The statistics made headlines all over the world when they were published in The
Lancet in October last year. More than 650,000 Iraqis – one in 40 of the
population – had died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003. The
vast majority of these “excess” deaths (deaths over and above what would
have been expected in the absence of the occupation) were violent. The
victims, both civilians and combatants, had fallen prey to airstrikes, car
bombs and gunfire.
Body counts in conflict zones are assumed to be ballpark – hospitals, record
offices and mortuaries rarely operate smoothly in war – but this was ten
times any other estimate. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar web-based charity that
monitors news sources, put the civilian death toll for the same period at
just under 50,000, broadly similar to that estimated by the United Nations
Development Agency.
The implication of the Lancet study, which involved Iraqi doctors
knocking on doors and asking residents about recent deaths in the household,
was that Iraqis were being killed on an horrific scale. The controversy has
deepened rather than evaporated. Several academics have tried to find out
how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as
having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk
of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that
raises fresh doubts.
Iraq Body Count says there is “considerable cause for scepticism” and has
complained that its figures had been misleadingly cited in the The Lancet
as supporting evidence.
One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway
College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point
to the possibility of “main street bias” – that people living near major
thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus,
the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet
study authors initially told The Times that “there was no main street
bias” and later amended their reply to “no evidence of a main street bias”.
Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of
mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the
use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus
injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using
the “three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three
injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital
treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.
“The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting
evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who
believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling
methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to
criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that
they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the
possibility of fraud? “No.”
If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of The Lancet
authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of
Representatives and has spoken out against the war. Dr Richard Horton,
editor of the The Lancet is also antiwar. He says: “I believe this
paper was very thoroughly reviewed. Every piece of work we publish is
criticised – and quite rightly too. No research is perfect. The best we can
do is make sure we have as open, transparent and honest a debate as we can.
Then we'll get as close to the truth as possible. That is why I was so
disappointed many politicians rejected the findings of this paper before
really thinking through the issues.”
Knocking on doors in a war zone can be a deadly thing to do. But active
surveillance – going out and measuring something – is regarded as a
necessary corrective to passive surveillance, which relies on reports of
deaths (and, therefore, usually produces an underestimate).
Iraq Body Count relies on passive surveillance, counting civilian deaths from
at least two independent reports from recognised newsgathering agencies and
leading English-language newspapers ( The Times is included). So
Professor Gilbert Burnham, Dr Les Roberts and Dr Shannon Doocy at the Centre
for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, decided to work through Iraqi
doctors, who speak the language and know the territory.
They drafted in Professor Riyadh Lafta, at Al Mustansiriya University in
Baghdad, as a co-author of the Lancet paper. Professor Lafta
supervised eight doctors in 47 different towns across the country. In each
town, says the paper, a main street was randomly selected, and a residential
street crossing that main street was picked at random.
The doctors knocked on doors and asked residents how many people in that
household had died. A person needed to have been living at that address for
three months before a death for it to be included. It was deemed too risky
to ask if the dead person was a combatant or civilian, but they did ask to
see death certificates. More than nine out of ten interviewees, the Lancet
paper claims, were able to produce death certificates. Out of 1,849
households contacted, only 15 refused to participate. From this survey, the
epidemiologists estimated the number of Iraqis who died after the invasion
as somewhere between 393,000 and 943,000. The headline figure became
650,000, of which 601,000 were violent deaths. Even the lowest figure would
have raised eyebrows.
Dr Richard Garfield, an American academic who had collaborated with the
authors on an earlier study, declined to join this one because he did not
think that the risk to the interviewers was justifiable. Together with
Professor Hans Rosling and Dr Johan Von Schreeb at the Karolinska Institute
in Stockholm, Dr Garfield wrote to The Lancet to insist there must be
a “substantial reporting error” because Burnham et al suggest that child
deaths had dropped by two thirds since the invasion. The idea that war prevents
children dying, Dr Garfield implies, points to something amiss.
Professor Burnham told The Times in an e-mail that he had “full
confidence in Professor Lafta and full faith in his interviewers”, although
he did not directly address the drop in child mortality. Dr Garfield also
queries the high availability of death certificates. Why, he asks, did the
team not simply approach whoever was issuing them to estimate mortality,
instead of sending interviewers into a war zone?
