Iraqi Deaths Due to U.S. Invasion
Estimated Iraqi Civilian Deaths Due to U.S. Invasion of 2003: 1,189,173 (est.)
The number of Iraqi civilian deaths is often overlooked by Americans and misrepresented by the Bush Administration, who advocates the statistic provided by the Iraqi Study Report as an estimate of the number of Iraqi civilian deaths since the invasion. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths according to the Iraqi Study Report is 82,199 – 89,710 (as of today). The problem with the Iraqi Study Report is the statistical methodology, which only reports “confirmed deaths.” A death is considered “confirmed” when reported by at least two international news agencies. The obvious margin for error is that it misses out on the thousands of “unreported” (or reports by only one news source) deaths. A gap that that the authors of the Iraqi Study Report even acknowledge. The statistic produced by the Iraqi Report should not be used to represent the total number of Iraqi civilian deaths.
What is more accurate then?
JustForeignPolicy.org provides a more accurate number based on the following methodological rationale (this is the source of the 1.2 million statistic cited above):
Since researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths were attributable to the U.S.-led invasion as of July 2006, it necessarily does not include Iraqis who have been killed since then. JustForeignPolicy has “updated this number both to provide a more relevant day-to-day estimate of the Iraqi dead and to emphasize that the human tragedy mounts each day this brutal war continues.”
The Lancet study already demonstrated that, as of July 2006, the deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq rivaled the death toll of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. A September 2007 poll
from the British polling firm Opinion Research Business contributed to the methodological understanding of the Iraqi death toll, confirming the likelihood that over a million have died with an estimate of 1.2 million deaths.
If you consider human life an important statistic, the 1.2 million total Iraqi civilian deaths dwarfs the 4,000 American deaths (or 30,000 total casualties); the latter statistic often cited as a reason to applaud the success of the Iraqi occupation, relative to other American conflicts. However, the fact of the matter is the U.S. occupation of Iraq is causing more violence than Americans are lead to believe, and for what? The removal of a dictator in return for a completely unstable state and a more volatile region? The consequences of our actions are only beginning to surface. The future ramifications of the faux Iraqi War will be severe. The Middle East seems doomed for turmoil, and it will, again, be the fault of an external foreign power exerting its direct and indirect control in a vain attempt to transform a region they know very little about.
1.2 million deaths is commensurate to executing every student at Harding University’s campus 240 times over.
OK.. mostly correct. I just think it’s important to point out what the Lancet study that all of this is based on was looking at. The Johns Hopkins researchers looked at mortality rates prior to the invasion of Iraq and used those to project estimates of mortality for today and compared those with actual measures of mortality to measure the difference in deaths between a theoretical how-things-would’ve-continued-under-Saddam and an estimate of how things are now. I think the estimate came with a considerable margin of error too (like 200,000 to 1 million) based on the sampling procedure, so extrapolating any sort of exact number from it is ludicrous. Such estimates should always be reported with their qualifiers (ie, 600,000 plus or minus 400k) because they are just as important as the number that gets all the attention.
Anyway, it’s still a lot of mortality. It does include violent deaths from gunshots and bombs and such, but I believe the bulk of the increase would be in greater mortality due to the disruption of war, the way in which we specifically targeted and dismantled aspects of the public health infrastructure (water systems, clinics, etc.) which led directly to higher infant mortality, cholera outbreaks, etc.
And while these stats are an excellent post facto argument against the invasion, they should also be a caution against withdrawal. What foreseeable turn of events would lead to a decrease in these mortality rates if the US withdrew now?
First off, this post is meant to incite emotion. I didn’t cite the margin of error (perhaps I should have), but I did state it was an estimate and I posted links to where I got my numbers from.
One of my main points was to show that the number the Bush administration will cite as the number of Iraqi civilian deaths is so far underestimated it’s ridiculous. I mean, seriously, a confirmed death being one that comes from at least two credible news sources? This certainly overlooks hundres of thousands of deaths, even at the lowest margin of error estimate for the Johns Hopkins/Lancet and ORB projections.
The methodology used in the JFP statistic isn’t limited to the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study. The methodology also includes the studies by the British Opinion Research Business. In their brief the following methods for extrapolation of data were cited (with margin of error mentioned):
“In the week in which General Patraeus reports back to US Congress on the impact the recent ‘surge’ is having in Iraq, a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003.
Previous estimates, most noticeably the one published in the Lancet in October 2006, suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths).
These findings come from a poll released today by ORB, the British polling agency that has been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005. In conjunction with their Iraqi fieldwork agency a representative sample of 1,499 adults aged 18+ answered the following question:
QHow many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.
None 78%
One 16%
Two 5%
Three 1%
Four or more 0.002%
Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063
Detailed analysis (which is available on our website) indicates that almost one in two households in Baghdad have lost a family member, significantly higher than in any other area of the country. The governorates of Diyala (42%) and Ninewa (35%) were next.
The poll also questioned the surviving relatives on the method in which their loved ones were killed. It reveals that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance. This is significant because more often that not it is car bombs and aerial bombardments that make the news – with gunshots rarely in the headlines.”
As to your comment, Brett, that “while these stats are an excellent post facto argument against the invasion, they should also be a caution against withdrawal. What foreseeable turn of events would lead to a decrease in these mortality rates if the US withdrew now?”
Perhaps. Take notice, though, that I didn’t make any comment about complete withdrawal. I simply implied that our presence in Iraq has caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. I would bet on the fact that high morality rates are indicative of instable regions. And as I stated, this serves to prove that the invasion of Iraq has made the region instable and extremely volatile.
