Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Pentagon Challenge: Ask Iraqis How Many Have Died
The U.S. military is planning a large polling operation in Iraq over
the next three years to help "build robust and positive relations with
the people of Iraq and to assist the Iraqi people in forming a new
government," Walter
Pincus reports in the Washington Post.
This provides an excellent opportunity to revisit an important question:
How many Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion?
The $15 million-a-year initiative will supplement the military's $100 million-a-year strategic communications operation, which aims to produce content for Iraqi media that will "engage and inspire" the population, Pincus notes.
The size and scope of the program "will provide an extraordinary amount of data," said a former government official. Another former official noted that $15 million is far more than the State Department allocates annually for its polling activities worldwide.
Pincus notes that the larger Pentagon project of which this polling is a part has been controversial in Congress. In particular, Senator Webb has asked for suspension of the new Army contracts to produce print, radio and television news stories as well as entertainment programs in Iraq.
While I support Senator Webb's very reasonable proposal, I would also like to suggest a different approach to the proposed polling project.
Use it.
In particular, I think Congress should require the Pentagon to ask Iraqis the following questions:
Not only should Congress require the Pentagon to ask these questions, but Congress should require the Pentagon to use the data so gathered to create estimates of Iraqi deaths since 2003, and of how many of those deaths were due to violence. And Congress should require that those numbers be reported to Congress.
When the "Lancet study" (that is, the Johns Hopkins study) estimated two years ago that 600,000 Iraqis had died, President Bush dismissed the study as "not credible," without offering his own estimate, or explaining why that estimate was "not credible."
Much ink has been spilled since then in the dispute over estimates of Iraqi casualties (relatively little, however, of that ink has been spilled in our corporate media in the United States.)
Just Foreign Policy publishes an extrapolation of the Lancet study, using the trend which can be inferred from the Iraq Body Count tally. If the Lancet study estimate was roughly correct, and if Iraq Body Count gives a roughly accurate trend, that would suggest more than a million deaths due to violence in Iraq since March 2003, over and above what would have occurred had there been no U.S. invasion.
Now, the Bush Administration has the opportunity to set the record straight. The Pentagon is, apparently, going to be polling Iraqis anyway, so there would be no additional cost. And if the Pentagon is going to be polling Iraqis on a regular basis, then the question could be repeated, so as to arrive at a more accurate estimate.
I double dare the Pentagon to ask Iraqis this question. If the Pentagon is brave, it will agree.
Of course, it could well be that, facing the prospect of being required to come up with its own estimate of Iraqi deaths, the Pentagon would lose interest in polling Iraqis. So be it. But if the Pentagon is going to poll Iraqis, then this simple question should be among the questions that they ask.
This provides an excellent opportunity to revisit an important question:
How many Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion?
The $15 million-a-year initiative will supplement the military's $100 million-a-year strategic communications operation, which aims to produce content for Iraqi media that will "engage and inspire" the population, Pincus notes.
The size and scope of the program "will provide an extraordinary amount of data," said a former government official. Another former official noted that $15 million is far more than the State Department allocates annually for its polling activities worldwide.
Pincus notes that the larger Pentagon project of which this polling is a part has been controversial in Congress. In particular, Senator Webb has asked for suspension of the new Army contracts to produce print, radio and television news stories as well as entertainment programs in Iraq.
While I support Senator Webb's very reasonable proposal, I would also like to suggest a different approach to the proposed polling project.
Use it.
In particular, I think Congress should require the Pentagon to ask Iraqis the following questions:
"How many members of your household have died since March, 2003? How many members of your household have died since March, 2003 due to violence?"Inclusion of these questions would allow the U.S. government to estimate how many Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion.
Not only should Congress require the Pentagon to ask these questions, but Congress should require the Pentagon to use the data so gathered to create estimates of Iraqi deaths since 2003, and of how many of those deaths were due to violence. And Congress should require that those numbers be reported to Congress.
When the "Lancet study" (that is, the Johns Hopkins study) estimated two years ago that 600,000 Iraqis had died, President Bush dismissed the study as "not credible," without offering his own estimate, or explaining why that estimate was "not credible."
Much ink has been spilled since then in the dispute over estimates of Iraqi casualties (relatively little, however, of that ink has been spilled in our corporate media in the United States.)