Professor Rosling told The Times that interviewees may have reported
family members as dead to conceal the fact that relatives were in hiding,
had fled the country, or had joined the police or militia. Young men can
also be associated with several households (as a son, a husband or brother),
so the same death might have been reported several times.
Professor Rosling says that, despite e-mails, “the authors haven’t provided us
with the information needed to validate what they did”. He would like to see
a live blog set up for the authors and their critics so that the matter can
be clarified.
Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry
in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her
letter to The Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the
Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed.
She wrote: “Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat,
this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households,
obtaining informed consent and death certificates.”
Does she think the interviews were done at all? Dr Hicks responds: “I’m sure
some interviews have been done but until they can prove it I don’t see how
they could have done the study in the way they describe.”
Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews “took
about 20 minutes”. The journal Nature, however, alleged last
week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: :
“I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don’t
actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can’t
rattle off basic information suggests they either don’t know or they don’t
care.”
And the corpses? Professor Burnham says that, according to reports, mortuaries
and cemeteries have run out of space. He says that the Iraqi team has asked
for data to remain confidential because of “possible risks” to both
interviewers and interviewees.
Children tell of their hopes and fears
Muhammad Sabba, 8, from Toubchi
What is your favourite thing? I love football
What is your least favourite thing? Car bombs
What do you want to be when you grow up? A doctor
Why? Because I want to help people and cure the sick. Iraq needs
doctors
What are your thoughts about the future? I am hoping there will be
peace and security. If there is peace, I’ll be happy and enjoy life. A life
without car bombs
Ayah Ali Abderadha, 11, from Toubchi
Favourite thing? My family and my neighbours. Also I like the Arabic
language
Least favourite thing? The awful situation, because we’re afraid of
going out
What do you want to do when you grow up? I want to be an Arabic teacher
Thoughts about the future? That the crisis we are experiencing will
disappear and that I can educate the children and the students
Rawan Muhammad Fawzi, 5, from al-Adhamiaya
Favourite thing? Playing a computer game called Foulleh
Least favourite thing? When they’re shooting
Why? The Americans came into our house and looked through our house.
Then they interrogated my mum. Then some others came
What do you want to be? I want to be a doctor because then I can heal
the sick. If there is peace I’ll go out and play with my friends
Ahmed Issam, 11, Hadithiya
Favourite thing? I love the ballet, playing and studying
Least favourite thing? All the war and destruction because many people
die
What do you want to do when you grow up? I want to be a famous ballet
dancer
Thoughts about the future? I want there to be peace in Iraq and in the
entire world
Ahlam Muhammad Feleyah, 9, from al-Adhamiya
Favourite thing? Playing with my friends and my teddy bear
Least favourite thing? I don’t like the Americans because they attacked
Iraq
What do you want to do when you grow up? I want to work as a doctor.
It’s the best thing you can do. It’s what I want to do
The future? If there is peace I want to go out and play with my friends
on the street
Does it seem unlikely that Time magazine could make mass murderers their person of the year, including Hitler and Bush? Not really when you consider the fact that Time magazine is a well-known propaganda piece owned and manipulated by aol-time-warner, which is controlled by Carlyle defense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html
But go ahead, yuppies, and read your New York Times and your Time Magazine, sipping your frappa-cappa-triple-twisted mochiacianios , and remember to keep your pinky up.
vcxzxbz, kazakhstan, asdfadas
The only accurate part of the report may very well be that child deaths have decreased since the invasion. I understand that Saddam diverted funds for baby milk to his own palaces, etc. We heard often that the sanctions killed babies. The government no longer kills children in front of their parents as a matter of policy as the government previously did.
Other people actually have been saved by the invasion, besides children. There are reasons to believe in this peculiar circumstances children and other human beings may be safer in a War situation than under a "peace" situation with Saddam in charge of a country. The shredders and meat hooks etc. Saddam used (as evidenced by 300,000 mass graves) are no longer in operation have been figured in calculations. Did the group consider that maybe Saddam's torture victims may not have been reported to on vital records calcuations? Maybe there comparison is with Utopia, not Saddam's regime.
Bill Baggett, Jefferson City, MO. USA
I wonder what all the terrorists are going to do when the liberals pull our troops out of Iraq before we win the battle there.
david, longview, tx
Well Pete, seeing as 5,000 Iraqis were dying each month because of the sanctions, I'd certainly call this a success. Maintaining the status quo would have resulted in over 300,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
Geoff Matthews, West Jordan, UT
Right then. Only 50,000 Iraqis have died. Let's call this whole thing a success.
