Iraq. The 'terrorists' did not want Spain to 'give up democracy, freedom, etc." as the right-wing spin doctors claim. they simply wanted Spain to stop abetting the (perceived) attack on Muslims in Iraq. Once the Spaniards democratically removed their leader (As Osama encouraged the citizens of the US to do) and withdrew their troops, they have been subjected to no more attacks either. It seems the 'terrorists' are keeping their word. If you read "Imperial Hubris" you might find out just what their 'word' wants.

More attacks on USA proper are expected by everyone. Nothing the US has done since 9/11 has served to do anything but increase the likelyhood.

[caesar]

No attacks on US soil since 2001. Better than a lot of freedom loving places who didn't enter the war.

Not exactly true; Did you not read the second part of OBL's statement; the USA is harming itself by bankrupting the country chasing after these "terrorists. He got a bonus when they invaded Iraq which is costing them a bundle in cash. How much will it cost to support all the young military personnell who have been maimed or mentally scarred for life????? Or are they just going to toss them aside as they did with the Vietnam vets or even the first Gulf war; claiming that they are not suffering any ill effects (Gulf war syndrome) from that war>

Is another Timothy McVeigh going to come back from Iraq??????

[Tawasakm]

That was NOT my statement. Someone else said that American only care about America; I said that therefore Iraqis had a greater right to care about fellow Iraqis and their country being occup9ied as the American are the aggressors and occupiers.

Caesar, you are correct that I took you out of context. For that I apologise. I'm still not sure how I managed to to interpret you two different ways in the one post. I must have been tired and more then usually dense.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

claiming that they are not suffering any ill effects (Gulf war syndrome) from that war

There is a catch-all phrase that the US gov't can employ to deny or suppress any truth they feel is out of line with what they want to be known. "In the interests of national security..."

Hans Blix, in his book "Disarming Iraq", claims that the most likely cause of the 'Gulf War syndrome' is the destruction of Sarin gas while US troops were nearby. It took the US gov't/military 5 years to admit that they even had encountered, and improperly destroyed a nerve gas stockpile.

[Tawasakm]

KK,

I would say that since it has been said by every left wing person at some time or another that the US is hated.

I'm left wing and I've never said that. I know that some people hate the US as a result of recent actions. Which I regard as sloppy thinking. Hatred does not hone the mental processes. I think that dispproval (call it hatred I guess) of the US is centred disproportianately around certain idealogical groups - such as fundamentalist Islam.

My objection to your assertion arises from the fact that it seems to indicate, universally, an emotionalism at the heart of leftist thought. I contend that many on the left of the political divide think logically and factually and are not driven by strong emotion. Emotionalism, which I think leads to clouded thinking, exists on both sides of the political spectrum.

You also seem to be trying to create a link between the left and anti-us sentiment. I can assure you that I do not wish for the US to fail. Its just that my ideas of how to achieve success are different from yours.

I think you should be careful about drawing broad conclusions from such a questionable assertion.

I would say that to make a moral argument usiong this point is pure stupidness as no government has morals, good or bad.

I think that governments do act largely from self interest. However I still believe that governments possess value systems. Loose value systems but still there.

[MapleBear]

I don't find the Lancet study hard to believe. We've got thousands of trigger happy troops in Iraq, and we've hit the Iraqis with countless missiles, bombs and small arms fire.

The real toll would also include deaths from war-related problems, like hunger, disease, etc. What about all those depleted uranium shells we've left lying around?

Even people killed by terrorists can be tacked on to our tally. True, they weren't directly killed by U.S. forces, but we did destablize Iraq, knowing full well what destabilization can result in. (Remember Cambodia?)

Moreover, is it possible that some of those terrorists are actually U.S. or Israeli agents posing as terrorists?

I believe I read that about a quarter million people evacuated Fallujah. It sounds like we butchered many hundreds, if not thousands of civiclians during the fighting, and some people who got caught up in the exodus might have fallen prey to U.S. forces, terrorists, bandits, whatever. It's not a pretty picture.

Organizations like the Red Cross certainly paint a different picture than the White House - and there's no question who I trust; the Jessica Lynch story was brought to us by the White House, not the Red Cross.

It's no secret why the Pentagon told Iraqis to stop counting their dead.

[Tawasakm]

I don't find the Lancet study hard to believe. We've got thousands of trigger happy troops in Iraq, and we've hit the Iraqis with countless missiles, bombs and small arms fire.

Well thats conjecture. You can't base a count on, "we dropped lots of missiles so alot of people must be dead".

There are credible grounds to object to the validity of the Lancet report. You do not seem to have followed the link that Argus provided. Which, if you wish to refute him, you owe him the courtesy of reading.

Since that appears to be the case I will quote some of the objections. Please refute them (please also feel free to read the entire article).

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Which means the researchers are 95% certain that the actual number is somewhere in that range. Vast range there.

The problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random surveys—and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those surveys—in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war.

There's a further complication when studying the results of war, especially a war fought mainly by precision bombs dropped from the air: The damage is not randomly distributed; it's very heavily concentrated in a few areas.

One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster.