Just Foreign Policy publishes an extrapolation of the Lancet study, using the trend which can be inferred from the Iraq Body Count tally. If the Lancet study estimate was roughly correct, and if Iraq Body Count gives a roughly accurate trend, that would suggest more than a million deaths due to violence in Iraq since March 2003, over and above what would have occurred had there been no U.S. invasion.
Now, the Bush Administration has the opportunity to set the record straight. The Pentagon is, apparently, going to be polling Iraqis anyway, so there would be no additional cost. And if the Pentagon is going to be polling Iraqis on a regular basis, then the question could be repeated, so as to arrive at a more accurate estimate.
I double dare the Pentagon to ask Iraqis this question. If the Pentagon is brave, it will agree.
Of course, it could well be that, facing the prospect of being required to come up with its own estimate of Iraqi deaths, the Pentagon would lose interest in polling Iraqis. So be it. But if the Pentagon is going to poll Iraqis, then this simple question should be among the questions that they ask.
Comments are closed
98 Comments so far
Show AllNo one has died. Iraq is a movie from the auteur G. W. Bush who wrote, directed, photographed, edited and scored the entire project. People pretend to die but when the cameras stop, they all get up and walk away. Fox News called it "The Citizen Kane of the 21st Century." "A cakewalk", says Ken Adelman. "Victory", says latest cowboy hero John McCain. "So?", says Cheesedick Cheney, film critic for The Warshington Graveyard.
You're absurdly funny.
Bush is a puppet of the giant fraud of the military-industrial-corporate-media-government complex.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/projects/entry/297/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/projects/entry/276/
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174982/chalmers_johnson_the_pentagon_bailout_fraud
The US is a very embarrassing place to be, so permeated with criminal government and business.
I would much rather life in an EcoCity http://EcoCityBuilders.org than in this asphalt prison. Brain-dead consumers, all over. It's truly pathetic. Puppets of the ego manipulation industry, free yourselves.
http://LifeAfterTheOilCrash.net ... http://ClimateCodeRed.net ... http://ClimateEmergencyNetwork.org
"Senator Webb has asked for suspension of the new Army contracts to produce print, radio and television news stories as well as entertainment programs in Iraq."
These should be suspended. Their effectiveness is always highly over rated.
As to the question of "how many killed" I'd add, how many wounded? These are questions that should be answered, must be answered if we are going to know the real cost of Bush's blasted war.
.Thomas, Have you looked at the Johns Hopkins work in this area? Much maligned but only, I believe, because of the horror its numbers bring to the fore.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
How many Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion?
Which invasion? Cheney and Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush or Bush and Cheney?
I suspect about one in ten Iraqis have died under America's oily agression.
America's immoral wars on innocent people need to stop. The rich can get richer in other ways than from war profits (how about an honest day's work like the rest of us). War is easy money to these ghouls.
On the Highway of Death in the first Gulf War with George H.W. Bush as Commander-In-Chief 10,000 Iraqis, who were waving the white flag of surrender and who had turned around from Kuwait and returning back to Iraq, were bombed and killed. Incidentally, the first Bush president gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait and sent Saddam the message that the U.S. would NOT get involved in a dispute between two Arab countries. Saddam fell for the trap by believing him.
If Walter Pincus's news report in the WaPo is correct, obviously nobody in the Pentagon believes the US military presence in Iraq will be ended within 16 months of George W. Bush's departure from the White House (Barack Obama's time deadline).
Why else would the US military psy-ops boys be planning, and seeking to cement funding, to do three years' worth of opinion polling among Iraqis concerning man-in-the-street preceptions of how the occupation is going? If the $15 million is just for polling feedback, what's the other $100 million for?
Yes, asking the Iraqis who are being polled about casualty rates in their households would be a useful statistic to gather, although the most reliable data base for compiling such statistics would be among the millions of Iraqis who can't be opinion polled because they've fled the country since the 2003 US invasion.
While we're at it, why not also ask those polled how many folks in your household have taken part in anti-American insurgency acts of violence, or in acts of sectarian violence, during the same time frame?