Pete, London,
7/7/2005: 53 people killed in terrorist bomb attacks in London.
6/3/2007: at least 90 people killed in terrorist bomb attacks in Hilla.
Now here's Bob with the sports news.
Paul, Merseyside,
Story:
Two men get into a fight on the street. One man beats the other so that he ends up on the pavement. An ambulance comes and takes the injured man to the hospital. The other man is taken to jail. Question: Who won the fight?
Dennis Trollope, Des Moines, Iowa USA
I would like to know what those figures equate to daily.I could not do the maths because I didn't know when the study was done.The figures do seem to be way out of proportion.
Noelene, Launceston, Tasmania
Interesting how the righties will listen to one detractor and ignore all of the others who reviewed the lancet report and stated the methodology was sound.
The same methodology they use for many other studies.
They just don't like the result, so have to criticize the source.
Typical.
Mark, Alanta, GA
The figure of 650,000 is not so "ludicrous" as some may say.
Consider that millions of Iraqis have had to flee their homes in the past three or four years. Consider what
kinds of conditions would cause people to just get up and go.
50,000 dead are one of our "known knowns" and can only serve as a baseline in search of the real figure.
Jon, Hampton, USA
Doesn't seem a bit disingenuous to discuss "body count" of Iraqi dead without framing casualties with the known atrocities that were committed by Sadam Hussein against his own people over the 30 years he was in power?
The statement that the war in Iraq is a "catastrophe" is a bit naive. The question should be: What if we had done nothing? Would Khadafi had stood down his development of WMD's? Would Iran be facing the same scrutiny over it's development of nuclear weapons from the international community? And would Afghanistan still be a safe harbor and nursery for exported terrorists?
The press reports bad news. It's the same old philosophy that when dog bites man, that's not news..but when man bites dog, now THAT'S news. Get real people. People focus on the horrific news for the same reason they slow down to see a fatal car wreck.
Michael Burgin, Powder Springsq, USA/Georgia
speaking of WWII, does anyone here care that there were more deaths caused by drunk drivers than in both World Wars but together? One person wrote" ..a life is a life, does it matter what life?" yes it matters! I love the comment about the reconstruction, don't forget about all the other countries we just give money to, that will never be able to pay us back. As far as i'm concerned, if they want to try and kill people with there suicide bombing, we can have more babies, and eventually they will run out of people. If they will willing strap a bomb to themselves, they can't be that bright. I know that the number for American deaths is 3,000 +, i want to know how many soldiers they have lost! yes, the price is worth it. They have stolen medical supplies from the people to use for there army, ...no, they aren't hurting for money....
Bob, Norfolk, Virginia
Well done. An excellent piece of work.
It demonstrates that you do have the necessary scientific skills of honest scepticism when confrunted by dubious statistics used to 'prove' an ideology.
Now can you take off your usual ideological blinkers and use the same analytical skills on the 'Big Green' Propaganda Machine and the gaping holes in their hypotheses.
Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece
Intelligently put by Lynn of Texas.
Does she realise the US made a fortune out of WWII? Its highest GDP growth in the 20th Century was between 1940 and 1944 selling supplies at extortionate rates to its 'allies', whilst only getting involved when absolutely forced to by Japan. War proves to be good for the US economy and the middle classes, their soldiers lives take second consideration, as those soldiers are never the college educated types. That's hardly a position to be proud of.
Henry, London,
Let us not forget the 250,000 to 500,000 Iraqi's, mostly children, who have died as a result of the USA enforced sanctions. M. Albright Sec. of State said it was an acceptable cost of USA policy. Let us not forget thousands, again mostly children, who died as result of USA warplanes destroying infrastructure, no sanitation, no refrigeration for vaccines, or medicines, a Geneva Conventions War Crime in previous attacks before this unprovoked war and itself a Crime Against the Peace. In an interview I heard with one of the organizers of the John Hopkins survey in the Lancet said they went to cemeteries and asked gravediggers how many more people they have been burying since the occupation. I understand the cemeteries were randomly chosen. Seems like excellent methodology thus the 650,000 median may be accurate. The question now is how to alleviate the bloodshed now.Withdrawal seems to be the best solution.
