Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Group: 162,000 Civilian Deaths in Iraq Since 2003 Invasion
After the U.S. formally declared an end to the Iraq war in December, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who led the 1st Armored Division in 2003, said the U.S. needed to know the outcome was worth the cost. "We've paid a great price here, and it's a price worth paying," he said.
DOD Photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo
Iraq Body Count (IBC), however, shows that great price has been paid in Iraqi civilian deaths.
IBC's newest analysis covers deaths from violence 2003 - 2011.
From their findings:
- The number of civilian deaths in Iraq in 2011 was almost at the same level as in 2010 – there has now been no noticeable downward trend since mid-2009. As observed in IBC’s previous annual report, recent trends indicate a persistent low-level conflict in Iraq that will continue to kill civilians at a similar rate for years to come. While these data indicate no improvement, time will tell whether the withdrawal of US forces will have an effect on casualty levels.
- Total deaths with combatants, combining IBC and official records: Combining IBC civilian data with official Iraqi and US combatant death figures and data from the Iraq War Logs released by WikiLeaks, we estimate the documented death toll across all categories since March 2003 to be 162,000, of whom 79% were civilians.
- From anti-government/occupation attacks: Civilian deaths attributable to anti-government/occupation attacks have noticeably increased in 2011: 1,172 in 2011, up from 888 in 2010.
A reminder of who bears the cost of war, IBC's analysis shows a staggering level of children as casualties: "Of the 4,040 civilian victims of US-led coalition forces for whom age data was available, 1,201 (29%) were children."
IBC's ful analysis can be found here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
54 Comments so far
Show AllCivilian executions under Saddam - estimated at > 600,000.
Get your priorities straight.
Thanks John Bolton. WTF? Are you advocating war? Join up and go over "there" to kill folks or STFU. Or is hypocrisy, cowardice and murder a virtue in your moral framework?
The Bush I/Clinton sanctions killed close to one million Iraqis (Effects of Iraq Sanctions — Global Issues http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions), including more than 500,000 children, about which Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, pronounced, "We think the price is worth it" (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084).
The second Johns Hopkins/Lancet survey of Iraq War casualties estimated 654,000 Iraqi deaths as of 2006. Since then, many more have been added to that grim figure.
In addition, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been horribly injured, including by our use of depleted uranium, which causes cancer and birth defects. Given how we destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and have mostly not rebuilt it, many of those injured will doubtless suffer horribly, and die.
Finally, our illegal, unnecessary war on Iraq has made more than four million Iraqis refugees. As with Vietnam, where we reneged on paying war reparations after a war which killed more than three million Vietnamese, we will do little to make up for the massive destruction and death we caused in Iraq. Shameful is too light a word for this war crime.
ED: I agree with 90% of your post, but take issue with your liberal use of the word "We." What if we constructed a new acroymn that described what State-powered elites have elected to do in our (the citizens') name? How about S-P-E-D-I-O-N (state powered elites do in our names) ... SPEDION! I know that I, along with millions, protested the Vietnam war; and I, along with millions, protested the illegal war of aggression engineered against Iraq and on into Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Libya, and now Iran. So rather than reinforce the idea that these awful acts represent the will of The People, let's use a term that defines our dissent against these policies.-------------------------- Enter: SPEDION!
How about the ubiquitous word "THEY" ~ supporters of the status quo always say "who are 'they'? Define 'they'", but EVERBODY knows who "they" are...
ED -- I agree with Siouxrose's quibble, but nonetheless, your short comment better states the truth than the article, in my opinion, not least by noting that hundreds of thousands of survivors were/are horribly injured. The MSM focus on our injured military gives a small hint of what the Iraqis, civilian or not, must have gone through and will continue going through for many years. The MSM scarcely mentions the Iraqi toll; nor, in the commemorations of the people who died on 9/11, was there any mention of the suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan from the needless overreaction by the U.S. to 9/11. You rightly mention destruction of infrastructure, another major negative to the "It was worth it" claim. And never do those trying to minimize the damage to Iraq mention that millions of the refugees are Iraqi Christians, who evidently lived better lives under Saddam than in the wake of his deposition.
