Serious question about the number of Iraqi civilian casualties

[WilliamPitt]

As most of you know, the Lancet came out with the figure of 98,000 Iraqi civilian casualties right around the November election.

At about the same time, the United Nations Development Program came out with the 'Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004.' Here:

http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm

The Lancet report read: "We estimate that there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000–194 000) during the post-war period in the 97% of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Falluja."

The UNDP report, however, read: "The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths."

Can someone explain the discrepancy? Was the UNDP report discredited somewhere down the line?

[Zuni]

1. I saw the UN report recently

and it jibes much closer to the estimates by Iraq Body Count (15-20K) and even the Pentagon (who released an estimate of 15,000-18,000 several months ago)

I tend to put more weight behind the UN report

These are not just civilian casualties---they include all combatants as well.

The WSJ also had an estimate of 12,000 Iraqis killed by Insurgents last week.

[Zuni]

2. will, honestly

I do not think the UN figures were ever really publicized. I don't recall ever seeing them anywhere until recently, even though they are much closer to most of the other estimates.

I say the UN figures are probably the best bet

[Vladimir]

3. The discrepancy is almost certainly an issue of methodology

because although both studies are studying excess deaths, civilian and combatant, in Iraq since the invasion, they use different samples and probably different statistical methods. They are both fundamentally projections/estimates, which makes them incomparable with things like the IraqBodyCount. Firstly because they do not limit themselves to civilian casualties, and secondly because IBC counts only those casualties actually reported, whereas both the Lancet and UN study extrapolate from an interviewed sample.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. "One mans death is a tragedy. 24000 or 100000 is a statistic."

To paraphrase Stalin. I read somewhere in MSM that 800 Iraqis were killed in May. But, perk up, the civil war is just beginning. By, the time we finish "spreading democracy" and "bringing freedom" the whole country will be littered with "statistics".

[WilliamPitt]

7. That's a very righteous statement

but those of us in the newspaper business have this thing about using accurate information when describing the facts.

[bin.dare]

11. Re: "That's a very righteous statement"

"those of us in the newspaper business have this thing about using accurate information when describing the facts"

:rofl:

[IndyOp]

14. Your ROFL is totally appropriate for the MSM - not for Will and

other journalists who are really, really busting their butts and risking their lives to get the truth out. The number of journalists fired from their jobs or even killed 'in the line of duty' when reporting from war zones over the past few years is shocking and horrifying. Go after the crappy journalists with righteous anger - but please show some respect for the ones who are on OUR side.

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Here's some "fresh" ones. Including an 8 year old girl.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

I don't want to harp on this, but wouldn't it be interesting to start attaching names and humanity to those killed? Instead of easily forgotten numbers?

In the linked story above, "40 insurgents" were killed. Not people, not individuals, "insurgents". Of course, they were identified as "insurgents" by our always trustworthy military. Also, "a car came too close to a military patrol" 2 dead 2 wounded.

Also, in the same story, 2 oil ministry officials killed by a bomb.

2 Iraqis, including an 8 year old girl, by a bomb at a cemetary they were visiting.

And, on an on. Who are these people, these statistics? As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I'm all for factual reporting, but the "facts" leave out so much.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. Will, the question you have to ask is where is the UN getting their....

...figures? What are they using as sources?

Here's the problem as I see it...the 500 to 2000 pound bombs we have used on targets in urban environments have done more than destroy the target. Anyone, mostly civilians, within 50 to 100 yards of the blast of a 2000 pound bomb has been vaporized for all intents and purposes. Have those people been counted?

What about bodies that have never been recovered from the ruins of buildings destroyed in each of Iraq's cities? What about those that were in air-raid bunkers when the bunker-busters were used?

And what of the people who died in the desert as a result of attempting to flee the US planes and have never been recovered?

Personally, I would trust the figures produced by Lancet, even though I have a problem with the use of the phrase "post-war period". When did we reach that point in time? I wasn't aware that anyone declared that the war was over except for Herr Busch with his moronic "Mission Accomplished" speech.

[merwin]

6. Considering Fallujah itself had 350,000 people in it. I would put the

death toll at a MUCH HIGHER level.

Perosnally, I would consider as casualties those people who die of starvation because their homes and cities were destroyed by the coalition troops, leaving them no place to eat, sleep, or work.

