War death statistics: dueling casualty figures, and how they are used
During a war, it used to be that the body counts published in the newspapers focused on the number of enemies killed. And the populace reading those accounts were supposed to be happy, not sad; the statistics were supposed to make them feel that the effort was a success, not a failure.
Whatever deaths occurred to a country’s own combat forces were reported, but in a different way, a manner meant to inspire with the message of their courage and to praise their selfless sacrifice (here’s an interesting example of this, by the way).
These editorial policies were no accident. They were part of a tradition that glorified war and considered civilian morale something that needed boosting, not deflating.
Was this a good thing? Depends on the worthiness of the cause, I’d say. Which is always in the eye of the beholder. To an absolute pacifist none of it is worthy. To a relative pacifist most such causes are not worthy. And to the rest of us folks, the answer is variable, personal, and often political.
I’m not suggesting we go back to the days of automatic war boosterism. But I continue to be stunned by the fact that our media, since Vietnam, has adopted the opposite tack.
Here’s the method: because we in the West have become far more respectful of other countries, cultures, and people the world over, enemy battle casualties are reported in order to discourage further war and induce guilt in our populace and rage towards those who wage it. Our own casualties are reported on a daily basis, highlighted in headlines that emphasize the number of deaths without giving context to why they are there or what it might mean.
The idea, once again, is to emphasize what World War I poet Wilfred Owen called, “the pity of war”—that is, the suffering involved—in order to discourage it.
Owen was a poet and a soldier. Actually, he was a poet (and a pacifist, by the way) before he was a soldier. The war in which he served was considered the first modern war, the first in which disillusionment and futility (the latter word the title of one of Owen’s most famous poems) were the mark of those who served.
Checking enthusiasm for war is a good thing. No one should consider war easy or glorious or desirable in and of itself. But now the climate makes it very difficult to prosecute a war successfully, even against an enemy as vicious as this one, even in an arena in which it is clear that pulling out now would constitute a disaster.
I’m not going to argue the war itself or the wisdom/stupidity of what the Washington Post calls the Democrats “war plan.” I’ve done so many times before. This post is about war casualty statistics.
Statistics are notorious for their ability to be used for whatever purpose one wants. That’s because statistics seem understandable on their face but are actually extremely complex. They seem to say one thing but can really mean another, and thus the partisan among us can mold them to fit the rhetorical need at hand. And war casualty statistics are an especially useful and emotional tool for playing on the hearts and minds of the American public.
There is no doubt that thousands of US servicemen and women have died in this war. There is also no doubt that casualties are light compared to most other wars in our history. There is no doubt, too, that every one of these deaths is a sorrowful and tragic occurrence. And there is also no doubt that those who have served there are heroic, and that we should be thankful that they are.
Vietnam seems to have been the turning point, as it was with so many things. That war started out with controversial body counts of the enemy. It ended with the Vietnam Wall, on whose stark dark face are engraved the names of all our dead. And this sentiment—which I support—to memorialize, honor, and grieve the dead has led to the current trend to use the dead as potential weapons in the enemy cause.
The killings of our service men and women by IEDs can’t possibly do much damage to us militarily; their scope is way too small. They do matter, however, as propaganda, and very much—as the enemy is well aware (most US combat deaths are now from these devices).
And our own MSM, in emphasizing the number of those deaths, is subtly complicit in that propaganda cause. I’m not jaded enough to believe that this complicity is intentional on the part of the MSM. I think their idea and their motivation is the thought that death is bad, war is bad, this war is especially bad (and any war advocated by the Bush administration is exceptionally bad), and it’s best to not only publicize but to emphasize and drive home those facts to make sure the public is against the war.
Commenter Hyman Rosen wrote in a thread here yesterday, in response to another commenter’s assertion that US military deaths in the last year of the Carter Administration were higher than they’ve been during the years of the Iraq War:
The document you pointed to says that the number killed in 1981 by hostile action is zero. 69% of military deaths that year are listed as due to accident. Meanwhile, this site notes that we now have over 25,000 US casualties in the Iraq war. Maybe it’s just me, but I find it disrespectful of our troops to suggest that the danger they face in Iraq should be equated with the danger of, say, driving an automobile.
