This is a pretty disturbing report about our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

According to the report, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since we invaded. Half of those deaths were a direct result of violence. More troubling, is that these figures do not contain the civilian deaths in areas we can't go into (Falluja, etc).

Apparently, independent statisticians have viewed the data and said the methodology was strong and the numbers do appear to be conservative. Unfortunately, this war is far from over and this number will go much higher.

I am not ready to believe this report or numbers because quite frankly, I don't want to. I want to believe we've done a better job. So, I will wait for more conclusive data.

But if this report is true:

Is 100,000 civilian deaths (and climbing) an acceptable figure to gain whatever it is we wanted from the war?

Is 100,000 Iraqi lives a fair trade for the 3,000 lives we lost on 9/11?

The report originated with The Lancet, which is generally a very reputable professional publication.

The report supposedly includes all civilian deaths since the invasion - so it not only reflects civilians killed in the course of US and Coalition military operations, the civilians deaths caused by the large number of car bombings - as well as the massive increase in murders, period, last year - in the country are also included.

Having said that, I have to admit that we continue to fight this insurgency using primarily conventional means. Using aerial bombing to hit precision targets in a dense urban environment is not exactly the best way to conduct business in an insurgency. No matter how small the CEP of modern "smart" bombs, civilian casualties are virtually guaranteed in that sort of attack. And if the intel is bad in the first place, we really have a problem. On the other hand, a conventional assault by mech and armor forces is also a blunt instrument, only a bit more discriminating than aerial bombing.

Unfortunately, we simply do not have enough troops of the quality to hunt down and kill the bad guys with real precision. Even if we had timely, accurate intel all the time, our light and spec ops force numbers are finite and spread out through the deployment rotation cycle. Lest we forget, the specter of Mogadishu is why we hit supposed safe-houses in Falluja with air-strikes rather than sending in the door-kickers. US troop casualty-consciousness on the part of key decision-makers results in a greater acceptance of collateral casualties on the part of the Iraqis.

This is a report from HRW that only deals with the civilian casualties related to the initial invasion phase, but it is also worth reading: Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq

Is 100,000 civilian deaths (and climbing) an acceptable figure to gain whatever it is we wanted from the war?

For every death, there is at least a couple of people (and probably many more) who were close to the person who died, and who are still alive. If we really wanted to be safer, we would not have killed 100,000 Iraqis. Because now there are at least 200,000 (probably more like a few million) who didn't want to kill us before but who now do.



Is 100,000 Iraqi lives a fair trade for the 3,000 lives we lost on 9/11?


There is no trade of an innocent life to avenge the taking of an innocent life definable as fair.

*Edited to remove belittling comment*. Its not for us to answer. Its for the Iraqis to answer. How many people died during the American Revolution? Do you think the colonists thought it was worth it? 100,000 civilian deaths since the wr began is nothing compared to the average amount of people Saddam slain every year. You must put things in perspective here. Death is bad...nobody wants it...But there is a difference between dwelling on their deaths and making their deaths have a meaning...so they didnt die for nothing.

I have no idea what u r implying with your next question. We didnt go outright and intend to kill any civilians. You make it sound like we are an evil empire bent on destroying the lives of others. Far from it...

Leder, just want to make a note here that perhaps you should read the report and reconsider your statement. The report suggests that the majority of the casualties have been caused by coalition troops. Do you really think these people willingly died in the name of freedom? Or were they perhaps just putting their kids to bed when a stray cluster bomb destroyed their house?

It would be one thing if these were soldiers, but it is quite another thing when we are talking about civilians, many of whom had absolutely nothing to do with the fighting or the war.

The report also cites that the majority of the deaths were women and children, and you wonder why these people hate us. If someone bombed San Francisco and killed my wife I know that I personally would be out for blood, no matter the consequences. And for that reason the insurgency and the level of US hatred really shouldn't surprise you.

Your comparison to the revolutionary war is completely faulty, perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be Vietnam.

I really don't know how you can sit there and claim that they should be glad they are free when the report claims that the majority of them (most women and children) are dead because of our weapons. That just seems a little, I don't know the appropriate word exactly, heartless.

Edited to add: Changed 95% to the majority, not sure where that number came from. Here is an article which lays it out from The New Scientist:

Listen, i never said anything of the sort. [U]And i find it funny how my "belittling" comment is edited while yours is allowed to stay.[/U] What i said is that death is bad...and civilian deaths is bad...but dwelling on their deaths to push a political agenda is equally wrong. I clearly stated that we should make it so their deaths have a purpose and that they did not die for nothing. Of course people would be mad. But you fail to take into account the INTENT of both parties. Saddam INTENDED to harm civilians and did a pretty damn good job at it. The USA did NOT INTEND to harm civilians. They did not target women and/or children contrary to how you make it sound.

That isn't what you said?

The argument you are making here is that these deaths were somehow justified and that the Iraqi's chose them in the name of "freedom" and that they were far better off with the coalition killing them than Saddam... that appears to be the rationalization you are making here Leder.

These people absolutely did die for nothing. You cannot tell me that civilians dying due to bombs we dropped and air strikes we launched did anything to further the quest for freedom in Iraq. In fact it has made things worse more likely than not by making for easy recruiting grounds for terrorists and insurgents. The US bombed your home and killed your children - Al Qaeda can use your help and you can extract revenge. Doesn't seem like that is in the interest of freedom.

I tried to give you an opportunity to reconsider your position, but if you don't want to take it that is your cross to bear I suppose. And, if you feel something I wrote was belittling please report it, I stand by my previous post.

leder, is there any way in which the number of civilian deaths attributed directly or indirectly to coalition troops could be presented where you would consider it not pushing a political agenda? I don't think it is possible to go into a war for political reasons and then state one must evaluate the repercussions of the war in a non-political way. Nor do I believe would one want to.


Dieing for a purpose is difficult to reconcile if the dieing is involuntary. I am sure that reducing civilian deaths is a goal. But, we're getting into the fine line of intention through action vs. intention through omission or perhaps policy vs. implementation.

Is 100,000 civilian deaths (and climbing) an acceptable figure to gain whatever it is we wanted from the war?

Well, for Iraq, I believe the answer is no. For other situations, it could be justified.