If we consider that, the casualties in fallujah alone were probably well above 100,000.

[KittyWampus]

20. Thanks For Mentioning Fallujah- Moment Of Silence

the US might have tried to snuff out a reporter who had info on what happened there.

[starroute]

8. Is the difference in the definition of "extra deaths"?

I could be wrong, but I always understood that term to refer to the excess of actual deaths over expected deaths. So it would include higher rates of death from illness, higher infant morality, additional accidents with inadequate care for the injured, and other things that aren't directly combat-related.

[Vladimir]

9. Its a good question,

and one which does not seem possible to answer unfortunately. The UN report, if you go onto the website, does not make this clear. They talk about "deaths due to warfare" and "war related deaths", but that can be read both ways.

[Ignoramus]

10. They UN report says that their estimate is low

On the 55th page (pg. 54) of the analytical report, same page as your quote:

"The question underestimates deaths, because households in which all members were lost are omitted. It is therefore common within demographic studies to use a correction for this, based on a number of assumptions derived from stable population theory (UN 1983). This has not been attempted here, as it is unlikely that the assumptions
are satisfied."

I also disagree with their characterization of Iraq body count

"The website “Iraq Body Count”(http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) estimates that between 14,619 and 16,804 deaths have occurred
between the beginning of 2003 and 7 December 2004 (IBC 2004)."

The website count is the number of "reported deaths", and only civilian deaths, not an estimate of total deaths.

Practically, there are different sets of figures, depending on what you want the figures for.

You can use a conservative number in order to cite it. Probably, iraq body count's numbers, because individual reports with specifics, per person (sorry, it's not per person, but close), seems likely to be pretty accurate to me, in order to say Iraq body count says the number of reported civilian deaths is n.

In order to tell yourself what the numbers are, or to be more elaborate about it you can include the qualifiers and why you have them. It's probably much higher because they leave out the numbers from mass deaths.

[Junkdrawer]

13. How about: This administration doesn't control Lancet to the extent...

it controls the UN.

IOW: The most impartial, respected authority is the one I'd tend to believe.

[IndyOp]

15. Will already knows about this, but it is a good started for people who

want to do more research - a report by Carl Conetta
<http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/052005D.shtml#2.2>

A reasonably conservative estimate for total excess deaths due to fighting, crime, and non-violent causes is "more than 60,000" since the beginning of the war through the end of 2004. The study... adopted an estimate of 98,000 excess deaths, violent and non-violent, through mid-September 2004. And whether one accepts the higher or lower estimate as a baseline, the total would be higher today. (May 2005)

Deaths due to military action:
* Perhaps 30,000 Iraqis have died due to military action by all sides in the course of the war and occupation (as of May 2005). Approximately half of these were killed during the conventional combat phase of the war, which ended 1 May 2003. 13
* Probably three-quarters of the total 30,000 were killed by coalition troops.
* The number injured is much higher; if historical ratios of dead to wounded pertain, the total number of Iraqi casualties due to military action and terrorism is probably in the range of 100,000 to 120,000 people.


The post-war surge in violent crime is as onerous as the toll of military-related violence. Baghdad morgue records for the period 1 May 2003 through the end of 2004 indicate a total of more than 12,000 unexplained deaths in a city that constitutes about 22 percent of the nation's population.... A reasonable national estimate for excess crime-related deaths is 12,000 for the occupation period through the end of 2004.

Finally, the rate of non-violent death has increased during the postwar period due to accidents, sanitation problems, and problems in the utility and health care systems. One study (published in the leading British medical journal, The Lancet) based on a survey of almost 1000 households suggests as many as 40,000 excess non-violent deaths nationwide between 19 March 2003 and 16 September 2004 - although limitations of the survey method might mean that the actual total is only half as great. Other studies have logged the persistent effects of the war on the Iraqi health care system and child malnutrition (which UNICEF estimates had nearly doubled during the first year after the invasion).

[IndyOp]

16. Iraq Body Count uses - IMO - an exceptionally high standard in terms

of the deaths they will count. The count 'civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq.' They require that the death(s) be reported in 'two or more independent approved news sources.' Because they use such a high standard we cannot doubt that the number of deaths due to military action is any lower than their numbers - currently 22,191 to 25,178.

