Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts have an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun:
Not wanting to think about civilian deaths in Iraq has become almost universal. But ignorance of the Iraqi death toll is no longer an option.
An Associated Press poll in February found that the average American believed about 9,900 Iraqis had been killed since the end of major combat operations in 2003. Recent evidence suggests that things in Iraq may be 100 times worse than Americans realize.
News report tallies suggest that about 75,000 Iraqis have died since the U.S.-led invasion. But a study of 13 war-affected countries presented at a recent Harvard conference found that more than 80 percent of violent deaths in conflicts go unreported by the press and governments.
City officials in Najaf were recently quoted on Middle East Online stating that 40,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in that Iraqi city since the start of the conflict. In a speech Sept. 5, Samir Sumaidaie, the Iraqi ambassador to the United States, stated that there were 500,000 new widows in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group similarly found that the Pentagon undercounted violent incidents by a factor of 10. Finally, last month, the respected British polling firm ORB released the results of a poll estimating that 22 percent of households had lost a member to violence during the occupation of Iraq, equating to 1.2 million deaths. This finding roughly verifies a less precisely worded BBC poll last February that reported 17 percent of Iraqis had a household member who was a victim of violence.
So multiple polls and scientific surveys all suggest the official figures and media-based estimates in Iraq have missed 70 percent to 95 percent of all deaths. The evidence suggests that the extent of underreporting by the media is only increasing with time.
Being forthright about the human cost of the war is in our long-term interests. How can military and civilian leadership comment intelligently about security trends in Iraq, or about whether any security policies are working, if they are not detecting most of the estimated 5,000-plus violent deaths that occur each week? Can American plans for the future of Iraq be respected within Iraq if they do not openly address the toll that they imply? Avoiding the issue of Iraqi deaths will likely come back to haunt us as young people in the Middle East grow up with ingrained hostility toward America.
(Via Stephen Soldz.)
Politics
Comments
"Can American plans for the future of Iraq be respected within Iraq if they do not openly address the toll that they imply? Avoiding the issue of Iraqi deaths will likely come back to haunt us as young people in the Middle East grow up with ingrained hostility toward America."
Yea. Great PR , Les. Let's immediately change the estimates on Iraqi dead numbers to 1.2 million because your dubious poll and a coupla of others disagree with our estimates as a way of winning the hearts and minds of Iraqi civilians in the middle of a war. What a sparkling idea that would be? Shall we try to figure out the consequences of this admission in the middle of this sorry mess?
Amazing. Obviously Les needed some Oped space face time.
Posted by: Jc | October 10, 2007 1:18 PM
O.K. Jc, let's just talk about the numbers, Les Roberts vs. you.
Les says 1.2M. You say, what? Be sure to include all your references.
Posted by: Pop Trot | October 10, 2007 1:25 PM
Pop trot
I don't need to go with any numbers seing I don't know..... like Roberts doesn't either by the sounds of things.
Roberts is saying there have been possibly 1.2 million extra death in Iraq since the war. That means there has been an extraordinary 820 extra deaths a day in Iraq since the war began.
Have you even heard of one single day in this sorry mess of a war when there have been more than 250 Killed. I once heard that number over a two day period about 2 years ago.
I have no issue with the methodology used. He's just fudging the figures.
Polling firms run sample audits to verify if their pollers are actually doing the hard yards. What audit prcoess was carried out? You know?
It was nice to see Roberts got his methoid peer reviewed and all that. However I never read anywhere that there was any audit done. Nice.
Posted by: Jc | October 10, 2007 1:58 PM
Since JC is being such a prat, I suggest a trip to Coventry.
Posted by: guthrie | October 10, 2007 2:13 PM
JC, every death in Iraq does not make it into the papers. But this has been explained to you many times before ...
Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 10, 2007 2:18 PM
Here is a major problem with the 9,900 Iraqi fatality number. If you assume the number is roughly 9,900, you are effectively saying that roughly 2.6 Iraqis have died per US soldier death since 2003 (the official number from icasualties.org as of today is 3816). To be pedantically clear, this number represents a ratio of US soldier deaths against TOTAL Iraqi deaths. If you think that roughly 4 Iraqis die per US soldier, the number would jump to 15,200 Iraqi deaths. If you say that roughly 4 Iraqis have died per coalition soldier death (total of 4121), then you have upped the comparative estimate to roughly 16,500. (Why do I choose 4? It is, admittedly, arbitrary. I'm just running the numbers.) If you say that 2 Iraqis have died per dead (3816) or wounded (27753) US soldier, you increase the estimate to ~63,000 Iraqi deaths. As a closer on this point, if you believe that the 9,900 fatality estimate is accurate, then you are saying that 0.3 Iraqis have died per US dead or wounded (to which I am more than slightly incredulous).