Better still, let's ask our grassroots sample of Iraqis the big one that the Bushies always take for granted - "Thanks to the US invasion, in your opinion is the world, the Middle East, Iraq, your neighborhood, or your family better off today than it was six years ago when Saddam Hussein was in power?"
Slice and dice up the responses to that last question according to demographic variables and there would be lots of food for thought all around.
Bill from Saginaw
"If the $15 million is just for polling feedback, what's the other $100 million for?"
Making sure they get the desired results.
The number that gets the most play in the corporate media is 4000+ American soldiers killed in Iraq. However, this number does not include American soldiers wounded in Iraq and then dying from their injuries in other locations. It also does not include contractors and others, i.e. journalists. So the number of Americans killed in much higher.
Still a small number compared to the number of local civilians killed. Why does the media ignore the civilian casualties? Because if the average dumbfuck in this country had any idea of the horror and destruction that we are raining on that country, well a protest or two might break out. People might actually demand that their representatives in congress stop funding this criminal occupation.
Question for anyone who owns war-profit stock: how can you sleep at night?
Question for the presidential and VP candidates: which one of you will be the first to acknowledge, and then apologize for, the incredibly high number of Iraqi war dead, particularly in light of the fact that the war was intentionally started, based on lies?
I would like to think that ordinary USAns ever cared about Iraqi, Afghan, or Serbian deaths, or Panamanian, Hatian, Granadian, Nicraguan, Salvadoran, or Chilean, Argentinian, Brazilian or Colombian deaths; Congolian, South African, or Angolan deaths; or Vietnamee, Combodian or Laotian; Indonesian, Timorese, or Phillipino deaths, and I almost forgot - Palestinian. Perhaps more than 10 million in all.
But, after all these years of death in these places comitted by the US or it's fully-supported friends, I doubt they really care, unless the victims are white, US-english-speaking, middle class suburban people just like them - or they are victims of offcially-designated "bad guys".
Oh, how I long for president of the sort William Blum wrote about:
If I were the president, I could stop terrorist
attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first
apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and
orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of
other victims of American imperialism.
Then I would announce that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- oddly enough -- a foreign country.
Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour* for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House.
On the fourth day, I'd probably be assassinated.
*It's closer to $35,000 now.
What has gone unmentioned in this otherwise excellent article is that the best way to prevent more unnecessary Iraqi deaths is for American soldiers to choose not to fight in this most immoral and unjust war. The GI movement [as the searing documentary Sir! No Sir! demonstrated] helped to bring about the end of the Vietnam War and it could contribute to ending the Iraqi occupation. One of the best way to end a war is to have it happen from within.
I saw that--it was great. Everybody ought to see it. Also , the OLDER versions of "Winter Soldier"
And remember this is just the death toll from the Bush phase of the Iraq war.
Many estimte at least 750,000 died in the earlier Clinton phase of dliberate bombing of vital water and sewer infrastructure, and economic blockade.
Justices Clear Way for Execution in Georgia of Troy Davis
Justices Cleared Way for Executions in Iraq by One Vote!
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE downloads of ENTIRE book]
"One 9/11 Every 11 Hours, Around the Clock, 24 Hours a Day:"
Neither the Bush administration nor the Iraqi government has counted the number of Iraqi deaths caused by the Bush regime’s illegal and immoral war on Iraq.
The cited Lancet survey estimated, through July 2006 (a period of 40 months), that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a consequence of the Iraq war. The estimate range was 943,000 at the high end and 393,000 at the low end.
Let’s try to put this horrific human toll in context by comparing it with the slaughter on 9/11, as well as the Virginia Tech massacre:
1. The 655,000 Iraqi deaths is an average of 16,375 deaths per month during the 40-month post-invasion study period (March 2003 to July 2006).
2. This means that Iraq suffered about 218 9/11 equivalents during the first 40 months of war—an average of more than five 9/11 equivalents each month.
3. On a per capita basis, Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 65 9/11s per month—or one 9/11 every 11 hours, around the clock, 24 hours a day. (Iraq’s population is about 1/12th that of the United States.)
4. Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 496 Virginia Tech massacres per month—or one Virginia Tech massacre every 90 minutes.
