lederhosen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lederhosen) wrote2006-10-12 09:32 pm
lederhosen) wrote2006-10-12 09:32 pm
Entry tags:
Body count in Iraq
The School of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, Iraq, and The Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University--in cooperation with MIT's Center for International Studies--have released a report on the under-examined question of civilian deaths in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Its central conclusion, based on a population-based survey conducted at some risk by a team of Iraqi and American public health researchers, is that approximately 600,000 people have died violently above the normal mortality rate. Including non-violent deaths that are nevertheless linked to the war, the total is estimated to be more than 650,000.
More here, including afull copy of the report. (Ed: better version with more complete information here.) From its summary:
Death rates were 5.5/1,000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1,000/year for the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths” — fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate — in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.
Overall, the methodology looks pretty solid*, and I can't see any major systematic error issues that they've missed.** Considering the dangers the researchers were inviting just by collecting this data, it's hard to ask for more.
For those curious to compare, Wikipedia has some discussion of human rights under Saddam. Three points to keep in mind: (1) usual Wikipedia disclaimers apply (I haven't checked the sources on that data), (2) reporting issues could well mean that the numbers there underestimate the numbers killed in Saddam's massacres of Kurds et al, and (3) Saddam was in power for 20-odd years, while the figures above are from the first three-and-a-bit years of US occupation.
*In particular, in case you were wondering about survey subjects inflating the numbers, they mention that pre-war estimates showed good agreement with other sources and that "At the conclusion of the interview in a household where a death was reported, the interviewers were to ask for a copy of the death certificate. In 92% of instances when this was asked, a death certificate was present".
**I do have one quibble:the report does not, AFAICT, indicate the precision of that estimate, and offering an estimate of "654,965" is clearly false precision. (It might be okay to give six significant figures in the methodology section, but not in a summary.) A quick-and-dirty calculation on my part suggests that the expected random error in that estimate would be around +/- 50,000, so "600,000-700,000 excess deaths" would be more accurate. Systematic issues probably widen that a bit further, but as they note in the report, cluster sampling is a widely-accepted demographic technique.
Edit: Actually, it does, and I missed it - p. 10 lists the 95% confidence interval as around 426-794k. This still shouldn't have been reported with so much precision in the summary.
I was on holiday when North Korea underlined the success of George W's efforts in protecting us all from nucular weapons, and most of what I'd say on that has already been said by others; North Korea was always going to be a difficult situation to handle, and I can't honestly say what would have been the best thing to do about it, but he seems to have been too busy flying turkeys into Iraq to even look for a solution in Korea.
More here, including a
Death rates were 5.5/1,000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1,000/year for the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths” — fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate — in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.
Overall, the methodology looks pretty solid*, and I can't see any major systematic error issues that they've missed.** Considering the dangers the researchers were inviting just by collecting this data, it's hard to ask for more.
For those curious to compare, Wikipedia has some discussion of human rights under Saddam. Three points to keep in mind: (1) usual Wikipedia disclaimers apply (I haven't checked the sources on that data), (2) reporting issues could well mean that the numbers there underestimate the numbers killed in Saddam's massacres of Kurds et al, and (3) Saddam was in power for 20-odd years, while the figures above are from the first three-and-a-bit years of US occupation.
*In particular, in case you were wondering about survey subjects inflating the numbers, they mention that pre-war estimates showed good agreement with other sources and that "At the conclusion of the interview in a household where a death was reported, the interviewers were to ask for a copy of the death certificate. In 92% of instances when this was asked, a death certificate was present".
**I do have one quibble:
Edit: Actually, it does, and I missed it - p. 10 lists the 95% confidence interval as around 426-794k. This still shouldn't have been reported with so much precision in the summary.
I was on holiday when North Korea underlined the success of George W's efforts in protecting us all from nucular weapons, and most of what I'd say on that has already been said by others; North Korea was always going to be a difficult situation to handle, and I can't honestly say what would have been the best thing to do about it, but he seems to have been too busy flying turkeys into Iraq to even look for a solution in Korea.