One can only hope that Iraqis, like millions of other survivors of U.S. military action and their descendants, will be able to accept apology and compensation from the U.S., should that ever be forthcoming.
You mention the Vietnamese, who for some reason don't now seem to harbor hatred of the U.S. as deep as some peoples in the Middle East. Similarly, we have good relations with the Japanese, whose nation suffered incineration by atom bombing and firebombing, and the Germans, whose nation also suffered incineration by firebombing, and even Jews, whose ancestors, along with others, died in concentration camps while U.S. forces somehow managed to overlook that carnage until the war was over. We have a long way to go before the same peaceful coexistence will be possible with nations in the Middle East.
Great comment, ED.
ED...Great comment. WE must accept responsibility, if WE have the right to vote, and if WE pay taxes, and if WE participate in the economy. The "WE" is the important part. "THEY" could not do it without us. WE enable the killing.
The 'dog-ate-my-homework'- excuse is no longer valid. The rules of the Geneva Convention require that WE do what we can to prevent illegal war. As far as I know, the only ones who are to be exonerated are those who went to Iraq to use their bodies as human shields. The rest of us are guilty and should pay reparations to the Iraqis.
ED: The latest extrapolation on the Johns Hopkins/Lancet figure is, I believe, at around a million and a half, and nearly five million refugees, of which we can assume a few also died.
Yeah, and let's not forget the untold numbers of injured and traumatized Iraqi civilians. It is so unbelievable awful what the U.S. has done to that country.
Yes, but according to PJM and his ilk, that really doesn't matter, because after all, Saddam killed a lot of Iraqis, too. By his sick logic, then, it doesn't matter if the U.S. is responsible for hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of innocent civilian deaths when we invade a country, because there are other "worse" people out there killing just as many civilians.
What a strange, twisted mind PJM and so many others like him have. "Yes, the US killed a million civilians, but hey - Pol Pot killed 5 millions civilians." ???? As if one has anything to do with the other.
PJM, if your defense of the U.S. murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents rests on the fact that other nations or leaders have done the same thing, it is a measure of how pathetic and sad - and evil - you and this country truly are. All it really says is that when it comes to mass murder, the U.S. is in really good company.
Good post! I should add that PJM's argument is sort of like saying that it's all right for me to rape a woman if some other guy raped and murdered her sister!
Yes, I've heard the number is more like a million dead, not counting those millions who fled and are unaccounted for. The U.S. Military destroyed a country to get at its oil, and that country just happened to be the cradle of civilization. The roots have been killed; now the entire ancient tree is falling, including the young American Empire.
____________________________________
That's over a 32-year period, about 19,000 per year. WE murdered twice as many in one quarter the time. Who's the real butcher?
First of all, Saddam was the CIA's guy, so this might inform that kernel of your view that feigns a heightened sense of "priorities".
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
Imagine an Iraqi teenage girl, frantic with her priority of saving her little sister who was hit by flying shrapnel from shock and awe. I doubt you've used your imagination in such a way, but maybe THAT might inform your sense of "priorities" as well.
Your insinuation, that the Iraq war, was somehow dictated by a sense of priorities, relative to, and in service of the Iraqis' well being, is nonsense.
Great comment, hue.
Neocon lies, only a few thousand people were executed during Ba'athist times. Secondly, "Iraq Body Count" only looks at Western media reports for its figures, which are notoriously incomplete. The real total of Iraqis killed by the criminal invasion and occupation was around 1.5 million. The same methodology used to determine 1.5 million dead was also used in Rwanda and the West never doubted that. In addition, up to 1.5 million more were killed by the US-imposed sanctions. You dirty Neocons are guilty of genocide, just like Hitler was.
Thankyou!
