home

Counting Bodies in Iraq

by TChris

Does the president ever think about the pain he has rendered in Iraq? The shattered families, the missing fathers, the widows and orphans left behind? Does he believe no accounting is due for the innocent lives lost? Does he feel no sorrow, no responsibility, for the relentless march of death that defines Iraq today?

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. ... ''Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003,'' Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The president's supporters will dispute the "controversial" study, but even if deaths now occur at only twice the pre-invasion rate, the consequences of the invasion to the Iraqi people have been monstrous. How can the president expect Americans to feel anything other than shame for his reckless conduct of our foreign affairs?

< Naked Prosecutor of the Week | One in Five Soldiers Disabled After Serving >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by Andreas on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:56:24 PM EST
    The pain was and is "rendered in Iraq" not only by George W. Bush but by also by the Republican and the Democratic war parties.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 05:34:22 AM EST
    From the article:
    Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire.
    Dispute? Numbers based based on interviews? Now that is truly scientific. Wow. And then this:
    Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion
    What does that say? If 3000 are dying now, then 1000 were dying then...and no one was trying to stop it... Is 1000 the kill rate by a terrorist regime that the Left is willing to tolerate?

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:08:03 AM EST
    Ask the other 2000.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:44:55 AM EST
    Jim, What data do YOU use? Do you even bother to know? Or is it enough for you to just attack any number or method that does not comform to your Ken Mehlman guidelines? Please respond by again attacking the messengers. I would expect nothing more.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:46:18 AM EST
    Jim, so this math does not work for this body count, but the formula worked for the 300k the US reported Hussein killed? Where are the bodies? They have found 5k thus far. I would argue the same here. IF there are 655k dead, please produce the morgue logs....

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Madison Guy on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:46:18 AM EST
    The mortality figures, sickening as they are, may be exceeded by an order of magnitude (if we're lucky) or more (if we're not) by an increasingly probable war with Iran if it goes nuclear. Chris Hedges is worried. The former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times says a U.S. carrier group is headed for the Straits of Hormuz and will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. "It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it," he writes, warning about the "strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions." Will Iran be Bush's October surprise? Will we survive his madness?

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:49:54 AM EST
    ? Now that is truly scientific.
    actually it is; apparently ppj has never heard of the science of polling.
    ''Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003,'' Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.
    I can't find that in the linked story.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:10:05 AM EST
    Jim, Have you ever taken a statistics class? Is Johns Hopkins biased? If so produse your evidence to support your views. Bubye.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    Is 1000 the kill rate by a terrorist regime that the Left is willing to tolerate?
    Is 3000 the kill rate by a friendly regime--and ourselves--that the right is willing to tolerate? If 1000 is bad, is not 3000 worse? Or is that too much math for you?

