More On That 655,000 Iraq Civilian Body Count

Likwidshoe has a good post on it here, but I just wanted to add this little tid-bit:

LONDON (Reuters) – American and Iraqi public health experts have calculated that about 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and subsequent violence, far above previous estimates.
Researchers used household interviews rather than body counts to estimate how many more Iraqis had died because of the war than used to die annually in peacetime.

Household interviews.
Wonderful. I mean, it’s not like any of these household might have consisted of terror sympathizers who might have, you know, lied to skew the results a bit.
And then there’s the problem of how these deaths were characterized by those reporting them to the researchers. Say you’re talking to a grieving mother whose son was killed. She tells the researchers that he was a good boy and not causing any problems and was murdered, but in reality the guy was attacking our soldiers with a gun. Yet because the mom characterized him as a civilian he gets added to the tally and America gets the blame.
This isn’t research, this is thinly-veiled and poorly researched anti-war propaganda.
If you want the real scoop on civilian casualties in Iraq go to Iraq Body Count. It is run by anti-war people, but the methodology they use is sound.
Right now that website has the maximum number of Iraqis killed in Iraq at 48,693. According to this article the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled information on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s regime. That’s probably low as it is just the executions we know about and it doesn’t include those who died because Saddam diverted money from the UN’s humanitarian oil-for-food program into his own coffers, but we’ll use it anyway. If we consider that Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 years, those 600,000 executions puts his yearly death toll at about 25,000/year.
We’ve been in Iraq for 3 years and seven months (almost to the day), so that works out to about 13,296 civilian deaths per year using the Iraq Body Count number. Of course, not all of those deaths were caused by U.S. action. The terrorists we’re fighting in Iraq routinely target Iraqi civilians for their attacks, so the majority of that death toll should be credited to the jihadists.
But for comparison purposes, there are about 12,000 fewer people dying in Iraq under U.S. occupation then were dying under Saddam’s rule. It’s an imperfect calculation because the deaths under Saddam’s regime are hard to quantify, but even using low-ball numbers for Saddam’s body counts shows that fewer Iraqis are dying in Iraq now than before the U.S. invasion.
But don’t expect the Democrats or their allies in the media to buy into such calculations even though they’re based on better methodologies. They’re going to hype this 650,000 number (based on interviews not body counts!!!) because it makes for good headlines. It will be shoved down the throats of the American people and a lot of them, not knowing any better, are going to buy into it. By the time the media hype ends and this study is debunked (and it will be, if the fact that it was based on interviews doesn’t do it by itself) the lie will be set in the minds of many Americans and the press will be off hyping the next story.
Just another victory for the drive-by media.
Update: Remember the last Lancet study about civilian deaths in Iraq? That one came out in October too, in 2004 right before the elections.
But the release of these studies couldn’t possibly be politically-motivated, could they?

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • carrick

    Sparkie, I’ll give you credit for finding links for a putative relationship between the US & the rise of the Ba’athist party, though the quality of your sources “ain’t so great”.

    Your claim appears to fall on the testimony of Roger Morris, who admits no direct knowledge of the details. This makes Morris’s “testimony” hearsay , and there’s a good reason why we don’t let hearsay stand in court, because hearsay amounts to little more than dressed-up rumors.

    Basically you’re putting your trust in rumors. Do you have anything substantive or is the mere fact that it puts the US in a negative light enough for you to believe these otherwise unsubstantiated rumors?

    Given the role that the Soviet Union played in propping up the Ba’athist party after it took power, either makes this one hell of a failure by the CIA, or more likely, speaks to the fact that the Soviets were losing influence with the previous military dictatorship and engineered a new coup to place a more friend regime in power.

    If the Ba’athist party was supposed to be less friendly to the Soviet Union, there is little evidence that this actually happened. They continued to receive military and economical assistance from the Soviet Union throughout the 1960s.