Glen, Santa Fe,
The figure is so ludicrous and outragous that the people publishing it abviously wanted to see how gullible the people who are against the war can be. If these numbers were even close, that would mean that on every single day of the year since the start of the invasion over 500 people per day are killed! Even those anxious to put out rediculous numbers are reporting 10% of that # and that is at the peak of this insurgency because idiots like you publish and because it's published "it must be fact". Wake up and use your own common sense and stop letting people who want to minipulate you minipulate you. The more they (the combatants) think they are winning becasue of your stupid comments, the more they are going to KILL more people. It IS NOT the Soldiers and Marines doing most of the killing, it IS Iraqi on Iraqi. WAKE UP!!
Stephen G, Woburn, MA/USA
It is a bit sad to see a repurable journal like the Lancet coming up with these ridiculous figures. Does the authors know what is 600,000? That is more than 1/2 million. Surely the authors have got it wrong. Back to the drawing board chaps. Next time don't publish if you haven't got the data correct.
K Patyel, Luton,
unfortunately the numbers were possibly accurate at the time and have grown since. it is unreasonable to reject the study on hearsay biased by ulterior motives, since the majority of scientific reviewers have endorsed the methodology.
it would be timely to reinitiate the efort to establish an accurate accounting since so much time has passed since the study was done, and since the violence against iraqi civilians has so intensified.
john nihau, cincinnati / ohio,
When Bush gave his estimate of about 28,000 just a few days before the study came out nobody in the press stopped to question it even though it was not based on any kind of study or survey but was simply a number he came up with in his own head. When the Pentagon had been asked a year or two before that how many Iraqis had been killed due to the invasion they declared ' We don't do body counts'. Now finally somebody has actually done some investigating and all of a sudden all the reporters in the world are questioning these numbers as if they were the most fraudulent thing that has ever happened in this war. The truth is that the 650,000 figure is conservative in the extreme. The real figure is most certainly much higher.
Roger Lafontaine, Youngstown, OH USA
I wish Bush/Blair could meticulously provide details of Iraqi civilians who have died since the invasion of Iraq as they do for American/British soldiers/civilians. The huge difference in the figures of 50,000 to 650,000 only tell you how Bush/Blair look at Iraq civilians, worthless in life and in death, not deserving of any respect! By these standards, Sadam was an Angel!!
Ayieko, Kampala,
I think the point that this article and these people are trying to make is that NO political argument can be taken seriously unless it is based on a sound and methodological approach, which clearly was lacking in the Lancet case (this is not the first article from folks, also anti-war, who have attacked the shoddy research). As a researcher who worked in Iraq, the Lancet does no favors to the anti-war movement by simply publishing a hysterical, poorly-researched, uninformed polemic. Civilian deaths were substantially higher BEFORE the war, according to the UN, but that is not a pro-war argument-- although sadly shockingly few of the currently anti-war folks gave a damn. Polemics don't help the anti-war movement. Credit to Iraq Body Count for not letting their reasoned anti-war argument get in the way of credible work to show the real scale of suffering.
Senar Bass, Abu Dhabi, UAE
It is unfortunately true that many respected institutions in Britain have been hijacked for political propaganda purposes. I tend to think of the BBC's Panorama programme, which I used to watch all the time but can't stand now. Panorama became famous because it was factual, but now it is a platform for bias presented as fact on the basis of historic reputation.
I believe the figures given by the UN. 180,000+ Kurds killed in northern Iraq. A similar number in southern Iraq. A million+ killed in the war between Iraq and Iran. Oil for food diverted for arms, meaning Iraq's people died of disease, a slow death but still a death.
Yes, it is very bad in Iraq, but it is difficult to prove that it is any worse than before the invasion. Before the invasion we in the West could simply bury our heads in the sand and say it has nothing to do with us. That appears to be the new morality in civilised countries.
P Mason, Nottingham, England
people have died, does it make a difference how many, of what nationalty, color or creed?
One human casued death is more than anyone needs
Adib, Al Ain, UAE
Has anyone made a calculation of what the civilian death count would have been in Europe during WWII and another fanatic cause, had the US not sacrificed lives to come to the aid ? What are the dollar figures still owed to the US for that reconstruction by European countries ? Anyone have those figures ? Is anyone publishing the casualties of Americans to save the hind-ends of your continent ? Fanaticism carries heavy tolls, and Iraq is only a drop to what we have to look forward to from these groups.
