Home | 
100,000 deaths ! ! !
Revealed: War has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives
By Jeremy Laurance and Colin Brown
29 October 2004
The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.
suite:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=577151
What a beatyful day it will be when Milosevic Hussein and Bush will share one prison Cell...
A short summary of the study:
The war in Iraq: civilian casualties, political responsibilities
Richard Horton
The present conflict in Iraq signals a contrast of paradoxical proportions. The Iraqi people, their interim government, and their largely US and British occupiers are preparing for landmark elections early in the new year. Yet a ruthlessly violent insurgency is successfully destabilising these arrangements, murdering foreign civilians and Iraqi law enforcement officers in the most brutal ways imaginable, and exploiting the world's media in doing so. Amid this deep national uncertainty, it is hard to judge what is happening among Iraqis themselves. This week The Lancet publishes the first scientific study of the effects of this war on Iraqi civilians.
In a unique US-Iraqi collaboration, Les Roberts and his colleagues report substantially more deaths in Iraq since the war began than during the period immediately before the conflict. Much of this increased mortality is a consequence of the prevailing climate of violence in the country, and many of the civilian casualties that are described were attributed to the actions of coalition forces. These findings-and the tentative countrywide mortality projections they support-have immediately translatable policy implications for those charged with managing the aftermath of invasion.
Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey
Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham
Summary
Background In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14·6 months before the invasion with the 17·8 months after it.
Methods A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.
Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.
Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.
Terrible. I though there were many less civilians victims... (even though we all knew from the start the invasion was going to kill thousands of people, and certainly many more than 9/11).. it's true that the counter had been blocked at 10.000 for a while (the highest figure I read here was when takeo said 30 000).Originally Posted by KSO
I am curious to have the comment of other posters on this dreadfull deathtoll not of the extremists, but of the 'moderates' like Mira.
Does this affect in any way your opinion about this US invasion? Do you think it gives the US a certain responsibility ? Do you think there should be a change in the way businness is conducted in iraq ?
I'm asking the question to those who justified the invasion of Iraq by the "well-being" and "freedom" of the Iraqis.
- We already knew what became of the Freedom, in a country where women could work and where not obliged to wear the veil. But the religious fundamentalists kept at bay by Saddam have become the biggest players now, and women have been fired from their job and sent back home. So much for freedom.
- Now the "well-being" is clearly not what you claimed it would be. Not at all.
Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune
PARIS, Oct. 28 - An estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 United States-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
Coming just five days before the presidential election the finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since it is far higher than previous mortality estimates for the Iraq conflict.
Editors of The Lancet, the London-based medical publication, where an article describing the study is scheduled to appear, decided not to wait for the normal publication date next week, but to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the election.
The Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.
In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
Although the authors acknowledge that data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect is extensive. Using what they described as the best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances, they found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it.
Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins team. Dr. Burnham said the team excluded data about deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, because that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in their families since the conflict started. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by American-led forces, mostly airstrikes, and most of those killed were women and children. The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers reported.
The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies and included doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.
There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, since that translates into an average of 166 deaths a day since the invasion. But some people were not surprised. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University, who works on the www.iraqbodycount.net project.
That project, which collates only deaths reported in the news media, currently put the maximum civilian death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Mr. Lipscomb said.
The researchers said they were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited by the decision to cut down on driving time when possible in order to reduce the risk to the interviewers. Each team included an Iraqi health worker, generally a physician.
Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also requested to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.
Some of those killed may have been insurgents, not civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in deaths included a rise in murders and some deaths were caused by the decline of medical care. "But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Dr. Burnham said.
The study is scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But Dr. Roberts and his colleagues are critical of the Bush administration and the Army for not releasing estimates of civilian deaths.
"This study shows that with moderate funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained," the authors wrote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/in...ion=&oref=regi
... and Pinochet and Blair and...
Sharon, Arafat, Putin, Yeltsin and a Guy Named "Big John" to entertain them...
It's true that when you start killing people in ten of thousands, you get close to a "crime against humanity" charge. This is the situation we have in Darfur.
Now looking into how Abu Ghraib is handled and since direct responsibility will be hard to establish, I do not think this will end in a prison cell.
"Direct and Indirect" which is like prewar Iraq and the claims that everyone who ever died within the geographic boundaries of the nation from the first day following the end of the first Gulf War through the last day preceeding the second Gulf War were absolutely no questions asked the fault of the US too.
Are there any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ear?
When did you decide it's the USA's fault?
Is there a subject for this sentence?Now looking into how Abu Ghraib is handled and since direct responsibility will be hard to establish, I do not think this will end in a prison cell.
Actually you need to read the article. It's a statistical projection based on 1000 (one thousands) households.
As far as I know, the invasion of iraq was carried out by US forces, as ordered by their "commander-in-chief".
And like on the other thread where we are having a discussion, I invite you to quit skipping and emit an actual opinion on the fact we are much closer to 100.000 iraqis killed than 10.000, and that this invasion is turning into a massacre...
But you can answer what you will (may I suggest you claim they are "all terrorists" anyway. Or "they are all islamofacists". Or more midly, that
" (...) the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003 you're not bringing them to justice anymore (that was abu graib..). Now you're just having them die in thousands.
Iraq is in Africa now? wow we super jews sure have some super powers.
The true scientific studies would be to actually count each and every death without statistical estimates. At least that's how death rates were done for other large conflicts including WWII.
The science of estimation of casualties is a science. There is a difference between losses, casualties, and other causes such as deseases and physical displacement. Very often there are double-counts, miscounts due to un-investigated critereas such as migration or immigration.
I think a 100,000 thousand figure seems like a reasonable overall casualty figure which includes all types of casualties including death. For example, if a woman had pregnancy complications and died on the way to the hospital because she was stuck in traffic due to a check point or a terrorist attack - how is that classified exactly?
The pure military casualties and losses are even harder to estimate. For example in the summer of 1941, opening days of WWII in USSR, around 1,000,000 mobilized Soviet young men who were mobilized into the Red Army never made it into the ranks. The reasons were many the most important being that the Germans would overun the physical place of these people residence then this men would be mobilized. In addition to dessertions, people not showing up to mobilization stations, and general chaos of the time - the entire 1,000,000 was written as being lost in action!!!! It's famously called the "Case of the Missing Million." Not till well into the 90s did researchers deeply tackled the problem and explained the missing million downsizing Soviet military losses of WWII by 1,000,000!!!!
Same can be said about the Iraqi military losses when Saddam's army desintigrated in a very short period of time; which means lots of confusion in the chaos. Thus we need to know exactly the numbers, get all the paperwork, and physically verify the people in order to definetly determine military losses. For example, if a person is in the hospital from a sustained military injury and the war department counts him as a loss how do we know that the word "loss" implies death or just loss to the military formation or if that person is even alife? That all depends on how carefully the Iraq regime kept its paperwork and how it classified military casualties. Or for example if lets say an entire platoon has deserted the army or captured and a regime-fearful Iraqi division commander classified the entire platoon as all "killed in action" to avoid the consquences of explaing the dessertion or the capture? This does happen especially in places like Saddam's Iraq. This is not as easy as it seems!!!!!
Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.
I'm voting for Kerry.
Who was and still is for this war...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks