Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New study finds excess deaths in Iraq to be 1/4 of the Roberts et al study
shek    1/10/2008 12:03:18 PM
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902793.html?sub=AR" New Estimate of Violent Deaths Among Iraqis Is Lower By David Brown and Joshua Partlow Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, January 10, 2008; A18 A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare. The survey, conducted by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization, also found a 60 percent increase in nonviolent deaths -- from such causes as childhood infections and kidney failure -- during the period. The results, which will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine at the end of the month, are the latest of several widely divergent and controversial estimates of mortality attributed to the Iraq war. The three-year toll of violent deaths calculated in the survey is one-quarter the size of that found in a smaller survey by Iraqi and Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the journal Lancet in 2006. Both teams used the same method -- a random sample of houses throughout the country. For the new study, however, surveyors visited 23 times as many places and interviewed five times as many households. Surveyors also got more outside supervision in the recent study; that wasn't possible in the spring of 2006 when the Johns Hopkins survey was conducted. Despite reaching a lower estimate of total deaths, the epidemiologists found what they termed "a massive death toll in the wake of the 2003 invasion." Iraq's population-wide mortality rate nearly doubled, and the death rate from violence increased tenfold after the coalition attack. Men between 15 and 60 were at the greatest risk. Their death rate from all causes tripled, and their risk of dying a violent death went up elevenfold. Iraq's health minister, Salih al-Hasnawi, in a conference call held by WHO yesterday morning, said: "Certainly I believe this number. I think that this is a very sound survey with accurate methodology." Other experts not involved in the research also expressed confidence in the findings, even though, as with the earlier survey, the 151,000-death estimate has a wide range of statistical uncertainty, from a low of 104,000 to a high of 223,000. "Overall, this is a very good study," said Paul Spiegel, a medical epidemiologist at the United Nations High Commission on Refugees in Geneva. "What they have done that other studies have not is try to compensate for the inaccuracies and difficulties of these surveys, triangulating to get information from other sources." Spiegel added that "this does seem more believable to me" than the earlier survey, which estimated 601,000 deaths from violence over the same period. U.S. military officials yesterday pointed to the great disparity between the two estimates, noting privately that it underscores the potential for inaccuracies in such surveys. The Defense Department has not released any estimates of civilian deaths and has said often that the military takes precautions to prevent civilian casualties, while the United States' enemies in Iraq deliberately target civilians. "It would be difficult for the U.S. to precisely determine the number of civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of insurgent activity," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, a Pentagon spokesman. "The Iraqi Ministry of Health would be in a better position, with all of its records, to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq." Les Roberts, an epidemiologist now at Columbia University who helped direct the Johns Hopkins survey, also praised the new one. While both found a large increase in mortality, his found that much more of it was caused by violence. "My gut feeling is that most of the difference between the two studies is a reluctance to report to the government a death due to violence," he said. "If your son is fighting the government and died, that may not be something you'd want to admit to the government." The new study was conducted between August 2006 and March 2007 in all regions of the country, including the Kurdish northern area. Surveyors visited about 1,000 randomly selected geographic areas (called "clusters") and interviewed people in 9,345 households. They were asked whether anyone in the household -- defined as people living under the same roof "and eating from one pot" -- had died from June 2001 through June 2006. Each death was assigned to one of 23 causes. "Violent death" covered shootings, stabbings, bombings and other intentional injuries, and included civilian, military and police deaths but not suicides and traffic fatalities unrelated to roadside bombs. Danger prevented surveyors from visiting 11 percent of the chosen clusters. Deaths in those areas were estimated using the ratio of deaths in the region to deaths in other reg
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
shek       1/10/2008 12:04:18 PM
Here's the link to the actual study published by the New England Journal of Medicine:
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bob       1/10/2008 5:22:22 PM
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       1/10/2008 9:42:17 PM
Wouldn't it be more accurate to just ask..."How many people did you kill this year?"
Another sadr psyop surge.. .Have we been roughing-up the slums, latley?
 
Quote    Reply

PowerPointRanger       1/15/2008 7:15:42 AM
 
It now seems that the Lancet study that dramatically over estimated casualties was funded by anti-war billionaire George Soros.
 
