Iraq: Counting the Dead

The new UN estimate of 34,000 Iraqis killed in 2006 made headlines around the world, but it's almost certainly far too low. The number, as the New York Times reported, was "the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year," and was based on information from "morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq."

The first problem with the UN count is that refers only to civilians--and thus almost certainly omitted deaths of Iraqi policemen, soldiers, insurgent fighters, and members of private militias like the Badr brigade. News media failed to report how the UN separated "civilian" casualties from the total, and the UN notably failed to report the total including non-civilians.

The second problem is the UN's methodology, which relied mostly on tallying official death certificates. The UN, according to the Times, argues their methodology is reliable because "a vast majority of Iraqi deaths are registered" with officials because Iraqis want to "prove inheritance and receive government compensation." But many bodies found in mass graves or ditches are unidentified. And there's another problem: according to the L.A. Times, "Victims' families are all too often reluctant to claim the bodies. . . . for fear of reprisals." And of course chaotic wartime conditions in several provinces make it difficult for officials there to issue death certificates even when victim's families do not fear reprisals.

None of the reports in leading newspapers mentioned the other count of Iraqi deaths: the Johns Hopkins study reported last October in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. They estimated that 650,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war--600,000 from violence and 50,000 from other war-related causes. President Bush rejected that figure--"I don't consider it a credible report," he told a press conference last October--and most of the media seem to have agreed.

But The Lancet study used state-of-the art demographic techniques, the same methodology employed to estimate war deaths in Kosovo, Congo, and Rwanda, and in natural disasters around the world. World leaders have cited those figures repeatedly without questioning their validity. It's the same methodology used in political polls in the US: the random sample.

Instead of trying to find documentation for individual deaths, The Lancet demographers, led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins University, interviewed 12,000 people in 1,800 randomly selected households across Iraq. At each household, they asked how many people were living their currently, and whether anyone who had lived there had died since Jan. 1, 2002, and if so, whether they died before or after March 2003, when the war began. That made it possible to compare wartime death rates with pre-war rates.

Critics like Fred Kaplan at Slate.com objected. They said 12,000 was far too small a sample for a country of 30 million. But in the US, as country of 300 million, 1,000 people are interviewed in the typical political poll, and nobody objects to that sample size.

Critics also questioned whether The Lancet demographers really were able to interview all the people selected by their randomizing methodology. The demographers respond that they employed Iraqi physicians rather than Americans to do the interviewing, and that the response rate was extremely high, much higher than with political polling in the US.

There's one caveat about The Lancet study--their estimate of 650,000 wartime deaths covers the period that ended in July 2006. By all accounts the violence has increased significantly since July--so The Lancet figure now itself is undoubtedly too low.

Comments (31)

1. On The Nation's front page:

   Chuck Hagel for President Robert Scheer

   "Chuck Hagel for President! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the President on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote. Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can't or won't take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have."

   Don't think I haven't thought about it.

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:59pm

2. "Bring out yer dead...[Clank]"

   Posted by BlueTexan at 01/17/2007 @ 1:03pm

3. Why do Republicans think it's OK to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for imaginary nuclear weapons at the same time that they expose the cover of an American CIA agent whose job was to combat nuclear weapons proliferation?

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 1:04pm

4. Mr Wiener.....is "34,000" just not "sexy" enough a number to oppose this stupid and wasteful war? Apparently given your last paragraphs, even "650,000" isn't "good enough".

   An ill-conceived, counter-productive and/or mis-managed war is bad, even if a few civilians are killed in the process.

   You don't need a "better figure" to sell opposition to it!

   Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 1:09pm

5. 650,000+ dead? That's just a start if the Democrats help the Republicans as much on Iran as they did on Iraq. All indications are that they're more than ready to do so:

   http://www.rawprint.com/images/Iran07a.pdf

   http://www.rawprint.com/images/Iran07b.pdf

   Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 1:13pm

6. You don't need a "better figure" to sell opposition to it!

   Posted by MASK 01/17/2007 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person

   That is the SOLE reason why people troll death tolls. To oppose it

   Posted by CPT at 01/17/2007 @ 1:14pm

7. 34,000 or almost 100 per day. Thinking about Iraq's population as about one-eleventh of ours, then it would be like our sized population experiencing deaths on a 9/11 scale every three days or so.

   And still we wait for them to acknowledge what we've done for (to) them...