Trying to get stats from a breeding ground of death squads is a senseless issue.
Lynn, Metro, USA/TX
Since there is at least 1 report of a car bombing in one city a day that kills an average of 30 people that amounts to around 10,000 people anually. It is likely that reporters will only report a fraction of the actual incidents since they focus on the "story" instead of the facts anyway. A figure of 400,000 - 700,000 for three years is pretty realistic. As far as the decline in child mortality goes, aren't the first to go usually the very young and the very old? So is it safe to say that the young and old populations have significantly diminished with over three years of conflict?
Albeit beggars can't be choosers, but do we actually believe that our press is doing a more scientific job than this survey? Isn't that foolish? Obviously we need more credible surveys not the fear that the number is going to be high - it is going to be very high because wars kill people. That is the point of war. Darn bleeding heart conservatives. Is there a kinder and gentler type of war?
Bill, Arvada, USA/CO
It's difficult to accept the truth. "Proof" isn't available and not even required. The war is a catastrophe.
Beavis, Jesusville, TX
doug forbes:
the US is still bombing Iraq every day. we just don't hear about it much in the american press - but other english language papers cover it regularly.
Susan, Asheville, USA
Nobody wants to talk about the real numbers because then it means they should do something to stop it. The dead from the first war... The dead from the sanctions... And now the dead from the second war. We have killed hundreds of thousands of them. All in the name of "freedom", and "democracy".
This is not freedom, nor democracy. War is not freedom. If they are to be free, they must fight. We can not free them, nor should we do so. They want to do it themselves. Let's not forget the lies that began this. Lies, lies, lies.
Adam, Kent City, Michigan, USA
We are talking about human life. Reverse the situation and the survivors would be pretty upset over here too. Even the men who started the war admit they were wrong in planning and execution. Why quibble over how many when no one has really answered the real questions of how or why did this happen or how to end this mess. Seems some leaders in the west should be facing the same sort of charges as Saddam.
Michael H, Gold Coast, Australia
Sure those children are eager to peace and to go out playing ,having fun as should be to same aged children all over the world....I just sometimes wonder how many iraqis are suffering or are going to suffer from post traumatic stress syndrom???? Im worried about my daughter,she is 6 and still lives in Baghdad...I hope oneday I can get her out of there...Its really hopeless for peace back in Iraq !!!
Huda, Philadelphia, PA,USA
seems to me the children's comments reflect that violence is everywhere in Iraq since the US/UK invasion. That level of violence would reflect a high death rate, I would think.
The argument that there should be three injured for every fatality just does not hold up in Iraq. It is too dangerous to go to the hospital a lot of the time, and hospital conditions are dreadful.
Susan, Asheville, USA
Couldn't have been more accurate.
Tom Bullock, Nassau, Bahamus
" iraqi doctors knocking on doors" : in an incredibly busy [ medically speaking ]area , the authors of this report expect us to believe that doctors actually had the time to doorknock ! If they cannot tell the truth about who doorknocked , then they cant expect us to believe their other data . OBVIOUSLY TOTALLY FLAWED & UNTRUE !!!
theodore potts, st. ives,, nsw, australia
Paulina:
Newsflash: civilians were being killed in Iraq long before the invasion.
Who are the terrorists and extremists going after, and who are the troops going after?
Todd, Wolverhampton, UK
This looks very much like a re-run of an article published a year ago by the same writer - same pro-US eager-to-please slant, similar anti-Muslim comment underneath - Piggy Kruger 's comment that the number of Iraqi deaths is just "a statistic" as long as it makes Israel safe is, well, to be expected.
I doubt the Lancet's figures are correct, but it would be interesting to know what Anjana makes of the US-supplied figures of 50,000 (or thereabouts) Iraqis dead, rather than for her to once again wave the stars and stripes.
andy, barcelona,
Why is no one asking about the official Coalition Forces policy of NOT COUNTING CIVILIAN DEATHS?
Ed Johnson, Bayside, USA/NY
Your article misses the point - even if there would have been only one Iraqi civilian killed , it would have been one too many.
Paulina Smid, London, UK
Eugene: There's this thing called the English Channel that helped to reduce the British civilian death toll in WW2. The thing about civil war is that the people involved don't generally have great difficulty getting at their victims.
David: In the Vietnam war, John Kerry was fighting for the US. I wonder what leftist point you suppose he was making by doing so.