 Can you say propaganda?
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/17/2008 2:00:34 PM
Hmmm very interesting.  I distinctly remember saying something a year ago on the Lancet thread about this, 100 deaths a day over the first 3 years , but naw that can't be right can it, since I'm always wrong.  This study used 1,000 clusters whereas the Lancet study used what 47 or so, it has much more credibility to it.  Also the Iraqi Health Ministry did this one, and the results coincide with what the then Health Minister said (guess he wasn't just grasping for straws).  So we can celebrate the fact that 'only' more Iraqis died in this war than in Anfal, and not Rwanda. What a relief, better get Rumsfeld another medal.



 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       1/17/2008 4:20:54 PM

Hmmm very interesting.  I distinctly remember saying something a year ago on the Lancet thread about this, 100 deaths a day over the first 3 years , but naw that can't be right can it, since I'm always wrong.  This study used 1,000 clusters whereas the Lancet study used what 47 or so, it has much more credibility to it.  Also the Iraqi Health Ministry did this one, and the results coincide with what the then Health Minister said (guess he wasn't just grasping for straws).  So we can celebrate the fact that 'only' more Iraqis died in this war than in Anfal, and not Rwanda. What a relief, better get Rumsfeld another medal.



 


Plutarch, I don't get it.
1)  In the last four years in a war against Iraqi and foreign combatants we've killed somewhere around 30,000 or so Iraqis and foreigners in Iraq, the vast majority of which were combatants.
2)  In the last four years Iraqi and foreign guearilla/terrorists/thugs/genocidal maniacs in various wars against us, them, and each other have killed somewhere around 120,000+ or so Iraqis, the vast majority of which were non-combatants.
3)  Some genocidal maniacs in the Anfal mass murder campaign against non-combatants killed a smaller number of non-combatants than have the Iraqi and foreign guerillas/terrorists/etc in 2).
4)  Some genocidal maniacs in the Rwanda mass murder campaign against non-combatants killed a larger number of non-combatants than have, well, than have just about anybody.
5)  Rumsfeld should get another medal.
 
I'm sorry that I haven't been able to make the necessary connections, but what is it that relates 1) and 2), and relates them to 3) and 4), and relates all 1) - 4) to 5)?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/18/2008 6:21:17 AM



Hmmm very interesting.  I distinctly remember saying something a year ago on the Lancet thread about this, 100 deaths a day over the first 3 years , but naw that can't be right can it, since I'm always wrong.  This study used 1,000 clusters whereas the Lancet study used what 47 or so, it has much more credibility to it.  Also the Iraqi Health Ministry did this one, and the results coincide with what the then Health Minister said (guess he wasn't just grasping for straws).  So we can celebrate the fact that 'only' more Iraqis died in this war than in Anfal, and not Rwanda. What a relief, better get Rumsfeld another medal.




 



Plutarch, I don't get it.

1)  In the last four years in a war against Iraqi and foreign combatants we've killed somewhere around 30,000 or so Iraqis and foreigners in Iraq, the vast majority of which were combatants.

2)  In the last four years Iraqi and foreign guearilla/terrorists/thugs/genocidal maniacs in various wars against us, them, and each other have killed somewhere around 120,000+ or so Iraqis, the vast majority of which were non-combatants.

3)  Some genocidal maniacs in the Anfal mass murder campaign against non-combatants killed a smaller number of non-combatants than have the Iraqi and foreign guerillas/terrorists/etc in 2).

4)  Some genocidal maniacs in the Rwanda mass murder campaign against non-combatants killed a larger number of non-combatants than have, well, than have just about anybody.
5)  Rumsfeld should get another medal.

 

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to make the necessary connections, but what is it that relates 1) and 2), and relates them to 3) and 4), and relates all 1) - 4) to 5)?

 

Well let me spell it out for you.  If 1 had not occurred (the invasion and illegitimate, not to mention incompetent, occupation of Iraq) then 2 would not have occurred (The breakdown of civil order, the rise of violence, sectarian warfare, etc.) . Through US action and subsequent inaction, this violence was stoked and spread across  Iraq, where there was stability before the invasion (1991-2003).  3 is an example of heinous war crimes committed by a rightly condemned genocidal man through his actions, but with probably a smaller number of civilians killed (the actual number of Kurds is disputed and many were in open rebellion against Iraq) , then  during the current war.  We condemn  Saddam (rightly)  for his actions, yet praise  Rumsfeld and our own leaders for waging  at best an incompetent and negligent invasion/occupation and at worse a criminal one.