Is 100,000 Iraqi lives a fair trade for the 3,000 lives we lost on 9/11?

If the reason we went into Iraq was because of 9/11, then I think we've got our eye for an eye and then some. Of course, this justification has been thoroughly debunked in other threads.

OMG. Read what i wrote! I said it wasnt for us to decide! It was for the Iraqis to decide! Please show me the word "justification" in my post or anything even implying justification. I clearly said that in perspective, saddam killed a lot more civilians every year than the coalition could ever do and that it is not for you or me to decide whether or not it is ok in the grand scheme of things. I enevr said that its better for them to die under coalition hands than under saddam...that is YOUR twist of logic. I said that YOU fail to take into account the INTENT of both parties. Saddam INTENDED TO KILL CIVILAINS. The Coalition DOES NOT HAVE THE INTENT OF KILLING CIVILIANS. I honestly cannot make it any more clear than that. You make it sound as if our troops target civilians specifically and i take offense to that.

Furthermore, how do you expect freedom to be won?In your little idealistic world of puppies and gumdrops, people fly a dove and all is right in the world. It doesnt work that way. Nothing worth doing is easy. I am not justifying the civilian deaths but rather i am saying that if their must be deaths...then lets make it mean something...especially if it means freedom. You can twist and skew all you want but thats what i said.

There is nothing to reconsider about my position. People died... i am sorry...it happens in war. But you know what? Iraq was inevitable. Deny it all u want but some day down the road we were going to fight and in my opinion it is better that we fought him now when we had the advantage than ten years from now with his army increased in size and the crooked French and Russians giving him cash handouts.

I apologize for this little outburst but enough is enough. You dont like Bush? FINE. I am not asking you to nor care if you do. But the situation is as follows: we are in iraq and we must prevail.



Well basically because i dont think anyone truly cares about the iraqi people. I mean, we do not care enough about our own neighbors but we will care about people halfway around the world? Come on. Its all political. Of course there is death in war. Show me a war where nobody died.



All death is involuntary. Furthermore, what do you suggest we do? We are doing the best we can...what else is there?

The inevitability argument seem to be the cause du jour which I do not share. But, we would be straying from topic to debate it.


For some definition of "prevail". What exactly does it mean to prevail? What are the goals, what are the methods to achieve those goals? Have we enumerated the conditions by which we can evaluate success? Have outlined the failure modes? Do we know how to measure our progress? Again, straying from topic....


You seem to deny your own tenet:

Do you agree or disagree with civilian deaths being evaluated in a political context? Also, your less than charitable view on who doesn't "care about the Iraqi people" leaves me bewildered. Presumably, the last unarguable justification we went into Iraq was to get rid of an evil dictator who was brutally suppressing his people (e.g. killing them). If we didn't care about Iraqis, then why was this justification ever used?


Well, most folks don't want to die but folks are sometimes willing to die for their cause. Folks are not willing to die without a cause. Collateral, civilian deaths fall into the latter category. Do you disagree?

As for what can we do better, I do have some ideas but most are radical. I think we'd be straying from the debate topic though...

No. Iraq was not a "grave threat" to us by any stretch of the imagination. Saddam Hussein had plans of course, but judging by the inability to find anything the Bush administration claimed he had (WMDs especially), it appears that the 100,000 deaths were unnecessary.


What in the Sam Hill did Iraqi lives have to do with 9/11?! It was the Saudis who flew the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon! So the loss of 100,000 Iraqi lives is irrelevant to the loss of those 3,000 lives.

I understand that our troops need to clean up the mess we made in Iraq. But our continued presence in Iraq should not be seen as an indication that our invasion of that country was justified in any way, regardless of a malevolent dictator being deposed. This was something the Iraqis should have taken care of themselves. If they had taken care of it themselves, it would not have become one more example for the fanatics to use of "infidels" desecrating one of their sacred Muslim countries. They'd just be killing each other off instead, and eventually someone would get tired of the killing, and there might have actually been a grassroots movement toward establishing something closer to what we think democracy is.


Tell that to the so-called martyrs, who seem quite willing to throw away their lives to get to our soldiers and to any foreigners in Iraq these days.

Is 100,000 civilian deaths (and climbing) an acceptable figure to gain whatever it is we wanted from the war?

Yes, if your name is Osama Bin Laden.


Is 100,000 Iraqi lives a fair trade for the 3,000 lives we lost on 9/11?

No. Of course not. How can such an imbalance be seen as a fair trade? even if they were the right people, then it would still not be a fair trade.


I felt the war was already going bad when the number I had was 13,000+
Now that I see that the number is this high, and probably higher, and that the largest cause of death is coalition aeriel bombing, I have to ask the same question as I did with regards to Israel.

Why don't dead Arabs matter?

Are we conducting a Holocaust?

How can any people get upset about terrorism whilst accepting such wholesale slaughter?

Whats the difference between a terrorist and F18? They both kill civilians, they both kill from a distance, they both believe in what they're doing... the only real difference is the guy in the plane is wearing a flag on his shoulder that says its okay for him to kill civilians because the US congress has allowed it to happen.

You might say that the f18 pilot is targetting 'insurgents', but thats a weak argument. Thats like the Israeli's and their Apache gunships shooting rockets into urban area's knowing full well that civilians will be killed.

The f18 pilot knows he's killing civilians. He can see the size of the explosions.
I know he's killing civilians. I can see the size of the explosions online.
US high command knows he's killing civilians. They commisioned the bombs to be designed and built and ordered their deployment.
The US president knows he's killing civilians. He has better intel than any one else and he can just click online and watch the Mpegs like any one else if the Pentagon has not already shown him the latest movie clips.

Does any one with an online computer not know whats going on?

And just why is it that those people who refuse to see, refuse to accept and refuse to admit to the truth of what has happened since 11 September, are the same people who continue to try to shift the blame on to John Kerry?


I can hardly wait to see the results of the US election to see just what America really thinks of the world we're living in.

Is 100,000 civilian deaths (and climbing) an acceptable figure to gain whatever it is we wanted from the war? It depends. What did we want to gain, and what will we? At the moment, I’d say the ‘benefits’ we’ve received from the war are not worth a single civilian death (or soldier’s death, for that matter), but that’s just me. The end result in five to ten or so years will truly answer the question, and we don’t know that now.