You might argue that the number YOU care about is the number of Iraqis killed by American soldiers, and not due to Iraqi-on-Iraqi (aka "sectarian") violence. However, a civilian killed during a time of social upheaval is a civilian killed, no matter the killer, and it doesn't take a good demagogue to lay each death at the feet of an occupying army (especially if the existing national government is seen as an emasculated puppet government). Put yourself (if you can think empathetically) in the shoes of a person who lives in an occupied country. Would YOU put the blame on civilian deaths upon a government that is seen to be a puppet of the occupier or at the feet of the occupying power? I would lay bets that most people (you included) would blame (for whatever reason) the occupying power. Under this simple scenario, each civilian death is a black mark against the occupier. This is the point to which the Op-Ed is directed (at least to my reading-between-the-lines).
Posted by: Umlud | October 10, 2007 2:25 PM
Um... in reading my comments above, I would like to point out that I was originally writing to people who have Jc's apparent viewpoint in this issue. Not to Mr. Lambert or those who agree with the Op-Ed above. (Sorry for potential misunderstandings.)
Posted by: Umlud | October 10, 2007 2:29 PM
jc:
As horrid as this suggestion is to myself, given your economics background, you should at least be able to bracket how many Iraqi deaths would be acceptable for the purported current policy goal? Consider it a full cost/ benefit analysis.
Then ask yourself, is this value exceeded by the second most standard deviation from the mean of the numbers cited by Les Roberts or ORB. If so, I would consider the polling accurate.
Mike
Posted by: mgr | October 10, 2007 2:29 PM
Re #8. I muddled up that second paragraph. What I meant was the values of the estimate exceed the second standard deviation, then one might understand the outrage.
Mike
Posted by: mgr | October 10, 2007 2:34 PM
Jc, you ask "Have you even heard of one single day in this sorry mess of a war when there have been more than 250 Killed." This implies that you believe these excess deaths are solely due to the direct effects of war. The excess deaths are due to a whole host of effects, some primary (bombings, shootings), some secondary (increased mortality from infectious disease, etc.), althought, truth be told, the 2006 Burnham et al. study did estimate about 90% of these were violent deaths. Just wanted to clear that little point up.
In regards to media reporting of violence, you're a bright fellow, can you give the discussion anything aside from the argument via personal incredulity? That argument gets really boring, really quick.
Posted by: Josephus | October 10, 2007 2:41 PM
Why not just declare every person in Iraq effectively dead, lay the blame at W's feet and move on. I'm sure some methodology could be quickly cobbled together that would suit the low threshold of scrutiny displayed by anyone convinced that 1.2 million have perished to date. What's one additional order of magnitude to those anxious to bludgeon their political adversaries with missapplied statistical slight of hand?
1.2 million is roughly the same number dispatched by the Khmer Rouge during their four year reign of terror. They were systematically executing, starving and working to death thousands of people every week. Dose anyone really believe that our presence in Iraq is causing slaughter on this same scale?
Posted by: Lance | October 10, 2007 3:55 PM
As an aside, the population of Cambodia numbered ~7 million in 1975, while Iraq's population numbered somewhere around 27 million in 2003 (I think). Standardization of mortality rates by population size can be a useful tool.
Posted by: Josephus | October 10, 2007 4:15 PM
Josephus,
I made no per capita comparison. The rate of deaths per week is independent of the size of the population. Does it make sense to you that the American presence in Iraq, devoted almost entirely to stopping violence, has resulted in the same rate of slaughter as the purposely murderous efforts of the Khmer Rouge?
Posted by: Lance | October 10, 2007 4:33 PM
Jc, I was specifically referencing your quote "Let's immediately change the estimates on Iraqi dead numbers to 1.2 million". Change the estimate from what? You obviously have another number in mind. What is it, and where id it come from?
Posted by: Pop Trot | October 10, 2007 4:56 PM
Lance, Prima facie, you are correct that the rates of death per week is not dependent on the population size ;) My point is that it is typically more acceptable to construct mortality statistics that are normalized to the entire population (In the case of Iraq, one might be tempted to exclude much of Kurdistan from this statistic). Doing this results in 4+ years of the occupation generating a normalized mortality rate approximately one quarter that of the 4 year reign of terror in Cambodia (if we have any confidence in our numbers).
