And The Blind Shall Lead Them…
Good God, I can see that these new Lancet figures are already gaining traction despite their obvious ludicrousness. It’s not hard to debunk this one, and it doesn’t require ’sound methodologies’ or ’sophisticated sampling techniques’. The study says 601,000 of the 655,000 ‘excess’ civilian deaths it posits are violent deaths.
Now, I remember days where 60 bodies have been found, or dozens have been injured in suicide bombings. I don’t remember a single day where 500 have been killed. Yet, according to this study, 500 are killed every single day for three years. Now, who’s buying that? Seriously…because I have some real estate to sell them.
As a commenter at Kevin Drum’s points out, we would also expect about 2 million wounded with that number of deaths. That’s 1 out of every 15 Iraqis. Really? Sounds…um…completely unbelievable, doesn’t it? For good reason.
Finally, I would be remiss if I allowed Drum’s comment that “if it’s accurate it means that coalition troops are killing nearly 5,000 Iraqis per month” to stand. No, Kevin, that’s absolutely false. Even if the story were true, and it’s clear to any one but the most simplistic fool that it is not, that would mean terrorists were killing 5,000 Iraqis per month. Not coalition troops. Understand the difference?
UPDATE 9:14 a.m.: Okay, I apologize to Kevin Drum, though I’m quite certain he’ll never see the accusation or the apology. I see where he got the 5,000 Iraqis killed by coalition forces from, as the study says 31% of the deaths are from coalition troops, and about a third of 15,000 monthly deaths is 5,000.
Of course, that’s all predicated on the study being accurate, which it most assuredly is not. For those who think I’m just a Bush apologist, here’s this:
An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.
“They’re almost certainly way too high,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.
“This is not analysis, this is politics,” Cordesman said.
The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study – that one was released just before the November 2005 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate.
UPDATE 9:22 a.m.: Even those who approve of the methodologies used aren’t convinced:
Statistics experts in the United States who were able to review the study said the methods used by the interviewers looked legitimate.
Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”
But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.
Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”
What an intelligent response. You can’t challenge the methodology -which is the standard, tried and trusted methodology for large scale mortality surveys – so you just insist that it has to be wrong because, because, because, it JUST MUST BE.
This is the current mental state of the American right it would seem -unable to cope with your support for genocide, you place your fingers in your ears and hope that the dead will just go away.
The original Lancet story was never ‘discredited’ it was solid work that was subsequently corroborated. All your empty rhetoric won’t change that.
Report on 655,000 alleged Iraqi civilian casualties since the beginning of the Iraq war: the latest October surprise
It’s all over the news – Memeorandum has it at the top of their page, so it’s getting a lot of play in the blogosphere as well. Here’s the Washington Post headline: Study Claims Iraq’s ‘Excess’ Death Toll Has Reache…
Report on 655,000 alleged Iraqi civilian casualties since the beginning of the Iraq war: the latest October surprise
It’s all over the news – Memeorandum has it at the top of their page, so it’s getting a lot of play in the blogosphere as well. Here’s the Washington Post headline: Study Claims Iraq’s ‘Excess’ Death Toll Has Reache…
Yes, HP, we are taking part in ‘genocide’ in Iraq.
You’re some kind of super-genius, aren’t you?…
“You can’t challenge the methodology -which is the standard, tried and trusted methodology for large scale mortality surveys…”
Really? Let’s see your sources and figures for this claim – you don’t appear too eager to have included these basic studies to support your claim.
“The original Lancet story was never ‘discredited’ it was solid work that was subsequently corroborated.”
Incorrect – it was never validated in the first place; of course, if you disagree, again please include sources to corroborate the Lancet figures. Is there something that’s preventing you from doing this? No doubt, cognitive dissonance can be quite difficult for intellects such as yours to experience. You certainly have our sympathy.
A closer look at the hallowed Lancet studies reveals these tidbits:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=a8b58a972ff83c14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Caveats abound from the Lancet brainiacs: “numbers were too few to extrapolate,” “we found deaths all over the country (what the hell does that mean?),” etc.
Last line is the final word from the “experts,” quoted here:
‘Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.” ‘
Additional gems from the Guardian story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6139216,00.html
Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”
“This is not analysis, this is politics,” Cordesman said.
Yep.
While not a religious person, I can’t help but draw upon the ‘let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone’ parable.
This type of story is the biblical equivalent of throwing a grain of sand.
To the Lancet brainiacs, let’s talk numbers & averages:
First, the baseline for ‘excess’ deaths
1) Saddam was killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month before 2003?
In the house of death vacated by a despotic & murderous tyrant, wannabe tyrants jostle for supremacy to inflict themselves upon the Iraqis:
2) Al Quaida In Iraq was killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month since 2003 in hopes of starting a civil war, leading to their brand of govt?
(Hint: the letter from AQ HQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan cautioned who against indescriminate killing of innocent Iraqis, lest their objectives backfire?)
3) Iranian puppets in Iraq were killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month since 2003 in hopes of starting a civil war, leading to their brand of govt?
Now the tough part, put on the thinking cap:
4) OIF coalition were killing at the rate of how many insurgents & foreign fighters per month since 2003?
5) OIF coalition were killing at the rate of how many innocent Iraqis per month since 2003?
Now answer the following:
A) add #4 & #5, then compare that to the sum of #3 & #2.
B) Contrast the two sets to #1.
C) Compare & contrast all three sets in terms of goals and intended outcomes.
So who is/are the real monster(s)?
Finally factor this set of “excess” deaths into the overall conclusion:
6) Tribalist revenge & Honor Killings were killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month since the beginning of time?
7) Typical, run of the mill criminal intent murder, i.e. highway robbery, home invasion, theft etc, were killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month since the beginning of time?
What?? Don’t know the answers to #6 and/or #7, nor it’s potential impact on overall deaths?
Yeah, I thot so. These psuedo-intellectuals would rather blame Bush than calling a spade a spade.
I wonder how much research they spent on Rwanda, or currently spending on Darfur.
The cost of their innaccurate report might have fed more than 300,000 for six months. British priorites.
mtl, I’m beginning to think these orgs only exist to ankle-bite anyone who pays attention. Campaigning for true justice & human rights is besides the point for them.
No point in haranguing Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq etc if all you get for your troubles is a brush-off at best, or worse, get shot dead for tossing stones. Better to get attention & money by pointing out the mote in our eye than the beam in the abuser’s.
[...] Decision 08 [...]
1 dead for every 4 randomly selected home. That’s bad no matter how you look at it. (They interviewed 1,840 random people and found over 500 dead – 92% of those showed the death certificate)
If you think about it we’ve dropped over 240,000 cluster bombs. We’d be fools to think they didn’t kill anyone. Add in gunfire and car bombs and 600,000 dead doesn’t seem that big.
A fact-challenged individual called “MTL” said “The cost of their innaccurate report might have fed more than 300,000 for six months. British priorites.”
However ***John Hopkins***, where the team that did the study hails from, was in the USA the last time I looked.
A little chum of his called “Andy” wrote “No point in haranguing Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq etc if all you get for your troubles is a brush-off at best, or worse, get shot dead for tossing stones. Better to get attention & money by pointing out the mote in our eye than the beam in the abuser’s.”
Well, Andy, if you had bothered reading the in-depth coverage of the study, you’d find that the methods used – and many of the team members – had previously produced reports on e.g Rwanda that the US government accepted without question.