I would question these results, though. According to the link CJ included in his first post, proof of death wasn’t always required for this poll. Not saying that anyone would fake the death of a family member…but if proof of death wasn’t required, I sincerely doubt there was proof of method. And I don’t think that a family would be forthcoming about the fact that their departed loved one died while trying to snipe a coalition or Iraqi soldier, or planting a bomb, or anything like that. They would, at the very least, fear retaliation. What this poll really tells us is that Iraq is a very violent place today, and violence (of all sorts of varieties) is now the primary cause of death, though it wasn’t before.

Is 100,000 Iraqi lives a fair trade for the 3,000 lives we lost on 9/11?
Well, I didn’t know this war was about trading bodies. Interesting perspective, but so far out of my version of reality I can’t even understand where it’s coming from or how to answer it.

The numbers are goofy, to wit:

The researchers compared the mortality rate among civilians in Iraq during the 14.6 months prior to the March 2003 invasion with the 17.8 month period following the invasion. The sample group reported 46 deaths prior to the March 2003 and 142 deaths following the invasion.

Taking the death rate for the post invasion period, and using it against the same length of time as the pre-invasion period, we get an equivalence of 116 deaths. Admittedly, not looking good for the Coalition.

Now, here's the problem:

Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.
Source - John Hopkins Website

Run the numbers: 97 deaths during the same time period were caused by coalition forces, leaving a paltry 19 deaths from whatever other causes.

Which really, truly, raises the question: whatever in the world caused the death rate by all causes other than Coalition action to drop by more than half?

Other researchers question whether or not hotspots are overrepresented in the survey:

However, it's possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq, said Peto, a professor of medical statistics at Oxford University in England.

Furthermore, the study's lead himself admits to deliberately timing the release before the US election:

The report was released just days before the US presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.

Coalition forces would be more than happy to reduce civilian casualties to zero. Unfortunately, the militants/insurgents/freedomfighters, er, terrorists haven't stepped out from behind the women and children to sort this out with the 3rd Armored Division out in the windswept, empty deserts of Iraq.

So, the practical result is this: either fight the terrorists where they are, doing our best to minimize casualties, or pack up and leave.

So, let me ask you this then leder where in this grand adventure did the Iraqi's ever get to decide anything? Were they out protesting in the streets crying out for Democracy? Did some student political group send a representative to the US begging for help? Was there some Tiananmen square-like act by a brave soul? Was there an active insurgency against Hussein that we rushed in to support?

The answer to all of those questions is an emphatic NO. The United States decided that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be removed because he was a "grave and gathering" threat, and somehow rated higher than all of the other evil men in the world actually plotting against the United States. The reason for this war has changed monthly with the Bush administration, but the reason for going to war was never anything as noble as to save the Iraqi people.

The United States and Bush specifically decided that the Iraqi people needed to be free and therefore we needed to invade their country for their own good. You make comparisons to the Revolutionary war here in America, that analogy couldn't be further off leder. The people living in the colonies wanted freedom and they took action themselves. They knew the consequences and they were prepared to face them.

Do you think that the 100,000 dead Iraqis (if this report is to be believed) made that choice leder? Or perhaps they were just living their lives, dealing with the hand that life dealt them and suddenly they are gone, blown apart by a coalition bomb.

Will Iraq be better off in 10 or 20 years without Saddam? Signs point to yes. But, to suggest that Iraqis somehow chose this path or that they should be grateful that they are now being killed by coalition bombs (even if accidentally) instead of by Hussein and his thugs is a very jingoistic point of view. Quite frankly I think it is dangerous because it also happens to be the view held by the neo-conservatives that cooked up this whole ordeal.

I understand perfectly that the coalition does not have the intent to kill people, but how happy would you be if the US military accidentally killed all of your relatives? Ooops, our bad, we're sorry that was an accident - we were really after terrorists. Something tells me that you wouldn't quite see it as for the greater good.


A nice healthy dose of blanket generalizations. If that is really what you think my beliefs are then you don't know the first thing about me Leder, I don't fit stereotypes I'm sorry to inform you.

The question you refuse to ask yourself and think outside of the box a little bit is - why were the deaths necessary in the first place? Your assumptions force you into a response of violence, I am not bound by those assumptions.


I think that your assertion that Iraq was inevitable is a flawed one and it really ignores all of the data we now have about what was really going on in Iraq. But, with neo-conservatives in power, yes Iraq was inevitable. That certainly doesn't make it the right choice. There are other ways but I'm not sure it is even worth discussing them because they have been discussed numerous times in other threads and you still hold your same beliefs. You are welcome to them, but you are also wrong.


This statement is rather ironic, because in the same response you just finished telling me that we do care about the Iraqi people and that is why we went to Iraq. But your response to logophage is that it is "political". So which is it? Either we care about them or we don't?


I too am skeptical about the results of this poll. The method in which they determined this number doesn't really quite jive with me yet. I'm waiting for more information before I accept that 100K people have been killed. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility, but I think that there certainly isn't conclusive proof of it yet either.

However, even if this number is completely bogus, the accepted numbers of 10K to 16K are still unacceptable in my opinion.

Is 100,000 Iraqi lives a fair trade for the 3,000 lives we lost on 9/11?

Would 100,000 dead British be a fair trade? Or 100,000 Germans or Australians? After all, they had as much to do with 9/11 as the Iraqis.

Iraqi dissidents were in the north, along with the Kurds. Both have been asking for our help for decades. None were protesting in the streets crying for democracy because they knew they would have been shot, so that's a pretty lame standard you have there. They DID have an insurgency, which, because Bush Sr. listened to fools, many of whom are echoing the same line as you're spouting today, Hussein put down brutally.

Still, since that IS your standard, do you support throwing the entire weight of the American military against the ayatollahs in Iran? They ARE protesting in the streets. They DO have students putting it on the line.

Somehow, I suspect that your answer will be "no."

That's a big "if" because this is flawed data.

1 - 100,000 deaths over 18 months = 185 deaths per day. I'm not buying this, given everything we've seen coming out of Iraq. We've seen very scattered attacks and only handfulls of mass killing of civilians, notably by the 'insurgents.' Not that 5 or 6 dead Iraqis is not a tragedy, I'm just saying that we haven't seen 500-600 killed at a time, which would be needed on a weekly basis to make this math work.