    Finally, there is no reason to expect the United States to have wanted to replace a military strongman with a socialistic regime. Everywhere else in the world, at the time, we were fighting to do the opposite.

    I think your entire position, that the United States was instrumental in bringing Saddam to power, or that we “gave him his weapons” (totally debunked above of course) just flies in the face of reason.

  • Bat One

    I know goddamn well we taught those guys in Cairo how to torture people

    Sparkie,

    I realize that being a “progressive” you consider yourself immune from rules and mores that most of us regard as essential, but do you actually have any sort of documentation or authoritative source for this assertion, or are you merely bloviating to hear your own voice?

  • Puzzlefeet

    I'm really glad we are back to debating the Iraq War.
    read the entire thing: http://www.cookpolitical.com/

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Puzzle, tell us in your own words why your party favors pulling out of Iraq and handing a victory to the terrorists.

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    According to this article the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled information on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's regime.

    your link leads us to read this

    500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran.

    but we propped up Saddam and encouraged him to fight against Iran!!?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Sparkie, nice cherry pick. This is the pertinent part of that particle:

    The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq.

    You should at least try to be honest.

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    Sparkie, nice cherry pick. This is the pertinent part of that particle:

    The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq.

    You should at least try to be honest.

    And we are directly causally involved in all those deaths for putting the Bathe party into power and giving them lots of guns.

  • Puzzlefeet

    My party? Geez Rob, where have you been lately? Did you hear Sen Warner that there needs to be significant progress within three months or their needs to be a change in strategy. What happened to stay the course, is he now a cut and runner?

    And rob, perhaps you can tell us why we didn't really fight this war?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    And we are directly causally involved in all those deaths for putting the Bathe party into power and giving them lots of guns.

    Our mistakes in the past shouldn't reflect on our current policy, which is the correct one. We support representative democracy and oppose tyrants.

    The Bush doctrine states that we have, for too long, supported tyranny for the sake of stability in the middle east. All that has changed.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Answer the question and don't distract Puzzle: Why does your party support leaving Iraq and handing a victory to the terrorists?

    I guess 'fessing up that your party is against victory in Iraq is hard to do.

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    Our mistakes in the past shouldn't reflect on our current policy, which is the correct one. We support representative democracy and oppose tyrants.

    A digression from the fact that your source for the # of deaths Saddam was responsible for included also deaths we (the US) is a causal actor/enabler of in Saddam's body count…

    The Bush doctrine states that we have, for too long, supported tyranny for the sake of stability in the middle east. All that has changed.

    Naw. We are against Iran, with an elected leader, simply because he's an extremist – an extremist who never would have had the support he got if we weren't over there fucking around. Yet, we are for Musharef, Qaddafi, the dude from Kazakystan… the list goes on. Rob, you are full of shit. You better bet your ass that if the Bush Admin could put in a cold hard killer tyrant in as leader of Iraq… a guy who supported and listened to us… they'd do it in a second. This whole democracy excuse is so much bullshit. We don't care if they vote. They'll vote for somebody like Amadinajad. Bet your ass they will.

  • Puzzlefeet

    rob, why don't you ask an intellectually honest question instead of the "when did you stop beating your wife" question, then perhaps I'll answer you.

  • carrick

    Sparkie:

    And we are directly causally involved in all those deaths for putting the Bathe party into power and giving them lots of guns.

    How exactly did the United States have anything at all to do with the Ba'athist party coming to power in Iraq? That's a rich one.

    In terms of the military equipment,
    here's a complete list. Short summary:
    Most of the equipment that Iraq had was Soviet built, including assault weapons such as AK-47s (and cheap Chinese knockoffs), as were their T-55's and T-72 tanks, and BMP-1's and -2's armored personnel carriers. Very little of their equipment was not from communist countries, and that was all from France (including the Mirage fighters and some of the surface to air missiles).

    You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

  • carrick

    Puzzle:

    Did you hear Sen Warner that there needs to be significant progress within three months or their needs to be a change in strategy. What happened to stay the course, is he now a cut and runner?