You ask if it makes sense to me that such violence could occur as a result of the myriad factors of war and subsequent occupation. How am I supposed to know? All I can do is look at the studies. The Burnham et al. paper and ORB poll show an astounding level of violence. The methods that they use, especially those of Burnham and Roberts, have come under quite a bit of criticism, and as far as I can tell have weathered it quite well. Thus, I am inclined to rely on those numbers more as I try and understand what is happening halfway around the world. What use is it to play Gedankenexperiment if you have no sense of what is going on other than what spills out the mouths of a bunch of groups that have a vested interest how you perceive all things "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?
Posted by: Josephus | October 10, 2007 5:30 PM
"Avoiding the issue of Iraqi deaths will likely come back to haunt us as young people in the Middle East grow up with ingrained hostility toward America."
Like they need any help. They've had decades of grievances with us of one sort or another. They've got the MSM helping them feel this way with their Palywood productions. And, well, heck, we're just the Great Satan. How can we win, except to roll over and show them our bellies?
Posted by: ben | October 10, 2007 6:29 PM
Poor us. After all we've done for the Middle East, to think that people there might not like us. It must be that dratted media.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | October 10, 2007 8:10 PM
There is some spectacular avoidance going on, if the average American thinks 9,900 Iraqis have died violently from the occupation. Any booster of the American forces would imagine that the death ratio should be at least 10 to 1, and even Bush, years go, offered the IBC figures of the time (20 or 30,000). A bad conscience leads to bad statistics. Innumeracy and avoidance are a fascinating combination. And note how no-one is seeking more accurate figures - where's the George Mason U. crowd?
Posted by: stewart | October 10, 2007 9:12 PM
"The evidence suggests that the extent of underreporting by the media is only increasing with time."
Roberts' point is backed by anecdotal evidence of reporters retreating to the green zone or some other fortress to protect themselves from random violence or targeted attacks.
It's foolish to put your confidence in media reports when the reporters themselves are isolated out of fear for their own lives.
Posted by: Boris | October 10, 2007 9:54 PM
Well, actually, the two studies published in the Lancet by Roberts have been subjected to intense scrutiny in an effort to shoot them down.
Posted by: dhogaza | October 10, 2007 10:52 PM
Tim
You first published Roberts report a few years ago. A quick calculation at the time implied the daily death rate under Roberts was around 250 per day. He's now ratcheted that up to 820 per day. At the rate roberts is going and allowing for compounding we will run out of Iraqi citizens and most of the Mid East by july 22 2011.
Posted by: Jc | October 10, 2007 11:13 PM
I can see the report in 2009:
Les roberts thinks the current death toll estimate of excess deaths is 39 million from a population of 27 million. Les thinks the birth rate will catch up ot the death rate in a few years to equalize the toll count estimate.
In other words at what point in time will the Roberts survey imply the entire Iraqi population are excess deaths.
Posted by: Jc | October 10, 2007 11:17 PM
I think it's important to know.
Whether that number is correct or not, there is a lack of will to find out from those prosecuting the Iraq war and I agree it should be in their long term interest to know. There would then be some slim hope that clear minded review might reveal important lessons.
Posted by: Ken | October 11, 2007 2:56 AM
It's pointless to argue with morons like jc, as they will never ever admit that they were wrong. All it does is tying up comment threads in pointless discussion.
Posted by: Martin Wisse | October 11, 2007 3:53 AM
And your comment was "pointful", Martin? The only thing I see as moronic is your abusive comment that adds nothing to the discssuion in terms of offering evidence to the contrary.
Roberts estimate is an outliar (sorry, wrong spelling). You need a little more than abuse to present a convincing case that the tail end of a bell curve is accurate, you dope.
Posted by: Jc | October 11, 2007 4:10 AM
It's also interesing it seems that it was the Baitimore Sun that carried the op-ed. Last time I looked the BS made the Guardian like a right wing rag.
I wonder how many papers turned him down in carrying that piece on their Op-ed. Anyone know if the NYTimes turned it down and why?
Posted by: Jc | October 11, 2007 4:13 AM
[It's also interesing it seems that it was the Baitimore(sic) Sun that carried the op-ed]
does anyone know which US town is home to Johns Hopkins University? could it be ... yes it could!
[Roberts estimate is an outliar (sorry, shit joke)]
no it isn't. It's right there or thereabouts with lots of other estimates.