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#5)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    Is this the Lancet, again? The one which chose not to peer review their earlier study so as to get it out before the US election? Which did the same thing this time? Which made no attempt to discriminate between terrorists, Iraqi forces, and civilians? Whose earlier study said the deaths might have been between 8000 and 195000 (approx)? 95% sure,anyway. Well, you know this is nonsense, but you, as usual, hope there's somebody out there who is too stupid to see through you. I believe the death rates in Germany and Japan rose markedly after Roosevelt and Churchill led their countries into war. Whatever the casualties, the question is whether the alternatives are worse. In the left's view, nothing is worse than Bush, and anything, no matter how bad, is better than Bush. It is nice, though, to see the left worried about civilian casualties. As usual, they have to be politically useful. Then, the more the better. If, on the other hand, were they to be the result of the left's buddies, they don't count, if they are even acknowledged.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    The very large majority of those killed in Iraq now are killed by terrorist insurgents. Blaming the USA for this is like blaming Abraham Lincoln because the Ku Klux Klan lynched blacks after Lincoln started the Civil War.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    Uh, okay, PPJ. So let's say they're wildly inaccurate. Off by 50%. (I'll even be charitable and assume they're off in a way that actually helps your argument; the alternative is too painful to consider.) That's still 250 to 300 thousand dead because of us. It takes a truly sick individual to take comfort in such a figure. But there you have it. Chalk another one up for social liberalism.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    Does George Bush care about the pain of the Iraq War? Are you kidding-- those dead civilians and their loved ones should be happy to make the ultimate sacrifice for their "freedom." As my former coworker said, "The Iraqis should understand that freedom comes at a cost, and some of them might have to die for it." It's funny how easy it is to say that when YOU'RE not the one risking anything for this "freedom," not to mention the fact that if Iraq today is the picture of "freedom," then most people would choose against it, thank you very much.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    The mortality rate before the war was 5.5 per 1,000, but since the invasion, it has risen to 13.3 per 1,000 per year, they say. Between June 2005 and June 2006, the mortality rate hit a high of 19.8 per 1,000.
    apparently the '3 times' stat was total mortality, not just due to the war so ppj's conclusiio was uhhh, misleading.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Wes on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    From February: The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians (not including certain of Iraq), reveals a compilitation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies. More than 14,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq in the first half of this year, a U.N. report says. 300,000 Iraqis are homeless according to the Iraqi Ministry of Migration and Displacement.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    Bush is going for that magical six million mark.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by Al on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:50:11 PM EST
    PPJ, interviews is a perfectly acceptable way of counting casualties. You ask if anyone in a family has been killed or injured. You et a far better estimate than with the military's body counts, which are hopelessly biased. Witness, for example, how many of Osama's "lieutenants" have been killed so far. Aubrey, if you are referring to L. Roberts et al., Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Volume 364, Issue 9448, 20 November 2004-26 November 2004, Pages 1857-1864, this paper was definitely peer-reviewed. Indeed, as far as I know The Lancet, like any reputable scientific journal, only publishes peer-reviewed articles.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    Bush is going for that magical six million mark.
    The 6 million mark was the Jews, 10 million+ was the total count. No criticism implied, I just think the actual number should be employed. (And I don't want the gays, gypsies and other 'undesirables' to be forgotten.) And if a country has 3 times the mortality rate 3+ years after we declared victory, held elections, instituted a government ... ya think there might be a problem!?

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    How about a reality check. 600,000 over that time period is about 500 a day. Is that number showing up in morgues?

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimcee on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    Et al, The estimate is based on 547 door to door interviews done only in metropolitan areas in a war zone. The earlier poster is correct pointing out that there was no peer review, the same as the last time Lancet tried to influence an American election with dubious statistics. I find it hard to believe that under the circumstances that this study was done and the small sample group that was used was not sufficient to extrapolate, for anyone to take this study at face value. If you would like to read it yourself you can, just Google Lancet as it is the lead article. (Warning it is in a PDF format.) But then again why read it for yourself when you can let the NYTimes interpret it for you. You may look like an idiot quoting the NYT but at least you didn't have to be bothered with the difficult task of reading it for yourself. If Lancet's numbers were legitimate that would be about 500 civilian deaths a day and I'm sure we would have heard about that number previously in the NYT.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:48:06 AM EST
    From the post:
    Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003,''
    1000 would be one third of 3000, or said another way, 3000 is three times 1000. You can plug in any number you want, but what the complaint says is that the Left thinks that level of death is okay, as long as Saddam does it. And what you ignore is that the increase in deaths was due to a war started to change regimes. Now, since you are against any war that Bush is involved with, you will P & M about anything you possibly can. Enjoy. But the world knows you.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by jarober on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    Hmm. So you believe that the death level for Iraqis over the last three years exceeds the death level for the UK in WWII, and for France in WWII? You believe that a death rate approaching Holocaust percentages has been reached in Iraq? And you believe this based on a survey of 547 households in one city? I've got a bridge for sale, TChris - how much will you pay for it?

