Needless to say, this made numerous bloggers to whine and complain about how evil and incorrect the estimate was. When confronted with fairly logical assessments of their rejection of the report, the response is typically denial.
Well, poking around on BBC's website, what do I find, but a transcript of a web chat with one of the authors of the report.
Sure enough, the author's position more or less reflects what I expected on a variety of points:
1) It's damnably hard to get accurate mortality data in a war zone. (No kidding)
Can you explain, if your figures are correct, why 920 more people were dying each day than officially recorded by the Iraqi Ministry of Health - implying huge fraud and/or incompetence on their behalf?
Dan, Scotland
It is really difficult to collect death information in a war zone! In 2002, in Katana Health Zone in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) there was a terrible meningitis outbreak where the zone was supported by the Belgian Government, with perhaps the best disease surveillance network in the entire country. A survey by the NGO International Rescue Committee showed that only 7% of those meningitis deaths were recorded by the clinics and hospitals and government officials.
2) The Lancet paper describes the sampling and estimation methodology used in considerable detail. (See "Methods" in the PDF link above)
It seems The Lancet has been overrun by left-wing sixth formers. The report has a flawed methodology and the counting process shows signs of deceit.
Ian, Whitwick, UK
This study was the standard approach for measuring mortality in times of war, it went through a rigorous peer-review process and it probably could have been accepted into any of the journals that cover war and public health.
3) Sure enough, the mortality statistics include much more than violent death attributable to stray cluster bombs. (No kidding...)
4) The study documents in considerable detail where they took their samples, and the clustering of sample data with respect to the political geography of the country. (Which tends to shoot holes in the "but the country's half desert" reasoning)
5) The other classic whinge is the "where's the bodies" demand:
Why is it so hard for people to believe The Lancet report? I am an Iraqi and can assure you that the figure given is nearer to the truth than any given before or since.
S Kazwini, London, UK
I think it is hard to accept these results for a couple of reasons. People do not see the bodies. Secondly, people feel that all those government officials and all those reporters must be detecting a big portion of the deaths. When in actuality during times of war, it is rare for even 20% to be detected.
I do not claim that one has to "accept as fact" the Lancet paper's estimate, but to reject it out of hand because you think it's "a VERY POOR estimate", is very short-sighted.
The authors of the report are very clear in their use of language that the 655,000 number is an estimate, and do not use it as a bludgeon to argue that the US should pull out of Iraq, but rather leave the following very reasonable statement in the conclusions:
... We estimate that almost 655 000 people—
2·5% of the population in the study area—have died in
Iraq. Although such death rates might be common in
times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens
of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest
international conflict of the 21st century, and should be
of grave concern to everyone. ... We continue to believe
that an independent international body to monitor
compliance with the Geneva Conventions and other
humanitarian standards in conflict is urgently needed.
With reliable data, those voices that speak out for civilians
trapped in conflict might be able to lessen the tragic
human cost of future wars.
Of course, the reality is that wartime fatalities carry a political price for those in power - especially if they started the war. The current US administration has a vested interest in making it as difficult as possible to find out what the impact of the Iraq invasion has been on the Iraqi people.
4 comments:
Denial of the number of deaths reminds me of a debate a I once overheard at university. It was the beginning of the year and all the campus clubs had tables set up to try to sign up new members. One of them was a club for the Communist Party of Canada. A student challenged the woman a table about her views on Stalin. The student pointed out that Stalin killed 8 million Soviet citizens during his reign. The communist got quite defensive and retorted that that was a lie: Stalin only killed 3 million people. To which the student sarcastically replied that maybe Stalin wasn't such a bad guy after all.
So whether 600,000 people have been killed in Iraq, or "only" 300,000, is there really any moral difference?
Moral difference? No. Political difference, yes.
(But you do raise an excellent point)
It's a WAR zone. People are going to die. Whether they are shot in the back of the head, wounded by flying shrapnel, or die of sickness related to lack of food and sanitary facilities... let's quit quibbling - it's Bush's little war.
I hope he sleeps better at night knowing he is winning at his little game of cowboys and iraquians...
Bush lied to the world regarding the reason for invading Iraq in the first place (WMD). He has lied to the American people about the illegal wiretapping and survielance. He has lied to the world about the _flights of rendition_. In each one of the above examples he has been caught out in the lie, now he is lying about the true fatalities that the Iraquii peoples are suffering. This guy has to get punted out of office.
SB
Post a Comment