The Civilian Casualty Fable

[Aslan]

Article excerpt from Logic Times (www.logictimes.com).

The Iraq Body Count study reports 24,865 civilian deaths in the first two years of the Iraq War, an apparent ringing endorsement of the "Iraq in chaos" position. But a curious statistical anomaly jumps right off page one: over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%). This contradicts a basic tenant of the civilian casualty argument, namely that we are describing collateral damage during a time of war. Collateral damage does not differentiate between male and female, between child and adult. A defective smart bomb falling in a marketplace, stray bullets ripping through bedroom walls, city warfare in Fallujah – all these activities should produce casualties that reflect the ratio of men to women or adults to children that prevail in Iraq as a whole.

This question is particularly relevant when one side in the conflict does not wear uniforms, is predominantly adult and of one gender, and engages in a practice of concealing its combatants within the civilian population. The statistics are further distorted if the Iraqi security forces – essentially the free Iraqi military on the side of the U.S. coalition – are classified as civilians, as they are in this study.

(Details at www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm)

[Riverwind]

The Iraq Body Count study reports 24,865 civilian deaths in the first two years of the Iraq War, an apparent ringing endorsement of the "Iraq in chaos" position.

You presume that the 25,000 number is accurate. The fact that the article is on a right wing web site tells me that the 25,000 figure is likely a gross underestimate. Others have estimated the casualties at 100,000+ which could also be an exaggeration. I suspect the true casuality figures are somewhere in between. In anyc ase, it is impossible to draw conclusions from the demographics of casualities if the statistics available are suspect.

[Aslan]

The Iraq Body Count study reports 24,865 civilian deaths in the first two years of the Iraq War, an apparent ringing endorsement of the "Iraq in chaos" position.

You presume that the 25,000 number is accurate. The fact that the article is on a right wing web site tells me that the 25,000 figure is likely a gross underestimate. Others have estimated the casualties at 100,000+ which could also be an exaggeration. I suspect the true casuality figures are somewhere in between. In anyc ase, it is impossible to draw conclusions from the demographics of casualities if the statistics available are suspect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Iraq Body Count is not a Right Wing website, but an antiwar group. The Lancet study of 100,000 is even discredited by them because it used goofy statistics to project the casualties in one Baghdad subdivision over the whole country. You are incorrect.

[Riverwind]

Iraq Body Count is not a Right Wing website, but an antiwar group.  The Lancet study of 100,000 is even discredited by them because it used goofy statistics to project the casualties in one Baghdad subdivision over the whole country. You are incorrect.

Ok, I read through the original datasource. It appears that these numbers included targeted attacks by insurgents and criminal killings which tend to overwhelmingly affect young makes. These deaths represent 45% of the total - enough to explain the demographic mismatch that was noted in the article.

If you look at deaths caused by only US forces (37% of the total) you will find that close to 48% were children killed during air strikes (80% of the US caused deaths). In other words, the actual data directly contradicts the argument made in the article and actually supports the conclusion that US military tactics end up killing a lot of children.

[BHS]

Ok, I read through the original datasource. It appears that these numbers included targeted attacks by insurgents and criminal killings which tend to overwhelmingly affect young makes. These deaths represent 45% of the total - enough to explain the demographic mismatch that was noted in the article.

If you look at deaths caused by only US forces (37% of the total) you will find that close to 48% were children killed during air strikes (80% of the US caused deaths). In other words, the actual data directly contradicts the argument made in the article and actually supports the conclusion that US military tactics end up killing a lot of children.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Without having read the article to confirm your numbers, you're saying that 18.5% (50% of 37%) of the total number of Iraqis killed thusfar were children killed during American airstrikes. In a country where the bulk of the population is (apparently) children. I guess I'm confused about what your definition of "a lot" is. 0.5% of 25000 casualties is a lot too, if you're not concerned about statistical likelihood or historic casualty numbers.

By the by, since everyone's so keen on looking up stats for me, does anyone know what percentage of Serbs killed were children, when Clinton decided to start dropping bombs on that country? Also, how about Vietnam? Just out of curiosity, since there doesn't seem to be a big fancy website dedicated to the child casualties of wars started by Democrats. Thanks in advance.

[Guest eureka]

The Lancet study has been shown to be accurate and is not discredited. If you look at the sites explaining the methodology, and get beyond the critics (critics for cauase), you will find it all explained. Your use of the phrase "one Baghdad subdivision shows that you have read only the deniers.

