655,000 Iraqis Killed Since The Invasion

BrianH

At the Start
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
6,108
Location
Banstead, Surrey
'655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Wednesday October 11, 2006
The Guardian


The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.
The figure for the number of deaths attributable to the conflict - which amounts to around 2.5% of the population - is at odds with figures cited by the US and UK governments and will cause a storm, but the Lancet says the work, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, has been examined and validated by four separate independent experts who all urged publication.

In October 2004, the same researchers published a study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war since the beginning of the March 2003 invasion, a figure that was hugely controversial. Their new study, they say, reaffirms the accuracy of their survey of two years ago and moves it on.

"Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century and should be of grave concern to everyone," write the authors, Gilbert Burnham and colleagues.

"At the conclusion of our 2004 study we urged that an independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw in Iraq. This has not happened. We continue to believe that an independent international body to monitor compliance with the Geneva conventions and other humanitarian standards in conflict is urgently needed. With reliable data, those voices that speak out for civilians trapped in conflict might be able to lessen the tragic human cost of future wars."

The epidemiological research was carried out on the ground by teams of doctors moving from house to house, questioning families and examining death certificates. Between May and July this year, they visited 1,849 households in 47 separated clusters across the length and breadth of Iraq. The doctors asked about deaths among members of the household in a period before the invasion, from January 2002 to March 2003, and about deaths since. In 92% of cases, they were shown death certificates confirming the cause.

A total of 629 deaths were reported, of which 547 - or 87% - occurred after the invasion. 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.

Thus they calculate that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the invasion. It is an estimate and the mid-point of a range of numbers that could equally be correct in the context of their statistical analysis. But even the lowest number in the range - 392,979 - is higher that anyone else has suggested. Of the deaths, 31% were ascribed to the US-led forces. Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions.

"Since 2004, and especially recently," writes the Lancet editor, Richard Horton in a commentary, "independent observers have recognised that the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated dramatically." The new study, he continues, "corroborate the impression that Iraq is descending into bloodthirsty chaos".

Yet, he writes, "absolute despair would be the wrong response. Instead, the disaster that is the west's current strategy in Iraq must be used as a constructive call to the international community to reconfigure its foreign policy around human security rather than national security, around health and wellbeing in addition to the protection of territorial boundaries and economic stability.

"Health is now the most important foreign policy issue of our time. Health and wellbeing - their underpinning values, their diverse array of interventions and their goals of healing - offer several original dimensions for a renewed foreign policy that might at least be one positive legacy of our misadventure in Iraq."
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Oct 11 2006, 12:19 PM
The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion
Shouldnt that read as a result of civil war?

While I know people will argue that there would be no civil war without the US taking Saddam out of power is it not internal politics that are casuing most iraqis to be killed?
 
2 points

I dont believe the figure is correct.


Also would like to know if the invasion was not done, where would have die the people due to the islamist terrorist attacks?
Because I dont have any doubt they would have killed the people in other places.
 
Originally posted by ovverbruv@Oct 11 2006, 04:05 PM
Just wanted to get the scene set correctly, rather than blaming Bush for everything as often happens on here
If you read the report, 31% died as the result of the US led coalition. The remainder will have been killed, as you so rightly say, because of internal upheaval. This can be laid at the door of the oil thirsty, god bothering idiots in the US administration who launched an attack having made no plans whatsoever for the management of Iraq after they had achieved the regime change that was their objective.
 
Originally posted by sunybay@Oct 11 2006, 04:21 PM
I dont believe the figure is correct.


Of course you don't. You would prefer to take notice of the very low figures put out to the media by the US administration and by our own Mr Tony. The fact is that the figures in the above report have been produced by totally independent medical professors, based in the USA but working internationally who have no axe to grind. I know which set of figures fair-minded people will believe more likely to reflect the truth.

Also would like to know if the invasion was not done, where would have die the people due to the islamist terrorist attacks?
Do you only watch Fox News? If so I have some new informaton for you. in Iraq, which was a secular state prior to the invasion there were no Islamist terrorists. Now the bloody place is a training ground for miltants from all over the middle east.
 
overbruv is right. Bush had no part in 500K Iraqis taking pot shots at each other with rocket launchers. It is entirely coincidental. And luckily suny was able to confirm the figures as false.

Please do more research, Brian, before burdening us with this pinko propaganda.