    The point of "cut and run" is leaving before the job is done.

    Nobody every said we couldn't adapt our strategy as circumstances on the ground warrant it.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Puzzle,

    rob, why don't you ask an intellectually honest question instead of the "when did you stop beating your wife" question, then perhaps I'll answer you.

    Here's the question: Why does your party support leaving Iraq before the mission there is completed?

    I think that's a perfectly legitimate question, the fact that you can't (or won't) answer it is telling.

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    How exactly did the United States have anything at all to do with the Ba'athist party coming to power in Iraq? That's a rich one.

    See: here, here, here, here, here, here, or here.

  • Puzzlefeet

    Now Rob, people in the Democratic party have differing views of the war in Iraq, from wanting to pull out to wanting to redeploy to wanting to add more troops to finish the job. They certainly want to defeat the terrorists but where they all differ from the Republicans is that they all realize that what we are doing is not working and even you admit we are going to be there for years.

    Cheney said we were in the "last throes of the insurgency". The government is not functioning. The police force is infiltrated with militia killing their own people and some of the police force has been decommissioned. At this rate we will never be able to "Stand down" because they can't stand up.

    the violence is raging out of control, and even in Afghanistan, the Taliban is once again on the loose.

    So perhaps instead of worrying about the minority party Rob, you should be asking some tough questions of your own party, but you will simply hold your nose and vote republican. Yep, we're winning alright.

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    Carrick:
    Here's another one. At the very least makes your contentions seem incorrect… with quotes from the US Ambassador at the time…
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_ow…

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Now Rob, people in the Democratic party have differing views of the war in Iraq, from wanting to pull out to wanting to redeploy to wanting to add more troops to finish the job. They certainly want to defeat the terrorists but where they all differ from the Republicans is that they all realize that what we are doing is not working and even you admit we are going to be there for years.

    The leader of your party, Howard Dean, has said that we cannot win in Iraq. The Dem. spokesperson for the Iraq issue, Jack Murtha, has called for immediate re-deployment.

    If you want me to take the Democrats seriously on Iraq they are just going to have to come out with a coherent strategy for winning there. No cutting and running.

    Yours is the party saying that Republicans are just trying to scare people when the talk about the war on terror (implying that the war on terror is just a vehicle for getting elected and not, you know, a serious issue). Yours is the party saying we should pull out from Iraq.

    Why don't you take some responsibility for what the people on your side are actually saying. I know that's hard, because the Democrats are absolutely hopeless on national security, but that doesn't make it any less real.

  • carrick

    Sparkie:

    Here's another one. At the very least makes your contentions seem incorrect… with quotes from the US Ambassador at the time…

    Actually if you read the article, the person you are referring to, James Atkins, was supposedly a diplomat serving in the US Embassy in Baghdad at the time, not the US Ambassador. Atkins does not say how he "knows" what he knows (apparently for the Beeb an anti-US claim is sufficient to prove its validity), but since he was not CIA, he certainly would have not had first-hand knowledge of any such coup.

    Don't you find it just a little strange that the Soviet Union continued to not only supply the supposedly pro-American Ba'athist Iraq with Soviet weaponry after the coup, but actually continued to give Ba'athist Iraq billions of dollars of military aid?

    We can argue who may have done what, and never come to a final resolution (sans a CIA admission of a role in the '63 Ba'athist revolution). Objectively, there is no arguing that the the country that undeniably propped up the Iraqi Ba'athist party was the Soviet Union, and not the United States.

    From the billions in military aid (including Soviet military observers to train the Iraqi forces), to pure technological aid (chemical factories, hydroelectric dams, etc), the Soviet's bought influence in return for keeping a vicious totalitarian, and generally very anti-American regime in power.