The comments policy on Deltoid is in general against personal insults, but I think it is fair to say that for someone who seemingly has such strong opinions on the Lancet survey, for JC to be making so many false statements about it tends to support only the very most unfavourable assessment of his character, intelligence or both.
Posted by: dsquared | October 11, 2007 4:57 AM
Of course , Dsquared, Roberts wouldn't have even thought of hawking the Op-ed piece to the Times or the Wash. Post just down the I 95 because he was being loyal to his home town paper. You know that for a fact?
While you're there you may want answer to these "facts".
When Roberts first published the massive death toll, the run rate was about 230 excess deaths per day. It is now running at 820 per day. This implies the death rate has taken off vertically over about 2.5 years. Do you or Roberts have any explantion for this incredible compound rate.
Let's assume he was right on his first count. I'm not saying he was but let's do so for the sake of argument.
That means, according to Roberts there have been 1,075,000 extra deaths since his very first "survey".
1,200,000-125,000= 1,075,000
That was about 2 1/2 years ago.
Therefore according to Les, the run rate in those 2 1/2 years has been close to 1,200 people a day.
Please discuss Dsquared. Let's not use Soviet Statisical analysis methods if we can avoid them please.
Posted by: Jc | October 11, 2007 5:46 AM
It is telling that detractors of Roberts' surveys have taken to ignoring even the anecdotal evidence coming out of Iraq to maintain their incredulity.
Kind of like the 911Truthers have to ignore the experts to maintain their belief that an airplane crash and fire could never destroy a skyscraper.
Posted by: Boris | October 11, 2007 6:56 AM
"This implies the death rate has taken off"
You got it.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 11, 2007 7:41 AM
Jc,
(1) The ORB poll (which estimated deaths due to direct violence) was finished in September of 2007, and the end of the first Roberts/Burnham study (which measured all excess deaths post invasion) was in September 2004, so the time interval is closer to 3 years.
(2) Their central estimate of the excess mortality without the contribution of Fallujah was 98,000, not 125,000, with about 90% of these deaths directly attributable to violence. With the inclusion of the Fallujah cluster, the central estimate jumps up to something on the order of 300,000 (I'm pretty sure the proportion due to direct violence gets much closer to unity).
The question of whether to include the Fallujah cluster actually makes a bit more uncertain the issue of a "jump" in mortality rate. Anyway, the point, for me at least, is that until I see some empirical evidence of these being VAST overestimates, my country and others have some real hard explaining to do to the people of Iraq, plain and simple. This explaining includes accurate accounting of the blood costs of modern urban war.
Posted by: Josephus | October 11, 2007 8:23 AM
Jc at his best. he is showing off his total inability to make a point again! even though he wrote about a quarter of the comments so far (7 of 29), and even though he has been called to state his oppinion on a valid deathtoll number or range of numbers, he has denied to do it. understandable, as his highish selfperception will always take some massive hit, when he tries to state a fact. so he sticks to blurring nonsense.
of course every single argument he made in his 7 comments is plainly FALSE!
Let's immediately change the estimates on Iraqi dead numbers to 1.2 million because your dubious poll and a coupla of others disagree with our estimates as a way of winning the hearts and minds of Iraqi civilians in the middle of a war.
no one suggested to use the 1.2 mio number. Roberts is a serious guy, who uses a RANGE of number, to describe the deathtoll in Iraq. for an iraqi, it will be much WORSE to hear, the americans think that only 10000 of them have died, it confirms their feeling that an iraqi life is not worth a lot. the underestimate of the deathtoll is influencing the way the war is fought and so for is the CAUSE of more death!
I don't need to go with any numbers seing I don't know..... like Roberts doesn't either by the sounds of things.
Roberts did a survey. you are talking out of you ass. slight difference.
Have you even heard of one single day in this sorry mess of a war when there have been more than 250 Killed. I once heard that number over a two day period about 2 years ago.
funny, but yes, i hear of such events. star with the Yazidi bombing.
http://tinyurl.com/39at3r
or th baghdad bridge stampede:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/31/iraq.main/
ignorance is bliss! about how many dead by car accidents do you read in the NYtimes everyday?
Polling firms run sample audits to verify if their pollers are actually doing the hard yards. What audit prcoess was carried out? You know?
dear Jc, if you think hard, you will notice the difference between a commercial shopping mall poll on the flavor of cherry coke and a scientific study on killed family members in a warzone. in science studies are affirmed or contradicted by REPLICATION. the lack of any replication attempt by deniers is very telling.