Well-said, thank you. Not that these facts will make any difference to PJM and his sick ilk. But still - thank you for this.
114,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the illegal and extraordinary, evil 2003 invasion, was well worth the cost according to General Dempsey. Kind of reminds me of Madeline Albrights fascist statement when asked about the hundreds of thousands of children murdered in Iraq: " We ( the fascists ) think it was worth it" !
The Lancet studies are far more reliable. There are some 2 million widows in Iraq along 4.5 million orphans created since the start of the war.
A statiscal analysis of these statistics as was done by other groups puts the nyumber of Civilian casualties far higher at over 1 million.
The IBC study is fundamentaly flawed relying on data only from newspapers written in English. If it is not recorded in a newspaper written in English as a death, it is not counted.
The methodology used by Lancet was the same used to calculate the number of deaths In Cambodia and iin Rwanda. Very few of the names of those genocides were published in newspapers which hardly suggests they never happened.
GwNorth,
thank you for that clarification. that's a huge discrepancy.
...peace...
I agree. That number is about as authentic as the "arrived upon" figure of $700 billion to hide the TRILLIONS handed over to the banksters. There no longer are facts-checkers in media since it's all fallen into the hands of the PR people whose view of truth is akin to warriors' view of war. To such dark powers the only thing that matters is what might, which is to say they, say is right. Nothing else need any longer apply. And in case anyone misses that focal point, the newly empowered Homeland Security State was recently extended a license to arrest and detain virtually anyone (on a witchhunt level of suspicion)... that, along with the fate of whistle-blowers like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Tim De Christopher, ought to manage the last vestiges of unwillful consent. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ground is quaking... in response to the many chains placed on billions of persons by a small cabal of international elites who care less about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
You know, I have mixed feelings about the way "warrior" is used. I've written about (and condemned) "warrior culture" here in the U.S. today (not at CD, but elsewhere), but thinking about the word "warrior" some more, I think that "warrior" as defined by military types has a very different definition from some other ways that the word can be used. I am opposed to war in all of its manifestations. However, not all "warriors" go to war. For instance, some people describe themselves as "warriors for social justice" and Greenpeace has their Rainbow Warriors. I see nothing wrong with those uses of the word "warrior." To me, they use the word to connote steely determination to forge a new path, in spite of all obstacles. In other words, it's used to suggest a more defensive posture or stance, metaphorically.
In general, I agree with the overall sentiments expressed in your previous comments about the effects of patriarchy on our society. However - and please don't take this as anything more than a thought-provoking statement - I also wonder what we women would be like if we hadn't been shaped by a dominant patriarchal system for so many thousands of years. For instance, I've heard one feminist anthropologist expound on her belief that women with certain characteristics - physically weaker (relative to mate, although some were valued for their work in the fields), short (relative to mate, anyway), submissive, nurturing - have been selectively chosen as mates by men for thousands of years, which has helped to bring about (both via genetic and social means) sexual dimorphism in body shape/stature/strength and personality characteristics that we currently perceive as "male" or "female." If selective breeding hadn't occurred over the millenia (or perhaps the millions of years of primate evolution) in patriarchal-type social contexts, would we have more "aggressive", tall and physically powerful women today? Women who hunted and fought, as well as nurtured? "Amazons," in a way? Women who were strong in themselves and not submissive to men? In other words, I don't think testosterone is the only thing that promotes aggression in humans. And, Morticia had a good point when she suggested that aggression can manifest itself in many ways, not just through war-making. For instance, so-called "catty" behavior among women can be considered aggressive.
Just a thought.
2 to 4 years; the collapse of the fascist amerikan empire, the evil... "they".... is underway; and it will not stop until the empire can NOT KILL anymore !
I was just about to write the exact same thing as you. EXCELLENT comment, GwNorth. Thank you. WHY does anyone even bother to reference IBC's results, anymore? It totally infuriates me. Ask any Iraqi, too, who's had first hand experience in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. They would totally tell you that they were surrounded by death every day - one woman I know, who lived in a formerly affluent part of Baghdad, said she could smell rotting bodies outside every time she walked out her front door.