No doubt Mr. Rosen is sincere in his sympathy for the war dead. But his comment—and the statistics themselves—point out the difficulty in evaluating the figures referenced.
If one looks at the chart involved, here, several relevant facts can be noted:
First of all, the last year of the Carter Administration was 1980, not 1981 (the numbers for both of those years are not significantly different, however. We’ll take 1980 as the target year, but a similar argument could also be made for 1981, the first year of Reagan’s administration.) It’s clear that US military active forces were larger during the Carter—and Reagan—administrations than they are at present. So a correction should be made for that.
It turns out, at least by my preliminary calculations (having done the math rather quickly, and with pencil and paper) that our active forces in the last Iraqi war year reported on the chart, 2004 (1,711,916), constituted about 79% of the number serving under Carter in 1980 (2,159,630) . And the ratio of deaths of active forces in 2004 (1887) compared to the number in 1980 (2392) is also approximately 79%.
This was surprising even to me. But the fact is that, statistically speaking, the increase in military deaths of active forces due to the Iraq conflict represents an increase of essentially zero, rather modest for a war.
Of course, I would imagine that, but for the Iraq war, the death rate for active military in 2004 might indeed have been lower than in 1980, rather than virtually identical. That seems intuitively true, although one can never be sure. But the statistics do clearly point out the relatively low rate of military deaths in this war.
Commenter Rosen points out the percentage of deaths due to accident in the early 80s, but fails to acknowledge that about a third of US combat deaths in 2004 were also due to accident. He (and often the MSM) lumps together accidental deaths and combat deaths when it suits his purposes. In addition, he talks of casualties rather than deaths (apples to oranges) in order to be able to discuss a larger figure (note, by the way, that in the year 1983, 11.6% of US military casualties were inflicted by terrorist attack: the Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 American servicemen).
But the real question is: what do these numbers mean? And how are they being used? Is there an equation by which we can weigh one death versus another, and is there a distinct point at which the numbers would become unconscionable? If the cause is considered unworthy (as this one is by many opponents) then no death is acceptable. If worthy, how many deaths are too many? Is criticism of the deaths and the war motivated mostly by partisanship? Does talking incessantly about these deaths help the enemy? Is there an enemy (this last question would seem absurd, but I submit there are many who think the proper answer is “no”)?
Rosen’s quoted comment insinuates that deaths in war count differently from deaths in auto accidents (although, to be technical about it, those military vehicular deaths probably involved mostly Humvees and planes rather than cars). Yes indeed, deaths in war do have a different meaning and resonance than deaths in civilian auto accidents, although both are dreadful losses. I would submit (along with commenter Ymarsakar) that deaths in a war can have a meaning and purpose quite lacking in an automobile accident.
Those who believe this war was for oil, or Bush’s ego, think it especially offensive to die in such a war. Those who believe the motives were to liberate the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant’s yoke and enable them to at least have a chance at determining their own future, and to stop Saddam from flaunting the terms of the Gulf War Armistice and the UN inspections, believe the cause was a worthy one and the deaths a meaningful sacrifice.
neo,
A thoughtful, well reasoned examination of an important topic.
Excellent point:
“Our own casualties are reported on a daily basis, highlighted in headlines that emphasize the number of deaths without giving context to why they are there or what it might mean.”
As are the horrific deaths of so many Iraqis. The MSM don’t cheer these, but there seems perhaps a sense of glee in their flaunting of the carnage.
The problem with your analysis is your take of the MSM.
In fact it plays down, rather than plays up the costs and brutality of war.
That is shown in just about every serious study on the topic…
Neo–I guess I am jaded because I think that the MSM deliberately manipulates military casualty statistics for its own purposes; it ain’t just emotion at work, it’s cold calculation.
