|
Advertisement | Study: 655,000 Iraqis KilledControversial U.S. Study's Methodology, Release Weeks Before Election Called Into QuestionBAGHDAD, Oct. 11, 2006 ![]() ![]() Situation In Iraq WorseningSenator John Warner, chairman of the armed services committee, warns that the situation in Iraq is drifting "side-wise." Jim Axelrod has more. | Share/Embed (CBS/AP) A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates. The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics." Within hours, President Bush dismissed the study. Mr. Bush told reporters at a White House news conference: "I don't consider it a credible report." "Neither does General Casey, neither do Iraqi officials," Mr. Bush added, referring to Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq. Mr. Bush, who last December suggested there may have been 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, would not give a figure Wednesday for overall fatalities. "A lot of innocent people have lost their life," he said. In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer. "Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement. To better understand the figure, consider this: the same percentage of the much-larger American population would be 7.5 million dead, reported CBS national security correspondent David Martin. The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal. 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. For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July. The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces. The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study — that one was released just before the November 2004 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. Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports. A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties." Accurate 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. The major funder of the new study was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In other developments: ©MMVI CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. | Advertisement Exclusive: Belichick Talks On Spy-GateCBS News: New England Patriots Coach Breaks Silence On Videotape Scandal |
|
|
Comments [ + Post Your Own ]
Now you're in the public comment zone. What follows is not CBS News stuff; it comes from other people and we don't vouch for it. A reminder: By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.