2 - This calculation is completely off compared to every other study out there which says 15-20,000 killed. Again, still a large number, still a tragedy, but not 100,000.

3 - As bikerdad noted, some general bad methodology here. They used self-reporting and cluster analysis, compounding their own errors with more errors. For instance, if they took a cluster near Fallujah, interviewed people who are very unhappy about the situation and overstate a death claim, then extrapolate that cluster to represent, say, Kirkuk, you get the idea.

This whole study was done to create an anti-Bush bumper sticker in the week before the election.

carlitoswhey



Why not? Its a war. Thats the sort of death toll I'd expect in a war.

And have you seen the size of the blasts when the US war planes strike? What do you think happens when you take out an entire house with one bomb?
Yeah, there might be a group of terrorists on the ground floor, but how many other people are in the building? How many children are playing n the alley behind the house?
How many mothers, elderly and passers by get caught in the blast?


From this article:



So... how many people do you think died?

As from the stance of the American govt. I would assume it is. As it was an acceptable number prior to 9/11. To quote Madame Albright herself...
"This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it." That was in response to the question if half a million Iraqi children dying was a price worth paying.. So what is another 100,000? If pre 9/11 had such a high acceptable rate of civilian casualties in the war on Iraq..which has been going on for years and years now..then post 9/11's figure of 100,000 is just part of the trend really.


What an odd question. But again I must assume from the perspective of the US gov (regardless of whose face it wears) I would imagine it is fair..how many US deaths resulted during the past 13 yrs of war on Iraq vs. Iraqi deaths. Again it is just a continuation of a policy.



What a interesting statement to make when trying to present the idea of accuracy in accountability. It wasn't the Iraqis and it wasn't the Saudis either. It was Islamic terrorists who happen to come in all nationalities. If you are going to argue that we must seek war with only the states to which al qaeda members originate from then I would think very few countries are safe from an American invasion. Either every state is responsible for their individual citizens actions..which is a really extreme view in my mind..or else we recognize that fact the this form of terrorism no longer encompasses the idea of war or threats from individual states themselves but rather individuals.

Is 100,000 civilian deaths (and climbing) an acceptable figure to gain whatever it is we wanted from the war?

Is 100,000 Iraqi lives a fair trade for the 3,000 lives we lost on 9/11?

First of all this report is not accurate. If you read between the lines you will notice;


That means that they are 95% confident that the death toll lays between 8000 and 194,000.

At that margin I can safely say that this estimate is hogwash.

To answer your questions.

1) Yes as far as the ultimate objective. It's not all about Iraq.

2) No of course not. 3,000 American lives do not equate to 100,000 Iraqi's period.

EDIT : Whoops this article doesnt show the little disclamer. Sorry I read about this elswere. Explained here.
http://mickc.whizardries.com/blog/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


While I'm clearly not an expert, I'll stick by saying a far lower number. As I noted, still tragic, still horrible, but not 100,000. This study was timed specifically to give a talking point to the presidential election. It's a piece of junk. Most journalists reporting this story do not have enough university-level math classes to understand statistics, sampling, probability, etc., which could explain the lack of skepticism...as the story made its rounds, the headlines changed from "study claims" to "US has killed" in about 24 hours.

The Lancet study used bad methodology. Cluster analysis whereby they interviewed 30 houses near a random GPS point and asked about deaths, even deaths from as long as 18 months ago. Then they only attempted to verify those deaths for 2 out of 30 houses with death certificates. For everyone here who believes that 'the arab street' is inflamed, don't you think that they would over-report deaths, especially when there is no confirmation?

new scientist


As for the timing...they have basically admitted that this was timed to impact the election.

First off, I think this estimate is probably an overestimate. While I think that the reported casualties count is probably too low, I'd say it is more likely to be out by a factor of two than a factor of eight - 30,000 sounds about right to me, intuitively. (that's just a guesstimate, though).

So...
Is 100,000/30,000/16,000 civilian deaths (and climbing) an acceptable figure to gain whatever it is we wanted from the war?
Nope. Not remotely. One is one too many. All the comparisons of what would have happened had Saddam remained in place are specious, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the assumption that Saddam's regime would have continued to murder Iraqis at the going rate before invasion, while it might be reasonable, is still an assumption. A notional x number of deaths under Saddam can't be traded off against an actual y number of deaths under the allied occupation because none of the notional people are dead and all the actual ones are. No mattr what values we attribute to x and y.
Secondly, one of the reasons that Saddam was a bad guy was that he killed his own civilians. Killing civilians, ours or someone else's, is a Bad Thing™ no matter who is doing it. We let ourselves off the hook by saying that they are regrettable accidents in a higher cause, or what-have-you, but didn't Saddam have reasons for killing civilians that let him get a good night's sleep also?
Did the people most at risk of dying as a result of his "necessary" actions feel any better about them than the ones at risk of dying because of our "necessary" actions?
What other standard can we use and still look at ourselves in the mirror? I do not accept that good people get to do bad things and still get to think of themselves as good people. "We are what we do" is a principle to live by; "we are what we say we are" is a principle to excuse absolutely anything.

Is 100,000 Iraqi lives a fair trade for the 3,000 lives we lost on 9/11?
Even if it were only 3,000 lives, two wrongs do not make a right.

carlitoswhey, I agree it seems like the methodology used is poor. The credulity the press gives to anyone with perceived credentials is embarassing. However, the crux of the issue is that no one is actually counting Iraqi civilian deaths in any methodical, unbiased manner. The US military has made a point of stating just that. This opens the field for anyone to come in and use less than superior techniques to derive these numbers. An actual count is far better than a statistical count but there was no actual count done. What do we have left? Surely, you would agree that getting such numbers is a good thing™.

Well, I read the summary and a couple things stood out for me.

First, let me throw out my disclaimer. I am not a statistician, but as an owner of an engineering business, I develop and sell software products for Statistical Process Control (SPC) purposes. I know how to sample data and use it.

With that being said, the study is neither accurate or conclusive.

However (and a big however)...

It is representative in the sense that the mortality rate, even without solid numbers, can be determined.

Most people have already assumed they went door to door, asked who died, and released some report. That is not what happened.

They did a study before the war that has not been in any dispute that I've ever heard of. Meaning, if you don't believe in this one, then you shouldn't believe the mortality rate before the war. But the original mortality rate, using the same method (which adds credibility to this report) seems to be nothing out of the ordinary.

But there was one glaring sample missing from the first study - what about Saddam killing his population, the mass graves, etc? From the first study, this doesn't appear to be an issue because statistically, it never happened. According to reports, this should have been a Fallujah level figure. Instead, it doesn't exist. Interesting...

Anyhow, when they go to the same places as the previous study, they have a significant amount of data as a starting point (a control) and found that data changed significantly. Ok, maybe they didn't show proof of each death (a credible argument), but there are easy ways to vouch for reasonable authenticity. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's way more accurate then it appears on the surface.

Also, the Fallujah factor is significant. They couldn't include those numbers because it's what they call an "outlier" and what I call a "flier". This means there is data that is so far outside the statistical population, that including it skews the entire data set. Normally, we discard that data for statistical purposes. But the reality of this data sample, is there are a lot of dead people contained in it no matter what you think of it. However, they should have included that in it's own study to let us decide instead of shelving it. I think that is slightly disingenuous.

The last thing that makes me question the study is no clear percentage of who is dying. They claim mostly women and children, but give no details of who they talked to either study to determine that. I think that is a glaring hole.

But overall, I think the numbers are somewhat higher. Even if you take out all the deceptive/anti-American numbers (which certainly exist), those numbers are offset by the Fallujah numbers PLUS some. I believe that's why you can call these conservative numbers. You can toss out the Fallujah numbers to not skew the study, but those dead people still exist. And there are other areas (Satr City, etc) with the same impact.

As I have said I am skeptical of the results of this study as well, but I do think you raised some interesting points in your analysis DR. I would very much agree with you that Fallujah is an outlier, but in all fairness I think we have to chalk most of what Saddam did up as an outlier as well. Based on most of the things I have read, Saddam concentrated mostly on one group of people, the Kurds. Furthermore, I have read that the number of deaths is far less than we originally thought. Of course Saddam probably killed people other than Kurds as well, but I haven't really heard about any stories of mass deaths outside the kurdish population and he didn't do things, for example, like indiscriminately kill hundreds of people in Baghdad as far as I know.

The violent deaths number for the pre-invasion study could possibly be a tad low, but I think it is most likely within an acceptable margin of error. I am skeptical about the post-invasion study mostly because I refuse to believe we could have killed that many people.

Statistical sampling is statistical sampling. It's used worldwide and is the best game in town. The least amount of variables in the process (whatever that may be) makes it more accurate. Here, the only real variable is a war. This makes the study easier.

And some don't understand what an outlier/flier is. This means that a number is so far off the sample population, it can't be a statistical representation of the entire dataset.

For example, the person at the deli slices up 4 packets of cheese at a 1/4 pound each. If you measured each pile, they would rise to 1 inch give or take a slice or two. But if one of them is 4 inches high, something is wrong. It can't be 4 inches high unless the scale was not at zero or the cheese was of some other material not even relevant to the rest. But if you added that in with the other 3, you would deduce that 1/4 pound of cheese is 1.25 inches high when that is not the case at all. So, we throw that sample out because it's known to not be representative to the population.

The difference with Saddam's supposed mass killings, is even though the number is disproportionate to the rest of the reasons for death, it still exists. With the cheese example, a 4" inch high stack of cheese can't exist and weigh 1/4 pound with everything else being equal. But 10's of thousands of Saddam deaths actually could exist Iraq-wide and should be considered part of the mortality rate.

Furthermore, since Saddam is no longer in power, those numbers should go away if they existed. So, if the mortality rate is many times higher than before the war, who are the Iraqi people better off under? Statistically, we're far more dangerous to them than Saddam. In reality, I don't think that's the case at all. I think this study shows that this "mass-murderer" was not a mass murderer. I could believe he killed many for whatever reasons, but mass killing, mass graves, etc? The numbers do not show that either pre-war or post-war.

On edit: CJ, in re-reading your post, you are correct in some sense. It was mostly the Kurds, but they were also - for all intents and purposes - the enemy of Saddam. They took up arms with Iran against Saddam. So, it's not like they were sitting in their homes in Tikrit, taken out outside, and shot. Given that, those deaths are certainly outliers/fliers.

Note: No actual cheese was used in this post. No cheese was harmed or mistreated during the writing of this post. Any resemblance to actual cheese is purely coincidental considering the fact I wouldn't know what a quarter pound of cheese looked like if it were stacked on my forehead.

Well, CJ, they are in the process of getting to decide things as we speak. Further, it is important to consider why these events weren't happening....because anyone in their right mind would be scared to death to do anything even remotely like this. No, wait, the Kurds did in fact perform some of these actions...and were rewarded by having their villages gassed in a mass extermination campaign. Gosh, I don't know why no one else rose up in protest

The point is to give the Iraqis a chance to actually decide something for themselves for a change. Regardless of your feelings on how that came about...surely you should be able to admit that that is a good thing?

That is a lame half-truth.

Saddam did not go out and target Kurds with WMD for repelling. There is not even ONE shred of evidence to support that.

Saddam targeted the Iranians, WHO WERE ALSO USING WMD, in the Kurdish territories and stormed across the border en masse. The Kurds sided with Tehran and were indiscrimitely killed BY BOTH SIDES.

While I agree with your point in substance, your example is completely disingenuous. Saddam never targeted the Kurds en masse for rebelling. However, he didn't care much if they got in the way either during the Iran/Iraq war.

Think I'll reuse those words (though I'd say your rebuttal is more of a fifths-truth or so...),

The Kurds were in fact the target of an elimination campaign. The Kurds supported the Iranians, yes (I suppose that would fall under the heading of an active insurgency which is why Hobbes mentioned it) and for that the Saddam regime gassed their villages and bulldozed entire towns to the ground.
GENOCIDE IN IRAQ The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds
That said, I believe Julian rightly points out that assuming Hussein would do such things again is an assumption that may be a wee bit too shaky to justify the war.

As I understand it, the Kurds didn't rise up in protest against Hussein in post-Gulf War Iraq largely because the region was pretty autonomous. The northern no-fly zone served as an effective buffer against Saddam's power. Indeed, from 1994-1996 rival Kurdish factions were fighting prompting Saddam to move troops to the north. The US responded with bombings in southern Iraq. It was an effective counter-measure.

Anyway, not to go too far afield into recent Iraq history, I think both Hobbes and DaytonRocker have made correct statements. Saddam did order the indiscriminate gassing of Kurds due to some of them siding with the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. After the Gulf War, the Kurds did not need to rise up against Saddam because their region was largely autonomous. I agree with turnea (thanks for the link by the way) and Julian that there is little evidence to suggest that Saddam would have gassed the Kurds again after the Gulf War even if he were to have WMD.

And Hobbes we've been down this debate road before ... The Iraqi electoral decisions will be marred by illegitimacy, disenfranchisement and fraud. Still, even if none of those problems were to exists, the insurgency will not magically stop. Current empirical trends suggest it will expand.

The number of civilian deaths are somewhat immaterial. These people are angry; everyone there likely knows someone who's died due to "collateral damage" or "acceptable losses". The greater good matters little. After all, only 3000 civilians died during 9/11 (~0.001% of the US population) and here we are having already invaded two countries. The cycle will continue and will be reciprocated.

Indeed. My main gripe was the use of cluster sampling, not the whole idea of statistical sampling. They used 'random GPS points' and then went and interviewed entire households, regarding deaths over the past 18 months, then maybe or didn't ask for death certificates. That is very different from other means, perhaps a stratified sample to ensure that they took into account:
- 3 different ethnic areas, could have impact on self-reported deaths purely due to culture
- Hot spots vs. cold ones, with the exception of Fallujah being an outlier
- Income, etc. - for all I know they went to 30 poorest, least educated houses near their GPS. For all I know they went to whomever was willing to open the door. All of these things skew the sample.
- Seems like they risk including many more outliers / flyers with the weird GPS / household survey vs. a more evenly distributed random sample throughout the country. But, hey, I'm not volunteering to go door-to-door in a partial war zone either, so it's a tough exercise.

Oh, but I so enjoy traveling down the same paths again...just a little joy-riding...

Logo, I won't disagree that there will some of this in the upcoming election...the question is whether it will be so much that the general perception would be that the elections were 'rigged'. If people, in general, think the elections were ok, they won't be so angry. This would erode popular support for the insurgents, causing a change in the current trends. If they don't, then the status quo will continue.

Wheee...queue Beverly Hillbillies...


The point I was making was less about the perceived legitimacy of the Iraqi elections and more about the hatred and anger engendered by the "acceptable losses" of Iraqi civilians. The number of collateral deaths whether 10,000 or 30,000 or 100,000 is less of an issue than the fact that these people died as a direct result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

As long as there is a counter-insurgency effort by the US, the number of civilians being killed will go up. And as far as I can tell the insurgency is growing. There is no reason to believe it will decrease and every reason to believe it will continue its growth curve. So even if the number isn't 100,000 now, there is every reason to believe it will be eventually.

Moreover, elections will not be a magic salve to calm the Iraqi masses. The damage is done and the seeds of hatred have been planted. How does that add up to good news?

Not good news, exactly, but I disagree that the US is necessarily being blamed for these deaths. I suspect that a fair number of Iraqi see this as exactly what it is...a fringe group fighting to maintain control, at the expense of their own lives. In this scenario, the US troops are in the same boat as they are.

Regardless of how it is 'spun', though, increasing deaths is certainly not a good thing. I think the upcoming invasion of Fallujah will be an important point...if it doesn't have seem to get the corner turned, that won't bode well. Elections will also help, in that once they take place, the insurgents would have to realize that the new Iraqi government is their real enemy, not the US.

There is nothing to gain from the war!
Getting revenge on Bin Laden was an American cause! The war held in Afghanistan was one that could be justified in a sort of way. The war in Iraq can not. So not a single death is acceptable.
Bin Laden is an American issue, but the war on terrorism as a global action against terrorism is an issue of the world. Kerry is right when he says Americans should not bare the burden alone, it is a burden that every civilized country in the world should carry! Bush made it an American issue for his own reasons, whatever they are. That's the reason all those people died, that's the reason all those soldiers died.

Also, I would like to remark to following. Bush is absolutely right when he says that the terrorists hate the American freedom. They hate the freedom of the American authorities to do whatever they want without ever having to be brought to justice. That's the freedom the terrorists hate. In fact, it's that freedom that rendered them terrorists in the first place, since there is no other (legal) way to bring American actions to justice. (ref: international tribunal in DenHaag). That's also one of the reasons things happened in Abu Graib, Americans feel untouchable, even after they were proven otherwise in 2001! A few of the guilty ones have been brought to justice because there was no other way because pictures leaked to the press etc. What about all the other crimes against humanity? Why did the Bush legislation put presure on the Belgium government to rewrite their genocide-law... what were the American authorities affraid off? The were scared that if the law existed, that American politicians would be arrested when they entered Belgium, why were they affraid? I wonder... REALLY!


Iraqies have nothing to do with 9/11. PERIOD.

Another thing that sickens me is Bush that is abusing the fact that people think Bush is better for homeland security to gain electoral strength by seeding fear amongst the common people. America has been living in constant fear the last 3 years. If I look at the news over here in Europe I feel pitty when I think about in what conditions Americans must life. There is no war in your own country, but yet the fear of attack is omnipresent every second of the day. Must be hell. Bush is abusing that fear at some levels.

I hope all Americans go vote for whoever they think should be in the whitehouse. A world leader is in your hands, and a world leader affects the whole world, but only Americans can vote for it. Please take your responsibility and go and vote! Let your voice be heard. Don't let the world go through another 4 years of pure hell because you were to leasy to lift up your as and go vote!

Like I've been trying to say over and over again.... It doesn't matter what the reasons are for Iraqi civilians being killed. It doesn't matter if these deaths were accidental, that they were due to counter-insurgency efforts. What matters is that these people are dead and that US troops killed them. You're trying to superimpose a rational, utilitarian calculation on something which is fundamentally raw and emotional. It doesn't work like that.


