Public Eye
October 11, 2006 2:12 PM

Deaths In The Fog Of War

(AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)
600,000? 655,000? Really?

That's the response from skeptics in the wake of a new report that claims a horrifyingly high number of civilian deaths in Iraq since the 2003 American invasion. According to the New York Times, the study, which is tied to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006."

The margin of error is worth mentioning: Researchers said the true number of deaths could be anywhere from 426,369 to 793,663. The 655,000 figure, which takes into account both deaths from violence and "excess deaths," represents about two and a half percent of Iraq's population.

The figures, based on a survey of 1,849 Iraqi families across Iraq, have some crying fowl. "They're almost certainly way too high," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington told the Associated Press. "This is not analysis, this is politics."

President Bush also weighed in at his press conference today when he was asked about the study. "I don't consider it a credible report," he said. "Neither does General Casey, neither do Iraqi officials." Bush has estimated the number of civilian deaths to be around 30,000, though he now says only that "a lot of innocent people have lost their life."

It's difficult to get any sense of where the truth lies in all this. Certainly, any news that comes out not long before an election will raise suspicions about the motivations behind it. The study's main author, Gilbert Burnham, says his numbers are so much higher than others because he looked not just at death rates in Baghdad but across Iraq. He also notes that his report is based on surveys of people, not media estimates, which are based largely on what reporters get from officials. There could be something to this: The AP notes that "[a]ccurate death tolls have been difficult to obtain ever since the Iraq conflict began in March 2003. When top Iraqi political officials cite death numbers, they often refuse to say where the numbers came from."

We cannot expect to have a perfectly accurate figure when it comes to civilian deaths in Iraq, thanks to the realities of war and politics and the paucity of reliable statistics coming out of the country. But it is somewhat staggering to think that there are more than 500,000 people who may, or may not, be dead as a result of the war.
Tags:
Iraq ,
figures ,
civilian casualties
Topics:
In The News
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment
by sanfelz October 12, 2006 3:34 PM EDT
How does a land deal equate with dead innocents and dead soldiers? It is unfortunate that the 34 year-old pitcher perished along with his 26-year old flight instructor. So, what is the correct number of those ages that have died in Iraq?
Reply to this comment
by one_american October 11, 2006 10:10 PM EDT
mailpro56:

That is a very good question.

A small plane flies into the side of a building, and CBS has it up instantly.

Dirty Harry Reid is exposed for dirty dishonest dealings, and CBS is out to lunch. Permanently.

And CBS is not liberally biased. Haw haw.
Reply to this comment
by engineer341 October 11, 2006 6:37 PM EDT
I think President Bush is the only one denying this. After all, 240,000 cluster bombs have been dropped. It makes since that maybe some people died when they landed. Add in gunfire and carbombs and 600,000 doesn't seem that big.

Even if you iqnore that fact, that's really think about the fact that they interviewed 1,849 and found over 500 people dead and 92% of those had death certificates to prove it. That doesn't even count the homes that don't exist anymore. 1 dead person for every 4 randomly selected homes around the country, that's bad no matter who you look at i.
Reply to this comment
by mailpro56 October 11, 2006 5:53 PM EDT
Brian:

Most people are dismissing this report...so why even cover it?

Let's discuss how the media will try and 'squash' the Harry Reid land deal scandal.
Reply to this comment

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye

  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Can the Postal Service be Saved?

    (299 recent comments)