The Lancet reports, which were published in 2004 and 2006, respectively (and are therefore a little outdated by now, as they represent underestimates for the current cumulative death toll), were written and data was collected by established experts in this type of analysis. The reports were also peer-reviewed. IBC gets its data from non peer-reviewed news "reports," in which death tolls have been heavily censored or influenced by the U.S. military.
AND, BTW, the Iraqi woman I mention is Christian - in other words, she's not giving a sectarian view of what she witnessed.
Christianity is not a "sect" in Iraq?
Not in a political sense. Iraqi Christians are such a small minority of people that they can have no sectarian agenda. I suppose that's something hard for a Westerner to imagine, though, as Christianity is such a big thing Stateside. In Iraq, it used to be respected as a religion, but nothing more. That's changed a lot, post 2003 invasion, as the formerly secular state has devolved to its current unstable state. However, Christians as a group certainly have never dominated politics at all in Iraq. In terms of the Middle East, Lebanon is a special case (although I blame the French for planting the seeds of friction between Christians and Muslims there). But, even in Egypt, Iran, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey, the Christians constitute such small minorities that they tend to be apolitical, or risk getting caught up even more in violence that may occur between larger groups that are fighting each other.
Good point GW. This Lancet report, although very reliable, is very seldom mentioned.
Exactly! And the West never doubted those Rwanda figures either. Only when it comes to Iraq do "skeptics" (read: Neocons) come out of the woodwork to deny the genocide that they committed against the Iraqi people.
Thankyou!!!
The IBC, often quoted, even on the left, as if it was an estimate of Iraqi deaths, is only a COUNT of those reported in the western media.
PJM - Incredible leap of logic - Sadam executed 600,000, therefore what's 114,000? What about the effects of DU in towns such as Faluja?
http://educate-yourself.org/du/falloutoniraqbabies12jun08.shtml
Ask the British medical system about that chestnut. And what about collateral damage? How many innocents were slaughtered by American patriotic barbarism? Time to be pull your head out of the sand.
True tw. What many seem to forget, is that the U.S. is culpable for Saddams execution of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's because he was originally our thug. There is a plethora of information documenting that truth.
Excellent point. One I would say is only part of a pattern, of how many US "enemies" were former CIA assets.
Does that include Assad, Ahmadinejad and Qaddafi too?
I don't think his head is in the sand...
Perhaps it is elsewhere, near his rear?
Thank you for bringing up the effects of DU (also, white phosphorus) on civilian mortality rates. Excellent comment, tw.
Ba'athist Iraq never executed 600,000 people. Neocon PJM pulled that number right out of his ass. In actuality, Ba'athist Iraq executed less than 10,000 political prisoners.
Anyone who believes there have only been about 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since 2003 is hopelessly delusional. A million or so is a far more likely number. And think of the 5 million or so refugees and the enormous destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure.
Let's face facts! We committed a gigantic and horrible war crime and atrocity in Iraq, and we did it to a country that posed no threat to us whatever. It's like an NFL linebacker attacking an 80 year old woman because she was a threat. We've become the world's biggest bully.
Jim Shea
Anyone who believes there have only been about 200,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since 2003 is hopelessly delusional. A million or so is a far more likely number. And think of the 5 million or so refugees and the enormous destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure.
Let's face facts! We committed a gigantic and horrible war crime and atrocity in Iraq, and we did it to a country that posed no threat to us whatever. It's like an NFL linebacker attacking an 80 year old woman because she was a threat. We've become the world's biggest bully.