5. On a per capita basis, Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 5,952 Virginia Tech massacres per month—or one Virginia Tech massacre every 7 minutes and 30 seconds, around the clock, 24 hours a day.
And some Bush/GOP supporters still ask, “Why do they hate us.”
The peer-reviewed survey, which was conducted by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and published in The Lancet medical journal in October 2006, concluded that 91% of the 655,000 deaths “were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.”
The study compared Iraqi mortality rates before and after the March 2003 invasion in 47 randomly chosen areas across Iraq, and it is the most thorough scientific survey to date.
Surveyed family members produced death certificates in more than 90% of the cases.
The foregoing is excerpted from my new book, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, published by CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages). www.bushleagueofnations.com
See in particular Chapter 4, “The Unjust War in Iraq—Christianity is Bombing in Iraq.”
As a gift to American patriots everywhere, I now offer unlimited FREE downloads of "The Bush League of Nations" at www.bushleagueofnations.com. If you are so inclined, please spread the good news.
I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using my book as a resource to help kick out America's worst president and worst political party ever.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com
Good idea. Too bad it won't happen if McCain is elected.
It wont happen no matter who gets elected! The Pentagon is NOT "brave".
How many civilians died in Vietnam? Who knows? How many died in Korea? Japan Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
Most people, sadly, would rather not know. I guess we all woudl rather not--but we should. And we should face it.
I would hope that all would be approving of higher taxes, to pay reparations to the peopel of Iraq/Afghan., and to take careof our wounded troops.
I remember a co-worker commenting early in the Iraq War on two consecutive days, 1) "We ought to turn the who country into a piece of glass", referring to using U.S. nuclear weapons against the civilian population, and 2) "I have a solution -- Kill their mothers". These came from an individual who likes to wear the fact that he is (reportedly) a second-generation Armenian who makes much of the genocide against Armenians.
Many polls of great historic value could be taken, except for the moral emptiness of the U.S. population. For example, imagine a national poll of Americans --
1) Why did you remain silent during the run up to the attack on and invasion of Iraq?
2) Why did you remain silent during the initial attack on and invasion of Iraq?
3) Why did you remain silent during the disclosures of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?
4) Why did you remain silent during the massacre of Iraqis and the rape of Iraqi children by U.S. personnel?
Add your own questions for the poll, which probably will only be administered at the gates of hell, given the moral bankruptcy of the U.S. people.
David Brookbank -- "Hasta donde debemos practicar las verdades?"
We were not silent.
You were not close enough to hear us.
The television only told you if we were violent.
The newspapers under-reported our numbers - on a small column on the bottom of page 27.
We were protesting.
Where were you?
This is crazy. This is horrible: we are responsible for the deaths of nearly (perhaps more than) one MILLION people. Human Beings. We call them Iraqis. Some of them suffered under a dictatorship, but our troops finished off (or facilitated the deaths of) a million in about 5 years. I don't think the enormity of this has really sunk into people. We protest the war, but we don't think about it too much. We have never experienced a war; it's just something to protest against. I can't even comprehend how many people a million are... how many communities does that make, how many families does that devastate,
AMERICAN GENOCIDE IN IRAQ
There's a headline for you!
But somehow that headline never appears in the American media.
THE IRAQI HOLOCAUST
Another excellent headline, but you'll never see it on the front page of the New York Times, much less in any honky red-state rag or TV news.
For some reason Mr. Naiman doesn't mention the ORB survey of casualties in Iraq, which was just as well-designed as the Johns Hopkins survey, and produced even more disgusting estimates of Iraqi deaths under the American Occupation.
THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION HAS KILLED 1,200,000 IRAQIS
It's easy to write a really excellent headline, if you pay a minimal amount of attention to the truth.
And now back to the top news in the American media...
Apparently one of the two Senators who both voted to fund THE IRAQI HOLOCAUST every chance they got...
Apparently one of the two Senators who both voted to fund AMERICAN GENOCIDE IN IRAQ every chance they got...
Apparently one of those bums is currently more popular in the polls than the other bum...
And compared to winning an election...
Neither of those bums could possibly care less about...
THE IRAQI HOLOCAUST
or...
AMERICAN GENOCIDE IN IRAQ.
Jacob Freeze
I don't know what Caused the American government and it's people to hate Iraq so much. Maybe the Iraqi presence in the Middle East as a viable threat to Israel. One that would show Israel for what it really is. I know and have known a number of Iraqis having lived in Iraq for three years in better times. They're certainly intelligent and once was highly educated during Sadams time. The people of that sad country have been systematically attacked and exploited by the USA for decades. In doing so millions of Iraqis have died, been maimed for life and displaced from their homes and families. From the backing of Sadams regime to the encouragement of the war between Iraq and Iran which killed off millions of young men. To the swingeing sanctions for 12 long years and the murder of half a million children, that the Albright woman thought was a price worth paying. To the deaths from cancer brought about by DU weapons and now this latest war which has seen the deaths of well over a million Iraqis. Of course this is not the first American genocide there are many more, from its own indigenous Indians to Vietnam, South American countries. Life only matters if Americans are losing theirs and their losses are nothing in comparison to what they have wreaked on the world. There is onlt one way that the US people will see the point of their meddling in the world. That is for them to see their own children dismembered on the streets swimming with blood in the USA. Only then will they see just what their actions have caused to the rest of the world and only then they might just consider trying to share the world in peace and not by domination, bombs and misery.
1.200.000 plus is the figure murdered so far. Even if the U.S. military pulls out of Iraq today completely, millions more will be dying in years to come due to the depleted uranium used on them intentionally.
Hey, what is 1.2 million people and over 4,000 Americans? Never mind the 4 milliion Iraqis that are living in detention or refugee camps.
Henry Kissinger would tell you, "That ain´t nothin! We killed over 3 Million of those Vietnamese and we gave up over 57,000 American lives to do it...
What, you mean to tell me that Henry could have cared less about people being killed? I guess since we have had no studies of how many Americans have died since Viet Nam from diseases they contracted from contact with "Agent Orange".....My guess would be hundreds of thousands.
But, that ain´t nothin to those that died from "Agent Pink". Yes, there were more chemicals tested and you can only get that information from Viet Nam. The Department of Defense has had a long standing policy of destroying evidence that implicates them in any wrongdoing. (Try the Pat Tillmon Case or Reports that Female soldiers were committing suicide when they were really raped and murdered. Yup, DOD really supports the troops.)
Until Americans get angry, there will be no changes. As long as we are killing people over there, Americans could care less.
Consider also that Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, a ruthless punisher, who killed any man or groups of men that tried to stop his agenda for a progressive/secular Iraq. Nonetheless, Saddam mostly killed men. Adult men who were soldiers plotting against his government.
An even worse Iraqi dictator, arguably heartless, is George W Bush. Bush has killed between 700,000 and a 1,000,000 women and children in Iraq. We have no idea how many Iraqi soldiers and "warriors" (proxy al qaida terrrusts) have died?
With 100% media vaccuum on Iraq who could possibly know. Iraq reminds me of Israel. Few pictures of dead Palestinian women and children make it out of the Holy land and so it is with Iraqi freedom these days.
I have met returned Iraqi vets who acknowledged killing civilians who "looked suspicious". Better safe than sorry was their excuse. Hey, if you don't speak their language, you shoot first, no questions to ask.
Is it an expression of goulish wishful thinking that the Lancet numbers are accepted without question here?
Jakenewton
Do you believe that the American government's numbers should be accepted without question? Bush has claimed that the Lancet's numbers of Iraqis who have been killed since the Iraqi invasion are "not credible" yet would not or could not state the reasons why he believed that this is so. Since the US's lies have given them zero credibility I submit that it is the United States's [tarnished] reputation that is seriously in doubt.
"Do you believe that the American government's numbers should be accepted without question?"
Of course not. They aren't endeavoring to count them anyway.
"Bush has claimed that the Lancet's numbers of Iraqis who have been killed since the Iraqi invasion are "not credible" yet would not or could not state the reasons why he believed that this is so."
Bush is not the only one who questions the Lancet numbers, and there are quite a few good reasons given that they have been questioned. You must know that already, don't you?
So you think that it might be more like 1 million, rather than 1.2 million..oh , thank gawd!! I thought we had a genocide for a minute there!
"So you think that it might be more like 1 million, rather than 1.2 million.."