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/17/2007 @ 1:24pm

8. Maybe the new strategy is to wait until the Iraqis kill themselves off and then we can have Iraq out right...oil and all! Jeepers, what a swell idea!

   Posted by BlueTexan at 01/17/2007 @ 1:38pm

9. Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 1:14pm

   Or why you ignore them...to support it.

   Even taking the "nativist" position and only worrying about the 3000 dead AMERICANS isn't necessary to see that the war was erroneously promoted, flawed in its predictions, and shamelessly bungled in its post-combat administration.

   At ONE dead GI, with the information we know now, it would be a failure worth extricating ourselves from.

   On your side, all that's totally irrelevant AND we could lose...what? 10,000...20,000...50,000...100,000 soldiers and you'd still support it and demand it continue.

   Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 1:42pm

10. Posted by MASK 01/17/2007 @ 1:42pm

    Error on my part...of course it's not "3000", but 4000 now!

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 1:43pm

11. Mr. Wiener:

    You have conveniently left out that in the original Lancet study the estimates ranged from as low as 8,000 to as many as 196,000. The researchers split the difference and called it 100,000. (The group Iraq Body Count eventually tabbed the total at 45,000) You also failed to mention that the author of that article admitted that he released the report at that time in an attempt to sway the election results. (Bias, anyone?) The most recent Lancet report was done by the same author with the same, albeit higher, skewed result.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/17/2007 @ 1:58pm

12. MASK

    Before you infer my "callousness" with regrad to Soldiers deaths...then i suggest that you tell my how many funerals of Soldiers KIA you have attended??? How many field litters or skedcos have your manned at the LZ? or the C.A.S.H.? How many 9-line medavacs have you called in? How many non-combatants have you loaded onto blackhawk or chinook? How many of those were children under age 5 with lower appendages at the knee blown off and splinted with sticks have you held and carried to the aid station??????

    If your answer to any of these questions is 0...then do not presume to tell me anything about insenstivity about the nature of life and death in wartime.

    Your narrow minded shallowness regarding the effects of defeat and retreat from Iraq is not suprising...your dismissivness is that of petty minded idealogue.

    I want to stay and finish the job....despite the missteps and no shit there have been plenty. But that does not mean that i turn yellow and support a cut and run exit.

    :)!!!!!!

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2007 @ 2:00pm

13. That is the SOLE reason why people troll death tolls. To oppose it

    Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 1:14pm | ignore this person

    a true humanitarian.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 2:20pm

14. my dismissivness is that of petty minded idealogue. Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 2:23pm

15. CPT -

    True or false?

    What you personally support or do not support is completely irrelevant to the execution of your job - you follow orders from your superiors, period.

    True or false (in spite of your "cut-and-run" rhetoric)?

    Most of the country supports withdrawal, imminent or eventual.

    True or false?

    The United States Secretary of Defense is the head of the United States Department of Defense (DoD), concerned with the armed services and military matters. By statute the secretary must be a civilian who has not served in the active component of the armed forces for at least 10 years.

    True or false?

    Civilians, then, even if only by proxy, certainly have every right to speak about insensitivity towards life and death in wartime.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/17/2007 @ 2:25pm

16. JOHANNE

    I know you are getting up there, but for goodness sakes if you are going to do something be consistent....how many times before have i been banished to your ignore...

    Tell you what keep me there and you have no more problems with me. :)

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2007 @ 2:26pm

17. Civilians, then, even if only by proxy, certainly have every right to speak about insensitivity towards life and death in wartime.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 01/17/2007 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person

    You have every right to speak on any issue you wish and especially insensitivity about the arbitrary way in which life and death occur in war...especially one in which we participate.

    You do NOT have the right to infer that I am insensitive to those facts....without an appropiate response from me.

    Posted by CPT at 01/17/2007 @ 2:30pm

18. I want to stay and finish the job....

    Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 2:00pm

    Actually you didn't answer THAT question CPT.

    How many "KIA funerals" are you willing to accept before you concde that MAYBE the job can't BE "finished"?....10,000?...20,000?....100,000?

    IS there some number that YOU would say, this is hopeless and we need to pull out? Figure in ALL the NEW "New Way Forward" Plans you want.

    If there is, love to hear it.....if there isn't, then say that.

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 2:30pm

19. You have every right to infer that I am insensitive to those facts Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 2:32pm

20. You do NOT have the right to infer that I am insensitive to those facts....without an appropiate response from me.

    Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 2:30pm

    With all due respect for your respectful answer, CPT...

