…well, as official as leaked figures can get, of course…
I commented in this thread that it was hard to criticize the Lancet Study on Iraqi deaths when there were no official death rate figures.
Well, turns out I was wrong. There are offical figures, but they are only available to Iraqi Cabinet Ministers. Here is the breakdown on Iraqi civilian deaths due to Coalition Forces, Iraqi Forces, and the Insurgents-for the period 1st July 2004 to 1st January 2005:
3,274 civilians killed in total
2,041 by coalition and Iraqi security forces
1,233 by insurgents
12,657 civilians wounded in total
8,542 by coalition and Iraqi security forces
4,115 by insurgents cite
So out of all civilian deaths attributed to either security forces or the insurgents, 60% were caused by the “good guys.”
US Ambassador John Negroponte stated in an interview shortly before the figures were obtained:
…so the points for debate:
Why are these figures not released to the public? Is Ambassador Negroponte so “out of the loop” that he doesn’t know who is causing the greatest amounts of civilian deaths? Or is he simply spinning the truth, or dear I say it, “not-lying”? And what, if any, are the implications of these figures?
Well, we know that this set of figures was released from the Iraqi Health Ministry, but it would be helpful to know what methods they were using to count the deaths. Also, it would be interesting if we could ever get an official count of the number of deaths in the crime wave that struck following the invasion.
Let me see if I understand: After a year of hearing about the tens of thousands killed in the war, or the 150,000 killed in the war if you believe Lancet, the official figures are 2,041 deaths from military operations, including military operations on the other side, and you’re spinning this into a negative story?
Frankly, that number of civilian casualties sounds stunningly low. If it’s true, then it suggests that the U.S. military has taken extraordinary care to avoid civilian casualties, and it’s probably also true that more people are alive today in Iraq than would have been had Saddam remained in power, what with the sanctions causing health problems and Saddam killing anyone who looked at him funny.
Still, if true, wouldn’t it mean that the death and casalty totals are inflated a bit…even if we look at the total which includes killed by coalition and those killed by insurgents? I mean, the last 6 months were some of the most violent in Iraq I thought, civilian casualty wise…wasn’t it? I find it hard to believe that there were 3,274 killed in the last 6 months and 12,000 (or 97,000, or 190,000) killed in the previous 6 months. Civilians mind you. If those other figures are true AND if the Iraq minstry figures are true, doesn’t that mean things are getting better? And if the figures from IBC and more so from Lancet are inflated, doesn’t that mean it never was as bad as previously reported?
I’m making no comment on the accuracy of what was cited BTW…just food for thought.
In just six months the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the war in Iraq is 525 more than were killed in the World Trade Towers and the airplanes that hit them on September 11.
Morally, there is no swapping out. We can’t excuse the civilian deaths that we are responsible for by saying that we have saved a lot of lives by getting rid of Saddam. That is especially true when the possibility exists that Saddam could have been removed without a war.
IIRC, the Lancet study included all deaths such as those from disease and injury not directly caused by the war. The study just looked at how much the death rate had increased.
If there’s a car accident/disease that resulted in serious injuries/grave illness that would be survivable if appropriate medical care had been available (eg pre-war Iraq) but instead results in a death because of a lack of available medical care (because of lack of personel, fuel, telephones, clean water, electricity or what-have-you) it was counted by the Lancet study, but not by the figures cited above. The figures cited above relate merely to directly attributable deaths and not deaths that are secondary consequences of a war torn country. The Lancet study merely compared death rates from pre-war and during the war (if one assumes that there is actually a war going on- some dopers thought that the Iraq war was already over a few mnths back). This revealed a more comprehensive, and consequentially larger, figure.
The two sets of numbers are estimates of the same sets of data. One apparently is about directly attributable casualties and the other was about total increase in casualties since the start of the war.
I’ll agree if we are talking about those cites, often with an axe to grind, citing 100’s and 100’s of thousands civilians killed
I’ll agree with the rest & tone but with this qualification: I fully expect the lions share of Iraqi civilian casualties died in the initial invasion when Iraqi resistance was at its most organized – so even if 10,000 or so have died at this pace since May 2003 so, the six Weeks (& I agree it was worse this year than last so that while the number of civilian casualties might actually be lower, it goes against your point of an “improving” situation) causalities between 3/29/03 and May are almost certainly many times that.
I don’t know about Insurgents per se – but this goes to my point above: in “Plan of Attack,” Bob Woodward says General Tommy Franks estimated that 30,000 Iraqi soldiers died during the first three weeks of the war - Including an on the record estimate of 3000 killed defending Baghdad.
And? What exactly is the relevance of this? I thought that Iraq and 9/11 were separate.
In addition, I didn’t realize that an exact body count was required…a one for one swap of lives. Is there some kind of rule for this?
When is there ever a moral swapping out?? Is anyone excusing the civilian deaths based on the number of citizens that died in the WTC or the Pentagon or on those planes? If so, who is doing it…they should be pitted I’d think.
As for Saddam being removed without the war…why? If you are ok with Saddam being removed then I’d say the war was justified on those grounds alone. If you are cool with Saddam staying in power than the exact body count of the invasion is moot as its not justified reguardless. On the point though, how exactly could Saddam be removed without a war? Assassination? Only way I can think of, and that would simply mean one of his sons would take over…which is arguably worse, especially after wacking their father. If the threat of invasion wasn’t enough to get Saddam to bolt I don’t see anything short of a bullet getting him out of Iraq.
By and large its lumped in with the other ‘civilian’ casualties, as in many cases its difficult to determine who is a civilian and who is an insurgent…or even an out and out terrorist.
I’m not sure I’m following you here Jimmy. I doubt the lions share of the CIVILIAN casualties occured during the initial invasion, as we were mostly targetting Iraqi military targets, and attempting to avoid massive civilian deaths. In the past 6 months we’ve had Fallujah after all, as well as deliberate targetting of the Iraqi population by the glorious freedom fighters, as well as a stepped up insurgency putting civilians directly in the line of fire between US/UK forces and insurgents. I’d need to be convinced that in the initial 6 months of the invasion 5 times the number of civilian casualties (50 times if Lancet is right) were inflicted than in the past 6 months…which is what the numbers seem to be indicated (assuming they are right of course).
Lets get some perspective here. You may recall that the allies got bogged down in Holland in September 1944, and they couldn’t cross the Rhine. Well for the next six months 30,000 Dutch citizens died of starvation and exposure as a result of that operation. Do you ever hear the Dutch complain about that? Hell no, they are still grateful !
That is the first time I’ve heard that. Are you sure you don’t mean that we could have contained him without a war? Of course we are refering to his impact outside of Iraq, not his ability to oppress his people.
Do you need further clarification? (I believe that there is some sort of regulation about an occupying force keeping track of the number of civilian deaths. It may be part of the Geneva Conventions, but I cannot cite. At any rate, I don’t think our government is going to actually declare itself to be “occupying” Iraq anyway.
Again, my comments were in response to Sam Stone’s post:
I don’t think that he needs to be pitted for making that point. I just don’t believe that it is ever moral justification for the civilian deaths that do occur.
What I hear you saying is “Why remove Saddam without a war when we can do it with a war?” That doesn’t make sense to me.
Saddam should have been arrested by international security forces and tried by a tribunal for crimes against humanity. Maybe the United States shouldn’t have been so dead set against a World Court, but it is becoming more and more understandable why we opposed it.
I have not come across anyone yet who believes that Saddam should have stayed in power. Not one single human being. And a dead body is never a moot point. Regardless.
Yes. Someone might have had to fire a bullet.
Are you certain of that or are you assuming that is true?
(It’s good to see you posting again.) The Dutch are known for their bravery and I don’t know if any of the people who lost loved ones still complain about that terrible time or not. I certainly wouldn’t blame them if they did. Please don’t ask me to believe that 30,000 people starved to death without complaining as they died and without those who loved them mourning their deaths.
I would like to know if the German bunkers still stand on the beaches outside of Haarlem. They were there in 1972 as reminders of what the Dutch had endured and I was very touched by that.
The Lancet report is not a statement of how many people were killed in the war. It is an estimate of how many more deaths were there in Iraq during the war and post-war period than during a comparable pre-war period. If someone dies because they cannot get to the hospital because of insurgent activity, that counts as an excess death - it is likely that person would have lived had the war not occured. That said, the Lancet investigators did report a high proportion of deaths were due to violence (as reported on death certificates).
I am not a huge proponent of Lancet’s study : however they essentially say most of the Iraqi civilian deaths by the coalition were caused by air strikes. You are absolutely correct that the coalition did everything possible to keep civilian casualties down. However, given the Baathist tactic of hiding men, material and snipers among the civilian population , as well as the later early “dead ender Baathist” tactic of using schools and mosques (decried many, many times by the coalition military and political leadership) it makes perfect sense to me that most of the casualties from the coalition were early on and have gradually decreased.
As to Fallujah, the city’s final stage probably caused less of civilian toll than earlier spasms of violence there as 75-90% of the population had fled by the time the final showdown began (precisely because the coalition wanted to avoid civilian deaths and made sure to minimize them).
In short, I really don’t have to epidemiological background to quibble with the Lancet study – but I agree and state again that it seems logical, to me, that the lion’s share of civilians killed directly by the coalition died before Fall 2003.
One of my problems with the Lancet study is that they used mortality figures from pre-invasion Iraq that may or may not have been very accurate…there is no way to tell. However, from what I’ve read they were most likely low…and some say VERY low. In fact, one study I remember reading in rebuttal to Lancet (if I can find it again later I’ll post it) actually said that, at least from their projections of mortality rates pre-invasion, that the overall death count might be lower post-invasion than pre-invasion…i.e. less people are dieing today than before the invasion. Now, I don’t believe that for a moment, but what it tells me is that its debatable.
As Lancet is using those mortality figures as part of their overall calculation of the number of possible deaths, it has the potential of throwing off their conclusions…maybe a little, maybe a lot. Its fundamental though to their process. Thats why I trust more groups like IBC that count (or at least attempt to count) ACTUAL deaths, than Lancet which is making projections extrapolated from a small protion ‘randomly’ sampled (with some understandable flaws in their sampling due to the danger of several areas in Iraq) of the population and projected over the entire nation…and then use possibly flawed mortality figures from pre-invasion Iraq to project what the mortality rate SHOULD have been and what it is, then project those numbers as killed due to the invasion.
I think the Lancet study is interesting, and I don’t think its total bullshit…but its not something I’d hang my hat on with any level of certainty, and certainly not the holy grail of figures its made out to be on this board. I think IBC is much closer to the truth, despite the cite in the OP. Why 15-17k dead isn’t horrible enough for some I just don’t know.