I don't buy the argument that it's all the Iraqis fault, that the poor savages don't appreciate democracy, or what the US did for them.  In the first place they didn't really ask to be liberated/invaded, just the exiles did (and we see how much influence they have in Iraq).  Sure, many of them would have liked to get rid of Saddam, but this is probably not the way they wanted it done.  In the second place the US, as the occupying force (as recognized by the UN) and protector of the Iraqis (as touted by the Bush administration) does have a moral and legal responsibility to protect all Iraqis. They did not do this, refusing to put more troops or necessary conditions to prevent the insurgency, and instead they put into power Shiite terrorists with much Sunni and some American blood on their hands, which caused a Sunni backlash against both the occupation and the Shiites.  Finally you imply that the US, despite having the most overwhelming firepower, and the largest number of troops, out of all the combatants in Iraq, and control of the skies, is only responsible for one-fifth of the deaths (and all combatants too, wow).  You could be right, and I certainly hope that you are, but evidence of this claim is appreciated.  Even if it is correct that US troops killed only combatants it still does not excuse American ineptness.

So you see how 1-3 are connected, and now on to 4 and 5. The Lancet study stated that 600,000 Iraqis were killed, which would have put it on par with disasters like Rwanda, (though Rwanda was over a shorter period of time and had a much smaller population).  Lancet was vigorously refuted by the right-wing blogosphere. "See not  that many Iraqis were killed, only this many Iraqis have been killed."   Now with this new study out, (presumably accepted by said detractors of Lancet) we can all rest easy in the knowledge that American actions/inactio
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       1/19/2008 2:46:14 PM
How about
 
1) Terrorists use terrorism in part because they believe it will force those subjected to it to take the actions they want them to take.
 
2A) Media leads with what bleeds and amplifies the impact of terrorism, in some cases by eaggerating the effects of terrorism through sloppy reporting to increase the shock value and boost ratings.
 
2B) Corrupt individuals push their own political by exaggerating the effects of terrorism such as by conducting studies that enormously magnify the aparent scope of terrorists power
 
3) Idiot surrender monkeys push governments to give in to terrorism.
 
4) Terrorists see that they are making progress and increase their activities at the cost of the lives of innocents.
 
Loop back to 1)
 
Which part in this do you play? 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/20/2008 1:50:36 AM

How about

 

1) Terrorists use terrorism in part because they believe it will force those subjected to it to take the actions they want them to take.

 

2A) Media leads with what bleeds and amplifies the impact of terrorism, in some cases by eaggerating the effects of terrorism through sloppy reporting to increase the shock value and boost ratings.

 

2B) Corrupt individuals push their own political by exaggerating the effects of terrorism such as by conducting studies that enormously magnify the aparent scope of terrorists power

 

3) Idiot surrender monkeys push governments to give in to terrorism.

 

4) Terrorists see that they are making progress and increase their activities at the cost of the lives of innocents.

 

Loop back to 1)

 

Which part in this do you play? 

How about advocating our government, and supporters of this action, to not undertake stupid policy decisions that waste military resources on a middling, basically non-threatening country and unleash four years of violence where there was none before.  All done in the name of either killing terrorists or promoting democracy; neither of which was accomplished very well

And please explain to me how you define a terrorist, is it A.) A Sunni who had a family member/home destroyed by Americans, B.) A Sunni who had a family member/home destroyed by a Shiite, C.) A Shiite who had a family member/home destroyed by a Sunni, D.) A Shiite who hates the American occupation because a home was destroyed/family member killed by Americans, or E.) One of the 1-2,000 al Qaeda members who snuck into Iraq during/after the invasion, or even one of the thousands of Moslem men who were galvanized by the occupation.  What exactly have we won in Iraq---an ally, a democracy, a country that doesn't breed terrorism, or just a country without Saddam?
 
Quote    Reply

Panther    Plutrach   1/20/2008 2:05:32 AM
Count me in with displacedjim. I just can't figure you out either? All news is bad news for you! Hey, Mr. Regan passed away between 3-4 years ago! Just figured that might make you actually... you know.... happy?
 
BAD AMERICAN! Bad, bad, bad American... slap, slap, slap, slap! There... does that make you feel better now that i spanked myself? 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics