i love this part:

"...the prejudices of the President of the United States, who obviously 1) has presented no scientific evidence 2) has a direct stake in the matter 3) has a track record of blatant dishonesty on important questions of public policy."

i wish the "objective" corporate media would give such contextual statements - which are "objectively" the truth - every time they dutifully regurgitate the absurd outrages of the _resident.

i especially love how Just Foreign Policy makes point number 2 - the _resident has a direct stake in the matter. If the corporatist media would make note every time the person they are quoting is an interested party to the matter they are speaking about - and what their interest in the matter is - this would help immensely in forming opinions about whether to trust the person being quoted.

But according to standards of "objective" journalism, pointing out such interests would be biased...

Meanwhile, to discuss the MILLIONS of persons who have been killed by U.S military onslaughts is not allowed. Somehow, every new war is an inexplicable abberation from "our" long history of goodness and decency...

"Somehow, every new war is an inexplicable abberation from "our" long history of goodness and decency…"

It's miraculous, this perpetual virginity of the Holy States -- every war, we lose our innocence, and miraculously regain it again . . .

Like father, like son.

Daddy Bush is responsible for another million murdered Muslims, mostly children under 'sanctions' as I recall.

And let's not forget the half-million shrugged off by Madeleine Albright when asked whether the sanctions were "worth it".

Bush isn't the only one who criticizes the Lancet study. Is everyone here going with it's findings, and if so, how have you looked at it critically yourself?

"we created an online estimate of Iraqi dead, by extrapolating from last year's Lancet study - which estimated more than 600,000 Iraqi dead - using the trend provided by the tally of deaths reported in Western media that is compiled by Iraq Body Count. Our count now stands at more than a million.

This is an interesting stunt: Robert Naiman wants to take the Lancet number, and then use the trends supplied by Iraq Body Count, without mentioning that his number killed extimate and the Iraq Body Count extimate disagree by at least a factor of 12. He also doesn't mention Iraq Body Count's criticism of the Lancet study. Who's being dishonest?

Hey jakenewton:

Your criticisms of the article make no sense. When looking at the Lancet study, most people realize (you may not) that it was a peer reviewed article - its methods were critically assessed by other scientists, and found to be valid. If you don't think these people are credible, then you probably do not trust any form of statistics, or maybe science itself. If this is the case, you need to find yourself a different forum to read - say creationism.org or foxnews.com or some other such nonsense.

Then you imply that Naimen was being dishonest himself - however, I do not see why his use of the Lancet number and the death rate trends shown by Iraq Body Count would be invalid or dishonest, regardless of the discrepancies in the actual count of the 2 methods.

Then you imply that Iraq Body Count has criticized the Lancet study - this appears to be an outright lie, again to discredit the Lancet study. On the IBC website, I found nothing to support your assertion. IBC notes that some of the dead reported by the Lancet may have been combatants (i.e. not true civilians) - however, the Lancet authors acknowledge this. The deaths are still in excess of the natural death rate and are attributable to the war.

Your attempts to discredit Naimen and the Lancet study are pretty lame. It is not fooling anyone here. What possible motive would you have to downplay the deaths of a million people (or even 100,000 or whatever number you chose to accept) that resulted from an illegal, immoral war of aggression designed to steal someone else's oil and you tax dollars?

The numbers published by Iraq Body Count are not estimates of Iraqi dead. They are tallies of deaths reported in Western media.

As Iraq Body Count itself says on their main web page:

"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

Liar LIAR

pants on Fire!

Waste your ire

on consequence dire.

Marooned in mire,

but don't perspire.

We must admire

the office buyer.

He must aspire

an office higher.

They tricked the town crier

to retire,

But did NOT conspire

to rob the supplier.

If you desire

justice to acquire

it may require

funeral attire.

Huck

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill, this is it.

But let's let the data do the talking.

About one million out of 25 million Iraqis have been killed, and about two million have fled across various borders.

About five million out of 40 million Vietnamese were killed.

And 58,226+- Americans were killed in Vietnam, and, so far, only 3,700+- Americans have been killed in Iraq.

So, in Vietnam for every American killed, 85 Vietnamese were killed. But in Iraq, so far, about 270 Iraqis have been killed for each American killed.

Now, of course, even though the mission is not quite accomplished, it is, in fact, wildly succesful in comparison to our war in Vietnam.

For our present kill ratio is over three times greater than it was in Vietnam, and that's not counting the delayed results of either agent orange or depleated uranium ordinance.

Is it not time to relax a little? Take a little time-out from internal squabbling and rotate those troops for a little rest and recuperation?

For we as Americans have so much to be proud of. We may not have won in Vietnam, but we certainly have become 'better shots.'

It's just when you call us human beings that we get a little nervous.

Robert Naiman: thank you for the addition of the refeugee comparison, it is exactly the kind of first order alternate comparison that makes it easy to confirm at least rough validity of the Lancet article.

I note to all that in denying the validity of the Lancet article, the US military is in effect denying the medical science used to create that estimate, effectively denying modern medicine. If they don't believe in medical science, it makes sense to reassign doctors, nurses, combat medics and other medical personnel as infantry soldiers. In actuality, they do believe in medical science; they simply deny the result because the truth is too embarassing to admit.

There's no need to ask methodological questions at all.

Bush-Cheney have lied about every number, lied about knowing that there were bio & chem & nascient nukes, made ridiculous estimates about the cost & length of the war; in every other area, they have fought objective review & warred against the scientific method itself, putting in political cronies at NASA and EPA to dictate to scientists what they couldn't say.

So how in the world in this one instance could they stumble upon an accurate criticism of the Lancet estimates or their extrapoloation? I would never believe anyone who concurred with the Bush regime on anything.

Robert Naiman does not spell out why the Iraq Body Count of (approx) 70,000 is not an estimate of the number of dead in Iraq, so I shall. The Iraq Body Count counts deaths reported in more than one place in the western press. It is a count that cant be disputed, because each death is documented. But of course, most Iraqi deaths are not reported in the western press. If you can know what percentage of actual Iraqi deaths get reported, then you would be able to come up with an estimate, but as it stands, this is not an estimate.

Starislon2:

Your analysis is as brilliant as it is chilling.

If we are responsible for "even" 70,000 civilian deaths, then we have surely failed.

Who said that Bush was president? Fox News? CNN? Money? Oh yes the Supreme Court. Silly me, and I thought it was Money.

2 very sad things: one, most americans do not have a freaking clue how many iraqis have been killed, nor do they care. there is some attention in the MSM to the number of refugees, but no attention to the fact that these people are fleeing the occupier's violence. the MSM is very good at showing you a car bomb, but will never point out that most of the violence comes from american soldiers. so you get the impression people are fleeing and killed by muslim sectarian attacks, not the US military. (thus, the US needs to stay in iraq, get it?)

two, the number dead and the number fled only tells part of the story. you have to assume several wounded for each dead person. it gets worse. you have to assume several more psychologically traumatized (esp. children) for each dead & wounded. then throw in US sponsorship of the iran-iraq war, the war of '91, and the sanctions regime....

from this, you can do the math and see we have totally fucked this country for a long, long time.

"Then you imply that Iraq Body Count has criticized the Lancet study - this appears to be an outright lie, again to discredit the Lancet study. On the IBC website, I found nothing to support your assertion."

I'm very embarrassed for you then. Let me try to help. You must have missed this page at the Iraq Body Count site:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14/0.php

Summary

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;

2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;

3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;

4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;

5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;

* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;

* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;

* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

IBC notes that some of the dead reported by the Lancet may have been combatants (i.e. not true civilians) - however, the Lancet authors acknowledge this. The deaths are still in excess of the natural death rate and are attributable to the war.

