[Dean's World] Aziz P: 600, 000 dead in Iraq is a reasonable estimate

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
600,000 dead in Iraq is a reasonable estimate
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1160753367.shtml


   [1]The Lancet study (PDF) that estimated deaths in Iraq at 600,000 is
   coming under [2]considerable [3]critique. However, all these critiques
   assume a priori that the number is unreasonable as an apriori. But if
   the number is actually quite reasonable, then the numerical
   methodologic critiques are irrelevant.

   And in fact the estimate of 600,000 dead is actually quite reasonable.
   Juan Cole has a very lengthy post that [4]lays it out on the line,
   including more detail about the methodology than most of the critics
   provide. He also notes that muslim burial practices sugggest that the
   estimates are, if anything, conservative. A lengthy excerpt:

     I follow the violence in Iraq carefully and daily, and I find the
     results plausible.

     First of all, Iraqi Muslims don't believe in embalming or open
     casket funerals days later. They believe that the body should be
     buried by sunset the day of death, in a plain wooden box. So there
     is no reason to expect them to take the body to the morgue.
     Although there are benefits to registering with the government for
     a death certificate, there are also disadvantages. Many families
     who have had someone killed believe that the government or the
     Americans were involved, and will have wanted to avoid drawing
     further attention to themselves by filling out state forms and
     giving their address. [...] Not to mention that for substantial
     periods of time since 2003 it has been dangerous in about half the
     country just to move around, much less to move around with dead
     bodies.

     There is heavy fighting almost every day at Ramadi in al-Anbar
     province, among guerrillas, townspeople, tribes, Marines and Iraqi
     police and army. We almost never get a report of these skirmishes
     and we almost never are told about Iraqi casualties in Ramadi. Does
     1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4?
     10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they
     aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is
     impossible?

     There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq. If we subtract
     Baghdad, where about 100 a day die, that still leaves 89. If an
     average of 4 or so are killed in each of those 89, then the study's
     results are correct. Of course, 4 is an average. Cities in areas
     dominated by the guerrilla movement will have more than 4 killed
     daily, sleepy Kurdish towns will have no one killed.

     If 470 were dying every day, what would that look like?

     West Baghdad is roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. It is
     certainly generating 47 dead a day. Same for Sadr City, same
     proportions. So to argue against the study you have to assume that
     Baquba, Hilla, Kirkuk, Kut, Amara, Samarra, etc., are not producing
     deaths at the same rate as the two halves of Baghad. But it is
     perfectly plausible that rough places like Kut and Amara, with
     their displaced Marsh Arab populations, are keeping up their end.
     Four dead a day in Kut or Amara at the hands of militiamen or
     politicized tribesmen? Is that really hard to believe? Have you
     been reading this column the last three years?

     Or let's take the city of Basra, which is also roughly 10% of the
     Iraqi population. Proportionally speaking, you'd expect on the
     order of 40 persons to be dying of political violence there every
     day. We don't see 40 persons from Basra reported dead in the wire
     services on a daily basis.

     But last May, the government authorities in Basra came out and
     admitted that security had collapsed in the city and that for the
     previous month, one person had been assassinated every hour. Now,
     that is 24 dead a day, just from political assassination.
     Apparently these persons were being killed in faction fighting
     among Shiite militias and Marsh Arab tribes. We never saw any of
     those 24 deaths a day reported in the Western press. And we never
     see any deaths from Basra reported in the wire services on a daily
     basis even now. Has security improved since May? No one seems even
     to be reporting on it, yes or no.

     So if 24 Iraqis can be shot down every day in Basra for a month (or
     for many months?) and no one notices, the Lancet results are
     perfectly plausible.

   Also, to look at the issue another way, consider that almost 3,000 US
   sodiers have been killed in the war thus far, and that 14,000 Iraqi
   security forces have also been killed (the latter a conservative
   estimate based on published news reports only, [5]source). Is it
   really beyond the realm of possibility that for every US soldier
   verified killed by the DoD or Iraqi security person reported killed by
   the media, that an additional 34 civilians have also been executed by
   militias or been killed by foreign jihadis? Because 35x17k= 600k right
   there.

   The question is why the rush to deny the number. Does the argument for
   being in Iraq change if its 600,000 dead? If so, where is the
   threshold? Keep in mind that just a few months ago the same people
   were outraged at the suggestion that there might be 100,000 dead. Is
   that number still beyond the realm of possibility, too, in their eyes?
   And if not - if 100,000 is actually reasonable now whereas 600,000 is
   not, then when does 600,000 become reasonable?

   I think that its telling of insecurity by the pro-war right that they
   have seized with such ferocity on the report, because they are
   essentially arguing a detail rather than a strategy. John (not Juan)
   Cole [6]explores this further.

References

   1. http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
   2. http://quantumghosts.blogspot.com/2006/10/statisticians-critque-of-lancet-study.html
   3. http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009511.html
   4. http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/655000-dead-in-iraq-since-bush.html
   5. http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
   6. http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7448