One Hundred Thousand cont'd
Oh dear, I was waiting. Rebuttal. Thank you Charles WT for providing this valuable opportunity. You can't possibly be telling me you place any faith in all those partisan links? Let me begin with Shannon Love's post. I will use the Q A format, two answers for each question.
Q; Shannon observes; "Most other sources put total combined civilian and military deaths from all causes at between 15,000 to 20,000". Shannon then asks "The Lancet study is a degree of magnitude higher. Why the difference?"
A 1; Most other independent sources do not have the resources to conduct an in depth study to the degree that The Lancet has undertaken. Specifically, most other sources have not recently conducted studies in field. The last in field study was very near the beginning of the conflict. There have been many more occasions for loss of life during conflict since those early days. It is no surprise that the death rate has increased since that first and as far as I am aware only other in field study.
A 2; Most other non-independent sources although possessing the resources to conduct comprehensive casualty studies, do not have the inclination to do so. In fact most other non-independent sources possessing the resources to conduct comprehensive casualty studies have an interest in suppressing such data.
Q; Shannon calculates that; "100,000 deaths over roughly a year and a half equates to 183 deaths per day" and then speculates "With that many people dying from air strikes every day we would expect to have at least one or two incidents where several hundred or even thousands of people died" before asking "Heard of anything like that?"
A 1; 183 deaths per day spread throughout areas of conflict in Iraq does not neccesarily amount to mass incidents of hundreds or thousands of deaths. Let us take six well known areas of conflict in this war.
- Baghdad. Major civilian center subject to air raids.
- Basrah. Another major civilian center subject to air raids.
- Fallujah. Subject to "insurgency containment".
- Tikrit. Saddam's "home town". Subject to severe military "operations" during the hunt for Saddam.
- Mosul. In Northern Iraq/Kurdistan. Subject to notable conflict near the wars beginning.
- Ramadi. Of particular focus in recent planned strikes.
I have mentioned only six areas of conflict and already if one divides 183 by those 6 mentions one has a result of only 30.5. A result of 30 and a half casualties per day spread over only six cities. When one looks at the number of towns marked on this map showing CPA presence in Iraq - oop, map diversion. Take a look at that CPA map. CPA North, CPA South, CPA Central and CPA Baghdad. The whole bloody country is occupied by the goddamn CPA. Is that a map of Iraq or is it a map of some new occupied territory named ah, "CPA"?. But as I was saying. When one looks at the number of towns marked on that map and divides 183 by them all, one can see how incrementally easy 183 deaths per day can accumulate in a war-torn country.
A 2; Well yes Shannon, with that many people dying each day you could expect at least one or two incidents where several hundred or even thousands have died. In fact, you can find those incidences recorded right here, on Iraq Body Counts site. Isn't that good of them to have been so diligently keeping track of things. Sorted by largest entry first, a few Iraq Body Count excerpts;
19 Mar 2003 -
09 Apr 2003 | - | 19 Baghdad hospitals | - | - | 1482 |
|
4 Apr 2003 -
31 Aug 2003 | - | Violent deaths recorded at Baghdad city morgue | - | 60 per cent from gunshot wounds | 1214 |
20 Mar 2003 -
24 Apr 2003 | - | Municipality of Baghdad | - | - | 778 |
|
20 Mar 2003 -
06 Apr 2003 | - | Nassiriya | - | various | 633 |
05 Apr 2004 -
30 Apr 2004 | - | city of Falluja | 'insurgents', incl. those responsible for the killing of four US security contractors | air attacks and ground battles | 572 |
|
20 Mar 2003 -
20 Apr 2003 | - | Hospitals in Najaf, Karbala, Mosul, Samawa, Madain, Diwaniyah, Kut, Tikrit | - | various | 484 |
01 Sep 2003 -
30 Sep 2003 | - | Violent deaths recorded at Baghdad city morgue | - | Over 55% by gunfire | 362 |
Please note these are only a few excerpts from Iraq Body Count. Iraq Body Count provides a minimum and maximum figure where different media sources report different figures. I have quoted the conservative minimum estimate. Larger entries are sourced from hospital morgues. It is reasonable to consider that most dead bodies are buried rather then taken to hospitals, hence it is highly likely that these reports are only an "iceburg tip". A time delay can be expected between the occasion of conflict and the gathering and accumulation of bodies in morgues, hence the date spans on these items. Also worth noting that some hospital casualty records were deliberately confiscated and destroyed early in the conflict. Sorry this sounds so cold and grim but that's the way war is and I see no reason to sugarcoat it.