I believe my above statements about human nature are spin independent. It's not like a bolt of lightning killed those Iraqi civilians. It was bombs, artillery, machine guns and gunships which did it.


Insurgents already realize that the Iraqi authority is their enemy. There are pleny of targets to go around. The issue is that the US responds to those attacks. Now, eventually at some point years hence, the Iraqi authority/government may not be equated with the US. When that occurs, then Iraqis may not blame the US. However, we are a long ways from that day; thus, civilian deaths will continue to be a rallying cry of anti-American sentiment.

Just curious about exactly what it is you feel this means for Iraq's future logophage. I am assuming you are saying that as long as we are at war...occupiers in their country causing civilian deaths we leave absolutely no chance for success in Iraq? Or at least very little. And you base all of this on some kind of human nature predictability thing...as if humans were predictable. But assuming we could gleam some insight of our race from past experiences...ohh such as WWII...where the British and Americans firebombed Germany. Do you have any idea how many innocent children, women and elderly were killed in those campaigns? Once our forces finally did occupy DE how many more died? How much insurgency violence took place..and would you consider your human nature theory applies here too? Were the Germans so encouraged by the violence of war and our indiscriminate weilding of it that they became incapable of surrendering?

I think in fact the German insurgency worked against the attempt to prevent Germany's occupation and ultimately rehabilitation because in going with the human nature theory..humans like to be safe..we seek security..and who do the people feel is more safe, more secure, more stable? In DE it was decided that the American and British forces were the safer option for the people's future..I feel the same decisions are being made again in Iraq. I think Iraqis ..just by the law of human nature..have a very different feeling of all of this violence than any of us watching it from our television sets.

Also...you act as if this is some new seed we sown. Which it certainly is not. Do you think perhaps over the past 12 yrs the Iraqi people may have felt that their country was in such disarray, that their children were so hungry and that the hospitals had so little to give all because of America too? You yourself claim that the intentions themselves do not matter...only that their loved ones died. People have been dying in Iraq because of American policy long before this newest campaign.

Then, logically, one can never, ever take an action that causes lesser harm in order to forestall anticipated/predicted/assumed future greater harm. If the lesser harm action (LHA) is "successful", i.e., the GHA does not occur, one will always be faced, by your logic, with merely the wrongness of the LHA and nothing to show for it.

Surgery by doctors to remove benign cancers (which MAY metastasize) will be immoral. The only justification for going after terrorists today will be retributive, because, hey, we're only assuming that they will continue in terrorism. Pedophiles and serial rapists should be released because we are only assuming that they will strike again.

Julian, you really may want to revisit your line of thinking here...

Logo, I think we are talking from both sides of the same viewpoint. Where we might disagree is on the blame being put on the US soldiers. While the insurgents themselves will certainly use that as a rallying cry, I don't see that being a common viewpoint among the majority of Iraqis. This is a very important distinction, for if it does become a common perception, that would be extremely difficult/critical to resolve. Basically, it seems to be a bigger issue here than it does there, from what I can tell. However, I don't disagree with your general sentiment here--in fact, that is both why we have been somewhat reluctant to respond with excessive force to these attacks, and also why we have been pushing so hard for the Iraqis to take a main role in providing their own security.

I fear we may go too far off topic to answer this. I think I can bring us back though. Iraq's future will consist of bloodshed, pain, warlords, unclear decisions and civil war. It will be the locale for "on the job training" of terrorists. It will be the conflagration point of other wars being spun off in the region. Eventually, at some point in the nebulous future after a sufficient amount of bloodshed and heartbreak (10-20 years), Iraq will be so devastated that war is untenable. At such a point (like Afghanistan) will anything like stability and peace even be conceivable.


I don't know what "success" in Iraq means. It is ill-defined and has no concrete techniques of measurement. There are no timelines or milestones. Criteria for achieving "success" have not been outlined. The failure modes have not been enumerated. How can one have chance of anything when the "anything" hasn't been defined?


I am basing my assessment on (1) the insurgency is growing; (2) there is no sign that the insurgency will stop growing; (3) the factors for why the insurgency is growing continue to exist; (4) US popularity is shrinking. This is quite unlike post-WWII Germany. Also, Germany had two state actors to blame: Nazi Germany and the Allies. The choice was clear post-WWII as to who had the most legitimacy. Whereas, Iraq has one state actor (the US Coalition/Iraq authority) and lots of insurgents of nebulous political empowerment. From what I see, the choice is clear at who will get the most negative publicity simply because it is an identifiable, somewhat monolithic entity.


Agreed. People in Iraq had been dieing indirectly due to US/UN policy. The difference is that people (civilians) are dieing directly due to US policy. Not having enough food/medicine is characteristically different from bombs and collateral damage. Also, like I stated above, the Iraqis had Saddam to blame for some (or all) their ills. Well, now, the only identifiable authority for their ills is the US/Iraqi authority.

The 100,000 number if it doesn't exist now will exist sooner rather than later. We're talking a significant portion of the Iraqi population. If you don't believe that these deaths breed contempt, hatred and anger against the US, then I suppose we share a different view on human nature.

Not a very good comparison (no offence) - the removal of a benign tumour may be done without causing harm to anyone (other than minor harm to the patient which should heal).

Rapists and paedophiles are not sent to jail to protect society so much as to punish them. Once they finish their sentence (i.e. their punishment is over) they are released - often without regard to the fact that they may well strike again.

Pre-emptive strikes against terrorism (which Iraq wasn't) which kill civilians is doing harm to those civilians that otherwise might not have happened. I find it interesting to note that the people who normally talk of the sad necessity of collaterol damage are generally those who are not harmed by it.

Excellent point. The reason I asked the loaded question regarding the Iraqi deaths and the 9/11 victims (i know there is no correlation), is because we felt personally affected by the 9/11 victims, but not by the Iraqis.

However, neither of them did anything worth dying for. The countless deaths in Iraq don't seem to hold as much value to us here, but they had as much to do with terrorism as the New Yorkers did. Meaning, they did nothing either.

We justify this in our own minds as paying a cheaper price for the greater profit. As if we didn't kill them, then Saddam would. Or if it's not them, Saddam would have as many of us killed. And that's where we start to disagree.

