Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, January 10, 2008

9 US Troops Killed;
250,000 Civilians Dead in Bush's War?

Sunni Arab guerrillas have killed 9 US soldiers in the past two days. They killed 6 and wounded 4 with a bomb in a booby-trapped safe house on Wednesday. The deaths come in the course of an American sweep in Diyala Province aimed at weakening the Salafi radicals.

A new World Health Organization study estimates the excess numbers of civilians killed in violence in Iraq from April 2003 through June 2006 at between 101,000 and 224,000. They settled on 151,000 or so as the most likely number. This number is an estimate of how many people died of violence beyond what you would have expected from the 2001-2002 baseline. Violent deaths increased 17 times over once the Bush administration invaded the country. As I read the AP article, the study actually found more like 302,000 excess deaths, but only attributed 151,000 to violence. It seems to me possible that some of the other 151,000 excess deaths could also be chalked up to the US invasion and the reaction to it, even if they are not violent. There have been disease outbreaks, shortages of medicine, poor medical care, displacement of populations to tent cities with poor sanitation, and difficulties in traveling to distant hospitals. Bears looking into.

The Lancet study found 600,000 excess deaths from violence. I'm not qualified to make a methodological judgment as to the virtues of the two studies. I don't think the validity of the Lancet estimate should just be dismissed by journalists or bloggers, for the same reason. If someone is a specialist in the public health field and a whiz at statistics, then I'd be interested in a judgment from that person. But I would point out that the last time Bush admitted his war had killed civilians, he quoted the figure of 30,000, and we can definitely dismiss such tiny numbers as woefully inaccurate. Bush has to face up to what he has done.

Passive gathering of death statistics from newspapers, which always misses a lot of unreported deaths, such as at the Iraq Body Count site, came up with 47,668 civilian deaths in the same period. IBC is now up to about 84,000 civilian deaths. If the 3 to 1 discrepancy between reported and unreported deaths visible in the WHO study held steady, that would take us to a further 100,000 or so deaths in the past 18 months, and to roughly 250,000 excess deaths through violence since the war began.

There is also the question of how many Iraqis have sustained significant or crippling injuries from the same violence that has left so many dead. For US troops, the ratio is nearly 4,000 killed to nearly 10,000 severely wounded, or 2.5 times. If the same rate held true for Iraqi civilians in the war, and if it is true that 250,000 have by now been killed, it would equal 625,000 severely wounded.

One of the arguments warmongers gave for overthrowing Saddam Hussein was that his regime was responsible for the violent deaths of some 300,000 civilians between 1968 and 2003. That estimate now appears exaggerated, since the number of bodies in mass graves has not borne it out. But what is tragic is that in 4 1/2 short years, a foreign military occupation has unleashed killing on a scale achieved by the murderous Saddam Hussein regime only over decades. Bush did not kill all those people directly, of course, but he did indirectly cause them to be killed, since these are excess deaths beyond what you would have expected if there had been no invasion and occupation.

I am often struck by how clueless the American public is to the vast destruction we have wrought on Iraq and its people, directly or indirectly. It strikes me as a bitter joke that 4 million are displaced, often facing hunger and disease, and the rightwing periodicals and presidential candidates are talking about how the "surge" has "turned things around." For whom? How many orphans have we created? How many widows? How many people who weep and cry every night while trying to fall asleep on straw mats? I estimate on the basis of a UN study of refugees in Syria that as many as 600,000 or 700,000 Baghdadis were ethnically cleansed from the capital under the nose of the American troops implementing the surge. There is an old Chinese proverb, "Children throw stones at frogs in jest, but the frogs die in earnest."

See our Global Affairs blog for more on this issue, and for recent postings on Iran and Pakistan.

Bush has gutted American civil liberties, and turned us into a hateful nation of spies, torturers, bigots, and colonialists occupying someone else's country. (See Tomdispatch.com for an impassioned argument on how this was accomplished. And he has managed to unleash a maelstrom of violence in the Middle East that has wiped out the population of a medium-sized city. Surveying civilian deaths in Iraq is like walking through Lincoln, Nebraska, after it was hit by a neutron bomb, with everyone dead. Everyone.

Labels:

30 Comments:

At 6:34 AM, Blogger Marshall said...

Note that the Lancet study and the recent study are measuring different things. The recent study is an attempt to estimate the deaths due to violence, through sampling. The Lancet study attempts to determine the total excess mortality, which also includes such factors as disease, starvation and accidents. So, you would expect that estimate to be significantly higher than estimates of violent deaths. (For example, of the 2.2 million Iraqis who have fled the country, you would expect a number of excess deaths from heart attacks, etc., due to the stress of fleeing their homes and country, while presumably violent deaths are very low among those who have fled.)

