Silenced Majority Portal

War "Humor"

WAR HUMOR

Dick Cheney said today, "We operated on the best available intelligence, gathered over a period of years from within a totalitarian society ruled by fear and secret police."  Yikes!

Iraqi Civilian Deaths

Here is the audio for a presentation given at the University of Minnesota earlier today by Les Roberts, one of the authors of a formal study of civilian deaths in the Iraq war.  Download LesRoberts.mp3

A few years ago, Dr. Roberts used statistical sampling methods to estimate the number of war deaths in the Congo.  He and his colleagues sampled clusters of homes in different regions to obtain these estimates.  Their findings, which were cited by Colin Powell and Tony Blair, were published on the front page of the NY Times and Washington Post. Among their findings, they reported that roughly 3 million persons had died as a result of the war and that for every person who suffered a violent death, nearly two persons died from diseases due to displacement by the war.  These diseases included primarily malaria and diarrhea. Their results and methods were accepted nearly universally. 

A study of Iraqi war deaths by the same author, using nearly identical methodology to the Congo study, found a different result for the cause of deaths.  They found that a majority of deaths was due to violence  and that this was true in most provinces in Iraq.  Most of these deaths were attributed to strikes by the coalition.  Their study estimated that 100,000 OR MORE Iraqis had died as a result of the war. This  estimate was obtained AFTER OMITTING the population sample from Fallujah, which was much higher than samples from the rest of the country.  If Fallujah had been included, 200,000 or more deaths would have been estimated.

In contrast to the Congo study, US media essentially ignored or even misrepresented the results of the Iraq study.  The Washington Post on page A12 cited Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, who said that the number of 100,000 appeared to be inflated. They cited his criticism of the study even though he had not seen it.  Mr. Garlasco was interviewed by CNN and NBC. None of the study authors was interviewed by television media. 

The US government had a quick response to the article as well.  Within hours after its publication, a Harvard statistician and signatory on the PNAC responded with his criticisms.  Dr. Roberts, in his talk today, noted that the press has not asked President Bush about civilian deaths in Iraq.  Given the administration's rapid response to the study it's disappointing that GW Bush has not addressed the issue of civilian deaths in Iraq.

A study of Iraq war deaths serves several purposes.  Dr. Roberts noted that the US government (USG) is responsible according to article 4 of the Geneva Convention for the safety of the Iraqi people.  A comprehensive study shows whether the USG is meeting its responsibilities.  He believes also, as a US taxpayer, that it's important to assess the effectiveness of policy. Any cost-benefit analysis of pre-emptive war should include an analysis of civilian deaths, especially when the cause de jour is to promote "freedom".

Finally, Dr. Roberts said he would disseminate his research findings differently than he did if he had a second chance.  An important finding of his study -- the finding that the coalition forces are responsible for MOST war deaths in Iraq -- is not disputed.  But instead of focusing on this fact, the papers and right-wing blogs highlighted the confidence interval in the study representing a range of possible deaths.  The confidence interval spanned from 8000 to 194,000 casualties.  What many persons fail to undertsand when they hear this wide range is that numbers at the extreme end are highly improbable.  This estimate also does not include the Fallujah data.

Dr. Roberts said he did not respond to the right-wing blogs because his paper, which was reviewed four times and had every sentence carefully vetted, spoke for itself.  He thought that if he joined in a discussion with the blogs that he or his colleagues might misrepresent an important fact.  He now believes that that strategy was a mistake.  He believes he should have armed a cadre of colleagues who were experts in his methods to defend the scientific integrity of his work. 

Hopefully, someone will conduct a second study which will effectively reduce the confidence interval and give us a better estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties. US and Iraqi citizens deserve to know this information.

Bob Woodward is a White House shill