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    The relative moralist is here again comparing apples and buldozers.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    And what you ignore is that the increase in deaths was due to a war started to change regimes.
    no, it was strted because bush said saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we had to do something before a smoking gun became a mushroom cloud. and 3 years later more people are dying than a year ago, than 2 years ago. 3 times more people have died in iraq under US occupation than died in the same period under a 'muderous dictator.' And the blood is collectively on the hands of delusional wack jobs that still support bushco.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#26)
    by jarober on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    soccerdad - nice non sequitor. It's not Apples and Oranges. The survey spoke to 547 households in one city, and made wild guesses based on that. If that's good statistics, I'm the Queen of Romania. Back in the real world, inquiring minds want to know how more people in Iraq have died in 3 years than the UK lost in all combat theaters - soldiers and civilians - during WWII.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:55:38 PM EST
    Sailor - Uh, yes. The WMD belief was one reason that we wanted a regime change.. And glad to see you compare us to Saddam. Par for the course. Now tell us how you support the troops.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:45:08 PM EST
    Uh, yes. The WMD belief was one reason that we wanted a regime change.
    We? And, unless you are a complete idiot with alzheimers, WMDs were the only reason given until they weren't found.
    And glad to see you compare us to Saddam.
    bush and liars like him have constantly used the US and saddam as metrics. Now that it is proven, (even you admit it), that American occupation is killing 3 times more iraqis than saddam did, even after an iraqi spate of purple fingers, elections, and 'democracy' you try to blame the folks who were right about the lack of WMDs, were right about not enough troops, were right about civil war, were right about iraq having nothing to do with 9/11 you try to blame me for not supporting the troops! A$$holes like you are getting more of them killed every day! GFY like you and your ilk have f***ed our troops in iraq insist on killing more people everyday.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    WE??? Cough...cough. Ahem. ---edger

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by jarober on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:14:10 PM EST
    Sailor: 1) You might read here, and then give me a response as to how you get to 650k+ deaths in 3 years. At the very least, your math should be entertaining. 2) On the War: You might want to read the actual authorization. Gee, it seems that there were plenty of rationales given up front. All it required was googling and reading.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#31)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:14:10 PM EST
    And, unless you are a complete idiot with alzheimers, WMDs were the only reason given until they weren't found.
    Sailor, that's just not true. Here are some key paragraphs from the President's speech at the UN, which, I hope you will recall, took place before the failure to find WMDs (it took place before the invasion began).
    Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
    ...
    In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President.
    ...
    The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
    The President concluded with five demands only one of which involved WMD. Here they are:
    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.


    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#32)
    by roy on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 08:22:06 PM EST
    After skimming the report, I'm concerned about its ability to measure changes in death rate over time. The notion of using households is iffy, in part because households dissolve. This would lead to deaths being less likely to be reported the further in the past they occured, thus overestimating the increase in death rate. Say you have a family of several people. One dies. Then the survivors split into two households, perhaps for as simple a reason as the old house being destroyed. The Lancet method won't measure the death. The further back in time you try to look, the higher the probabilty that a household split occured and prevents you from measuring the death. Even if part of the split-up family still considers itself to be the same old household, you've increased the number of households, meaning you've decreased the probability of randomly interviewing the one that would report the death. Same problem, household changes over time reduce death reporting. This problem would be aggravated as people become more mobile, which seems likely post-invasion just from widespread instability and change. Especially right at the time of the invasion because of buildings and infrastructure being destroyed. It wouldn't necessarily influence the calculated death rate relative to previous studies, however, since the past used to be the present.

    Re: Counting Bodies in Iraq (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 07:10:15 PM EST
    wow! what a complete misunderstanding of the whats and wherefores by the left.....so easy to encapsulate your "feelings" in a little bite "Bush lied and people died" (barf). Having been to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Djibouti, "Palestine", Egypt and Algeria I can tell you that the extemists care nothing of your discourse and would kill you simply for having the opinions you hold...you first...and then the rest of us conservatives but you first amigo because you stand most for everything they despise...ironic isn't it? that hawks are your best chance at survival?