So, I think it is quite conceivable that both surveys are accurate, within their margins of error.

 
At 8:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Lancet study was completed by June 2006, but since that time there have been hundreds of thousands of Iraqis displaced from homes and I would guess that would skew the currents survey results lower.

Suppose a million of the most threatened and harmed Iraqis have been missed in the current sampling.

The point is the counts are terribly tragic, lower or higher, but the Iraqis counts have in any case been largely ignored by Americans since we are insulated from the devastation of Iraq these nearly 5 years.

anne

 
At 8:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This newest study, as the Lancet study, is inclusive to June 2006. We are now in January 2008, however, while the New York Times this morning tells us this morning that in a matter of 10 minutes we dropped 40,000 tons of bombs during an Iraq raid.

Do 40,000 tons of bombs do any damage?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

Air Strikes Target Al Qaeda in Iraq
By ASSOCIATED PRESS

U.S. bombers and jet fighters unleashed 40,000 pounds of explosives during a 10-minute air strike.


anne

 
At 8:39 AM, Blogger workshop said...

I read a week or two ago that the government of Iraq counts something like 5 million orphans in Iraq. Now, undoubtedly many of them were orphaned before 2003, but I think however one slices it, that number of orphans tends to validate higher numbers re. folks who have died because of the invasion and its aftermath.

 
At 8:44 AM, Anonymous Shannon said...

I read the first Lancet study (the one reporting ~100,000 excess deaths), and I recall they didn't distinguish between civilian and non-civilian (insurgent) deaths. I didn't read the second study. You say the WHO study reflects civilian deaths. I haven't read that study, but I'd suggest that maybe the difference comes from whether or not non-civilians are counted. If the WHO study somehow excluded insurgent deaths, I'd like to know how they accomplished that.

 
At 8:55 AM, Blogger Josie Setzler said...

Concerning the WHO estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths:
WHO statistician Mohamed Ali, quoted in a Reuters report yesterday, said that "insecurity made parts of Baghdad and Anbar provinces unreachable for those conducting the survey...many families also fled their homes as a result of the violence, and some left the country." Ali attributed the large margin of error to these factors. However, these factors are likely to lead to a low bias as well, and this might explain the discrepancy with the Lancet study.

 
At 9:03 AM, Anonymous Rrricky said...

"Bush has to face up to what he has done.".....It does not appear that Mr.Bush has ever had to accept responsibility for anything in his privileged little life.Someone has always been assigned to clean up after him or bail him out.This time ,I'm afraid,it's us.

Richard

 
At 10:14 AM, Anonymous Mary Fox said...

I lack epidemiological expertise as well but at first glance it seems to me that:

(a) most if not all deaths due to "violence" should be considered "excess" since crime was low under Hussein – let alone "sectarian violence" – and the number of his own victims was wildly exaggerated;

(b) as you point out, Juan, secondary causes such as disease, malnutrition, etc., cannot properly be omitted from consideration as these have resulted if not from the invasion then from over a decade of murderous sanctions;

(c) the British government itself privately accepted the validity of the Lancet study (which is more than a year out of date anyway) while trashing it publicly;

(d) another recent study indicates the presence of 5 million orphans in Iraq. While I was unclear whether this meant the loss of one parent or both, either way this makes the WHO figure seem absurdly low.

 
At 1:04 PM, Blogger Marc McDonald said...

If one is seeking the truth on the Internet about what has been done in our name in Iraq and the horrors that Bush has unleashed there, one can either:

1. Consult the well-researched and informed writings of Middle East scholar Juan Cole.
2. Go to a right-wing nutcase blog like Flopping Aces, written by people who believe that Bush is doing the right thing because Rush and Fox News say so.

If one is trying to reach out to the people who seek their "news" from the latter, all I can say is: save your time. These people are beyond help. They are truly deranged. They genuinely despise ALL Muslim people (a popular T-shirt peddled on a lot of these sites jokes about nuking Mecca). I'm not even sure that these people understand that Saudi Arabia and Iraq are two separate nations. And I don't believe they care, in any case. They have this creepy "kill all the Muslim Sand N*ggers" mindset. If you doubt me on this, spend a few minutes browsing their sites---it's about as stomach-churning as accidentally stumbling across a kiddie porn site. Their sites are bottomless, vile pits of hatred, ignorance, GOP misinformation and propaganda and lies.