I don't "endorse" any particular study, but I wouls point out to you that the Lancet study result is a full order of magnitude above most others. I would hardly call pointing out that difference a "quibble".
This is all you've got, Jake? One survey of Iraqi deaths may be high? That's a real vindication for our warmonger-in-chief and his puppet government.
"This is all you've got, Jake? One survey of Iraqi deaths may be high?"
You seem to miss the point. The question for the group is why you accept the Lancet numbers without question. Posing that question does not mean I am trying to vindicate anyone.
Jake
Science, and the Lancet Survey was done scientifically, does not accept any "truth" without question. We even question Einstein's math and theories. Newton's Law of Gravitation is not absolute; it is a theory, but I would go jump off a bridge.
Perhaps the Lancet study is not as certain a science as classical physics, but it is about as certain a study as exists today. Therefore, with all of its flaws, it is the best we have and the results are pretty damned alarming, wouldn't you agree? Look in your heart of hearts Jake and answer me, "Are 100,000 or 1,000,000 Iraqi children worth the oil revenues and political jockeying in the region?"
But there comes a time when nominal validity flaws of studies become pointless and action becomes a necessity. You know this deep down but you have an agenda. You get a boner over pissing progressives off, don't you?
"Science, and the Lancet Survey was done scientifically, does not accept any "truth" without question."
It's true that the journal is peer reviewed, as is the New England Journal of Medicine that published a study showing 1/10 less deaths. But that is not the same as endorsing the findings or duplicating the results in either. There are plenty of articles that appear in peer reviewed journals that turn out to be hockum.
"Look in your heart of hearts Jake and answer me, "Are 100,000 or 1,000,000 Iraqi children worth the oil revenues and political jockeying in the region?" "
That is a valid question, but I don't think it's the primary question raised by the article. The issue raised is what the number really is. If one death is a tragedy, then 10 is a tragedy x 10 and 1,000,000 a tragedy x 1,000,000. The number *does* matter.
"You get a boner over pissing progressives off, don't you?"
Where people repeat untruths, or make arguments that lack cogency, I am motivated to call them on it. In the current case, no one can explain why the Lancet study is accepted in this forum as fact without question, even given the well publicized criticisms.
The pseudonym "jake newton" says...
"I would point out to you that the Lancet study result is a full order of magnitude above most others."
This is a lie.
The only other large-scale research survey of casualties in Iraq was carried out by ORB, and their estimate of the number of Iraqi deaths under the American Occupation was even higher than the Johns Hopkins survey.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
Jacob Freeze
"The only other large-scale research survey of casualties in Iraq was carried out by ORB, "
This is a *lie*. You ignore IBC and the New England Journal of Medicine surveys. These should also be treated with skepticism as should the ORB study. The kicker with the ORB study is that the characterize the over one million deaths as "murders", which couldn't possibly indicate a political agenda now could it?
"jake newton" probably knows that the IBC, the Iraq Body Count, is not a large-scale survey like the ORB and Johns Hopkins studies. The IBC merely adds up bodies reported in the newspapers, and other semi-official sources.
The Iraq Family Health Survey, which is probably what "jake newton" means by the "New England Journal of Medicine" study, was not comparable to the ORB and Johns Hopkins studies for the simple reason that it systematically avoided all deaths other than those the immediate family reported as due to violence.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782
The title of the study makes this clear enough: Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006
For example, children dying from water-borne diseases caused by the catastrophic collapse of the Iraqi water purification system were not reported by the IFHS.
What this means is that the continuing elevated child mortality in Iraq, which began with the genocidal British-American sanctions and blockade of essential supplies, was simply ignored by the IFHS.
This "source of mortality" was estimated by UNICEF at 5000 children per month during the whole ten years in which the sanctions were enforced, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that mortality was diminished by the American invasion which destroyed most of the infrastructure of Iraq, including hospitals, and the American Occupation, which always had an excuse for failing to supply hospitals with even the most primitive supplies.
No band-aids. No sterilizers. No antiseptics. No clean water.
Nothing.
The "neautral assumption" in this case is that mortality continued at the same rate as before, since there is no evidence of countervailing factors. The only difference was that UNICEF monitors were barred from collecting evidence by the US Occupation, after the fall of Saddam.