    We have every right to observe your comments and comment upon them, and truth be told, you more often than not come across here as particularly callous about civilian deaths and largely ignorant of the greater repercussions of same on both foreign and domestic policy.

    Posted by New Dawn at 01/17/2007 @ 2:34pm

21. That is the SOLE reason why people troll death tolls. To oppose it

    Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 1:14pm

    There is litttle doubt that the 665,000 is a fabrication as the 60,000 of Iraq Body Count and the UN, 34,000 x4 (and it is only since Feb 06 that the killing has been ramped up, so 80,000 to 90,000 for 4 years would be a reasonable ball park estimate).

    Of course even 5,000 civilians killed as a bi-lateral effect would be horrific but one needs to speculate on why the war opponents seem to get so much satisfaction out of the highest possible number.I suggest it is not only to get the wider public's attention that these numbers, though less than Saddam's efforts but of the same order,are trumpeted.

    My observation is that not all the anti-war proponents are ghouls; in fact quite the opposite.

    They know that an early US pullout is likely to result in an increased number of civilians being killed and so wanting to assure themselves and others that they are really caring moral people, are hanging on to this 665,000 figure. That will enable them to sleep at night by doing the simple arithmetic, until the number of deaths caused by a precipitous withdrawal exceeds 665,000. At this point expect someone who was involved in the fabrication to suddenly remember that a factor of 2,3,...n was overlooked in the 665,000 calc. This upwardly revised number of deaths, no doubt, will ensure further good sound sleeps for the "troops out now", caring brigade.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/17/2007 @ 7:27pm

22. Posted by LRJONES4 01/17/2007 @ 7:27pm

    You describe perhaps accurately what an "early pull-out" would result in...but, it looks like a "late" pull-out would result in EXACTLY the same result.

    With one difference...several hundred, maybe a few thousand MORE AMERICANS dead.

    How about a totally America-centric view on opposition to the war in Iraq?

    I'm tired of OUR people being killed for no good reason!

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 8:11pm

23. You describe perhaps accurately what an "early pull-out" would result in...but, it looks like a "late" pull-out would result in EXACTLY the same result.

    With one difference...several hundred, maybe a few thousand MORE AMERICANS dead.

    How about a totally America-centric view on opposition to the war in Iraq?

    I'm tired of OUR people being killed for no good reason!

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2007 @ 8:11pm

    The results of an early versus a late pullout depend on what happens between "early" and "late". Late could of course mean a minimum of about 2 years. No one at this stage knows if Maliki and/or Bush are fudging.

    However if the Yanks are given the Maliki OK, Sadr's Militia will be history by disbanding or destruction. That sort of change is likely to have implications for a more enthusiastic Sunni participation in the political process and thus the possibility of reduction in the intensity of violence.

    I was just trying to point up how shonky data can quickly attain verity status and certainly an assumed presupposition status in the anti-war armoury. All it needs is the imprimatur of an August (but up to its eyeballs in partisanship) body to speak "infallibly" to satisfy enthusiasts. What that information is used for has more to do with "purposes psychological" than how many civilians actually died in Iraq.

    It seems that your favourite number is not 665,000 but 3,000. Yours seems a good reason to oppose the war, particularly if you cannot see any worthwhile past or future outcomes in the Iraq war. In fact with your assumptions you would have to be irrational to embrace the war. Others think a lot of value has been done in Iraq and the fat lady hasn't yet sung, so your rationale for quitting carries little weight with them.

    Though the US is the main contributor, including in dead and injured, there are quite a few other countries still in Iraq and some have born death and injuries in about the same proportion to their troop numbers as the US.

    I noticed a figure recently claiming that 80% of US deaths are by IEDs. It seems that you could be better protecting your soldiers with improved armour. As you know Australia has had a small contingent in Iraq and Afghanistan from day one and to date has not lost one soldier in either theatre. Now some of that no doubt is just good luck. However I did hear a discussion by military experts, a few months ago and the claim was made that the soldier's safety was the top priority for ADF (Australian Defence Forces) personnel. To this end a lot of work went into IED proofing by adding armour plating to vehicles and constantly updated planning for patrols and manned operations, using best safety practices.