Frankly, these people scare me more than Al Qaeda. Their hero Bush has done untold damage to the people of Iraq and now they're driving America itself off of a cliff.

Marc McDonald
BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com

 
At 1:18 PM, Anonymous santos said...

Mr. Cole, is this what you call a "reality-based" view of the war?

Please provide tangible proof supporting anything you claim in your last paragraph.

 
At 1:29 PM, Blogger Cervantes said...

I have just read the new study, so I haven't had time to give it deep study, but here are my immediate responses.

First, the methodology of the earlier study published in the Lancet was essentially similar -- that is a clustered area probability sampling and in-person interviews using households as the basic unit of analysis. The new study also is estimating deaths that occurred through June 2006 only, for comparability. The main differences are:

The new study is larger. Ceteris paribus that would make the confidence intervals narrower, but would not explain the discrepancy between the two studies as the CIs do not overlap.

The new study was done later. One of the major systematic biases in this sort of study is that households that experience a violent death are less likely to be sampled, because they are likely to dissolve -- the people move away. The new study attempts to adjust for this using some fairly arbitrary assumptions. As many more people have left Iraq since the Lancet study was done, this study will have a greater tendency to underestimate violent deaths.

They make the assumption that Iraq Body Count, while producing an overall underestimate, accurately reflects the geographic distribution of deaths. That assumption, in my view, is nonsensical.

The new study defines violent deaths more narrowly than the old one. Motor vehicle crashes are attributed to violence only if the respondent says they were caused by a bomb. Crashes caused by fleeing, for example, would not be counted.

The new figures might make one inclined to favor the lower bounds of the Lancet study, or to think that the truth lies somewhere in between - the Lancet study faced the same difficulties, but should be considered more reliable because it is not trying to reconstruct events as far back in time.

 
At 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902793.html?sub=AR

Les Roberts, an epidemiologist now at Columbia University who helped direct the Johns Hopkins survey, also praised the new one. While both found a large increase in mortality, his found that much more of it was caused by violence.

"My gut feeling is that most of the difference between the two studies is a reluctance to report to the government a death due to violence," he said. "If your son is fighting the government and died, that may not be something you'd want to admit to the government."

anne

 
At 3:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having considered the studies again, I would suggest that large scale displacement between the time of the Lancet and current studies has to be considered, along with Les Roberts conjecture.


As for Juan Cole's concluding paragraph, as far as I can tell every word in easily justified if a person knows anyhthing of these last 5 tragic years and is capable of thinking.

anne

 
At 3:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Santos,
Regarding the last paragraph, population of Lincoln Nebraska ~ 250,000, compare that to the number of deaths in Iraq based on the Lancet & WHO studies.

 
At 3:58 PM, Blogger CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS mparent7777 Marc Parent CCNWON said...

The Iraqi government body count survey put the death toll at 'only' 151,000.

Did I mention that they "skipped" the most violent areas due to "security reasons"?

Death toll survey omits most deadly areas

 
At 6:39 PM, Anonymous Cat said...

Here’s a way to “translate” Iraqi numbers into US terms, which may make the extent of the carnage being wrought in Iraq more meaningful to Americans.

The 2003 populations of the countries were estimated at 290,809,777 for the US and 25,175,000 for Iraq per 2 web sources [cites at end]. This is a ratio of about 11.5 to 1, or, to make things really, really easy for calculating while reading, round the ratio off to 10 to 1.

So we hear about 4 million displaced Iraqis [total for internally and externally displaced]. Using the more accurate 11.5 to 1 ratio, this would compare to a whopping 46 million Americans. Using the easier but undervaluing 10 to 1 ratio, it still comes to 40 million Americans.

So I read in your blog that the WHO study settles on 151,000 as the excess number of civilians killed in violence in Iraq from April 2003 through June 2006. As I read I automatically translate that into the equivalent of 1.5 million plus Americans.

Sources:

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Iraq-POPULATION.html [est. Iraq population for 2003]

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html [est. US population for 2003]

 
At 7:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both studies are methodologically sound and reveal the same morbid fact: Hundreds of thousands more Iraqis have died than one would expect since the invasion.

Whether those excess deaths are classified as civilians or not misses the point and, given the difficulty of making that kind of call, muddies the water.

What is known from prior work in similar circumstances is that passive reports, e.g., news summaries, like those used by Iraq Body Count are drastically low, e.g., a factor of 10. This is not to demean that source of information: The fact that they are reporting tens of thousands gives credence to claims in the hundreds of thousands.