There were other problems. The survey team simply could not visit some of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour destroyed the survey's randomness

The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime—and this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale.

It goes on to say what was wrong with calculation used:

First, Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000... Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes.

Second:

"The risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1 – 2.3) higher after the invasion." Those mysterious numbers in the parentheses mean the authors are 95 percent confident that the risk of death now is between 1.1 and 2.3 times higher than it was before the invasion—in other words, as little as 10 percent higher or as much as 130 percent higher. Again, the math is too vague to be useful.

A credible death count can be found here. Again this link has been provided earlier in the thread. If you want to disagree thats fine but please take into account what has already been posted and respond to that,

[caesar]

credible death count can be found here. Again this link has been provided earlier in the thread. If you want to disagree thats fine but please take into account what has already been posted and respond to that,

That is certainly NOT a credible body count; read the page; "we don't do body counts" Besides it is I believe about a year old and Yankee propaganda.

[Tawasakm]

AARRGHHH!

I addressed that point earlier caesar. So did KK. The body count comment was a quote from General Franks and DID NOT REPRESENT the views of the INDEPENDENT researchers involved in the project.

Read my post and KK's please. You may not be so quick to dismiss them when you know who they are.

Also, the latest information is from the 17th November 2004 which is NOT, I'm sure you'll agree, one year old!

[caesar]

This is a year old but more credible than your propaganda site

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2855

[Tawasakm]

OK caesar I am reading it and have already seen this:

I’m not in any position to validate the report you will see here from Dr. Mohammed Al-Obaidi

Thats in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph we see this:

The report may not be entirely accurate, but I would hope it would spur the press corps into investigating on its own.

Already I am having problems with this. On to the meat of it:

After more than five weeks of intensive and thorough investigations carried out by hundreds of our party’s cadre, which included all villages, towns, cities and some of the desert areas etc. affected by the aggression (with exception of the Kurdish area), and also by interviewing hundreds of undertakers, hospitals officials and ordinary people in these places, the figure of civilians killed since the beginning of the invasion came to 37,137.

The problem, of course, is that we don't really know what methods they are using. We do know that in terms of the other reports we were discussing. Which is why the Lancet report was shown to be somewhat useless.

The Iraqi body count site is transparent. And not a propagandist site. That comment shows that you have yet to actually read it. I will include a bio here of just one of the "propagandist" researchers for you.

HAMIT DARDAGAN (Co-founder, principal researcher and site manager) is a freelance researcher currently working in London. He has made an in-depth study of the research methods of Professor Marc Herold, who pioneered a media-based methodology for estimating civilian deaths in the Afghan war of 2001-2. He has written for Counterpunch, and has undertaken research for a number of organisations, including Greenpeace. He has been chair of "Kalayaan" a human rights campaign for overseas domestic workers in the UK, which led to significant enhancement in their legal rights.

Really sound like a republican stooge to you?

Even your source seems to respect them. They said,

we know that there were groups of organizations (see http://www.iraqbodycount.net) who tried their utmost best to come up with an accurate figure of the total civilian death

Your source figures they came up short because of lack of access and cultural/language barriers but they don't seem to doubt that they are doing their best to come up with an accurate count.

Now I appreciate your source (who is an Iraqi and operating from within Iraq) may have better access but I cannot take his report more seriously until; I am aware of his research methods and can see more of the raw data and calculations, and probably not until it is confirmed by independent observers.

Unfortunately there are other things I must really be doing - I will return to this another day.

[Black Dog]

The problem, of course, is that we don't really know what methods they are using. We do know that in terms of the other reports we were discussing. Which is why the Lancet report was shown to be somewhat useless.

Yes. I think I've posted this elsewhere, but this article has a summary of the Lancet report's methodology and an evaluation.

[Tawasakm]

Excellent link Blackdog. I'm sorry if I missed it early - it was very informative.

I'm reassessing my views after reading this but the one thing that still concerns me about it is that people are stating specific numbers. The specific number really seems up in the air. I, for one, would be more comfortable if people would report the range and then give an argument for where in that range the estimate is most likely to sit in their view.

Anyway I'll go give this more thought. Thanks again for the link.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't think that article does a very good job 'discrediting' the Lancet article. It makes valid comments on the ability for the conclusion to be precise, without showing any likely fundamental problem with the general approximation.

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

Readers who are accustomed to statistical documents also realize that what is being discussed is probabilities. If data shows a range within which 95% of outcomes falls, it almost always shows a 'normal distribution' which allows one to suggest the most probable actual outcome.

The problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random surveys—and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those surveys—in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war.

Yes, the study is subject to this problem. The researchers must have recognized this difficulty and made allowances. To be persuasive, this contention must be backed by a critique of their methods or models.

One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster.

I heard they excluded the Fallujah samples.

The survey team simply could not visit some of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour destroyed the survey's randomness

Yes, here is an example: valid comments on the ability for the conclusion to be precise, without showing any likely fundamental problem with the general approximation.

The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw ... , within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale ... First, Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000... Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes.

In order to determine if this actually undermines the Johns Hopkins study, we would need to inquire into the respective validity of Daponte vs. Johns Hopkins mortality estimates.