1.2 Million Dead in Iraq since US Invasion

[Borodog]

Opinion Research Business, a very reputable UK polling firm, has realeased an extremely detailed report on the Iraq war showing that since US invasion 1.2 million people have died in what used to be one of the most modern, secular, westernized countries in the middle east (Lew Rockwell reminds us that Iraq actually had an immigration, and not emmigration, problem). Add this to the 500,000 who died from US-UN sanctions in the 10 years prior to the war, and the (unknown) number who died during the invasion itself for having the temerity to resist a foreign invastion instead of having the good graces to throw flowers and candy, and you have of order two million deaths.

Lew Rockwell article on the report: http://www.mises.org/story/2715
The report: http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=78
The data: http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/TABLES.pdf

[bobman0330]

I'm not completely current on this stuff, but isn't this number wildly inconsistent with every other study that's ever been done on the matter?

Also, a quick glance at the linked website reveals that .002% of the 1500 survey respondents answered 4+ people killed in their household. That does not inspire confidence.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"I'm not completely current on this stuff, but isn't this number wildly inconsistent with every other study that's ever been done on the matter?"

There was a study that, while scorned by pro war enthusiasts, claimed around 600,000 killed (not in combat, but rather the deaths that resulted from the invasion, that is deaths that wouldn't have been caused had there been no invasion).

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not completely current on this stuff, but isn't this number wildly inconsistent with every other study that's ever been done on the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen other estimates in the high hundreds of thousands, and those were quite some time ago.

But even if their numbers are high, there are still hundreds of thousands of dead. Is that all that much better?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, a quick glance at the linked website reveals that .002% of the 1500 survey respondents answered 4+ people killed in their household. That does not inspire confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The percent on that figure is clearly a typo. It's obviously 3/1499, not 0.03/1499. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[esad]

This is different study then the one done a year ago that claimed there had been 600,000 deaths.

The problem is that both studies used the same methodology. Even the original studies authors admitted that thier study had about a 300,000 range of error in it. Even then it wasn't just "pro-war enthusiasts" (whatever that is) that questioned these results.

IMO, just another study done by people that are critical of what has happened in Iraq. For some reason these people think that the more deaths claimed by a study somehow validates their opinion more. Plus, I'm sure it gets them more press since it's more sensational.

If the study found that "only" 300K had died then I guess people wouldn't care. It shouldn't matter what the number is. Many people have died and that's what people need to be aware of.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm not completely current on this stuff, but isn't this number wildly inconsistent with every other study that's ever been done on the matter?"

There was a study that, while scorned by pro war enthusiasts, claimed around 600,000 killed (not in combat, but rather the deaths that resulted from the invasion, that is deaths that wouldn't have been caused had there been no invasion).

[/ QUOTE ]

The 600,000+ number is disputed in many places due to the methodology of arriving at the estimate. I posted links to the report and what I consider a balanced article about the report in another post but I'll repost here:

Lancet Article on the Estimates of Iraqis Dead

Discussion of the Estimate in the Johns Hopkins Magazine

The people doing the estimare were from Johns Hopkins.

From the article about the study:

"[But] it's absolutely appropriate, on very limited resources, to go into a place like Iraq and make an estimate of excess mortality to use in planning and making decisions. My own sense is I would rather err on the side of generating potentially useful data, with all of the caveats. I think noisy data is better than no data." Zeger notes that the tests of the data's validity, built into the second survey at his recommendation, all checked out. He admits the numbers are hard to grasp, especially the study's estimate that from June 2005 to June 2006, Iraqis were dying at a rate of 1,000 per day. "That's a lot of bodies," he says. "I have a hard time getting my mind around that. But as a scientist, what do you do? That's the number."

I think this is a silly justification. My study can't be wrong so the number has to right. A lot of people have a hard time believing 1,000 people a day died in Iraq during that time period. Also from the article:

But the findings were stunning. If the estimates were correct, throughout the Allied occupation Iraqis had been dying at an appalling rate, upward of 1,000 per day during the last year of the survey period. The crude mortality rate had progressed year by year, rising from the pre-invasion 5.5 per 1,000 to 7.5, then to 10.9, and finally to 19.8 between June 2005 and June 2006. Of the post-invasion deaths, 92 percent were by violence. The data indicated that gunshots had killed more people than air strikes, car bombs, and improvised explosive devices combined. Only 31 percent of violent deaths were attributed to coalition armed forces, which revealed the level of sectarian violence and lawlessness. Interviewers had remembered to ask for death certificates in 87 percent of all cases of reported mortality, and respondents had produced them for 92 percent of those deaths, a good check against recall bias.

Italics added for emphasis.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This is different study then the one done a year ago that claimed there had been 600,000 deaths.

The problem is that both studies used the same methodology. Even the original studies authors admitted that thier study had about a 300,000 range of error in it. Even then it wasn't just "pro-war enthusiasts" (whatever that is) that questioned these results.

IMO, just another study done by people that are critical of what has happened in Iraq. For some reason these people think that the more deaths claimed by a study somehow validates their opinion more. Plus, I'm sure it gets them more press since it's more sensational.

If the study found that "only" 300K had died then I guess people wouldn't care. It shouldn't matter what the number is. Many people have died and that's what people need to be aware of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be interested in knowing how this survey was done. Rough calculations are that 700+ Iraqis per day for 4.5 years have been killed by violence related to the fighting there. Hard number to believe for me anyway.

[downrange]

Apparently this company in March this year also found that Iraqis prefer their current arrangement to that of living under SH. Oh, and there's no civil war in Iraq.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_de...aspx?NewsId=67

"...the poll shows that despite the horrendous personal security problems only 26% of the country preferred life under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein, with almost half (49%) preferring life under the current political system."

So an incomprehensibly massive escalation in bloodshed doesn't bother the Iraqis? Or the average 1,000 DAILY Iraqi deaths never occurred? One strikes me as preposterous and one doesn't.

[ikestoys]

this same poll comes out every few months and every few months it is refuted... its not worth my time

[niss]

Wait a second. 500,000 people died "due to" US/UN sanctions pre-war, yet the country had an "immigration" problem?

This sounds credible.