Saddam had nothing to do with international terrorism, did not have WMD, did not distribute ANY type of weaponry, was not working with Al Qaida, but somehow, these Iraqi deaths and American deaths are somehow worth it. We don't feel any grief for all the dead Iraqi innocents when most of us don't know them any better than most of us knew any of the 9/11 victims.

If this was the price for a greater good, that's very unfortunate. But what is the greater good? That's the magic question. The pro-war people say it makes us safer, but can't point to one single substantiated threat. Of course, they could point to unfounded possibilities all day, but not even a probability - let alone fact.

Bush says the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. If true, why doesn't Australia, England, or any other free country in world have orange, yellow, and red alerts, new departments of homeland security, or a history of terrorists flying airplanes into their buildings? Maybe it's just because they just hate us? And with our regard to the loss of life in Iraq, it's no wonder.

If someone is killed here, they're our neighbor. If someone is killed there, they're a number. And then we debate the number to minimize it even further.

That would be true if the reasoning used for going to war originally was to prevent the massacring (sp?) of Iraqi civilians by the Saddam regime, but it was not. The reasons that were given before the invasion were to prevent the spread of WMD, to remove the risk of attack of US/UK interests and those of our friends and allies, to exact retribution for years of violation of UN resolutions, and so on. Prevention of Iraqi civilian deaths on a scale larger than the ones being caused, directly or indirectly, by the allied invasion only became a "reason" AFTER it had happened. So it cannot but be speculative and tenuous, because it wasn't the reasons we're there.

There are parallels with the Second World War and the Holocaust here. We didn't really know, or fully appreciate, the scale of the Holocaust until the war was almost over. And we did not go to war in the first place because of it. (Does anyone really believe that any country in the world would have gone to war with Nazi Germany had the suspected Holocaust been the only justification? If you do, I have a bridge you might like to buy.)

However, the reasons that we did go to war in Europe were wholly legitimate - treaty obligations between military Allies. In the UK's case, between the UK and Poland. In the USA's case, between Germany & Japan. Nobody could seriously say, with or without hindisght, that it was a war that did not need to be fought. This is simply not the case for the Iraq War. Whether you believe it is justified or not, no matter how good Tony Blair's faith, a great many other people of good faith, who might be your friends or neighbours, believe exactly the opposite.

The civilian casualties (in their millions) that resulted from WW2 were just as regrettable, however. Indeed, the "rules of war" that now condemn the killing of non-combatants so forcefully were written in response to the civilian carnage wrought in WW2 by both sides. And, crucially for this conflict today, they were largely written by Americans and Britons.

So at least a part of my irritation with the mealy mouthed attitude some of the supporters of the war in our countries have to civilian casualties in Iraq - what, in more innocent times might have been called "innocent bystanders" are now commodified into "collateral damage" (a hateful euphemism if ever there was one - is that it seems to fly so openly in the face of the very sensible and noble rules laid down for us by the people we like to call our greatest generation. Mostly in recognition of the horrors otherwise good people are capable of causing in what they think of as a good cause.

Of course the next thing I'm supposed to think is that the rules all changed on 9-11. Well no, they didn't. That fateful day should have reminded us what the rules are for, what bad actions look like. Let's punish the guilty, for sure. Let's take necessary steps to protect ourselves, certainly. But I honestly do not believe any longer that the Iraq War fits either criterion. I really don't

As I said in my last post, people don't do bad things because they are bad - they become bad by doing bad things. I'm not religous, but it seems to me that the Christian leaders who have led this war - Blair & Bush - (and their Muslim counterparts, of course) would do better to remember a little less Old Testament "eye for an eye" and a little more Gospel "let him who is without sin", "love thy neighbour", "turn the other cheek" and so on. After all, they were words supposedly spoken by the man supposedly central to their religion.

This is not a war that Muslim fanatics are ever going to win - they are too few. Unless they swell massively in numbers, which our misdirected efforts in Iraq seems to be accelerating. Let's stop doing OBL's work for him, eh?

Exactly!

And the whole time this war has been happening, its been mismanaged into the ground. We've seen a lack of resources allocated to the post war chaos. We've seen prisoners been mistreated and even killed by untrained and badly supervised US reserve forces. We've seen an escalation in terrorist activities, including multiple gruesome beheadings. We've seen thousands of attacks against coalition forces and over 1,200 dead coalition soldiers with God only knows how many wounded. We've seen a civilian body count that is now estimated to be as many as 100,000 and we've seen America, once the pride and example of the free world, become an object to fear and regard with suspicion.

Shouldn't you have to precede this foretelling with perhaps a "I think" or "I believe" or maybe even just a "it is possible"
Iraq in the present and past already contained warlords, civil war, bloodshed. It was already a "conflagration point of other wars being spun off in the region" So what you are saying is that an even longer/larger amount of bloodshed and heartache must occur in order for your prophecy to come true..or maybe perhaps we have always been on this path...that it is nothing new...soothsayers really only ever point out the obvious.

America started mucking around with Iraqis lives...started making decisions that effected whether they lived or died a long time ago. Why did we choose the path to begin with? Shouldn't we always ask ourselves where we are being led..or at least in what direction?



Well that is interesting because I thought you were enumerating the failure modes.

In my world failure and success coexist..some good things happen in my day as do some bad. Sometimes I achieve what I wanted or perhaps even discover a new possibility of achievement..other days I fail. All of which takes place whether I enumerate, outline, or define my day or not. Somethings are like that in life ...they just happen..you set things in motion and the tend to stay in motion.



How are the Baathists not a "state actor" to lay blame with? You claim the choice was clear but the US president himself felt that it may remain a little fuzzy for the Germans ..it is this exact reason he gave for defending or justifying the firebombings..so that the Germans clearly understood their defeat the second time around.



I didn't say anything of the sort. I just feel the Iraqi invasion was and had been a very possible outcome or destination from a path we chose long ago. No to mention hatred, contempt and anger for America exists in countries we have never had our armies set foot in.

Really care to back up that statement here.

Im sorry but you are just dead wrong. It's very easy to prove that he at the very least had ties and funded international terrorists as well as issued public statements to form suicide squads to attack Americans and the existance of terrorist training camps in Baghdad and also gave the first WTC bomber a house and a salary along with a hundred other things that I wont discuss in this thread.