When Roberts first published the massive death toll, the run rate was about 230 excess deaths per day. It is now running at 820 per day. This implies the death rate has taken off vertically over about 2.5 years. Do you or Roberts have any explantion for this incredible compound rate.
the pentagon has confirmed a tripling of numbers of civilian casualties between jan 06 and the first half of 2007.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/09/fuzzy-numbers-a.html
(btw, the pentagon has "revised" this number, because it was contradicting the petraeus report..)
Les roberts thinks the current death toll estimate of excess deaths is 39 million from a population of 27 million.
is this an attempt to show of your ignorance? hint: please do some research on "limited growth"..
You need a little more than abuse to present a convincing case that the tail end of a bell curve is accurate, you dope.
good argument!
now all you have to do is to list all the peer reviewed studies on iraqi casualties rate, that make the rest of your "bell curve"
Posted by: sod | October 11, 2007 8:27 AM
Martin, it's worth reviewing the discussion how to set up a 'killfile' script, so those with strong opinions and no data don't take over the threads. See post 50 and following of the 'Wonder if they'd bet on it' thread. It does wonders for your mental health. raises the proportion of data to invective, lowers your blood pressure, and washes dishes.
Iraq will haunt the US for years to come, longer if they cannot see the consequences. Some will argue that a million external refugees must mean the death toll is lower than claimed, but others may point out that it does take a lot to make a million people leave their homes over 2 to 3 years, and a high toll of violence in a civil war with the breakdown of society is one of those precipitants. I don't know if the estimates are correct, I only know that they are estimates of form widely accepted in many other settings, and the argument from disbelief only tells what the writer is prepared not to believe. (I'm forced to belief my parents had sex 3 times, as I have 2 siblings, but certainly not more than that). As soon as a better estimate, using accepted methodology comes along, I'm willing to learn more about it. If it agrees with the Johns Hopkins estimates, that's important. If it disagrees, that's also important, and knowing why is crucial.
As for the multiplier from coalition deaths, remember that a) US forces are present but spend much time in isolated bases, not in the communities, b) death tolls don't include the 'contractors', who had 1001 deaths to the start of June 2007.
Posted by: stewart | October 11, 2007 8:42 AM
Jc asked:
Hmmm. I wonder if any other rate has increased since August 2004?
Posted by: Robert | October 11, 2007 8:49 AM
Josephus:
At Robert's run rate we will run out of excess Iraqi dead in about 3 years time - that's all 27 million of them. There wouldn't be any people in the Mid in 10 years. This cumulative compounding is impressive.
Sod:
I'm sorry I find all your comments too boring to read and usually have nothing to add.
Robert
An increased US body count is mostly the result of roadside explosives.
Posted by: Jc | October 11, 2007 9:43 AM
"1.2 million is roughly the same number dispatched by the Khmer Rouge during their four year reign of terror. They were systematically executing, starving and working to death thousands of people every week. Dose anyone really believe that our presence in Iraq is causing slaughter on this same scale?"
They were also operating in a country with around 8 million people versus 25-28 million in Iraq.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 11, 2007 10:10 AM
@JC
And of course, that increase says nothing about the overall level of aggression, right?
Posted by: Oliver | October 11, 2007 10:10 AM
Sod: I'm sorry I find all your comments too boring to read and usually have nothing to add.
plain truth. usually you have nothing to add. couldn t have said it better.
but let me sum up my post for you: the few things you said were all WRONG.
Robert, An increased US body count is mostly the result of roadside explosives.
yes Robert, how could you dare to point out that US military casualties increased by a similar factor.
actually you would be hard pressed to find a SINGLE set of casualty numbers, that do NOT show an increase by 2 or 3 times.
Posted by: sod | October 11, 2007 10:12 AM
"When Roberts first published the massive death toll, the run rate was about 230 excess deaths per day. It is now running at 820 per day. This implies the death rate has taken off vertically over about 2.5 years. Do you or Roberts have any explantion for this incredible compound rate."
Even the US military admits that there3 was a several-fold increase in violent incidents after the bombing os the al-Askaria mosque.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 11, 2007 10:15 AM
"There is some spectacular avoidance going on, if the average American thinks 9,900 Iraqis have died violently from the occupation."
The "average" American? Was this a scientific poll? In urban America, 90% of the persons polled "on the street" can't identify the Prime Minister of our closest cultural and trading partner, Canada. They can't tell you who the second president of the USA was, and they can't tell you what the Lancet says about numbers of deaths in Iraq.