Second, the daily death counts are a very heavy MSM thumb on the scales and direct proof of MSM attempts to influence us all. It is a reasonable point to make that casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are very low when compared to U.S. casualties in earlier wars yet, I very rarely see this point made in the MSM because such a comparison does not suit their purposes.
Never mentioned either is the fact that, combat medicine has gotten much better in general and that many of the soldiers who would have died in earlier conflicts are saved today. Again this point would not help the MSM’s argument so, it’s not mentioned as often as it should be.
The MSM and John Kerry would like us to believe that press gangs are scouring our cities and towns hoping to dragoon the unwary, the unemployed and the under 100 IQ folks so that they can be turned into robotic killers and/or cannon fodder–take you pick. Cooking casualty and death stats is just the icing on the cake.
The MSM is playing this the same way it did Vietnam and because of the way it is portraying our troops–dupes or killers–many return to harassment just as our troops did when they returned from Vietnam.
TC you must be kidding. The MSM is not reporting too low of casualties, they have gone out of their way to inflate the casualties (see lancelet – study). Ever since the Vietnam War, the MSM has been silent on any war that is not presenting the left in a good light.
As for the MSM presenting the military in a bad light. Well, that has been a constant also. Six years in the Navy and not once can I recall a positive newspaper or MSM report. Trust me when I say that those in the Military are aware of this bias.
What about the Lancelet study, Wayne?
A year or so back, I was going around with the liberal journalists on Pressthink on roughly the same issue: Were casualties reported or ignored based on whether the reporting made the war look bad?
I referenced a helicopter crash at Ft. Hood which had killed seven guys, including a one-star general. I claimed that, as big a deal as this was, the MSM was curiously silent. One participant, better acquainted with Google or some other tool, listed the newspaper reporting the crash with the implication that I was wrong. I think there were maybe eight. One was the Army Times, hardly the MSM, one the LA Times, and the rest, IIRC, smaller papers which were probably the papers reporting the death of a local man.
This was supposed to prove the MSM was even-handed with its treatment of casualty reporting. I guess some guys are so stuck on their story that they can’t see its gaping holes. Anyway, I was supposed to be convinced.
I wonder if the WaPo thinks the current mess at Walter Reed, and, by extension, is recent. Why didn’t they do an investigation, say, seven years ago?
There is also the times when early reporting has been that four soldiers died, and then reported again as only two deaths when all the facts are known, which leaves people the impression that there were four deaths followed by two deaths and six in all. Articles may be entirely clear, but people hear the numbers. Our news cycles are such that waiting to make reports until they can be made with depth and accuracy is nearly impossible.
For what it’s worth, when I was active duty in about the 90-91 time frame we lost a dozen people in the Philippines. I’ve looked at those casualty charts and I don’t see the numbers. I don’t think that anyone is being dishonest but I don’t know how they were classified. Where they crime related homicides or hits by the people’s army or what? They were all murders, most certainly, and there was one case where a van of contractors (not military) was stopped on a road by people who sprayed the interior with machine gun fire.
When I look at that casualty chart I can not find people that I know are dead. Obviously civilian contractors are not on it but I can’t find the military guys either.
TC –
You said serious studies, which means the Lancet (sp) doesn’t qualify. And if you don’t know why this is so, your judgment and unbacked assertions aren’t terribly reliable.
Thanks for playing.
Snowonpine mentioned the improvement in combat medicine.
Does anyone else remember a MSM story from a year or two ago in which the reporter actually bemoaned this fact? He was unhappy that the combat medicine improvements resulted in fewer war-time deaths!
The reporter felt that this served to ‘mask’ the brutality of war and would prolong American acceptance of war.
He also questioned whether it was actually a good thing for the troops to survive with injuries that may have lasting effects. He thought they might be better off dead.
I wish I could remember who wrote the story and/or what paper it was in…it was absolutely mind-boggling.
