# Here we go again: How many Iraqis have died because of the war/occupation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360 "2007-01-17T19:40:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/1 "2007-01-17T19:40:22Z")
We [debated this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=308128) in early '05, but based on **Aquila Be’s** comments in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=404023) ongoing thread, it appears there’s still some skepticism about the figure of 655,000 Iraqis dead because of the war and occupation, as estimated in a [recent study by Iraqi and American epidemiologists.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/2 "2007-01-17T19:50:04Z")
[IBC](http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) is lower with 53954 - 59571. Believe what you want. Its all in how you spin the numbers and what assumptions you make. -XT ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/3 "2007-01-17T20:00:45Z")
To describe this figure as ‘over the top propaganda’ is completely inaccurrate and disparaging of what is an honest peer-reviewed scientific article. Accurately make that claim you would would have to point out serious, deliberate, flaws in the methodology, which no-one has done. A good discussion of this is [here](http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_davies/2006/10/how_to_not_lie_with_statistics.html.printer.friendly) : > [@](#): > > The results speak for themselves. There was a sample of 12,801 individuals in 1,849 households, in 47 geographical locations. That is a big sample, not a small one. The opinion polls from Mori and such which measure political support use a sample size of about 2,000 individuals, and they have a margin of error of +/- 3%. If Margaret Beckett looks at the Labour party’s rating in the polls, she presumably considers this to be reasonably reliable, so she should not contribute to public ignorance by allowing her department to disparage “small samples extrapolated to the whole country”. The Iraq Body Count website and the Iraqi government statistics are not better measures than the survey results, because one of the things we know about war zones is that casualties are under-reported, usually by a factor of more than five. > > And the results were shocking. In the 18 months before the invasion, the sample reported 82 deaths, two of them from violence. In the 39 months since the invasion, the sample households had seen 547 deaths, 300 of them from violence. The death rate expressed as deaths per 1,000 per year had gone up from 5.5 to 13.3. > > Talk of confidence intervals becomes frankly irrelevant at this point. If you want to pick a figure for the precise number of excess deaths, then (1.33% - 0.55%) x 26,000,000 x 3.25 = 659,000 is as good as any, multiplying out the difference between the death rates by the population of Iraq and the time since the invasion. But we’re interested in the qualitative conclusion here. > > That qualitative conclusion is this: things have got worse, and they have got a lot worse, not a little bit worse. Whatever detailed criticisms one might make of the methodology of the study (and I have searched assiduously for the last two years, with the assistance of a lot of partisans of the Iraq war who have tried to pick holes in the study, and not found any), the numbers are too big. \*\* If you go out and ask 12,000 people whether a family member has died and get reports of 300 deaths from violence, then that is not consistent with there being only 60,000 deaths from violence in a country of 26 million\*\*. It is not even nearly consistent. > > This is the question to always keep at the front of your mind when arguments are being slung around (and it is the general question one should always be thinking of when people talk statistics). How Would One Get This Sample, If The Facts Were Not This Way? There is really only one answer - that the study was fraudulent.[1] It really could not have happened by chance. If a Mori poll puts the Labour party on 40% support, then we know that there is some inaccuracy in the poll, but we also know that there is basically zero chance that the true level of support is 2% or 96%, and for the Lancet survey to have delivered the results it did if the true body count is 60,000 would be about as improbable as this. Anyone who wants to dispute the important conclusion of the study has to be prepared to accuse the authors of fraud, and presumably to accept the legal consequences of doing so. The bolding is mine and that statement is that sums it up nicely IMO. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/4 "2007-01-17T20:10:13Z")
[QUOTE=griffin1977] To describe this figure as ‘over the top propaganda’ is completely inaccurrate and disparaging of what is an honest peer-reviewed scientific article. Accurately make that claim you would would have to point out serious, deliberate, flaws in the methodology, which no-one has done. [/QUOTE] Where do you get the idea that no one has questioned the Lancet analysis, or found flaws in their methodology? Have you tried ‘debunking Lancet’ in google? I seem to be getting quite a few hits there…many with at least as much credibility as what you cited in your post. As I said, its all in how you spin the data and what assumptions you make. Personally, I find it fairly incredible that something like 400+ Iraqi’s have died every day since the war started and that this has been under reported to such a major extent that most other estimates hover around what IBC claims…while the Lancet study is an order of magnitude (well, more) higher. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/5 "2007-01-17T20:19:06Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Personally, I find it fairly incredible that something like 400+ Iraqi’s have died every day since the war started and that this has been under reported to such a major extent that most other estimates hover around what IBC claims…while the Lancet study is an order of magnitude (well, more) higher. [/QUOTE] Well, don’t forget that Iraqis dead “because of the war/occupation” includes a great many who have not died violently, but who likely would still be alive if the war had never happened. 10 Iraqis killed by car bomb = front page news. 100 Iraqis die from drinking bad water = page 10 news, if that. And the Lancet study is from back in '04. We have a more recent one, as noted and linked in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/6 "2007-01-17T20:21:46Z")
Theres another question hidden in the larger one. For instance, in another context our Senior Baghdad Correspondent, **MadMonk** mourns the death of an acquaintance who died from the unavailability of kidney dialysis. This is not a directly attributable death by violence, which would be the unstated assumption of “death tolls” due to “war”. Americans such as we tend to thing of “war dead” strictly in terms of soldiers lost, for such is our experience, we have not been carpet-bombed, due to the blessing of geography, the strategy of the RAF’s “Bomber” Harris has not been applied to us. Truth is, modern warfare kills soldiers but massacres civilians. World War II estimates center around somewhere north of 50 megadeath, with the greatest bulk being Soviet. Note well: the vast majority of these deaths are non-combatant. America lost roughly half a million, almost all of them military, civilian deaths were miniscule by comparison. I think this is a near-sightedness peculiar to us, due to our history: everybody else knows it, we have to be reminded. All wars are the massacre of the innocent, they cannot be otherwise. Which is why the decision to undertake war should be taken with grave reluctance, the last resort, where nothing but the grimmest neccesity exists. Needless to say, present circumstances do not, and never did. “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” - Thomas Jefferson ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/7 "2007-01-17T20:22:00Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Where do you get the idea that no one has questioned the Lancet analysis, or found flaws in their methodology? Have you tried ‘debunking Lancet’ in google? I seem to be getting quite a few hits there…many with at least as much credibility as what you cited in your post. [/QUOTE] To show it was “propaganda” you would have to show INTENT to to **delibrately** skew the estitmates upwards. No-one has done this. There have of course been plenty of attempts to discredit the methodology. None of them have held up IMO. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/8 "2007-01-17T20:24:20Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Well, don’t forget that Iraqis dead “because of the war/occupation” includes a great many who have not died violently, but who likely would still be alive if the war had never happened. 10 Iraqis killed by car bomb = front page news. 100 Iraqis die from drinking bad water = page 10 news, if that. [/QUOTE] True enough…though IBC also factors such things into their calculations. It would be fairly hard to miss 400+ Iraqi’s dead a day for every day since the invasion however. If Lancet (or your new cite) were saying the difference was + or -, say, 5% of what is generally accepted, then I’d say that was reasonable. However, we aren’t talking 5% difference here…but an order of magnitude difference. Thats quite a gap, wouldn’t you say? How do you account for it? Are groups like IBC deliberately under representing casualties by an order of magnitude? [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] And the Lancet study is from back in '04. We have a more recent one, as noted and linked in the OP. [/QUOTE] Sorry…I assumed it was Lancet or one of the spin-off surveys using the same meta-data and methodology. I didn’t really look it over directly. If I have time after work I’ll take a peek. Apologies. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/9 "2007-01-17T20:27:19Z")
[QUOTE=griffin1977] To show it was “propaganda” you would have to show INTENT to to delibrately skew the estitmates upwards. No-one has done this. [/QUOTE] I never said it was deliberate skewing of the results…I doubt this is a provable position unless some internal memo’s or such are leaked. [QUOTE=griffin1977] None of them have held up **IMO**. [/QUOTE] 😛 Certainly…I accept unconditionally that none of them have held up in your opinion. -XT ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/10 "2007-01-17T20:34:08Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] [IBC](http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) is lower with 53954 - 59571. Believe what you want. Its all in how you spin the numbers and what assumptions you make. -XT [/QUOTE] As I pointed before, IBC looks for what the official press mentions, you are ignoring that the official press has been found before to print propaganda and has been constantly threatened for looking for information (In Iraq). It is not strange that they are under counting a lot. And \*\*the Johns Hopkins research is looking for evidence that IBC does not look at all \*\* (As the IBC web site mentions). > [@](#): > > While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates. > > “We’re very confident with the results,” said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/11 "2007-01-17T20:34:38Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] All wars are the massacre of the innocent, they cannot be otherwise. [/QUOTE] To be fair, they can be; it largely depends on the military technology, and doctrines, of the day. In Renaissance Italy or 18th-Century Europe, it was possible for the armies to fight wars just among themselves and leave the civilians out of it (if the generals were so inclined). In Classical Greece or Rome wars **could** have been fought that way, except that everybody assumed the victors had a right to make slaves or corpses of the losers, civilians included. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/12 "2007-01-17T20:37:44Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] True enough…though IBC also factors such things into their calculations. It would be fairly hard to miss 400+ Iraqi’s dead a day for every day since the invasion however. If Lancet (or your new cite) were saying the difference was + or -, say, 5% of what is generally accepted, then I’d say that was reasonable. However, we aren’t talking 5% difference here…but an order of magnitude difference. [/QUOTE] IBC only go off published reports there is nothing particularly unbelievable about the fact that the majority of deaths go unreported. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/13 "2007-01-17T20:39:32Z")