Neither can the "average" person of any country that I'm aware of.
Posted by: ben | October 11, 2007 10:24 AM
Ian
Do you think the deaths form that Mosque are what was missing from other tallies to reconcile with Robert's claims? Wow so about 1,1050,000 people died? That's a pretty big Mosque.
Ben,
Seriously Ben, no offense if you're Canadian but why would any American wanna know the name of the PM of the most boring nation on earth.
Do you recall the movie Canadian Bacon? Alan Alda was playing the US Prez having some poll troubles and he couldn't even get face time on CNN to declare war on Canada. No one cared, not even Canadians.
As for the second Prez. He's dead and can't cut taxes. Who cares?
Posted by: Jc | October 11, 2007 10:46 AM
JC, as is his wont, offers nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. 'But... but... but... [spluttering] the numbers are really big, and the rate is increasing, so this must be wrong.'
Well, yes the numbers are really big, and the rate is increasing, and THAT IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM, JC!
Three separate broad sample-based estimates of mortality have now been conducted, and the three offer results that are consistent among them, and those results point to excess mortality in the vicinity of upwards of a million people to date. Every estimate deriving a lower number is from a method known to under-estimate by some unknown amount.
so JC, making an argument at odds with all the known applicable data (and no, counting daily reported deaths in the newspaper halfway round the world from the war, is not a good way to derive death estimates - duh!) - JC is reduced to filling up the thread with his unsupported blather hoping to overwhelm us by sheer weights of words.
Sorry, JC, lots of words wont bring the dead back to life, or reduce my country's culpability in allowing this fucking tragedy to happen.
Posted by: Lee | October 11, 2007 10:55 AM
Lee:
We don't know enough to make any estimate of the numbers dead. There have also been numerous estimates that have come suggesting the figure is around 50,000 (approx) others at 100,000.
Going from memory the UN estimate about year ago was about 75,000, if I recall correctly.
I don't know the number, you don't aand neither does Roberts. Roberts, however is playing agiprop for political purposes.
Posted by: Jc | October 11, 2007 11:59 AM
Josephus,
Your point is well taken. Still it assumes uniform violence around the entire country which as you point out for the Kurdish regions, among others, seems highly unlikely.
Ian,
As I replied earlier to Josephus, the rate of deaths per week is independent of population size. You still have to account for nearly five thousand deaths per week over the baseline mortality rate. There were vast "killing fields" in Cambodia full of the victims of the Khmer Rouge. Sadam is believed to have killed far less Shiites yet there are mass graves scattered around Iraq. Where are the 1.2 million EXTRA Iraqi bodies claimed in the Lancet study?
Posted by: Lance | October 11, 2007 12:00 PM
Check the cemeteries, Lance.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | October 11, 2007 12:15 PM
The "average" American? Was this a scientific poll?
AP-Ipsos:
The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about the Iraq war and U.S. policy in Iraq was conducted Feb. 12-15 and is based on telephone interviews with 1,002 adults from all states except Alaska and Hawaii.
results in this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17310383/
Posted by: sod | October 11, 2007 12:28 PM
Jc, i know you are bored by my constant corrections to the nonsense you are writing. and it is even obvious, that you find FACTS to be boring, in contrast to your own "creative" vision of the world. but i can t spare you this:
Ian, do you think the deaths form that Mosque are what was missing from other tallies to reconcile with Robert's claims? Wow so about 1,1050,000 people died? That's a pretty big Mosque.
Ian used the term "AFTER" in his post. please learn to READ!
We don't know enough to make any estimate of the numbers dead. There have also been numerous estimates that have come suggesting the figure is around 50,000 (approx) others at 100,000.
LINKS, please! you are seriously mixing up BODYCOUNTS in the press, the famous "president Bush estimate" and a scientific estimate of the real deathtoll.
Going from memory the UN estimate about year ago was about 75,000, if I recall correctly.
again: COUNTS will NOT give you a real estimate of the situation!
and: LINK, please!
I don't know the number, you don't aand neither does Roberts. Roberts, however is playing agiprop for political purposes.
again: there is one minor difference: Roberts has conducted a scientific study on the issue. YOU HAVE NOT.
As I replied earlier to Josephus, the rate of deaths per week is independent of population size.
no. the number is basically meaningless without the population number. there might be more "common" criminal murders commited in China, than might occur in civil war in a tiny country.