It is an achievement to be able provide a credible number that makes the order of magnitude known, e.g., hundreds of thousands as opposed to tens of thousands. It is not as if any researcher can do a real census. Doubling the accuracy of these estimates would require taking a sample that is four times as large and would not provide a much clearer picture.

It is beyond tragic that most Americans do not have a sober sense of what has occurred in Iraq and that the media will spill oceans of ink on the killing of a young man at a zoo.

40,000 pounds of bombs does a lot of damage. A single 500 pound bomb will take out a quarter of a square block. 40,000 will take out 20 square blocks. If you live in a city or suburban area, you should be able to get a sense of how big an area that is. Count the houses. Consider how many people live in each house. Then consider that family sizes are larger in Iraq. Do the math. A lot of people are likely to be killed or maimed.

 
At 10:10 PM, Blogger dancewater said...

I think a lot of people in Iraq died from stress alone.... and a lot more are being driven crazy from the violence and lack of basic things like electricity, water, jobs.

There is a daily update on Iraq on this blog:

http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com

I contribute to that blog.

Unconfirmed reports of two more US troops killed today.

 
At 11:26 PM, Anonymous VoiceFromTheWilderness said...

I have to respectfully disagree. George Bush did not 'turn this nation' into anything. He's a blind idiot, who can barely speak a straight sentence. The urge to blame hisotrical cultural trends, and patterns on individuals is at the root of the american ego disease.

This country has been on a war footing for 50 years, while at no time being in any actual way threatened -- we have 20 9/11's on our highways every year, and another 10-20 due to handguns every year. We are a war loving, violent, stupid people. We have no interest in the truth, or the wealfare of others, only the glorification of the power of money, worship of those greedy enough to take for themselves, and a love of con artistry and manipulation unrivaled by any other culture.

George Bush did not do that. He is a symptom not a cause, and to continue to blame the not at all surprising event that the american need to be at war outlasted the excuse of communism on George Bush is to be deeply blind to what is going on. Another cultural manifestation of our obsession with ego is our need to blame individuals for systemic problems. It's quite easy, and it's particularly useful since it means never really spoiling the party, and thus is never really a threat. Was Ken Lay really the be all and end all of corporate financial shenanigans, or just the fool who took the rap?

Until we start understanding the problem, the problem will not go away.

 
At 11:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Several people have pointed out some reasons why this new study could be an underestimate. I'll just add that even taken at face value, it means the current violent death toll could be more like 350,000, not 250,000. That's because IBC updates its estimates of death totals in the past as new information comes in, so according to Les Roberts, if you use the number IBC was putting out in June 2006 (as opposed to the updated number), they were at 41,000 vs. the 150,000 in this survey. So multiply the current IBC number by 4, not 3.

Aside from that nitpick, there's one other point. This new paper gives the same violent death rate for the first 17 months of the war that the original Lancet paper gave--about 120 violent deaths per day. At the time virtually all the skeptics, including Iraq Body Count, said this was impossible. So the death toll in the second Lancet paper might be too high, but the original paper has been vindicated.

 
At 12:22 AM, Anonymous Cyrus said...

This figure doesn't count the half-million dead Iraqi babies resulting from the pre-invasion sanctions.
See:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072100-03.htm

 
At 2:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect that these studies do not count the Iraqi soldiers killed in the war in 2003.

I estimate that more than 85,000 were killed.

Maybe, since they were arrayed against our invading forces, we were justified in killing them.
Even so, these are people who died as a result of the war.

Avid Student

 
At 3:03 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

Here is a link to the WHO study (pdf)

 
At 8:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/01/10/les-roberts-on-new-iraq-mortality-study/

January 10, 2008

Les Roberts on New Iraq Mortality Study
Edited by Stephen Soldz

Les Roberts, an author of the two previous Lancet studies of Iraq mortality, sends the following comments on the new Iraq mortality study, the Iraq Family Health Survey, that I blogged about * last night:

I think that this new article in the NEJM is a good addition to the discussion. It is good for Iraqis, it is good for science, it is good for promoting peace.

1) There is far more in common in the results than appears at first glance.

The NEJM article found a doubling of mortality after the invasion, we found a 2.4 fold increase. They found a CMR of 3/1000/yr. before and 6 after but thought they were missing almost 1/2 the deaths. We found a CMR of 5 before and 13 after….thus we actually agree roughly on the number of excess deaths. The big difference is that we found almost all the increase from violence, they found 1/3 the increase from violence.