Gareth McCaughan, Cambridge,
650.000 divided by (4 x 365) = 445 people per day. The suicide bombing and car bombing don't come close to that figure. US Airforce bombing and artilery lasted only a couple months before the regime collapsed. So, these figures are hard to take seriously. If they really have death certificates then the numbers should be corraborated by Iraqi government sources too. This looks like fraud to me. Keep up the investigation.
Doug Forbes, Wheeling, USA
Saddam announced that was raising an army to liberate Palestine several years ago, an army that would "Make the occupiers" blood run cold". Clearly he will not be in a position to carry through this promise now, nor will anyone in Iraq, so Israel is safe from Iraqi threats while the internecine war continues there. If 1 in 40, or 2.5% of Iraq"s populace have died since the invasion, is that a tragedy,or as Joseph Stalin reportedly once commented, is it "a statistic".
piggy kruger, bridgwater, UK
By my calculator that's 4276 a week or 610 a day. In WW11, 80,000 tons of bombs were dropped on Britain and
all ships sailing to and from our shores were potential targets. We lost 63,665 civilians in nearly 6 years of war in Europe and the far East, most of whom were deliberately targeted (Home Office stats.) Of course, the casualty rate would have been far higher if, at the outbreak of war, we had all started slaughtering each other instead of pulling together. The Lancet stats seem a work of fiction.
Eugene, Brno, Czech Republic
""Maybe someone can work out who's killed more Iraqis. Bush or Sadam Hussain?""
My bet goes with the Iraqi "freedomfighters"...
Jerry Doyle, Killeen, USA
What a shoddy one-sided story. I also have questions about the Lancet study, but this story makes no attempt to get into the meat of the issue and work it out - including serious discussion from the proponents of the study. And isn't it strange that many people accept the death figures from Darfur or Srebrenica as fact by disregard the Lancet study as a work of politics - when the same methodology is used in all these estimates! We need studies like the Lancet study to get a better idea of the impact of this war on Iraq. And we certainly should NOT rely on the Sadr-controlled Iraqi Ministry of Health or the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)-controlled Iraqi office of statistics to give accurate numbers.
Joost, Amsterdam,
A typical figure cited for total deaths in the 3-year war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a province of 4.5 million, is 250,000. Iraqi casualties above that figure over 4 years, with a total population 5 times the size, does not seem surprising.
Benedict E. DeDominicis, Celina, Ohio
The "main street bias" is a very weak hypothesis. In the mortality study, a demographic account shows high mortality among young men, and very low mortality among women, of those killed by violence. It also shows a high percentage killed by gunshot. All this data strongly suggets that people are not being killed in their homes by bombs, but by assassination, which, anecdotally, matches well with the growing sectarian violence. The study is sound. The critics are grasping at straws, as the comments by Spagat in particular demonstrate.
John Tirman, Cambridge MA, USA
It is shown time and again that those who have the weakest argument must resort to fraud to prove it. Sometimes it works, as it did for the leftists like John Kerry during the Viet Nam war. It is unfortunate that it did work, because it cost the lives of millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians when the US left SE Asia in defeat and disgrace. Only now, after Viet Nam has instituted some limited capitalist reforms is the country beginning to improve.
As for the total number of dead, any innocent death is indeed a tragedy. The problem is, there is only one side in this conflict that actually attempts to kill the innocent, and it certainly isn't the US and coalition troops. The Al Qaeda and other terrorists intentionally hide themselves like cowards among civilians, dress as civilians, and as a result, are counted among innocent civilians when they are anything but innocent or civilians. Why do these thugs cover their faces as they protest (as in UK 'cartoon row'). They are cowards!
David , Raleigh, USA
It's a matter of ethics. 1 million, 600000 dead are as important as 1or 10 killed. Exagerating or increasing the number of victims only demonstrates these humanitarian protesters support an evil premise: some deaths are tolerable to achieve an objetive
Guille, Lima, Peru
"Saddam killed 20,000 civilians a year average for about 20 years."
Did he indeed.
Now calculate the average killed each year after he was removed from power.
Lessee, invasion was about 4 years ago, divide 650,000 by 4 ...
Starling, Lancaster,
We have learnt to be sceptical about claims by Govts. When do we learn to be similarly sceptical of claims made by anti-Govt organisations. particularly those with a wider political agenda?