[Aslan]

The Lancet study has been shown to be accurate and is not discredited. If you look at the sites explaining the methodology, and get beyond the critics (critics for cauase), you will find it all explained. Your use of the phrase "one Baghdad subdivision shows that you have read only the deniers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spare me, I have read the study. I researched the study. My comment was hyperbole, reserved for bad science. They selected random households in Baghdad, Basra, Arbil, Najaf and Karbala, and Falluja, a ridiculously small number of households. They have been discredited, and not by me (that's why I didn't do a piece on the study), but by their fellow lefties, who COLLECTIVELY at the time of the Lancet "study" had none of them projected - optimistically projected - more than 16,000 deaths. It is bad science.

[BHS]

No, no, the Lancet study was perfectly correct. Most lefties choose to go with the high figure of 100000 civilian casualties. I'm going to choose to go with the low figure of 8000. If the Lancet study is acceptable proof of the high figure, it is of the low figure as well. You can't argue it both ways.

[newbie]

It's amazing how the U.S. department of defense knows exact numbers down to the men they've lost. Yet Bush's P.R. man, Scott McClellan refuses to even entertain or speculate an approximate number of Iraqi civilians that have been killed. I'd be interested, Aslan, who these lefties are that have discredited the Lancet study, and where are their findings? I think I'd believe a John Hopkins study over what has been presented so far.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-23.htm

[newbie]

No, no, the Lancet study was perfectly correct. Most lefties choose to go with the high figure of 100000 civilian casualties. I'm going to choose to go with the low figure of 8000. If the Lancet study is acceptable proof of the high figure, it is of the low figure as well. You can't argue it both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably a number in the middle would be more accurate.

[BHS]

(Actually, my last post was just me being facetious. I don't really accept the Lancet study as proof of anything other than the left's willingness to swallow anything that makes the American military look bad. I just thought I'd point out that there's a completely different way of looking at the results of the study that the study's defenders have apparently overlooked.)

[August1991]

But a curious statistical anomaly jumps right off page one: over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%). This contradicts a basic tenant of the civilian casualty argument, namely that we are describing collateral damage during a time of war. Collateral damage does not differentiate between male and female, between child and adult.

Since most of the casualties have occurred as collateral damage during fighting or because of various car bombs and other explosions in urban areas, I am not surprised by these statistics.

If you were to walk in any large city in the Middle East, you would see primarily men. In a city such as Bagdad, I would imagine the men-women ratio would be 9:1. In villages, you would see children but not in central Bagdad.

Btw, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ has its own web site. Each casualty is recorded with reference.

Moreover, there were about 150,000 casualties during the 1975-92 Lebanese Civil War and about 175,000 casualties in the Bosnian war 1992-95. Credible Link

[Guest eureka]

100,000 is the middle figure. And I still think you should read the methodology of the study. You will find it gets more credible as you read.

This has all been gone through before on another thread with explanations of how the numbers make sense.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Lancet "study" has been thoroughly debunked by the right and the reasonable left (yes there are some out there).

Marc Herold has also been discredited, not just for his Iraq civilian body count, but for his inflated Afghani civilian body count.

According to the left, the only civilian body counts that are inflated are the civilian deaths at the hands of leftwing ideologies like Communism and Nazism.

Hell, it took 15 years for Noam Chomsky to admit that about 2 million of Cambodia's 7.8 million people had perished at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. As late as 1988, when the skulls were piled too high to ignore any longer, Chomsky relented, but insisted that whatever had happened in Cambodia, the US (of course!) was to blame.

One must always heed the wise words of the ever-quotable Ann Coulter:

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."

As (mostly) usual, Ann Coulter gets it right. However, I would not put Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller in this category. They are true "classic" liberals, not like the socialist suckweasels who try to portray themselves as "liberals" today.

No wonder they have taken to call themselves "progressives". They are always trying to bamboozle the public.

[PocketRocket]

Here's a good touchstone from LogicTmes.....

"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot.  It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling.  You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James Mattis

Yeah. If I wanted to appear to be an "impartial" site whose mandate was to sort out the truth of matters using "logic", then that's certainly the kind of quote I'd be posting to show the world how impartial I am, and how I am only interested in the truth, no matter where the chips may fall

[Guest eureka]

I can't be bothered arguing with you, Monty. I repeat, just read the methodolgy behind this PEER REVIEWED study. and try not to be quite so dumb as to call Lancet a "Leftist" source.

[PocketRocket]

I find it funny that someone comes here, starts a thread on a controversial topic, and as proof, cites himself and his own essays as a source.

'Twould be like myself saying "I'm right, because I said I'm right".

Come to think of it, it's kind of like the Bush administration's modus operandi.