Where are the 1.2 million EXTRA Iraqi bodies claimed in the Lancet study?
listen to Mr. Roberts:
City officials in Najaf were recently quoted on Middle East Online stating that 40,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in that Iraqi city since the start of the conflict.
Posted by: sod | October 11, 2007 12:37 PM
"the American presence in Iraq, devoted almost entirely to stopping violence"
HA. HA. HA.
Posted by: pauly | October 11, 2007 12:41 PM
"We don't know enough to make any estimate of the numbers dead."
Really? Perhaps you missed paragraphs 3 and 4 of the linked piece, which suggest that quite a few people do actually know enough to make estimates of the numbers dead. In fact, sometimes it seems like the only people who don't think they know enough to make an estimate are those who'd like to ignore the issue. Which, ironically enough, was the point of the op-ed in the first place.
Posted by: Merkur | October 11, 2007 1:20 PM
I think it says something about Roberts ability to be impartial that he thinks the February BBC poll and the September ORB poll roughly verify each other. Since "physically harmed" includes nonfatalities, the BBC poll implies a death toll less than half that found in the September ORB poll.
And neither really tells you what the number of civilian deaths was.
Posted by: Will McLean | October 11, 2007 3:01 PM
Wll: "...the BBC poll implies a death toll less than half that found in the September ORB poll."
Methinks you are making some strong assumptions about the BBC poll. In any case what Burnham and Roberts actually say is that ORB roughly verifies the earlier, less precisely worded BBC poll. That's not at all the same as saying that they verify each other.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | October 11, 2007 3:37 PM
I think it says something about Roberts ability to be impartial that he thinks the February BBC poll and the September ORB poll roughly verify each other. Since "physically harmed" includes nonfatalities, the BBC poll implies a death toll less than half that found in the September ORB poll.
as kevin pointed ou above, you misunderstood what he said.
are you awawre of the concept of error range?
And neither really tells you what the number of civilian deaths was.
was your killed son a terrorist? is NOT a good question for a door to door interview.
both polls do NOT support a "50000" deathtoll in Iraq till now.
QHow many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.
None 78% One 16% Two 5% Three 1% Four or more 0.002%
Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
Posted by: sod | October 11, 2007 4:50 PM
Lance,
You are talking about the same Pol Pot who was supported by the US, UK and other western countries at the United Nations when Viet Nam invaded the country in 1979 to put an end to cross border incursions? Perhaps your memory hole is much too large:
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hermansept97.htm
While on the matter of genocides and mass murder, how many Indochinese died under US bombs during the Korean and Viet Nam wars? Hazard a guess? Or how many victims were there under one of the world's biggest torturers and mass murderers, Suharto, also fully supported by the west for more than 30 years?
And let us not forget who armed and supported Saddam during the time he committed his worst crimes. Heck, Reagan's administration was largely responsible for taking Iraq off of the list of countries that sponsor terrorism in 1982 because the US wanted to support Saddam's war against Iran. So many crocodile tears, so little memory.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | October 12, 2007 6:01 AM
"Where are the 1.2 million EXTRA Iraqi bodies claimed in the Lancet study?"
The last tiem this que3stion was asked here I went throguh various media reports and assembled numerous first hand accounts of new cemeteries beign opend up; of gravediggers reporting they were burying for more people than pre-war.
I als pointedo ut tht reported increase in fatlaities recieved at the Central Baghdad morgure is consistent with the increased mortality reported by the Lancet studies.
If somr supporter of the sudanese government tried to deny the genocide in Darfur by demanding "where are the bodies?" how much credence would you give him?
How about the two million estimated dead in the congolese civil war?
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 12, 2007 7:02 AM
One of the msot frustrating aspects of this debate is that we keep having to go over the same ground.
Supporters of the war reading the Lancet artivcle and go "these anti-American Saddam-lovers are tryimg to claim that the US murdered a million Ieaqis!!!"
No what the reports are saying is that TOTAL excess mortality is one million or more since the invasion. That includes Iraqi military casualties in the initial military campaign; civilian victims of the various ethnic and religious militias; victims of disease and victims of the massive and ongoing increase in plain old crime since the virtual collapse of the Ieaqi police.
Peopel keep saying "well we would never kill ommocent peopel like that" - apparently they have equal faith in the high moral standards of Al qaida in Iraq; the Mahdi Army; the kurdish Peshmurga and dozens if not hundreds of other Iraqi factions.