Hugh, London,
Please accept that there are a great many individuals here in what is called the "WEST" that absolutely abhore the deaths and destruction caused by this misadventure by others around us. Myself, I can only apologise for the deaths and state that I wish to do everything that I can, personally, to see that justice is done on the behalf of those that have had their lives destroyed. Please accept that not all of us have hatred in our hearts for other cultures.
Chris Coles, Medstead, Alton, UK
These must be the same people that supply the global warming estimates.
Michael, Pontotoc, USA
The lancet report was a much more thorough anaylsis on the ground as opposed to Iraq body count which just counts deaths reported in newspapers.
no matter which way you count it, the US has killed more Iraqis (through 2 wars and 13 years of sanctions), than Saddam and Iran put together. Was it not the UN who said sanctions killed at least 600, 000 Iraqi children under the age of 5.
The war mongers are quick to let other peoples children die, if you believe in the war so much, why are you not going yourself or sending your own children to the killing fields?
Akram, London,
Perhaps the Lancet have been reading the brief outlines of the two world wars casualties. Then 10 million troops were killed in 4 years in WW1 nd 14 million troops + many civillians killed in the 6 years of the seond WW. 650,000 over 4 years is not so many - too many of course - and only 100 British soldiers in 4 years is remarkable - though still too many.
Jim Tomlinson, Solihull, West Mids.
Does anyone ask who actually killed the innocent civilians? Every week we hear about a car bombing or a suicide bombing or another terrorist attack with scores of Iraqis dead. Are these American and British troops killing them? No. They are radical Islamic groups doing it.
How often do we hear about deliberate assaults against civilians committed by coalition forces by contrast?
I don't think that we should have gone in, but what should be done now? If we leave, most likely Iran will take over and that would be a disaster for all parties concerned except the Islamic radicals.
David Penso, Los Angeles, CA, USA
It wouldn't surprise me if it's true.
But anyway, why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?
Starling, Lancaster,
I emailed The Lancet last October pointing out many of the
failings mentioned in this article and they refused to allow
my points to be added to their discussion forum.
John, London, England
Saddam killed 20,000 civilians a year average for about 20 years. The 'illegal war' crowd who fantasise about a fictional diplomatic siolution need to remember that. This study was always bogus- there's no need to do interviews and extrapolate up when you have morgues and mortuaries. I'm sure some people will have died in the sand an gone unrecorded, but the majority will be on record.
chris, london,
When you Europeans are doing the killing or are the cause of the killing, the body count is always very low. But you know exactly how many have been killed in Sudan and other third world countries.
In Iraq, the dead Iraqis are so unimportant, you do not keep count. In almost five years of killing innocent Iraqis, your body count remains very ambiguous, there might be anywhere between 35,000 to a million dead. Who knows? Who cares? At least not you so called western powers, as long as the Iraqi population is shocked,and awed by the monstrosity and mayhem you have unleashed. Who is going to be charged with 'genocide and crime against humanity' for what "shock and awe" has done to the innocent people of Iraq. Perhaps in the end, there will be a total of ten Iraqis dead, by your most capable count, and there will not be a need for anyone to be charged with "crime against humanity." And the Iraqis will be asked or told to be grateful for what you have done to them and their country.
heroko, Culver City, , California USA
Mr. Mulla: why is a Tanzanian more worried about 60 000 dead Iraqis but not the 3 million dead in the wars of Central Africa? Just wondering.
But what is being discussed here is the hijacking of an esteemed medical journal by an editor who is willing to publish junk science for political reasons. This has implications far beyond the politics of the day. Indeed, if fraud is proven, the editor should be fired.
Nancy Reyes M.D., Gapan City , Philippines
Maybe someone can work out who's killed more Iraqis. Bush or Sadam Hussain? Pretty easy to do!