Please note that the Republican party have recently voted $20M to celebrate the success of the war in Iraq. Thats the spirit boys.
 
Brian
in reply


I dont watch Fox,I much prefer RUK or ATR


About the figures
I dont say the half would be a great figure, just that I dont believe the 655.000



I know there were no islamist terrorist there before the invasion, I just say they are acting now there because doing it there, they have the media cover they would not have in other places.


It is quite clear Iran is providing the money for most of those terrorist attacks and in that way they can develope their nuclear program.
 
Iran is providing the money to IRAQI terrorists? Oh, now I've really heard every crazy story possible!

A short while ago, a news item mentioned that 'around' 100 a DAY died in Iraq as the direct result of either fighting with American/British troops, or through car bombs, abduction murders, etc. That probably is about right, but it doesn't include those who die in hospital from their wounds. When a news announcement says that 35 people have been killed by a car bomb in a market, and 75 are injured, we don't get an update on how many of those - many of whom will have suffered horrific injuries - die a little later. So probably you should add on a percentage of 'later deaths' to all direct deaths you hear about.

So, given 100 people a day, 365 days a year (do the Math!) = yes, I don't think the figures are at all unreasonable.

It is also quite reasonable to assert that these deaths ARE the result of the invasion of Iraq, since the stopper (Saddam) is now out of the bottle (of tribal and religious paybacks). Saddam, left be, would have been quietly disappearing dissidents, gassing the 'wrong' tribes, and murdering annoying family members. What he wouldn't have been doing is indiscriminately blowing up members of the public going shopping, trying to get to their doctor, deliver the kids to school, etc. Lawlessness now reigns in the major cities, which is something that good ole boy Saddam didn't allow to happen.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Oct 11 2006, 05:02 PM
The fact is that the figures in the above report have been produced by totally independent medical professors, based in the USA but working internationally who have no axe to grind.
...and published by Lancet, a journal reknowned for its exaggeration and flawed research.

Last time Lancet/JH teamed up to give us one of these scaremongering updates was just days before the American presedential election in 2004 (rushed out by email in fact as the print publication would have come too late). Of course the JH spokesmen came up with this corker:

"I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election," Roberts told The Associated Press. "My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq.

"I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives,"

As an aside I found this particular part of the report interesting:

Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion.

Now 5.5 deaths per thousand sounds abnormally low to me for a country whose rulers specialised in ethnic cleansing. In comparison the average death rate for:

Afghanistan is 20.34/1000(est)
Hungary is 13.31/1000(est)
The World is 8.67/1000 (est)
The EU is 10.10/1000 (est)
US is 8.26/1000 (est)
Pakistan 8.23/1000 (est)

Now I am not saying it is false...
 
Well, I'm one person who doesn't know that The Lancet is 'known' for its flawed research and exaggerations, betsmate. Maybe you could enlighten me, if not us, as to what it's researched badly and exaggerated - and to what ends? Also, where have you pulled your figures from, please? Just so we have a point of comparison with sources, and maybe you could look up your source's pre and post invasion figures for us while you're at it? Just in the interests of a balance.
 
Originally posted by betsmate@Oct 11 2006, 08:21 PM
...and published by Lancet, a journal reknowned for its exaggeration and flawed research.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that statement is an absolute nonsense. The Lancet, which has been going since 1823 and is published by Reed Elsevier, is one of the four scientific journals read by medical practitioners all over the world.
 
Mr Bush has described the report as ‘flawed intelligence.’

It reminds me of a comment somebody made when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.

“It just proves that irony is not dead” (paraphrase)
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 11 2006, 11:59 PM
Well, I'm one person who doesn't know that The Lancet is 'known' for its flawed research and exaggerations, betsmate. Maybe you could enlighten me, if not us, as to what it's researched badly and exaggerated - and to what ends?
One example...

Times Article
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Oct 12 2006, 01:06 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, that statement is an absolute nonsense.
While my post above is not conclusive. It is representative. Lancet's previous stab at the number dead in Iraq as mentioned above, was widely condemned throughout the media (on both sides of the political divide) as being flawed - not only because it was scaledup from an unrepresentative sample.

Broad consensus again seems to be that whilst this report is better it is still questionable. A bit like their apparent impartiality....
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 11 2006, 11:59 PM
Also, where have you pulled your figures from, please? Just so we have a point of comparison with sources, and maybe you could look up your source's pre and post invasion figures for us while you're at it? Just in the interests of a balance.
I got the figures from the CIA Factbook - of which I am sure you will have no difficulty in questionning it's impartially given its ever closer ties to the Bush Administration. Similar figures may be available elsewhere - I haven't looked.
 