The idea, once again, is to emphasize what World War I poet Wilfred Owen called, “the pity of war”–that is, the suffering involved–in order to discourage it.
But they don’t show the execution videos made by the jihadis. So… are they really following that standard?
Statistics are notorious for their ability to be used for whatever purpose one wants. That’s because statistics seem understandable on their face but are actually extremely complex.
No way Neo, how can math be complex?
I’m not jaded enough to believe that this complicity is intentional on the part of the MSM.
That would require the assumption that the media knows what the hell they are doing in the first place, to intentionally do something like that. Since they don’t and are clueless… how can it be intentional?
Is there an enemy (this last question would seem absurd, but I submit there are many who think the proper answer is “no”)?
of course there is an enemy, neo, they are called Bush and America.
(although, to be technical about it, those military vehicular deaths probably involved mostly Humvees and planes rather than cars).
The military trains like they fight, Neo, which means that even in peace time the nature of active military training means people die. They almost have to, in order to simulate conditions to ready a peace time army for real combat. You have helicopters crashing and people falling to their deaths and what not all the time. Which doesn’t even include the natural causes like health reasons. To us, it looks freakish, to have one helicopter with 10 on board crash and everyone gets killed. But it is only freakish because they don’t actually get reported unless it is real action.
A person can either die in the attempt to complete his duty, or he can die from running away and getting shot in the back.
As the Spartans say, either come back with your shield or upon it. (in a military rout, the panicked side usually throws away their weapons and armor in order to run faster, doesn’t really help though)
In terms of meaning, even accidents during military training counts as meaningful instead of say, bad luck and arbitrary. It means that the military takes a risk. What for? To do their duty. They have their duty in peace and in war. Dying while killing the enemy discharges more of your responsibility than dying while training to kill your enemies, that is true. As for real accidents, who can say.
The problem with your analysis is your take of the MSM.-TS
Ya, Neo was always giving the media the benefit of the doubt. You learn to get used to it.
In fact it plays down, rather than plays up the costs and brutality of war.
TC is right, Neo. The media does play down the cost of war for women and children in Iraq, under the tender mercies of the islamic jihad.
That is shown in just about every serious study on the topic…
I thought people had to be literate at least, before they could read a study?
He also questioned whether it was actually a good thing for the troops to survive with injuries that may have lasting effects. He thought they might be better off dead.
If you don’t get with the program that euthanasia is the next best thing to happiness for our civilization, I think they will come in the middle of the night and take you to a re-education camp. Maybe in a decade or two.
To support my assertion that the media is clueless and therefore you would require a clue before you could intentionally do anything, I refer people back to the mining collapse incident where the media waited for baited breath to report on whether the “trapped miners” were rescued alive or death. They jumped the gun (or the shark depending upon which generation you are from) when they ignored the community setup press center and reported, on rumour alone, that the miners were alive. Then they found out that it was all wrong, that if only they had paid attention and waited for official confirmation, they wouldn’t have given false hope to the families. Which were infinitely crushed morale wise by first having an emotional high from believing that their brothers and husbands were rescued alive, and then finding that it was a lie… an unintentional lie for all that. A clueless lie, Neo. Does the media really have a clue, Neo, anymore? I don’t think so, and this goes double for military ops. They do get a lot of help from the enemy propagandists, and the puppet masters like Zawahiri of course, knows how to play the US media quite well.
1992 to 1999, active duty decreased by 406,000. We need more troops because the Left told us we needed less… I suppose. First make the problem, then offer to solve your own problem… nice.
15% of deaths in 1995 were due to suicides (self-inflicted). 2004, 7.4% suicides. 2003, 11.4% suicides. War must make people feel better, Neo.
Training for war is a complex and dangerous business. Over the decades, things have improved, and not just technology.
This was surprising even to me. But the fact is that, statistically speaking, the increase in military deaths of active forces due to the Iraq conflict represents an increase of essentially zero, rather modest for a war.