What should we do? I, for one, favor the multi-state solution. It’s seemingly the best alternative to sustaining a failing state’s existence. In stride with the theory of self-determination and the inevitability of driving force of ethnonationalism, the multi-state solution has the most promise.
Yes, yes everyone has a strong distaste for the latest war and it’s apparent root cause, “George Epiphanes.” However, I do not believe the American presence is the cause of these deaths, confirmed or no. We basically wound up relieving ourselves on an already swarming ant hill.
One difference in the numbers is that before the invasion it wasn’t the citizens wracking up the death toll by exterminating their own. It was largely the former government.
Is a safer nation-state one that has faulty controlled hatred and a few less calculable deaths buried in mass graves or exposed hatred that can be addressed and hopefully cured over time?
I do agree a multi-state solution could be the quickest fix but then again you have too many fingers in the pie and you are left with what would resemble a post-WW2 Germany. Difference being, there is much more at stake in Iraq and her neighbors aren’t exactly the pie sharing sort.
It’s a shame that most Americans are still enraged over our entering Iraq and not resolved to a solution. When Democrats stop being a bunch of placating Nancys and the overbearing GOP start listening to advice, perhaps we can come to an accord and get things on the right track. Until then, it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Emotion. Such a fickle thing that.
“It was largely the former government.”
No doubt about it, Iraq under Saddam was no picnic. Thousands of people died. However, Human Rights Watch estimates that *only* 250,000-290,000 Iraqis were killed during Saddam’s 27-year reign. That number pales in comparison with 1.2 million over less than 5 years.
I understand the need to look forward and discuss solution for Iraq. The three-state solution overseen by a large multinational presence is probably the best option at this point.
But we cannot be so focused on the future that we neglect the past. We need to examine the lead-up to and rationale for the Iraq war so we don’t fall into the same situation again. The more analysts disect the Bush administration’s foreign policy with Iraq, the more we can learn what not to do in the future.
A study like this is also important because any plans for the future begin with an assessment of the status quo. If you look at death counts that are well under 100,000, you may conclude that things are going well and getting better. If, however, you look at more comprehensive death counts that are well over a million, it will color any approach to future policy. (hopefully it will deter any thinking such as “stay the course” if we realize that our current course is resulting in millions of deaths).
I forgot to mention Thanks for stopping by, Buckleman. Although I made a rather substantial rebuttal to your comments, I appreciate their constructiveness, at the least.
Manes. Agreed. What led us up to this point should be duly noted so that repetition is null, and yes, close to the actual event to keep facts from being diluted. But when we spend more time focusing our efforts on examining the past rather than creating a hopeful future, we all suffer.
We will spend millions, in monies, time, and government legislation, to fight a possible global warming catastrophe that could wreak all sorts of unholy havoc in the next 100 years and yet spend less effort in repairing THIS global mess, this war, because apparently, we would rather spend our monies, time, and government legislation rubbing an administration’s nose in their poo instead of assisting those millions of innocents who are suffering?
Again, I do not believe we can carte-blanche fault the American-led invasion with these millions of civilian deaths. Did the American-led invasion create an atmosphere where these crimes could be committed? Yes. We are paying for it. No mistake.
Are a majority of these civilian deaths religious-fueled hate crimes, that were suppressed for decades? I cannot honestly answer in the affirmative but have to ponder the possibility.
–
Denney. I obviously mis-read your multi-state solution. Creating a three-state Iraq might work, but again, there is more at stake in Iraq than just land shares.
Can these fictional nation-states defend themselves from surrounding countries and would that stop the possibility of more millions in civilian lives?
–
Thanks Political Cartel for providing a place for open discussion and political education without the usual slop tossing.
“However, I do not believe the American presence is the cause of these deaths, confirmed or no.”
The American presence has caused the colossal spike in mortality rates, direct and indirect, my friend (as indicated by the Hopkins/Lancet, the ORB statistical studies, and numerous other accounts of occupation-linked death and destabilization).
You may not believe it to be the case; however, “evidence” (however subjective a claim) points to the contrary.
“I do agree a multi-state solution could be the quickest fix but then again you have too many fingers in the pie and you are left with what would resemble a post-WW2 Germany.”
No, this is a false analogy; there’s no viable parallel between post-WW2 Germany and a possible three-state Iraq. The post-WW2 Germany was split between the four great powers into spheres of influence. Later, after some stabilization occurred, each occupation zone (East/West) established an independent state; the devise line now being ideological. However different the two countries were, from an ideological perspective, they stilled share a similar heritage, culture, and religion.
The dividing factor between the three possible states of what is now Iraq (a Kurdistan, Shiite State, and Sunni State) is predominantly heritage and religion – they are, essentially, different ethnic groups. On the contrary, the Germans were an identical ethnic group. The state of Iraq is an arbitrarily drawn, post-colonial fabrication that lumps three ethnically diverse groups, who are hostile towards each other, and seek to disassociate themselves from the other group. The only way they were held together was by a strong-armed dictator, namely, Suddam Hussein. In stride with the philosophy of self-determination and the inevitable driving force of ethnonationalism (which has historically driven the determination of peoples and the demarcation of their respective state), a three-state solution is the best alternative to propping up a failing Iraqi state.A more accurate parallel may be the state of Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. Take notice what happened post-Tito rule. Tito was the typical strong-armed dictator able to glue together a multi-ethnic state. Once Tito’s rule ended, the state of Yugoslavia imploded, much like Iraq is imploding today.
“it’s going to get worse before it gets better.”
Probably true.
hi
2y2xqkrsn7atbbo3
good luck
Yeah. Iraq sucks. Let’s redeploy the troops somewhere else.
I mean, I’m talking change here. Whos with me?