Congratulations America
Over 1,100,000, you must be so proud.
The number is shocking and sobering.
It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.
[.....]
The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.
Unfortunately America will neither be shocked, nor sobered.
According to the BBC, a maximum of 2,000 people were dying per month at the height of the war. That’s 24,000 per year [even though less have died recently, we'll ignore that for now], and 110,000 since the war began. No small figure, but nearly a million off the estimate in your link and precisely 10 times off the mark as quoted in your article.
It’s one thing to be wrong, but one of us is a million corpses wrong.
“One of us is a million corpses wrong.”
Nope. Both of you are arguing from authority, but aren’t explaining how your authorities arrived at their estimates. So we have no idea whether you two are comparing apples and apples, apples and oranges, or apples and space shuttles.
Raphael, SL’s reference was sourced, and the source details how that estimate was arrived at. Many of us have read summaries of the key Lancet study cited, as well as the subsequent critiques (both scientific and ideological) of that study. Can you provide a link to your reference, and, ideally, to their description of how the BBC estimate was arrived at?
Well, instead of offering an explanation myself, perhaps an updated version the latest greatest body count would suffice:
“Well, instead of offering an explanation myself, perhaps an updated version the latest greatest body count would suffice…”
No, it doesn’t suffice. I stated that I was familiar with both the Lancet study and its subsequent critiques.
Perhaps you missed my question. I asked for a link to your reference, and, ideally, to a description of how the BBC estimate was arrived at.
Fair enough, balbulican. Here is the link, and my site has a new post on this topic as well which deals with the various sources from which the BBC arrives at their figures.
My comment is being held in moderation for providing the link. Please clear the comment, balbulican.
Nope, there’s nothing in the queue, and nothing waiting in moderation. Try sending again (and copy so you don’t lose it if Akismet goes wonky again).
I lost the comment, but I have posted a reply on my blog, if you don’t mind venturing over to read it.
To summarize the key points of your response:
a) You note that there is a wide range of estimates of casualties, and that the stat cited by Stageleft is at the high end of the continuum.
That is correct. What you don’t note, however, is that those states are the product of TWO Lancet studies, not one: and that the Lancet studies were pretty much echoed by the findings of two separate studies by John Hopkins University.
2) You cite another blogger who dismisses the Lancet study because, basically, he doesn’t like their methodology. Ummm…okay. I didn’t find his critique very compelling or rigorous, to be honest – I don’t think he’s a researcher or analyst. There are much more challenging discussions of the Lancet methodology, principally in the pages of Lancet itself.
3) You note that care should be used in citing statistics, and that folks with a political point to make tend to use statistics that favour that point.
Yup.
(Note: Your earlier message just popped out of the ether, above.)
I don’t have a particular political point to make, but I do feel the statistics seem impossibly high given the news we have on a daily basis. I’d take an estimate of somewhere a little closer to 100,000, which is still a lot of dead people.
Since I have no basis upon which to judge your feeling, I can’t comment on either that or your estimate.
Where would you place a reliable figure at?
I don’t know. I’d have to review the various estimates, determine the degree to which they’re measuring the same thing (which the samples on your site don’t), find out what I can about the methodologies, read some opinions critical of those methodologies, and make a judgment.
First off, your comment with the link did get grabbed by Akismet and shunted into the SPAM pen Raphael. I try and check it multiple times a day, but sometimes it has a mind of its’ own, and I get busy with earning that pay cheque, or doing dishes, playing with a grand-baby (been doing a bunch of that lately), or reading a book, and the SPAM pen doesn’t get cleaned out on as timely a basis as it maybe should — I guess we get to thank the SPAMmers for that.
With respect to the numbers, I can certainly understand why people wouldn’t like to even consider the idea that that sort of death toll has been reached — especially in the furtherance of what has been rewritten into a great and noble cause.
But given the circumstances, the time frames involved, how the data was collected, and how the alternative coalition figures are arrived at I have little difficulity with the larger numbers.
How great would those numbers be if we were able to count all the deaths related to Bush’s misguided personal feelings with respect to Iraq, his lame and ilconceived policies, and his attempts at historical revelence?
Although in looking at your sources (SL) I found nothing to nitpick, I’m still mistrustful of all statistics. I use and interpret statistics in what I do. I’m well aware of how stats can be manipulated.