So the reason why the things seemed even, is because of safety techniques. That, and the decommissioning of the varous widow makers (airplanes).
So yes, Americans are so spoiled that they can’t even bear to pay what they used to pay 20 years ago for a mandatory accident tax. Their war tax concerning deaths is equal in numbers or percentage to those that died through accident, and probably less, decades ago. It is a war of choice dontcha know. If people die because the fake liberals decided it was necessary to have a peace time army, that is one thing, but to die for the good of something other than the Left… my that is anathema. That’s why it was rather transparent for someone to say that “Maybe it’s just me, but I find it disrespectful of our troops to suggest that the danger they face in Iraq should be equated with the danger of, say, driving an automobile”. Transparent that they don’t have a clue, they don’t respect the deaths, and they refuse to understand that in 2004, there was a 76% chance that if they died, it would be either due to enemy action or an accident. But in 1980, if they died, they had a 72% chance of dying by accident. so, yes. the dangers of driving an automobile back in 1980 should not be equated to the danger in Iraq. The danger back in 1980 for accidents, was worse than the chance that you would get killed in Iraq.
Pingback:Visiting an old friend « Bookworm Room
Pingback:Visiting an old friend — and some thoughts on the dead « Bookworm Room
MSM reports on US military deaths in Iraq almost always include the total killed so far in the war – but without any context such as the rate per 100,000 per year, comparison to other wars (or even peacetime), enemy losses, or what the military had accomplished in the given operation. Especially omitting or deemphasizing that last point is very effective in giving the appearance of the deaths being meaningless. Almost always, the total given includes deaths due to accidents, but even that context is rarely mentioned. To me, it seems like the MSM presents the total number in this contextless way for maximum negative impact.
However, as soon as one tries to put the numbers in a context, such as comparing the total number killed in Iraq to the total number murdered in a US city for an equivalent time period, then the MSM appologists move the goal posts: the comparison doesn’t count because now the rate per 100,000 is important. Similarly, the size of the military suddenly becomes important when comparing death rates in 1980 to those of 2004. Where was that kind of context in the original MSM report?
You mentioned that, in the past, the MSM would report deaths on “our” side to emphasize the heroism while “enemy” deaths were simply body counts, with (I assume you implied) the larger the better. As described in my paragraphs above, the MSM does report on one side’s deaths in a manner that makes them seem as large as possible. Then look at the reports on the attack at the airbase in Afghanistan when the Vice President was there: the attacker or at least those who sent him were implied to be clever, smart, audacious and had ominously good intelligence. It seemed like some reports were even giving the attacker credit for bravery. Maybe this is the MSM showing who they think is “our” side and who is the “enemy”.
The killings of our service men and women by IEDs can’t possibly do much damage to us militarily; their scope is way too small. They do matter, however, as propaganda, and very much–as the enemy is well aware (most US combat deaths are now from these devices).
And our own MSM, in emphasizing the number of those deaths, is subtly complicit in that propaganda cause. I’m not jaded enough to believe that this complicity is intentional on the part of the MSM.
I believe that maybe not all of the media, but substantial portions of it do intentionally manipulate the news to cast Ameerica’s and especially this administration’s efforts in the worst possible light.
Ask yourself when was the last time that you saw;
the 9/11 incidents?
the Beslan school massacre?
the numerous beheadings or other atrocities?
When was the last time we read about;
what the Jihadis do where they occupy a town or village, even if only temporarily?
the deliberate targeting of aid workers and works?
Why do we endlessly hear about;
Abu Grhaib(sp?)
Haditha?
The imaginary wrongs on our part at Guantanimo?
The flushing of Korans down the toilet? etc. ad nauseum
Why is our every move and action looked at under a microscope for wrongdoing, yet the most heinous acts by our enemy go unreported?
Why is Scooter Libby going quite possibly to jail, yet Sandy Berger pays a fine and does community service? Why is his crime just laughed off by the media as “oh that Sandy?”