Any scientific publication that has been in existence for over 180 years and which publishes papers by specialists is going to occasionally present the results of faulty research (or even, as has happened, fraudulent research). Bear in mind that the journal is not instrumental in producing the reports, it is a conduit between learned professionals.

I don't know whether you ever read The Lancet betsmate. I cetainly don't and I doubt very much whether many non-scientists or or non-medical people do but I was well aware of the contribution to the MMR debate, and, as a simple layman, I would strongly disagree with its published findings of Andrew Wakefield.

However, to say that The Lancet is "a journal reknowned for its exaggeration and flawed research" is a statement worthy of the Murdoch press, which, of course, is where your "evidence" originates. It s no accident that in the Times article about the MMR issue the first set of Iraqi death figures are debunked. I well remember watching a discussion on (Murdoch's) Fox TV channel in the states in which the American and Iraqi medical experts who produced them were accused of being liars, charlatans and motivated by their hatred of life, liberty and the American way.

All I can say is that the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health says 655,000 and the official US figure (backed up by our own dear prime minister) is 49,000 - I know which I believe to be nearer the truth.

Incidentally, I get a lot of amusement out of Fox News. Take the case of Mark Foley, the Republican ex-Congressman who resigned recently after it was discovered that he spent some of his leisure time sending suggestive and pornographic emails to young male (some of them under age) Congressional pages. Fox frontman Bill O'Reilly consistently referred to Foley, who served a as Republican Congressman for Florida's 16th District for eleven years as a Democrat Congressman, which was later picked up and copied in right-wing news blogs. Wishful thinking, or do they think that if they repeat it often enough everyone will believe it?

Like weapons of mass destruction, Iraq being responsible for 9/11 or 49,000 Iraqi dead since the invasion.
 
I personally believe neither of the two figures, and if the truth is somewhere in between then I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised. Given that this is a debate not a legal challenge; I am not going to pursue the question of press impartially to the nth degree. However I fully accept your point about Murdoch media. It was meant as an example not as gospel.

The way I see it everyone has an agenda, be it great or small, moderate or extreme and each chooses to use the facts in the public domain as they see fit.

I must therefore admit to being surprised at your view that the John Hopkins report was politically impartial (I am paraphrasing). This does seem a touch naive considering the timing of their previous report - which they admit was not coincidental? Unless perhaps you subscribe to the theory that releasing damning data about the war in Iraq and questioning the accuracy of statements made by the incumbent administration was no more damaging to the Republicans than the Democrats – and did nothing more than force both candidates to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq?
 
I would consider that the motivation of US and Iraqi mediacl staff who conducted both of the surveys would be humanitarian. There will always be people around who will want to use any data for political ends.

I see that George Dubya Bush has now said that the correct figure is 30,000. OK George, we believe you.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Oct 12 2006, 07:49 PM
I would consider that the motivation of US and Iraqi mediacl staff who conducted both of the surveys would be humanitarian. There will always be people around who will want to use any data for political ends.
Agreed. There is no reason to suspect the data gathered from the <2000 actual interviews on the ground. The methods of profiling, upscaling and reporting the data (along with any supplementary evidence) by John Hopkins are what form the crux of the report though and I would suggest that this puts them firmly within the realms of your second sentence.
 
I don't trust anyone who spells renowned 'reknowned'. :brows: I suspect that 'betsmate' is another fifth columnist, like 'clivex' (employee no. 612706, level 3), spying for a number of government agencies on who sympathises with what or whom. It's not too late to arm yourselves with thermo-nuclear mini-missiles to combat such menaces to free expression. No more than 37 or 655,000,000 people will definitely, or may possibly, die in the fight for freedom. Well worth the sacrifice, I feel.

I'd probably go more with the Red Cross's figures, which I'm sure are available. Or even the Red Crescent's - either probably knows just a wee bit more about direct and indirect fatalities' numbers.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 13 2006, 12:44 AM
I'd probably go more with the Red Cross's figures, which I'm sure are available. Or even the Red Crescent's - either probably knows just a wee bit more about direct and indirect fatalities' numbers.
No, no figures from them - though they've lost a few of their people
 
Back
Top