I'm sure you all know about the
lancet study, whihc says the U.S. Military has killed far over 100,000 civilians.
Well, this paper is using house-to-house polls and extrapolating the information gained from those polls to find the actual number of civilians killed by u.s. troops. Most of them, according to the study, were killed by bombings. Researchers have estimated that as many as 100,000 more Iraqis -- many of them women and children -- died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq than would have been expected otherwise, based on the death rate before the war.
100,000 MORE, not 100,000. That means we have gone severely over the 100,000 mark if this report is accurate. There are chances, of course, that the numbers could be off by quite a bit.
Also, these researchers used the same techniques that we used in order to decide on the number of people "ethnically cleansed" by Milosovic when deciding whether to invade the Balkans.
MUCH more in "read more," or at my website
http://www.dirtygreek.org
I'm sure you all know about the
lancet study, whihc says the U.S. Military has killed far over 100,000 civilians.
Well, this paper is using house-to-house polls and extrapolating the information gained from those polls to find the actual number of civilians killed by u.s. troops. Most of them, according to the study, were killed by bombings. Researchers have estimated that as many as 100,000 more Iraqis -- many of them women and children -- died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq than would have been expected otherwise, based on the death rate before the war.
100,000 MORE, not 100,000. That means we have gone severely over the 100,000 mark if this report is accurate. There are chances, of course, that the numbers could be off by quite a bit.
Also, these researchers used the same techniques that we used in order to decide on the number of people "ethnically cleansed" by Milosovic when deciding whether to invade the Balkans.
This survey tells us oen of two things: Either we've killed over 100,000 civilians, or so many civilians hate us that they've lied about the number of dead family members to the point that it totals 100,000. I mean, I doubt the surveyors believed someone who said that a few hundred family members have died from coalition attacks, you know? So how could the numbers be exaggerated that much?
Also, the report says
We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included.
Alot of people are claiming that, well, the Iraqis may have just lied. That's certainly a possibility, and not one to rule out. HOWEVER, as I said, to ask a limited # of households in Iraq how many people in their house have died from coalition attacks and to get a total number of 100,000 after extrapolating the data is pretty mind-boggling. Each home would have had to exaggerate profoundly to get the number that high. It would have had to be a concerted effort on the part of the Iraqis interviewed, and they all would have had to know that the surveyors were coming. Both of ideas are basically impossible.
How the stats were gathered:
33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.
33 clusters of 30 households = 990 households of sample data to extrapolate from.
Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included.
...
The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.
Only surveying U.S. military personnel gives an estimate of over 40,000. (Every third marine has killed AT LEAST one civilian.)
More on that image here.
Now, how does this add up to us killing more people than Saddam?
The troubling thing about these results is that they suggest that the US may soon catch up with Saddam Hussein in the number of civilians killed. How many deaths to blame on Saddam is controverial. He did after all start both the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. But he also started suing for peace in the Iran-Iraq war after only a couple of years, and it was Khomeini who dragged the war out until 1988. But if we exclude deaths of soldiers, it is often alleged that Saddam killed 300,000 civilians. This allegation seems increasingly suspect. So far only 5000 or so persons have been found in mass graves. But if Roberts and Burnham are right, the US has already killed a third as many Iraqi civilians in 18 months as Saddam killed in 24 years.
Sure, Dr. Cole said that ""I think the results are probably an exaggeration." He also, however, said this:
it is often alleged that Saddam killed 300,000 civilians. This allegation seems increasingly suspect. So far only 5000 or so persons have been found in mass graves.
and this
The methodology of this study is very tight, but it does involve extrapolating from a small number and so could easily be substantially incorrect. [b]But the methodology also is standard in such situations and was used in Bosnia and Kosovo.[/b]
and this
The most important finding from my point of view is not the magnitude of civilian deaths, but the method of them. Roberts and Burnham find that US aerial bombardments are killing far more Iraqi civilians than had previously been suspected. This finding is also not a surprise to me. I can remember how, on a single day (August 12), US warplanes bombed the southern Shiite city of Kut, killing 84 persons, mainly civilians, in an attempt to get at Mahdi Army militiamen. These deaths were not widely reported in the US press, especially television. Kut is a small place and has been relatively quiet except when the US has been attacking Muqtada al-Sadr, who is popular among some segments of the population there. The toll in Sadr City or the Shiite slums of East Baghdad, or Najaf, or in al-Anbar province, must be enormous.
I personally believe that these aerial bombardments of civilian city quarters by a military occupier that has already conquered the country are a gross violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, governing the treatment of populations of occupied territories.
In conclusion, we've likely killed more civilians than Saddam, even if we've only killed 40,000 civilians, which seems almost impossible since you saw the graphic above which states that Only surveying U.S. military personnel gives an estimate of over 40,000. (Every third marine has killed AT LEAST one civilian.)
And even if the largest stretch possible is true - that is that the Lancet Report is exactly right and we've killed 100,000+ civilians but saddam really killed 300,000 civilians, we've killed 1/3 the number in less than 2 years than saddam did his ENTIRE tenure as ditator of that country. Won't take us long to catch up.
I'm leaning more towards the idea that the lancet study is exaggerated by a factor of maybe 2, so that we've killed somewhere around 50,000 civilians (factoring in statistical errors and exaggeration by iraqis interviewed and the possibility that many of those said to be civilians were actually insurgents). Then, I'm guessing that Saddam killed nowhere near 300,000, seeing as even the people he was slaughtering don't think he killed that many and we have absolutely nothing but circumstantial evidence from anti-Saddam sources (namely the U.S. government).
I'm going to go on the thought that we're probably about even with Saddam. However, as I said, he was there for decades. We've been there for less than 2 years, AND we're supposed to be "liberators."
What do you think? Is it time go to home yet?