"When looking at the Lancet study, most people realize (you may not) that it was a peer reviewed article - its methods were critically assessed by other scientists, and found to be valid."

"Peer reviewed" does not equate to an endorsement of the study and it's results, nor does it mean that the issue is settled.

It only takes a few minutes to find what seems to be legitimate criticism of the study, such as at Iraq Body Count.

"If you don't think these people are credible, then you probably do not trust any form of statistics, or maybe science itself. If this is the case, you need to find yourself a different forum to read - say creationism.org or foxnews.com or some other such nonsense."

I expect better, there are other people on this forum who debate honestly and think critically.

" I do not see why his use of the Lancet number and the death rate trends shown by Iraq Body Count would be invalid or dishonest, regardless of the discrepancies in the actual count of the 2 methods."

The problem was with the author just sticking the two together. *That* is what you should be questioning. Even though the methodologies differ between the two organizations by such a great degree, it's mixing apples and oranges. He then called it "scientific" that there are one million Iraqi deaths. You don't see any problem here?

"What possible motive would you have to downplay the deaths of a million people (or even 100,000 or whatever number you chose to accept"

My motives are irrelevant, you should know better. Would you like it if I claimed that you only accept the numbers out of a some ghoulish wishful thinking motive?

If you are going to go around thinking that 655,000 or a million Iraqis have died, you'd better be able to say why.

"2 very sad things: one, most americans do not have a freaking clue how many iraqis have been killed, nor do they care"
Bingo! When you bring this up to the Fox news crowd they will quickly give you the "Freedom isn't free" routine and how that applies to Iraqis as well...I'm beginnng to think Fox has incorporated some type of subliminal mind control on these people...I know, I know, conspiracy wingnut yada yada, but DAMN! They act like robots, eyes glassy, repeating the prepared mantras of their "Dear Leader' over and over ad nauseum...

jakenewton, The reason why so many Iraqis have died is because our morally bankrupt leaders profit from the war-making machine that is their foreign policy.

jakenewton,

I quite agree with you that just because the Lancet study was peer-reviewed, does not mean the issue is settled.

The fact that the article was peer-reviewed is not a certificate of truth; it's a certificate that independent experts in the field reviewed the article and deemed it worthy of publication.

Ideally, what would have happened after the Lancet study was published was that other researchers would have undertaken independent studies of the question to replicate or contradict the Lancet estimate. Unfortunately, this has not happened. One would hope that the continuing controversy would motivate other researchers to address this. Of course there are significant obstacles to conducting such research, not the least of which is the fear that the researchers will be killed. But researchers take risks to study less important questions.

As I tried to stress in my article, the exact toll will never be known. Consider again the Vietnam example. Thirty years after the war, one sees estimates of the Vietnamese death toll that vary between two million and five million. That's a big range - the high end being more than twice the low end, that's a lot of uncertainty. And this is hardly an obscure question - it's been subject to a fair bit of study. And one would hope that thirty years later, the political agendas that shaped earlier discussions would have subsided somewhat.

Nonetheless, a range of two million to five million dead strongly implies that a figure of say, 350,000, would not be correct.

And we should be able to achieve this level of certainly - at least - in the Iraq case. The Lancet study - and anything based on the Lancet study, like the Just Foreign Policy estimate - cannot tell us exactly how many people were killed. It can give us an indication of the order of magnitude.

starislon2 - you missed all the 'contractors' killed. How many?

Considering the bombs, ieds, small weapons fired and equipment consumed in Iraq it would have been impossible to have only killed 70,000. Man, we lost 194,000 weapons.

Another reason our soldiers deaths are so low is that they do not count the wounded that would have certainly died if not for improvements in trauma care.

I bet there is a special, exclusive section of Hell reserved for the Bushs and Cheneys...kind of like Walker Point, Kennebunkport, but on fire.

Mr. Naiman, thank you for your clarifications and additions.