    We can conclude that if the CIA had a role in bringing the Ba'athists to power, it was a tragic error, because the Ba'athists never strayed fromtheir "sugar daddy," the Soviet Union, for military and civilian aid. And there is little question that without the support of the Soviet Union, this regime could never have stayed in power as long as it did. (Certainly they would have quickly been militarily defeated by Iran in the early 80's without massive influx of Soviet weaponry to prop them up.)

    Your willing to blame everything that goes wrong in the world including apparently the common cold on the US is rather mind boggling.

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    Objectively, there is no arguing that the the country that undeniably propped up the Iraqi Ba'athist party was the Soviet Union, and not the United States.

    No. I disagree. We were happy to help Iran and Iraq as long as they kept fighting each other – ask Michael Ledeen.

    Your willing to blame everything that goes wrong in the world including apparently the common cold on the US is rather mind boggling.

    A bit strong I think… detracting from a potential point you might have had…

    We can conclude that if the CIA had a role in bringing the Ba'athists to power, it was a tragic error

    This is much different than…

    How exactly did the United States have anything at all to do with the Ba'athist party coming to power in Iraq? That's a rich one.

    …some ground has been made no?

  • paintedfeet

    This discussion should not be about Democrats or Republicans, Peacenics or Warmongers.

    What matters here is that wether 50 000 or 650 000 Iraqis have died, that is still a huge number, especially when one considers that this war was started as indirect retaliation for a terrorist act that killed 5 000 in the US. Not just an eye for an eye, more like a head for an eye.

    Any civilian death is one too many.

    The count from this study sounds a little on the high side to me too, but the previous number (thirty ot forty thousand) sounded very low. It was generated by a true body count when in fact I'm sure many of the bodies never made it to the morge or hospital or whatever.

    One last thing: this study had nothing to do with grieving women's sons being "nice boys" or not, it had to do with them dying or not, by any cause including violence. This is important because part of what this study is getting at is that the quality of life, and health standards, there are a lot worse now.

  • http://elemming2.blogspot.com/ elemming

    The previous study estimated 100,000 more deaths above a similar 14 month time period under Saddam. Critics jumped on the 95% confidence intervel which showed 8,000 and 194,000 and the fact that it lumped together all deaths. Frankly, Iraqis and most people couldn't care what kind of deaths and by who.

    The new study is more accurate by surveying more people. It is also not surprising with 100 people showing up executed or dead by torture in a day in Baghdad alone.

    If there was a study that showed that 7 million more people died after we were invaded by China would you waste time argueing if it was by poor health conditions and rather it included those supporting as well as those opposing the Chinese? Would you argue it was meaning less because it was possible only 3 million or as many as 10 million extra people died?

  • Sparkie Arbuckle

    7 million. Jesus! Those Commies! Lets kick their ass too. I know they sponsor terror. All we need now is for the White House to list it on their website and we're friggin golden.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    If the Lefties had a point they wouldn't have to lie about the facts.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    The new study is more accurate by surveying more people. It is also not surprising with 100 people showing up executed or dead by torture in a day in Baghdad alone.

    Even if the 650,000 figure is accurate (and it isn't), so what? How many of those deaths have been caused by the insurgency who won't quit fighting against the representative government?

    You guys are using this number to bash our invasion, but aren't willing to criticize the people who are really causing all these deaths: the terrorists.

  • carrick

    Sparkie, let's put it this way. Objectively, I can't prove that the CIA had nothing to do the '63 revolution, because you can't prove a negative.

    However, I can look at the assertion "the CIA aided the Ba'athist party in coming to power in order to increase US influence in Iraq" and look at what happened afterwards, as say, "WTF??? This doesn't add up!" Which it doesn't.

    By 1967, things had degraded to the point that the United States broke off diplomatic ties (the Iraqi involvement in the Six Day War was the final straw). On the other hand, Soviet Union continued to provide military aid to the now-supposedly adversarial Ba'athist government just as they had done before.