Why do discredited reports continue to pop up in the MSM, like Wilson’s proven lies, while stories that run counter to the narrative most of the MSM favor sink like a stone?
Why no outrage over the MSM’s fauxtography of the Israeli – Hizzbollah conflict last summer?
Why no real discussion of the NYT’s outing of two active wartime intelligence gathering operations, yet endless speculation about secret CIA prisons abroad?
Why does the media paint any republican as a evangelical snake handler whenever they visit a church or religious group, but just gushes when democrats do it, like Hillary & Obama just recently?
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
I think the real question is why is this going on.
Good post, Neo. A couple of quibbles, though.
“It’s clear that US military active forces were larger during the Carter–and Reagan–administrations than they are at present. So a correction should be made for that.”
I’m not so sure. I think it’s eminently fair for you to do so, but Hyman was arguing about absolute numbers of deaths, not rates, so it would also be fair to stick to the actual numbers. Either way, his argument has problems.
“Of course, I would imagine that, but for the Iraq war, the death rate for active military in 2004 might indeed have been lower than in 1980, rather than virtually identical. That seems intuitively true, although one can never be sure. But the statistics do clearly point out the relatively low rate of military deaths in this war.”
Well, I think it’s assured that if not for the war, it would be lower, as indicated by the steady decline of military deaths from 1980 to 2004 as low as 758 in 2000. People that actually cared about having a better military also cared about giving them better budgets so they could have better, safer equipment, and improved training. I seriously doubt that Hyman and his ideological friends were in favor of that.
That also means that the war did in fact increase troop deaths, and we should acknowledge that fact. However, any honest analyst would also acknowledge that the numbers of casualties we’ve incurred in this war are ridiculously low by historical standards. Truth is, our losses are about the most ridiculous argument in favor if pulling out that you could make, but good luck convincing opponents of this war of that.
Time for my standard disclaimer when writing on this subject:
Each and every troop loss is a human tragedy beyond description, but death is part of life, and as societies, we make decisions every day about how many lives we are willing to lose to keep our society running. On average, one Police, Fire, Utility or Sanitation worker is killed every day. Judging by the fact that it doesn’t make the national news every night, we’ve decided as a society that those deaths are within the realm of acceptable losses to have the society we have.
Anyway, the bottom line is that that the left are using our military deaths (deliberately or not) to advance a political agenda, facts be damned. They’ve already got the big picture set in their minds, and the details are just to be filled in like some paint-by-numbers.
At least Hyman has served as a very good illustration of this. Thanks.
Two years ago I went to the DOD site to check out the numbers for deaths in the service, being a veteran myself and having two sons in the military. The number of deaths per 100,000 is the best comparison, in my opinion (for all causes), considering the variable in troop numbers under arms. But as commentators have mentioned, the service is much more safety conscience now. I noticed this 3 years ago after I started performing subcontract work at a large army base. Actually it seems to have gone too far; almost PC in nature.
I have one son is in Iraq in a non-direct combat Army MOS; he may start doing convoy runs with the surge ongoing. What I find interesting is that as many of his fellow soldiers in his unit are on their first tour there, as is he, they have carried the MSMs version of the war and politics with them and are having to reevaluate their opinions/beliefs. Notice that Brian Williams of NBC seemly has changed his view of the war since his last trip there. While there is a constant drumbeat of negativity from the media, especially about the IED deaths, it doesn’t seem to be working as well as the MSM and the Left report in their represented polls. As my wife said this morning, we must live in an area that is not in sync with the rest of the country (as reported on the news) based on the number of vehicles with one or more support the troops stickers and the conversations she engages in as she travels around the county. And we live in the predominantly Democratic state of Maryland. If I remember correctly, the polls do indicate that a majority DOES want out of Iraq, but a greater majority DOES NOT want to “cut and run”. The latter majority receives little attention in the media.
