Civilian Dead in Iraq - Whose figures do we trust.

[Walker in Eternity]

The title pretty much says it all. This morning on the BBC Radio 4 News it was reported that the UK Government is disputing the numbers of dead civilians in Iraq. This seems to be a reponse to an open letter written by a number of prominent public figures in Britain.

The figures (hopefully up to date) that I have obtained are as follows:

The Lancet - In excess of 100,000 dead since the war started.

Iraq Body Count - Min 14619, Max 16804

Cite

Iraq-based People's Kifah: 27,000 March-October 2003

US-based Brookings Institute: Up to 27,000 to August 2004

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw 10,000 to March 2004

Cite

Personally I hope the figure is as low as possible, but who can we trust to give us the truth and how can we (the west) justify this amount of carnage in "liberating the iraqi people"?

[Rashak Mani]

Another issue that seems to escape discussion is how to determine who died due to the War... versus those that were bound to meet their maker anyway.

The 100k figure seems a bit high though... so I'd cut it in half.

The only point not worth taking seriously is people who think 500lb bombs with laser guidance falling into cities only kill culprits and not civilians.

[SentientMeat]

The Lancet 100k figures were, I believe, an extrapolation based on surveys and mortality statistics of various conditions before the invasion.

The BodyCount statistics refer to specific reported incidents, but are not just limited to deaths from bullets and bombs:

"Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?"

...Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population.

From the FAQ.

The justification is that however many deaths there are, the number of deaths in the long run will still be less than that had Saddam stayed in power. I must admit, such claims are begining to look rather tenuous: Saddam may have been brutal and totalitarian, but he did not actually directly kill many of his own people after 1991 (when he would argue that he was averting the megadeath of a civil war) and everyday life could continue with some kind of stability.

[Sam Stone]

It's impossible to know. The Lancet figure is laughable - Their error bars are so big their 'low' estimate is 8,000 and their 'high' estimate is 200,000. It strikes me that this study, presented during the election season, was just an attempt to come up with a 'scientific' way to put a great big huge number into the public discourse. "We don't have a clue how many Iraqis have died, but here's a great big horrible number you can use to attack the Bush administration with!"

Iraq Body Count just tallies up all the body counts reported across the country. The problem with this methodology is that hospitals may have been over-reporting civilian casualties because A) there's no way to tell a civilian from an insurgent, B) If they are opposed to the U.S. invasion they have an incentive to over-report casualties.

So I would take the Iraq Body Count site as probably being the closest, but with the understanding that if they are wrong, it's probably on the high side.

There is no doubt that thousands of civilians have died. And that's probably all we can really say at this point.

[Malodorous]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Iraq Body Count just tallies up all the body counts reported across the country. The problem with this methodology is that hospitals may have been over-reporting civilian casualties because A) there's no way to tell a civilian from an insurgent, B) If they are opposed to the U.S. invasion they have an incentive to over-report casualties.

This may be a factor, but on the other-side, given the state of chaos in parts of the country I doubt that all civilian deaths were reported. For example, many civilians probably died in Fallujah before the situation cleared up enough to so that they could be brought to a hospital. Given that muslium law dictate the need for a quick burial, I wouldn't be suprised if the already dead in at least some cases were buried directly by thier family members instead of being brought to a hospital.

[SentientMeat]

I think you're misunderstanding the errors in the Lancet study, Sam. It is a respected medical journal, and was attempting to study the effect of war on mortality in general and gauge the extra mortalities compared to non-war. Thus, say, half a million Iraqis would have died in that period from various causes anyway, and the error margins attempt to account for that uncertainty.

However, I'd agree that in this instance the figure of 1000 randomly chosen sample points might well be misleading in all kinds of ways. It is certainly a little silly to quote 100,000 as any kind of "bodycount".

[Illinois_Boy]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Iraq Body Count just tallies up all the body counts reported across the country. The problem with this methodology is that hospitals may have been over-reporting civilian casualties because A) there's no way to tell a civilian from an insurgent, B) If they are opposed to the U.S. invasion they have an incentive to over-report casualties.

So I would take the Iraq Body Count site as probably being the closest, but with the understanding that if they are wrong, it's probably on the high side.

There is no doubt that thousands of civilians have died. And that's probably all we can really say at this point.

I would agree that there is no doubt thousands have died, and that's all we can really know.

Looking over the Iraq Body Count site however, I would think it that if they are wrong, it would be on the low side. They claim to only include civilian deaths if they can find 2 separate media cites, which leads me to believe if anything, possibly many smaller incidents are not being captured. In regards to bias, since they are only collating documented reports from other media (about 35 or so sources), I believe any bias would originate in those reports (which is another debate the board has had many times).

Also, in incidents mentioning families they are assuming a family size of 3, as a conservative estimate, believing the average family size in Iraq to be 6.

Not to quibble over numbers, just somewhat impressed by how the Iraq Body Count project is approaching the matter.

[Malodorous]

So if we throw out the Lancet study and presume that the gov't numbers are probably overly conservative, then the numbers are between 15,000 and 30,000, which is probably as accurate as we are going to get in a situation where both the amount of chaos and bias on both sides cloud the numbers to such a degree.

[SmackFu]

Originally Posted by Illinois_Boy

They claim to only include civilian deaths if they can find 2 separate media cites, which leads me to believe if anything, possibly many smaller incidents are not being captured.

Except that they have no problem with a single source being quoted in two articles. Kind of makes a mockery of rigorous journalism.

[Malodorous]

Originally Posted by SmackFu

Except that they have no problem with a single source being quoted in two articles. Kind of makes a mockery of rigorous journalism.

That's not as worthless as it sounds. If both CNN and the AP report on an incident based on one source, then presumably that's two major media organizations that have checked out the sources story and agree that it's creditble. I'd say that's more worthwile then just one service having checked out and certified the story.

[Sam Stone]

But of course, dozens of media outlets reported the "Jenin Massacre", too. And if IraqBodyCount had been counting deaths there, they would have grossly over-counted, because the numbers that were coming out of Jenin (and even being reported by Palestinian hospitals) were grossly inflated.

[Malodorous]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

But of course, dozens of media outlets reported the "Jenin Massacre", too. And if IraqBodyCount had been counting deaths there, they would have grossly over-counted, because the numbers that were coming out of Jenin (and even being reported by Palestinian hospitals) were grossly inflated.

Well of course more media outlets doesn't necessarily make for infinite certainty, I'm just saying its better then one, even if they both go to the same source.

Were the reports of the Jenin massacre reported as actual estimated death tolls or "rumored" figures by any western media outlet. As I remember, the Israelis kept journalists out until later, when they were finally allowed in the reported that the rumors couldn't be collaborated.

Also, at least in the cases of Jenin, when the reports were exagerated, they went for broke. Instead of the tens of people that actually died the rumors claimed "thousands". Looking at the Iraq Body Count database , the reports are not like that, none of the individual numbers are that sensational. Of course that doesn't make them certain, but if we're to try at all to come up with an estimate, these numbers don't seem to be a terrible place to start.

[Rashak Mani]

Still 30k dead civilians isn't something to ignore even if you do like Bush Sam... 9/11 x 10

[Walker in Eternity]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Still 30k dead civilians isn't something to ignore even if you do like Bush Sam... 9/11 x 10

Agreed, and these were civilians as well. All we are doing is feeding the fire of terrorism. I think any claim we had to the moral high ground has long since been abandoned.

[hildea]

I found this article in the Economist about the Lancet study enlightening. The study itself is available on The Lancet's site (free registration neccessary). It's definitively worth reading.

As others have mentioned, the 100.000 number is an estimate of excess deaths after the invasion - over and above the pre-invasion death rate. They asked about deaths from january 2002 to september 2004.

They counted all deaths, not only non-combatants. However, military deaths are probably underrepresented, because they only counted deaths where the persons killed had lived in the household at least two months before their deaths.

There's a lot of unsecurity around the 100.000 estimate for several reasons (they go into some detail about likely sources for error), but the real numbers are just as likely to be greater than smaller.

A few excerpts:

Originally Posted by The Lancet

We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.

Originally Posted by The Lancet

Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground. To the contrary, only three of 61 incidents (5%) involved coalition soldiers (all reported to be American by the respondents) killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one of the three cases, the 56-year-old man killed might have been a combatant. In a second case, a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint. In the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the latter two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families of the decedents for the killings, indicating a clear understanding of the adverse consequences of their use of force. The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry.

Originally Posted by The Lancet

Passive surveillance systems often have low sensitivity, and the fact that the estimate of coalition casualties from http://www.iraqbodycount.net is a third to a tenth the estimate reported in this survey should be of little surprise. What is particularly revealing about the Iraqbodycount.net system is that, as a monitor of trends, it closely parallels the results found in this survey: most casualties arose after the end of major hostilities in May, 2003, and the rate of civilian deaths has been rising in recent months. This finding indicates that passive media-based monitoring should have a role in future conflicts where the collection of health data is not practical. However, it should be used as a monitor of trends rather than as a count estimator, as Iraqbodycount.net has been most commonly cited in the media.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

hildea:

Groovy.

Tack så mycket för länkarna.