    Cause and effect don't match here (putting it rather mildly), so absent credible evidence to the affirmative, I'm afraid I'll have to reject the assertion. So yeah, "that's rich!" certainly qualifies as a reasonable retort.

    Spark:

    No. I disagree. We were happy to help Iran and Iraq as long as they kept fighting each other – ask Michael Ledeen.

    Follow the money.

    Who was supplying money and resources? The Soviet Union. The US was a bit-player, providing primarily TOW missiles and satellite reconnoissance photos. Why did we do this? Because we judged that the fall of Iraq, and the likely annexation of the Shi'ite regions of Iraq to not be in our best interests. Probably a correct assessment. We did not have as a goal, a continued war between Iraq and Iran.

    But sans that "gift" of TOW missiles (which helped the Iran-Iraq war shift to a stalemate), the Soviet Union had a 30+ year history of providing military and civilian aid 100's of times in excess of what little tad bit of aid we supplied. The Soviet Union has this blood on their hands (along with much other), not the US.

  • Mouthbreather

    Even if the 650,000 figure is accurate (and it isn't)

    Based on what exactly do you say the study is flawed? Even the source for the WSJ called the methodology "excellent". It is no longer and issue of why or whether we should have gone in to Iraq. It is a question of are there enough people applying pressure to ensure it is being prosecuted in the most humane and productive way possible. This administration ignored experts before the war that proved to be true. Trashed plans to do reconstruction in valid manner, and here we are with Bush still saying "let the next guy sort it out". These researchers were on the ground risking there lives in the name of truth and public health. Why are you wanting to ignore the experts with base asssertions about motivation for the millionth time.

    The best evidence is that without the troops there the bloodshed would increase exponentially. How does that justify the exploitation of 130,000 of our finest citizens just because noone is willing propose achange? Three tours? Four tours? Ten tours? Still better than admitting mistakes! Heck, they enlisted! How long with cowardly keyboardist keep ignoring reality?

    I loathe the Democrats but the only Congressional hearing with the "commanders on the ground" was exclusively Democrats because the other side doesn't want to hear it.

    The only adaptation from the commander in chief has been the wildly un-successful crackdown of Bagdhad. Stop the false assertions are start doing your homework. Deal with the situation as it is not as it serves you miniscule world view.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    that "gift" of TOW missiles (which helped the Iran-Iraq war shift to a stalemate)

    You say 'gift' and I say military aid. Whatever. Also – I know goddamn well we taught those guys in Cairo how to torture people and, in addition, we put the Ba'athists in in 1963 – after we apparently didn't give Saddam quite enough aid with his little assassination attempt in the late 1950s. Furthermore we provided a list of lefties for them to execute after they took over. You can think whatever you want and rationalize it all in a consequentialist manner if you feel better that way.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    we taught those guys in Cairo how to torture people

    hahahahahahahahahahahaha:

    Those guys have been torturing people since before the Mayflower.

    The lengths that these leftards will go to smear the US.

  • 2Hotel9

    Mouthbreather, show me the bodies. spakle baby, we are still waiting for you to get serious about anything. Pointing. Laughing. At stupid ass sparkle baby.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    By the way, your figures about how many Saddam killed are way off. 300,000 by him tops. In reality the 650,000 figure is somewhere between 350-750,000. See here: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1160528967…

    And 2brothel9: Its SpakIe baby!
    Whistler: We REALLY did teach them how to torture people. No joke. Now we let the Egyptians torture all our prisoners for us… or the Uzbeks. That's how we get away with it. Duh.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

    My bad doc, we showed them how to do it better.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Notice no proof just constant assertions that America is bad.

  • http://Array carrick

    Mouth:

    Even the source for the WSJ called the methodology "excellent".

    The overall methodology could be find, but that doesn't mean that the conclusions are well founded. It depends on getting an unbiased sample of the population so that you could reasonably extrapolated from the limited numbers to the full population.