Posted by: ian gould | October 12, 2007 7:09 AM
"Ian
Do you think the deaths form that Mosque are what was missing from other tallies to reconcile with Robert's claims? Wow so about 1,1050,000 people died? That's a pretty big Mosque."
Joe TRY to read for comprehension.
You said, in effect, "for the additional deaths between Lancet 1 and Lancet 2 to be correct, the level of violence would have ot have increased several-fold".
That's exactly what the US army has been reporting over the past year. The "surge" has only succeeding in returnign violence ot the pre-Samarra levels.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 12, 2007 7:12 AM
Let's try a thought-experiment, people.
You have a wretchedly poor country where over half the country is dependant on a government food dole to survive.
First, the dictator of the country, releases virtually the entire prison population and the majority of people in mental institutions.
Then he distributes millions of fire-arms to the population.
Then a foreign power invades.
The foreign power;
a. sacks the entire military and police force but leaves them in possession of their weapons;
b. cuts off the food dole for most of the population and scales it back severely for the rest
c. leaves weapons caches with millions more fire-arms unguarded.
What do you think is goin to happen?
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 12, 2007 7:16 AM
Ian G., aren't you describing the scenario in various libertarian fantasy movies like Red Dawn? Why, naturally the freedom-loving inhabitants will drive out the invaders (preferably in one large battle, but if necessary in ongoing skirmishes), then the free market will spontaneously arise, there will be minimal government regulation, a basic police force, everyone will have health savings accounts, and Iraq will have the world's largest GDP and best educated population lowest infant mortality, etc within 15 years. They will erect statuses of Bush and Hayek at every street corner. Why do you even have to ask? Isn't that how it always goes? It's like, an organic rule of history, dude.
Posted by: stewart | October 12, 2007 8:49 AM
Roberts and Burnham want people to be "forthright." Unfortunately, they still refuse to share the underlying data from their papers with all their academic critics. (They claim that the data from 2004 is "no longer available" --- I have no idea what that means --- and still won't show the 2006 data to statisticians like Gesine Reinert and others. Forthright is as forthright does.
For those who want another estimate, I still like Jon Pedersen's estimate of 100,000 violent deaths through July 2006. Perhaps members of the Deltoid community can explain how they know more about Iraqi mortality than Pedersen.
And, for those interested, I will be organizing a session on the Lancet surveys at the JSM in Denver in August 2008. If you are an academic with a paper to present, please contact me.
Posted by: David Kane | October 12, 2007 9:42 PM
David, where is your call for Pedersen to release the underlying data behind his 100,000 number?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | October 12, 2007 10:24 PM
Is there any evidence at all that Burnham has refused to give the 2006 data to Gesine Reinert, other than David Kane's say-so? Has she even submitted a request?
"Perhaps members of the Deltoid community can explain how they know more about Iraqi mortality than Pedersen."
Well for my part I know better than to revise an "estimate" upwards by 50 percent without offering any explanation whatever for the revision. As those who have been paying attention will know, "Pedersen's estimate" jumped from 100,000 to "perhaps" 150,000.
To be fair to Pedersen, he never suggested that either number was actually an estimate - that's just another misrepresentation by David Kane. As the "perhaps" indicated, it was just a guess, an expression of a gut feeling. But I think that it showed poor judgement to oppose his gut feeling to a study by highly regarded researchers in a different field. He would hardly be impressed if an epidemiologist dismissed his work on living conditions in such an offhand manner.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | October 13, 2007 4:18 AM
1) Gesine Reinert is part of Michael Spagat's group working on Main Street Bias. (Or maybe Spagat is a part of Reinert's group. I don't know who, if anyone, is in charge. You can read about their attempt to get the data here.
2) Tim Lambert jokes:
Very funny! First, Pedersen's estimate is based on his overall experience with the region and with surveys especially his work on ILCS. Second, Pedersen, like any real scholar, has shared his ILCS data with everyone who has asked him for it. I have found the data to be quite helpful.
3) Contrary to Kevin's claim, Pedersen has never raised his estimate by 50%. He estimated 100,000 violent deaths (much less than the 600,000 from L2) and was comfortable with 50,000 non-violent deaths as a side-effect of the war and occupation, similar to what L2 found.
4) Kevin claims that I am misrepresenting Pedersen. Having met with Pedersen, I know that I am not. Here is the exact quote.
What word instead of "estimate" would Kevin like me to use? He is making a direct claim that L2 is wrong, at least when it comes to violent deaths. You may think that he has no basis for doing so, but try not to pretend that he didn't say what he said.
Posted by: David Kane |