Believe it or not, some right-wingers have accused IBC of **over** counting the dead. See [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project#Criticism) General Wikipedia article on the body-count question [here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/14 "2007-01-17T20:46:01Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] It would be fairly hard to miss 400+ Iraqi’s dead a day for every day since the invasion however. [/QUOTE] It would be easy. How many bodies are buried by people afraid to go any farther than their back yards, or buried in rubble, or deliberately not counted, or chucked in a river, or left to rot ? [QUOTE=xtisme] Are groups like IBC deliberately under representing casualties by an order of magnitude? [/QUOTE] Yes, I believe so. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/15 "2007-01-17T20:50:57Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] True enough…though IBC also factors such things into their calculations. It would be fairly hard to miss 400+ Iraqi’s dead a day for every day since the invasion however. If Lancet (or your new cite) were saying the difference was + or -, say, 5% of what is generally accepted, then I’d say that was reasonable. However, we aren’t talking 5% difference here…but an order of magnitude difference. Thats quite a gap, wouldn’t you say? How do you account for it? Are groups like IBC deliberately under representing casualties by an order of magnitude? -XT [/QUOTE] The UN estimates 32,000 casualties for 2006. [Cite.](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) This is three times higher than the Iraqi government estimate, a lot more than 5%. The UN report was compiled using reports from morgues and hospitals across Iraq. If the UN number is a bit low, very possible, and the survey number is actually near the bottom of its confidence interval, there is not that much difference. I doubt the UN number counts side effects of the war as already mentioned. I’d wonder if it counted casualties in regions with a strong insurgent presence. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/16 "2007-01-17T21:21:03Z")
If you look at the total number of deaths in the US from all causes in 2003, you get around 2.5 mill. Given some very dirty figuring, that would translate in Iraq to a similar toll at the same death rate per 100,000 to something in the region of what? around 150-200 thousand. You’d expect that in any eventuality, the death rate in Iraq is likely to be proportionally higher than the US simply because of better health and welfare. Now this study examines a period 1.5 time longer than the 12 months, therefore you’d expect the numbers to be similarly higher, and add in the breakdown of health facilities etc, and you can soon make a good case for 300-400 thousand deaths from what you might call expected causes. Put in place things such as poor water supply and other disease, and you are up there. So you can see that there is a huge potential for interpretation of how deaths ocurred just from those figures alone, and thats without taking into account deaths from violence. I’m no apologist at all, I despise those who planned and plotted this war, long before it took place, however, even on the lowest estimates of around 60thousand, imagine scaling that up to US population numbers, and what you get is a pretty horrific number by anyones standards, which would entail multiplying by something around 12, which would be around 720 thousand. I would put the case to anyone, that if the death rate in the US rose by such an amount, it would be seen as pretty horrific, and yet the bean counters and propagandists are bouncing this death toll in Iraq as if it were a mere bagatelle, a trivial inconsequence. Its not unreasonable, given the lies of the US administrators that justified this war, that the 60k death toll is very much an underestimate, but without reasonably accurate figures, it does not help to make assumptions that could wilt under scrutiny, far better to point their lying estimate and condemn them on that basis. 60 thousand dead Iraqis, less security, and the prospect of worse to come, that’s plenty good reasons to condemn Bush and his murderous cohorts along with their money grabbing corrupt business partners. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/17 "2007-01-17T21:44:40Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Where do you get the idea that no one has questioned the Lancet analysis, or found flaws in their methodology? Have you tried ‘debunking Lancet’ in google? I seem to be getting quite a few hits there…many with at least as much credibility as what you cited in your post. [/quote] The question I would ask is, have any of these ‘debunkings’ been in the scholarly literature? Because anyone can say anything in a blog, or in AEI’s or Hoover’s in-house publications, or whatnot. The thing about **griffin** quoting Daniel Davies is that Davies isn’t the authoritative source; the _Lancet_ article is. Davies is just bringing it down closer to layman’s language. That should be the standard for the rebuttal/debunking/whatever: there should be one in the scholarly littcher where the real debate goes on, and someone reasonably intelligent can give the English-language version. > [@](#): > > As I said, its all in how you spin the data and what assumptions you make. Personally, I find it fairhttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8162392# > Decrease Sizely incredible that something like 400+ Iraqi’s have died every day since the war started and that this has been under reported to such a major extent that most other estimates hover around what IBC claims…while the Lancet study is an order of magnitude (well, more) higher. I think it’s essential to remember that the IBC describes itself as “the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of **media-reported civilian deaths** in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies.” What’s more, [the IBC relies on a rather stratospheric list of sources](http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php): > [@](#): > > Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below). > > ABC - ABC News (USA) > AFP - Agence France-Presse > AP - Associated Press > AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology > Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network > BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation > BG - Boston Globe > Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun > CT - Chicago Tribune > CO - [Commondreams.org](http://Commondreams.org) > CSM - Christian Science Monitor > DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur > FOX - Fox News > GUA - The Guardian (London) > HRW - Human Rights Watch > HT - Hindustan Times > ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross > IND - The Independent (London) > IO - [Intellnet.org](http://Intellnet.org) > JT - Jordan Times > LAT - Los Angeles Times > MEN - Middle East Newsline > MEO - Middle East Online > MER - Middle East Report > MH - Miami Herald > NT - Nando Times > NYT - New York Times > Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet) > SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation > SMH - Sydney Morning Herald > Sg.News - The Singapore News > Tel- The Telegraph (London) > Times - The Times (London) > TOI - Times of India > TS - Toronto Star > UPI - United Press International > WNN - World News Network > WP - Washington Post > > For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access. > > The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network. I appreciate all their talk about standards, but this is the view from 40,000 feet of what is happening on the ground. How many deaths in Baqubah or Nasiriyah or similar towns are reported only in the papers of those cities, but not reported in the international press? It goes without saying that the IBC is catching only a fraction of the war-related deaths - it’s a direct consequence of their methodology. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/18 "2007-01-17T21:59:40Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Theres another question hidden in the larger one. For instance, in another context our Senior Baghdad Correspondent, **MadMonk** mourns the death of an acquaintance who died from the unavailability of kidney dialysis. This is not a directly attributable death by violence, which would be the unstated assumption of “death tolls” due to “war”. [/QUOTE] A little light reading on a related note: [Iraq’s Woes Are Adding Major Risks To Childbirth](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301666.html) Wonder how many of those deaths were reported in the Agence France-Presse or the Sydney Morning Herald? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2007, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/19 "2007-01-17T22:06:12Z")
By the way, I want to make it clear that I’m not being at all critical of the IBC. I think someone should be doing _exactly_ what they are doing - producing a complete count of Iraqi deaths that have been reported in the reputable international press - but it should not in any way be confused with an estimate, even a low-ball estimate, of actual war-related deaths. That is not what they are providing. They are doing something necessary, but quite different. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2007, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360/20 "2007-01-18T00:33:52Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] It would be easy. How many bodies are buried by people afraid to go any farther than their back yards, or buried in rubble, or deliberately not counted, or chucked in a river, or left to rot ? [/QUOTE] If we were talking about a few hundred or even a thousand or so, I’d agree. We are, however, talking about 600,000. Thats a hell of a lot of dead people to bury in back yards, stick in rubble or chuck in rivers. Do you have any idea of what that number means in real world terms? [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Yes, I believe so. [/QUOTE] Why? IBC is an anti-war organization. Why would they deliberately be under-estimating the numbers of Iraqi dead? Whats their motive for doing such a thing? [QUOTE=griffin1977] IBC only go off published reports there is nothing particularly unbelievable about the fact that the majority of deaths go unreported. [/QUOTE] (from memory) They also cross check every death certificate to verify deaths they reported. We are talking about a HUGE amount of difference here…aprox 60,000 verse nearly 700,000…more than an order of magnitude difference. Thats not 5% difference…or 100% difference. Its more like 1000% difference (if the math in my head is in the ball park). Thats pretty big. BTW, I’m not saying Lancet is wrong. As I’ve said in other threads concerning this, I simply think that Lancet is using a broader definition and scope of what a civilian death is than anyone else is…or ever has. Had this definition been used in previous wars then the death tolls for those wars would be (obviously) an order of magnitude higher than is generally acknowledged. If we count everyone who has a heart attack and couldn’t get care due to circumstances concerning the war as someone ‘killed’, then of course the numbers are going to be much higher. We could probably look back on wars of the past and instead of 30 or 40 million Russians killed increase that to 300 to 400 million killed (going on memory again for Russian civilians killed in WWII…just using the numbers as a rough example). To my mind when someone is ‘killed’ in war, that means they are killed directly from bombs or bullets. Thats why I orient to IBC’s stats…they are, IMHO, more meaningful. Lancet attempts to extrapolate its figures by comparing them to civilian death rates before the war to those now and getting its figures by interviewing households about ANY death thats occurred…then determining which ones were caused by the war and which were ‘normal’. So…as I’ve said. Its all in how you spin the data and what assumptions you make. I think Lancet IS useful (as I’ve said in other threads on this subject)…its just saying things different than most people are reading it. And its also being used for political purposes to jack up the horror of the war in Iraq. IMHO no jacking up is needed…60,000(!!) civilian deaths is quite horrible enough, thanks. -XT [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/here-we-go-again-how-many-iraqis-have-died-because-of-the-war-occupation/388360.md?page=2)