Over the five-year period of the IFHS study, this factor alone would account for an additional 300,000 deaths.
All of them children.
But apologists for genocide like "jake newton" don't care about the reality of the situation in Iraq.
If they can muddy the waters long enough for McCain to make a miraculous come-back and win the election, the real purpose of their bullshit posts on the blogs will be accomplished.
Jacob Freeze
Suck-ups for Bush/Cheney like "jake newton" are so predictable that it isn't even worth waiting for their posts to reply.
"Let's discuss some meaningless detail until everybody loses interest."
"The US isn't responsible for health-related deaths just because they wrecked all the hospitals and water purification plants and refused to let anyone else repair them."
But I've replied enough already to the liar and propagandist for Bush/Cheney "jake newton," and it's just part of his game to waste time with meaningless objections until everybody loses interest.
Jacob Freeze
"Let's discuss some meaningless detail until everybody loses interest."
Pointing out that you are all uncritical of the Lancet study is "meaningless"? Why?
"I've replied enough already to the liar "
What is your very best example of a "lie" I have told on this forum?
""jake newton" probably knows that the IBC, the Iraq Body Count, is not a large-scale survey like the ORB and Johns Hopkins studies. The IBC merely adds up bodies reported in the newspapers, and other semi-official sources."
Depends on how you define "survey". Yes, it's not a houshold survey. Yes, it's large scale as it is on-going and encompasses the entire country.
"The Iraq Family Health Survey, which is probably what "jake newton" means by the "New England Journal of Medicine" study, was not comparable to the ORB and Johns Hopkins studies for the simple reason that it systematically avoided all deaths other than those the immediate family reported as due to violence."
Yes I'm aware it's the same study,and that's only one difference, and worthy of discussion. I have already said we should be critical of all the studies. But what I notice is that you don't seem to want to discuss any of the areas of the Lancet study that have been criticized.
"But apologists for genocide like "jake newton" "
Please explain why me asking why you accept the Lancet numbers without question makes me an apologist for anything, and while you are at it, please explain why you want to accept the Lancet numbers without question. Thank you in advance.
So here we are quibbling over the numbers. Fact is, Iraqis continue to be murdered by U.S. troops. The very "troops" we are asked to unequivically support, are kicking down doors without warrants, strafing neighborhoods with deadly drones and choppers, building walls between neighborhoods. All the U.S. military knows is to kill, kill, kill! How would any one of us, of YOU, like to endure occupation of your city, your neighborhood, for years on end, with no exit date allowed? We Americans are the thugs of the planet. Shame on each of us for allowing this monstrous and cruel foreign policy to rain down carnage on the suffering beautiful people of Iraq and Afghanistan...
"Iraqis continue to be murdered by U.S. troops. "
You seem to conveniently forget that the numbers include the deaths due to fighting between rival insurgent groups.
Your use of the term "murdered" wouldn't be the least bit politically inflamatory, would it? Would you not complain if I used the term in a discussion on abortion?
Jakenewton sez: "You seem to conveniently forget that the numbers include the deaths due to fighting between rival insurgent groups."
Negroponte.
You *still* seem to conveniently forget that the numbers include the deaths due to fighting between rival insurgent groups.
So please do explain how many of those dead, would have been killed "due to fighting between rival insurgent groups",
__ IF we hadn't invaded in the 1st place ?
__ IF there were no SIGNIFICANT numbers of or financing of "rival insurgent groups"
Your logic is so flawed that it has no reality basis.
We're talking the differences of some low comparable number of "regular murders" in a otherwise peaceful country, and one purposely torn apart and violated egregiously beyond understanding -- committing EXPLICITLY & IMPLICITLY hundreds of thousands ( likely or more ) mass murdered.
Namaste
"So please do explain how many of those dead, would have been killed "due to fighting between rival insurgent groups", "
"__ IF we hadn't invaded in the 1st place ?"
Full bore Non Sequitur. The the invasion and the current occupation don't compell rival groups to kill each other and those caught between.
"Your logic is so flawed "
See above, *concerning* your logic.
"The the invasion and the current occupation don't compell rival groups to kill each other and those caught between."
Negroponte.
"Negroponte."
Gesundheit.