Jim Shea
What is staggering about this is the repeated lie that Iraqi civilian deaths amount to 162,000. Many learned and thorough studies have established that the actual number is in excess of 1 million. In addition, some 4 million Iraqis have been displaced, and the majority live in seriously degraded circumstances. Yet queasily compliant commentators insist on repeating the seriously flawed undercount posted by IBC. Of course, the number of dead does not make the actual crime more or less. Yet the media war fought over the count, with pro government forces repeating the lowest number available, reveals that, for the warmongers at least, how many they killed has symbolic value. Reduce it as far as possible and their crime is reduced, they seem to think. Which merely illustrates the warped state of their consciences. The same process is being repeated in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, with iran the next country in the global death dealers' sights. As the mounds of muslim dead mount up, diminishing their size does not diminish the culpability.
Briar -- Thanks for the important but neglected point: ". . . the media war fought over the count, with pro government forces repeating the lowest number available, reveals that, for the warmongers at least, how many they killed has symbolic value. Reduce it as far as possible and their crime is reduced, they seem to think."
162,000? I fear that estimate is a tad short. There was a report published right here on CD a while back (can't remember exactly when), that put the toll at an educated 1.2 million.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,3979621.story?coll=la-headlines-world
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/14/3839
Then there are these two reports/studies from the Lancet and John Hopkins (also years ago, I can't remember exactly when), that put the toll at much more than that even back then.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/news041025-20.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
In addition, there is this other tally Just Foreign Policy is keeping which puts the toll (as of today) at 1,455,590
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
As someone else already commented above, there is this report from Iran's PressTV (to name one as other sources have provided similar info) http://presstv.com/usdetail/199994.html that states "The study found that some 10 percent of the women in Iraq are widows, about 1.5 million of them. Of these, 59 percent lost their husbands during the period since the U.S. occupation began in 2003. [That number - however high-is almost half the number of the estimate of Iraqi widows as projected by the Iraqi government]."
You do the math! 162,000 doesn't even cover one year of the "conflict."
Great comment, Rev.
All MSM stories fudge numbers. What I don't get is what's the difference between killing 100,000 or 1,000,000. That's still a lot of killing. Never mind the cluster bombs, poisonous depleted uranium, burning phosphorus bullets, torture and recreational killing. Plus, we get the addition of gratuitous torture in "B" grade movies and television shows. The media compliance, aiding and abetting makes me so angry I can retch. News anchors put on make-up, stare into the camera and willfully lie to make money. Read the pseudo-authoritative script written by people smart enough to know better. Some are stupid enough to believe it is for the good of the country. I feel sorry for you.
Yeah - not a SINGLE Iraqi should ever have been killed!
For as accurate as the Lancet figures are, and whose methodology has been repeatedly confirmed, it's unfortunate that Common Dreams, a site that many people rely on for political reality, would quote IBC instead of what is far more likely to be a better source:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
1.45 million deaths!
_________________________________
WAR deaths are ALWAYS way underestimated for various reasons, particularly from establishment and/or pro-war sources (which is almost all reporting on the issue).
__________________________________
Just by looking at its methodology, IBC represents a clear under-tally.
__________________________________
Accounting for war deaths is admittedly a messy process. We don't go into slaughters with the mindset of a scientist about to conduct a humanitarian experiment. Thus, we are left with after the fact studies, and the only way to get a reasonable picture is by using the appropriate survey methodologies carried our by respected, long-established organizations and scientists in this field of research.
__________________________________
See the Lancet and ORB surveys for examples:
__________________________________
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
__________________________________
Keep in mind, the death counts in the DR of Congo during the same basic time frame were widely reported and accepted as fairly accurate in the U.S. press, and the researchers responsible for these Congo reports used virtually the exact same methodology as was used in the 2006 Lancet study.
__________________________________
Just Foreign Policy incorporates IBC with Lancet data in a formula that makes an extrapolated estimate of deaths up to the present:
__________________________________
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/deathcount/explanation
__________________________________
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
__________________________________
Bottom-line: this CD article gives the impression that the IBC analysis of Iraq War deaths is accurate. However, it is glaringly obvious that this is FAR from the truth.