    I noticed that the US has introduced this vehicle, see below, which has had no occupant deaths in 1,000 IED hits:

    The JEERV

    It was announced yesterday that the Marine Corps had ordered 15 additional Cougar Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRV) from Force Protection Inc. in a contract worth $9.4 million. In November of 2006, the Marine Corps ordered 200 Cougars to augment a total force of 300 already operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Cougar is a 12 ton mine protected armoured patrol vehicle that has been used extensively to counter the IED threat in Iraq. Since the vehicle was first deployed in 2003, not a single soldier or Marine has been killed while patrolling in a Cougar, despite more than 1,000 IED attacks on the vehicles.

    This surely is the way to go with IED protection. The extra troops, if properly used, may in fact reduce the number of US soldiers killed in the manned operations. More so of course if the number of enemy combatants is progressively reduced.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/18/2007 @ 03:46am

24. Posted by LRJONES4 01/18/2007 @ 03:46am | ignore this person

    I know something that'll protect the troops real good. send them home. period. your apologies for this cruel and pointless wars are getting tedious in the extreme. tell us about the beach.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 09:16am

25. "I know something that'll protect the troops real good. Send them home. period." Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/18/2007 @ 09:16am

    JR,

    That certainly would keep them safe but at present your solution seems like nothing more than a cruel hoax. Until they are ordered home, how about giving your soldiers a better chance of eventually making it home alive and in one piece?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/18/2007 @ 10:04am

26. how about giving your soldiers a better chance of eventually making it home alive and in one piece?

    Posted by LRJONES4 01/18/2007 @ 10:04am | ignore this person

    this one of the unspeakable crimes of the administration. they did not ask me, then or now. what a stupid thing to post. I am proud to announce an upside down ignore list for our Australian readers, allow me to congratulate you on being its first member.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 10:30am

27. Posted by LRJONES4 01/18/2007 @ 03:46am

    The 4000 number doesn't faze me....IF you are winning a war, especially one that is worthwhile and can have a worthwhile end.

    This one is not and will not. Pull the troops out tomorrow and we may have that "total collapse" of Iraq, in fact I'd say it's 99% likely.

    Pull the troops out in a year, two years, three years...and it's STILL 99% likely. The only difference is and all JERRVs in the world won't fix this...American GIs will die in the meantime.

    We are in the middle of civil war, propping up a weak government, and fighting sectarian guerrillas in urban areas. I don't know any post-Vietnam military analyst in the world that would compare that to World War-II or even Korea. So the "We lost 5000 men in one day at Normandy" thing just doesn't apply.

    Also, there's no "Berlin reached" or "USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay", nor even some "1953 Armistice" where the Sunnis and Shiia say okay, we'll stop fighting the US and ourselves...never can be.

    Posted by Mask at 01/18/2007 @ 10:43am

28. Jonesy, let me explain why I find your posts so distasteful. you try to have it both ways. on one hand you defend Bush and his idiotic war. on the other hand you accuse us yanks of the mistakes and destructive consequences of that war.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 10:51am

29. also your rah rah Australia jingoism is revolting.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2007 @ 10:52am

30. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/18/2007 @ 10:52am

    JR,

    My interest in this thread originally had to do with the willingness of many, if not all, in the anti-war movement to suspend their skeptical faculties and suggested by implication that was because they were basically decent people. That sort of tension between heart and mind ultimately serves no good cause for the anti or pro.

    Mask who has moved from being a Shakespearean rhetorician (advocate for both sides) is not particularly interested in the number being killed as his later post revealed but rather it is his unwillingness to back a lost cause that motivates him. That's not an uncommon thing with most of us.

    My comment to you and to him, is that the present consensus of opinion is the troop increase will occur and unless something dramatic occurs, the troops may still be in Iraq until the end of Bush's term. In that context my suggestion was that the US should be looking at practical ways to reduce the number of troop deaths whilst they are there.

    This seems to me to deal with your objection to the number of American soldiers being killed and injured. So unless the troops are quickly removed, why not look for the best possible outcomes with respect to your troops? As far as those of us (36% of your mob too by LA Times poll today) who haven't yet heard any notes from the fat lady are concerned, we just hope that far fewer US troops are killed or injured in Iraq during the future course of this war.

    You seem to like using the word jingoistic as much as I do. Can I help it if the Aussies are the most professional soldiers in the world?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/18/2007 @ 3:05pm

31. The Lancet report states that the number of Iraqis killed by "coalition" forces is around 200,000. It can be inferred, then, that the balance (450,000 deaths) is the result of Iraqis killing Iraqis. Faced with this fact, the notion that this mess is not a civil war is totally without support.

    Posted by quixote001 at 01/19/2007 @ 11:06pm