Still, their standard is too high to be valid - with the rate at which civilians are dying, it just cannot be true that each death will be covered in more than one 'independent approved news source.'

Iraq Body Count also does not address deaths as a result of crime caused by the devastation of Iraq. Nor does it address the result of untreated disease and lack of nutritious food.

When adding up the 'butcher's bill' please don't start in 2003 - it allows too many war criminals too hide. The greatest number of deaths that the US has caused in Iraq were due to the economic sanctions in place for over a decade (until just after the uprovoked attack in 2003).

The economic sanctions - held in place by war criminal John Negroponte (UN Ambassador during, I believe both *I and Clinton's administration) - caused the deaths of over 500,000 children under the age of 5. Half-a-million infants, toddlers, and pre-school children died as a result of those economic sanctions.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/418625.stm>

When I think of the hatred that emanated from the US after the attacks on the Twin Towers in which several thousand adults died - I shrink in horror to think of the hatred emanating from the parents, families, and communities of the children who died because of US/UN policy.

Finally - please don't shy away from numbers that are estimates/projections - they are more real than the 'for sure' numbers that someone could get from counting deaths reported in the newspaper or at the morgues during a time of chaos. I think that this is particularly true for countries that tend to bury their dead quickly.

[wtmusic]

17. I believe the 'post-war period' and the 'aftermath of the invasion'

refer to different periods of time.

It sounds like the aftermath refers to deaths directly related to the invasion, or as they say 'war-related death'. Although it's obvious there is still a war going on, they possibly have drawn an arbitrary line from May 1st or 'Mission Accomplished' day.

[dogday]

18. Alot of Young Men and children dying, what are we to do?

If you can, try to imagine the number of children and babies that have been killed so we could shove freedom down the throats of the Iraq nation.

It is a shame. For both sides. We have babies on both sides dying and they just keep scheming to obtain even more money and power...

[LynnTheDem]

19. General Franks estimated 30,000 troops killed during invasion (6 weeks).

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040419-secdef1362.html

Around 124,000 U.S. troops believe they killed one or more Iraqi combatants in 2003. Apx. 41,000 U.S. troops believe they killed one or more Iraqi civilians in 2003.

In results of anonymous surveys of U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq done in 2003 as part of a study on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) published in the New England Journal of Medicine .

In this study, 48% of the Army soldiers who had served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 65% of the Marines said that they were responsible for the death of at least one enemy combatant.

Since at least 180,000 Army soldiers and 58,000 Marines served in Iraq in 2003, this means that a minimum of about 124,000 U.S. troops who returned from Iraq by the end of 2003 each believed they had caused the death of one or more enemy combatants. This would not include any deaths caused by Navy or Air Force personnel, such as those that resulted from the bombing missions during the invasion, nor would it include those killed since the beginning of 2004.

14% of Army soldiers and 28% of Marines said that they were responsible for the death of a civilian, which means that a minimum of about 41,000 troops who returned from Iraq by the end of 2003 each believed they had caused the death of one or more civilians.

As with the former estimate based on these surveys, this would not include civilian deaths caused by Navy or Air Force personnel, such as those resulting from the bombing missions during the invasion, nor would it include those killed since the beginning of 2004.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13/T2

Iraqi civilians killed; 36,533 during March-October 2003. This was an actual body count.

Another study by an Iraqi group, the "People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony," conducted a detailed survey in September and October of 2003 throughout the non-Kurdish areas of Iraq to surmise the total number of civilian dead. They tallied an actual 36,533 civilians killed in those areas by October 2003. This would not include civilian deaths since that time, nor civilians killed in the Kurdish areas of Iraq.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66E32EAF-0E4E-4765-9339-594C323A777F.htm

Taking actual deaths counted for 8 months March 2003- October 2003

36,553 killed March - October 2003

Add conservative estimate;

36,000 killed 2004 (rising deaths)
36,000 killed 2005 (rising deaths)

Lancet; 100,000+ Iraqis killed.

*Note; Iraq BodyCount is ONLY THOSE DEATHS ACTUALLY REPORTED BY 2 MEDIA SOURCES.

Other info: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/2003-invasion-of-Iraq-casualties