The other odd items (family size, refusal rates, absentee household rates, fraction of deaths from infectious diseases and car accidents…) are strikingly similar.

IBC adds to their estimate for months after a given date; back at the end of June 2006, IBC estimated 41,000 deaths (my notes suggest 38,475 to 42,889 on June 24, 2006). This new estimate is 4 times the "widely accepted" number of that moment, our estimate was 12 times higher. Both studies suggest things are far worse than our leaders have reported.

2) There are reasons to suspect that the NEJM data had an under-reporting of violent deaths.

The death rate they recorded for before the invasion (and after) was very low….lower than neighboring countries and 1/3 of what WHO said the death rate was for Iraq back in 2002.

The last time this group (COSIT) did a mortality survey like this they also found a very low crude death rate and when they revisited the exact same homes a second time and just asked about child deaths, they recorded almost twice as many. Thus, the past record suggests people do not want to report deaths to these government employees.

We confirmed our deaths with death certificates, they did not. As the NEJM study's interviewers worked for one side in this conflict, it is likely that people would be unwilling to admit violent deaths to the study workers.

They roughly found a steady rate of violence from 2003 - 2006. Baghdad morgue data, Najaf burial data, Pentagon attack data, and our data all show a dramatic increase over 2005 and 2006.

Finally, their data suggests 1/6th of deaths over the occupation through 6/06 were from violence. Our data suggest a majority of deaths were from violence. All graveyard reports I have heard are consistent with our results.

I hope these comments are helpful. I hope people in the press will visit a few graveyards/morgues/hospitals and decide if 1/6th or over 1/2 of the deaths during the period 2003-06 were from violence.

Best regards,

Les Roberts

* http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/01/09/new-estimate-of-iraq-violent-mortality-151000-far-lower-than-lancet/

anne

 
At 8:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The difference in violent deaths, sadly tells me the Lancet study range is the more accurate recording of this disaster for Iraqis.

anne

 
At 10:11 AM, Anonymous Castellio said...

Avid Student says: "Maybe, since they were arrayed against our invading forces, we were justified in killing them..."

I want to say, your humanity is found in your "maybe"...

In the rest of the world, one is justified in killing invaders, it is not the invaders who are justified in killing the natives.

 
At 11:09 AM, Anonymous Ool said...

Speaking of frogs dying in earnest, here’s an old article about Bush and frogs and firecrackers and other sociopathic mischief of his:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/conover01.htm

Pretty prescient…

 
At 4:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The US has a lot more casualties than deaths because of widespread use of body armor (which protects the torso but not the extremeties) and excellent field medical attention.

Iraqi injuries that would have been crippling for US soldiers are therefore more likely to be fatal for iraqis, and Iraqis are less likely to be able to get medical care to prevent death (most injuries that are critical are fatal without prompt treatment).

Oh, and US soldiers are healthy and fit young people, and the iraqi population is not.

So, I expect that the number of crippling injuries is not as high of a factor.

On the other hand, there may be a lot of what would be simple injuries to us soldier that end up being crippling because of lack of treatment.

 
At 11:50 AM, Blogger Ed Moise said...

I agree with the comment above, about the way differences in medical care would give a ratio of seriously wounded to killed among Iraqi civilians that might be quite different from the ratio among US troops. But there is one more issue that needs to be considered: Dr. Cole's ratio of 2.5 severely wounded to every 1 killed, among the American forces, was way too low. Defense Department figures, updated regularly, are available at
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Dr. Cole's figure of almost 4,000 American dead is a total for all American military deaths in Iraq, including those from accident and disease as well as those from violence. That is inappropriate, when what we are trying to construct is a ratio of killed to wounded among the victims of violence. He has compared this with an underestimate of the number of men seriously wounded.

As of last week, there had been 3,186 Defense Department personnel killed by hostile action in Iraq, and 12,918 seriously wounded. (The number with less serious wounds had been 15,952.) That gives a ratio of 4.05 seriously wounded to 1 killed by hostile action.

Bottom line: if the ratio of killed to seriously wounded has been 4 to 1 among US military personnel who were targets of violence, it has probably been at least 2.5 to 1 among Iraqi civilians.

On a separate issue: one of the anonymous posters above has mistaken a figure of 40,000 pounds of bombs dropped in Iraq for 40,000 tons.

 
At 3:45 PM, Blogger Will McLean said...

The recently published WHO study does not measure civilian deaths. It's all Iraqi violent deaths, and no effort was made to determine if they were civilians or combatants

 

Post a Comment

<< Home