printThe Associates Press (via Rational Report) reports that:
A “controversial new study contends that nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died in the three-year-old conflict in Iraq—more than 10 times higher than other independent estimates of the toll.”
Dubya and his Oh-What-A-Wonderful-War contingent dispute these figures. And so they should.
The latest Lancet report has never claimed 655,000 civilian deaths total, but rather that, “An estimated 655,000 more Iraqis have died as a consequence of the March 2003 military invasion of Iraq than would have been expected in a non-conflict situation.”
What we have here, once again, is rotten reporting. When the first Lancet report appeared two year ago, mainstream press also fudged the facts. I think I was the only writer who made the necessary distinctions. I explained:
“In the final days of Saddam’s reign of terror, i.e., in the 15 months preceding the invasion, the primary causes of death in Iraq were natural: heart attack, stroke and chronic illness. Since Iraq became another neocon object lesson, the primary cause of death has been violence, according to the report.
Since March 2003, Iraqis have suffered from an excess of deaths, if you will. As Dr. Les Roberts, author of the study, told BBC News, ‘About 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.’
According to the study, “The relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months. But ‘the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the U.S.-led invasion.”
Update: My thanks to Bob Murphy and Sean Mercer for demanding further clarification: My point is non-ideological; I’d simply like to see accurate reporting. The 650,000 figure would include deaths due to a greater incidence of heart attacks, cancer, strokes, stress and displacement-related deaths, deaths associated with a lack of health care and potable water, etc. Thus, silly journalists build doubt into the report because they give the impression that this many people died directly because of the war. Rather, the figure represents both direct and indirect casualties of the invasion, which is why it’s believable.
It goes without saying that the report is a criminal indictment of the invasion. If not for the invasion, the leading cause of death in Iraqi would still be natural, as it was during Saddam’s suzerainty.
Whether the real number is 650,000 or one-tenth that, we still are faced with the fact that this unwarranted invasion of Iraq is not the “noble cause” that Bush and the Neocons continue to tell us.
Every time the truth comes out,the source is discredit and vilified. It seems to many of us, that our lives are worthy more so than any other life on the globe. Our arrogance and “we are the most powerful Country on planet earth” attitude, will eventually be our downfall.
Not to put too fine a point on it, suggest that ANY additional deaths are acceptable, nor endorse the prosecution of this current war, but the baseline figures here are at best, questionable.
Initial Iraqi death stats, (at the start of the war), were drawn primarily from Coroners’ and mortuary figures. The several thousand people found, (so far) steam-shovelled into mass graves, likely hadn’t as much chance to nip by the local mortuary to register their deaths as they might’ve liked. While I realize this doesn’t stand up to the sheer numbers of both civilian and military and police deaths which have occurred and been racking up since the “War to Liberate Iraq”, (or resumption of Gulf War hostilities if you prefer), but the post-war destabilization of the region seems to have caused more of the high numbers than the, (3-week) war. The newest figures also fail to distiguish between service, civilian and indeed terrorist deaths, (this last column likely fairly low as a percentage, but one Does want to be accurate when listing numbers). These minor distinctions, while of presumably no comfort to the dead and bereaved, give separate distinction between those innocent casualties, and those whose chosen professions include a heightened expectation of fatality.
This, and perhaps your previous post, raises the spectre of the libertarian heresy that perhaps a stable authoritarianism is better than anarchy. Or as Barbara Tuchman put it, “Disorder is the least tolerable of social states.”
At one time I’d have been tempted to disagree, but I remember a vacation in Tunisia where I saw what seemed a reasonably happy and prosperous country thriving on tourism and the local wine industry. (In a Muslim country no less!)
This was under the regime of President-for-life Whatsisname with his massive but relatively unobtrusive police force, and what seemed to be a policy of “Enjoy yourselves, have fun and make money. Just pay your taxes and don’t ever forget who’s in charge.”
This may be the best the Arab Islamic world is ever going to get for a while to come.
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/