Des Bains, London, London
Dr Horton regularly shares the platform of the ludicrous stop-the-war coalition, a rag bag mob consisting of Galloway's Respect party, the Socialist Worker alliance, anti-globalisation protestors and those from the traditional hard left bereft of a constituency in a world where there brand of socialism has repeatedly failed the public test. The disgraceful hypocrisy of any attached to such a movement should automatically rob them of any credibility when assessing something as charged as the numbers of 'war' dead. Their agenda is more to unite the white hard left with the brown religious hard right against Bush and Blair. Fair enough. But where is the traditional left-wing solidarity with the millions of Iraqs who voted for the first time, or the butchered teachers and women of Afghanistan? Horton should be sacked just for sharing a platform with these idiots, let alone peddling lies to add succour to his hysterical anti-war agenda.
jonathan anthony, london,
Quibbling about how many hundreds of thousands of civilians have lost their lives in Iraq is a distraction from the real issue, i.e. whether any civilians at all should have lost their lives as a result of the illegal Anglo-American invasion! Bush and Blair should be put on trial for these deaths.
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England
Anjana
In politic, war and peace these days the number crunching can be anything from a great lie to the honest truth.
The Iraqis are dying daily by 10 average. You do not need math to calculate how many are dead. Leave aside the dead the maimed figure also will be distorted.
The biggest mistake we do is we as emotional humans look at6 the figure and scream. But who listens? No one. These are the poor Iraqis dying. How may off the allied troops have died. We were never get the correct figure. Why? Because the election will mar the votes of the coming presidents or the prime minister.
Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania
Anjana
It is not could, it is they died and there are more but we have no exact figure. If we were to be given the right figure Saddam was a winner as the tyrant ruler because he did not kill so many. We are still counting the dead
Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania
Seems about right, they take unrepresentative samples and extrapolate them across the country.
Such a decimation of the population would have been much more noticeable, not to mention 10 times the number of bodies just lieing around mortuaries not being noticed or reported about.
It's a shame the Lancet let their political leanings cloud their vetting procedure.
You'd think it would be obvious if 1 in 10 of the population was killed or injured.
JD, London,
These are not new criticisms and I wonder why this story is being grave dug.
There are questions about the methodology but criticism notwithstanding, most statisticians concur with the study findings. The study is not looking at actual number of deaths. That is INFERRED. The study looked at the apparent increase in DEATH RATE that can be measured by a statistical sample and then extrapolated to the population of Iraq.
The reality is that in most war zones, the rate is death as officially reported is about 5 times underreported. If you take the official numbers (50,000 to 100,000 deaths) and do the multiplication, you enter the range given by the study.
Frankly, the contention that there have only been 30,000 deaths (or even 50,000) is ridiculous.
Regards,
Michael Tam, Sydney, Australia
The 650,000 seems right to me for these reasons:
(1.) The 50,000 is only the deaths reported by the PRESS. There are plenty that are not. Especially since they are mostly confined to the Green Zone anyway. ...also, that 50k figure is getting suspicious since it's remained almost unchanged for more than 12 months now.
(2.) By the way, in the sample they did of 14,000 families, the largest and most complete ever done in Iraq (randomly sampled from all over the country, by population density), they checked the local morgue and -- yep, the death certificates were available in about 94% of their checks.
(3.) Lastly, John Zogby and other statisticians reviewed it and ... if you would actually read the study ... "extremely solid" and based on "the best available" methodology.
Garrett Tedeman, Chicago, USA
== Iraq Body Count ....put the civilian death toll for
== the same period at just under 50,000,
They base their figure on what they can actually
count--- what has actually been reported.
You can take 50,000 deaths as the MINIMUM.
Jon, Hampton,
== If you factor in politics,...
You don't do body counts. You just make silly
remarks about the "deadenders" and Iraqis
"getting a taste of freedom."
You insure that the Oil Ministry is secured, while
the rest of the country goes to Heck.
Jon, Hampton,
'I hate car bombs'
Not exactly in the British or American arsenal. Suicide bombers tend to be Al Quaeda (Sunni) or Iranian (Shia). IEDs and car bombs are insurgents and militias. While in some cases these are used to attack Brits, Americans and the elected Iraqi government, most of the time they are used to attack civilians in markets or mosques.
Because so many of the victims tend to be Muslim, perhaps Muslim theologians should reflect on propriaty of deliberately targeting civilians as a means of warfare. When it was Palestinians targeting Israelis in buses, Muslim leaders and much of anti-Israeli West seemed to turn a blind eye to this form of attack because they believed (wrongly & disgustingly, in my view) that it was the only means an oppressed group could use against their better armed oppressors. If 9/11 or 7/7 or Bali or the Airplane Plot hasn't amply demonstrated the moral bankruptsy of the Jihadi vision, the Muslim war on Muslims in Iraq should have.
M. Fernandez, San Francisco,