Oh, one other little thing. With that many people dying each day it is surprising that anyone might be left standing to report such incidences at all. Probably there are a fair few unreported incidences where either a journalist was not present to record it or no one was left alive to report it or someone was left alive but they had getting the hell out of there more on their minds then finding a journo to report too.
Only two paragraphs through Shannon's obviously bogus discourse, and so much more to answer. However, one step at a time. To be continued, probably.
11 Comments
Gentlemen and ladies, that is what is commonly referred to as "whuppass". Glad to see our host can dish it out.
Personally I feel that 100000 is probably a tad high ... but on the other hand, the US military claims it is killing 1500 + insurgents a month ... and given that the guerillas are still active, who *did* they shoot?
Emigre,
You're welcome.
"You can't possibly be telling me you place any faith in all those partisan links?"I don't place much faith in anything without proof, partisan or not.
If you have the time and energy to dig through all the comments made at the links I gave, you will certainly find plenty of arguments for and against the study.
ok, some iraqis died....so what? these are the same hate-filled idiots that were dancing in front of the tv camera on 9/11 and shooting their guns into the air like fools and loving the fact that america was attacked and people were dying. and i am supposed to fill sorry for these people now? what upsets me is that more than $1 of my tax money is going to feed these jerks. at least the people in afghanistan and the kurds are civilized and deserve our support. which US candidate wants to exterminate the entire arab population? i'll vote for him.
Right on anonymous!
Tell me, do you also recruit for Al Qaeda in your spare time, or is your only hobby trying to persuade others that all Americans really are as moronic, arrogant and self inflated as yourself? Because, if they were, then I'd also be dancing in the streets on 9-11.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Michael
If you had even a shred of credibilty you might have actually read the study instead of just making stuff up. That way you would know the figure of 100,000 civilian deaths excludes data from Fallujah. If the researchers had been able to obtain data from Fallujah the figure may have been higher.
Because the Lancet study is such a responsible study with such high ethical standards interviewer safety was always a priority. In minimising danger to data collectors in field the study excluded areas deemed too dangerous and violent, areas where interviewers might have been at risk and become part of the death toll themselves.
One can only imagine what the researchers might have found had they been able to obtain data from those more dangerous areas.
The Lancet report has already been debunked in many newspaper articles.
Usually a study like this takes at least six months and is subject to rigorous academic proofing. This report appears to have been rushed through in much less time and without any proofing at all.
Much mention has been made of the timing of the report, and it appears that the report was politically and not scientifically motivated.
It would be interesting to compare this figure to a study of the number of civilians killed by the former regime, and the civilians killed by the insurgency , however this has not been even taken into consideration by the Lancet's clearly flawed report
If the figure of dead is 100,000 or 600,000 it is still in line with past history of conficts. In fact it is too low.
I predict that the figure will be over one million dead in Iraq before this "small event in history" is finished.
If it is any confort, more people than that have died in automobile accidents in the USA in the last century.
This post is mine
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Dear Anonymous
I can only conclude that (like Michael) you have not read the Lancet Report in full either, otherwise you would have jumped on the red herring in my reply (to Michael).
Herring; "If the researchers had been able to obtain data from Fallujah".
Researchers were able to (and did) obtain data from Fallujah, although it was not used in calculating the 100,000. Findings from the Fallujah cluster sample accounted for two-thirds of all deaths reported by interviewees.
That a cluster sample which could have scewed results was excluded in calculating civilian casulaties only validates the integrity of the researchers. Study findings were submitted for peer-review, revision and editing at the beginning of October and published at the beginning of November. That is a damn sight more time then any blog commenter takes to check their claims.
i really dont care how many poor pathetic iraqis lost their lives. many of the deaths might have been from all the car bombs and stuff from terrorists. but who cares? over 1,000 americans have died in iraq and nobody says anything about that. and besides, 1 american death is equal to 1million iraqi deaths in my eyes, so we have a lot more killing to be done.
Post a Comment
<< Home