    This is a much harder job when you have a non-uniform probability distribution, which would be the case in Iraq, where some areas are very dangerous, while others are mostly absent any real violence (take Kurdistan as an example). Is is especially problematic to correct assess statistical uncertainties correct (they don't follow the usual 1/sqrt(N)) without knowing a priori how the distribution changes around the country. Since the authors of the study had exactly this type of problem in their prior study, this is an issue of real concern here, as well as the quite evident anti-war bias present in the authors of the study.

    The only way to do this is to measure the distribution around the country, which generally means much larger sample sizes in each region tested, in order to get an accurate measurement. This was obviously not done for safety reasons.

    My comments I believe would be accepted by most credible researchers who understand the basic statistic issues at work here. The NY Times article offers the following skeptical comments, for example:

    Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was "the best of what you can expect in a war zone."

    But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.

    Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had "a tone of accuracy that's just inappropriate."

  • carrick

    Sparkie:

    By the way, your figures about how many Saddam killed are way off. 300,000 by him tops. In reality the 650,000 figure is somewhere between 350-750,000.

    I suppose you are only counting the people Saddam personally strangled.

    You are forgetting at least 600,000 deaths from malnuitrion associated with Saddam's deliberate policy of starving the Shi'ite population, to the point of trying to destroy the Marsh Arab population, and destroying the date palm farms. The deaths of the millions that died during the Iran-Iraq war are also Sad'dams responsibilities.

    Why are you such an apologist for Sad'dam? The man is a monster, so I see no reason to dissemble on his behalf.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    whistler, sparkie may be refering to the CIA operation at the so-called School of Americas

    The link says this was in South America and Sparkle Farkle said Cairo. Of course she is a liberal so that's close enough for them.

    Doesn't sound like torture to me.

    The manuals advise that torture techniques can backfire and that the threat of pain is often more effective than pain itself. The manuals describe coercive techniques to be used "to induce psychological regression in the subject by bringing a superior outside force to bear on his will to resist." These techniques include prolonged constraint, prolonged exertion, extremes of heat, cold, or moisture, deprivation of food or sleep, disrupting routines, solitary confinement, threats of pain, deprivation of sensory stimuli, hypnosis, and use of drugs or placebos

    Dave's link didn't work. Here it is.

  • carrick

    Sparkie:

    You say ‘gift' and I say military aid.

    Actually I misspoke. We didn't give them the TOWs & other equipment, we sold them to them (still a form of military aid if you want):

    Why not review this chart then get back to me on why you keep wanting to pin the blame on the United States. Here's the summary of arm sales (millions):

    Soviet Union $30301 68.9%
    France $5595 12.7%
    China $5192 11.8%
    United States $200 0.5%
    Egypt $568 1.3%
    Others $2104 4.8%

    Doesn't exactly look to me like the US is much more than a bit player in this.

  • http://authenteo.com/ Bill

    I am skeptical of any statistics for or against my views. Ultimately war or no war I would like to see what is the best for everyone. At this point I think the US has done more good than bad.

    I also think that your supporting site with your stats is definitely skewed towards a pro war agenda.

  • carrick

    Bill:

    I also think that your supporting site with your stats is definitely skewed towards a pro war agenda.

    IBC looks "pro war" compared to the Lancet studies, but they are by no means pro War.

    Unlike the Lancet authors, they are trying to produce the most objective & accurate numbers, not just the best anti-war propaganda. Unlike some people, they think accurate values help in making good policy decisions.

  • ronald zissler

    are we as americans not guillty of mass murder by supporting a group of murdering terrorists under the name of israel .they are masters of deceit and propaganda .we support them totally with our funds.is it not true that the lord knows all and sees all ? and are we not to confess our sins be fore we can be forgiven.how can we turn a blind eye to the atrocities we have committed against the palestinians.and yet we supply israel with all our weapons ,they then sell them on the open market .come on people wake up, take these murdering lying jews for what they really are.shame be upon us for supporting the real mideast terrorists!

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development