"And we should be able to achieve this level of certainly - at least - in the Iraq case. The Lancet study - and anything based on the Lancet study, like the Just Foreign Policy estimate - cannot tell us exactly how many people were killed. It can give us an indication of the order of magnitude."

Or it may turn out that the many concerns about the Lancet study are well founded.

jakenewton,

I concede that I missed the article on the IBC website critical of the Lancet study and you were not lying about it.

I could actually challenge each and every one of the 'implications' that IBC lists in their critique but I won't bother because as many have already pointed out, whatever the real number of dead is, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq (is) a human and strategic tragedy".

However, your motives for questioning the validity of the Lancet or Mr. Naimen's methods are not necessarily irrelevant. There are far too many politicians and pundits out there who attempt to low-ball the Iraqi casualty figures to claim - still after the mountains of evidence and dead bodies - that the invasion was a good thing, and staying the course is necessary.

By implying that the only Iraqi dead are the ones reported by the media (ie. The IBC count), which are almost always due to car bombs and death squads, and almost never due to the actions of the US military, they attempt to create the impression that the US army is protecting Iraqis from themselves and therefore must stay there indefinitely.

Maybe your motives were purely a desire for scientific clarity, I don't know, but at first read it sure sounded like the absurd neocon line that attempts to defend, and prolong, this bloodbath and crime against humanity. Any such implication, real or perceived, will always be met by loud protests from readers of this list.

From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health site:
"As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion." (Note that the death rate in Iraq was already elevated prior to March 2003 because of US actions blocking medicines and other life-saving necessities.)

"The estimates were derived from a nationwide household survey of 1,849 households throughout Iraq conducted between May and July 2006. The results are consistent with the findings of an October 2004 study of Iraq mortality conducted by the Hopkins researchers. Also, the findings closely reflect the increased mortality trends reported by other organizations that utilized passive methods of counting mortality, such as counting bodies in morgues or deaths reported by the news media. The study is published in the October 14, 2006, edition of the peer-reviewed scientific journal, The Lancet."
Of course, those trained at the Bloomberg School of Public Health totally erradicated small pox throughout the world. Their methodology is state-of-the-art and impecable. The report included an estimate of 41% of those deaths being women and children.

"I concede that I missed the article on the IBC website critical of the Lancet study and you were not lying about it."

Thank you.

"I could actually challenge each and every one of the 'implications' that IBC lists in their critique but I won't bother "

I'd be interested in hearing it from anyone else then, or responses to other criticisms that I hadn't mentioned, such as small sample size, use of locals in conducting the survey, surveying an average of around forty households each per day which is seen as excessive by some experts, etc.

"because as many have already pointed out, whatever the real number of dead is, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq (is) a human and strategic tragedy"."

Which is true enough but as we know there is also some legitimacy in using numbers to add weight to one's argument. In one case there is a tragedy, in another a tragedy twelve times as great.

"However, your motives for questioning the validity of the Lancet or Mr. Naimen's methods are not necessarily irrelevant. "

I would mention as a sideline that motive is always irrelevant to the argument itself, but discerning motive is useful in quickly sizing up one's opposition. The problem arises when motive is the only thing you have.

"There are far too many politicians and pundits out there who attempt to low-ball the Iraqi casualty figures to claim - still after the mountains of evidence and dead bodies - that the invasion was a good thing, and staying the course is necessary."

This is an important statement, which is true enough. But it's important to recognize that many people on all the sides of an argument do this, all the time. It's not just the "other side". As with the study in question, I see people cite its findings as fact all the time, in these forums in particular, seemingly unaware or just choosing to ignore the widely held criticisms.

"Maybe your motives were purely a desire for scientific clarity, "

I am partly motivated in this case by the fact that I had yet to see any discussion of the merits of the Lancet study in these forums, instead just acceptance as of them fact.

Thanks urthsong, that's a summary of the Lancet study we are discussing, widely cited and widely disputed. Compare to other estimates by IBC and the UN.