From a discussion with my father, a WWII veteran, he said he wanted to end that war too, but in victory, as soon as possible. So I Imagine he would have polled in both majorities. He was at Nagasaki shortly after the war ended, so he saw the death and destruction caused by that blast. While against the combat in Iraq, he is also convinced that our future is bleak because of the Islamic fascists’ determination to destroy the West. I wonder why this disconnect, but he watches the MSM each night, so I have my suspicions.
Hey Neo, there’s something I think you would enjoy seeing. Although perhaps “enjoy” is not the right word.
Video link to ambush of Democrat chair of appropriations House
hat tip Bookworm
It reinforces a lot on what you have been saying Neo. Which is Congress’s efforts to delegitimize the war and defund it, as well as actual references to Vietnam in the conversation you will see and hear.
Kelly – nice try. Tell us why the Lancelet – the most technically sound study available – isn’t serious.
And if you don’t know then you nothing more than a windbag. Thanks for coming out…
Sorry – “Lancet”….
TC. Seen this before.
You know the Lancet’s study has been attacked for its methodology, its assumptions, and its conclusions.
Unfortunately, these are all technical issues and answering your question would take a good deal of time.
So, after expending this time, we can confidently assume you will tell the next person you think doesn’t know better that the Lancet study is pure gold.
In other words, you know better but hope to encounter someone who doesn’t.
That being the case, expending the time to explain what you already know, to no end, is not going to happen.
As I’ve said before, it takes a lot more effort to refute a lie than to lie, so the liars figure the refuters will run out of energy first, leaving the lies standing.
Now, if I had the slightest thought you had good-faith questions, I’d answer yours. But I don’t.
Yes, Richard – I know the Lancet study has been attacked for the reasons you offer – and most of them are wrong.
Whether or not you have good faith in my question is irrelevant.
The point is the study is serious – very serious. The methodology is extremely sound, and has been approved unanimously by it’s peers. In fact the methodology was approved by the Bush administration for use in the UN and other bodies for use.
And so let’s hear about these ‘lies’……
TC. The old lefties preferred “debates” like this because the debates tied up the other side’s time, energy, and resources on a question the left didn’t care about in the first place.
So do the new lefties.
The Lancet isn’t to be taken seriously because its methodology is flawed.
Even assuming it wasn’t flawed, the people who use it are.
The methodology is flawed for the application. It might be useful in other situations. At least when it comes to the sampling plan, etc.
The data collection methods, IIRC, seemed completely riddiculous and uncontrolled and uncheckable.
There is no “extremely sound” involved with the Lancet study. One needs only to look at the stated margin of error to realize that.
TC – the Lancet study is unsound methodologically because it used too few cluster points for its sample (fewer in fact than for similar studies in Kosovo, with a population 18 times smaller). This increases the impact of biased sampling dramatically. In addition, Michael Spagat of the Royal Holloway in London whose work with the University of London and Oxford criticising the study has been publicised rather widely, has stated that his team found extensive bias in sampling towards locations where heavy casualties have occurred (for example, main road junctions) and the survey team had failed to explain how they had adjusted for this bias. He has explicitly not ruled out fraud in the study. In this context he has noted the lack of reproducibility of the results of the study which means it is inherently unscientific. Iraq Body Count, which is strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, also produced an immediate rebuttal based on serious discrepancies between claims in the study that death certificates could be produced by the large majority of victims, and the fact that aggregate numbers of death certificates in Iraq were 10 times or more lower than the total casualties suggested by the lancet study. They also noted the fact that numbers of wounded reported in Iraqi hospitals did not support the Lancet numbers and in fact supported numbers 10 times lower than these (in line with Iraq body count numbers) as well as the fact that the death rates required on a daily basis were entirely incredible as well as incredible in aggregate (death rates in conflict zones in Iraq ie the Sunni triangle higher than Rwanda). As for peer review it is worth noting that the Lancet has published at least two pieces of “scientific” research in recent years on other matters which have been condemned as utterly unfounded by organisations as august as the Royal Society in the UK, notably the Wakefield study purporting to show links between the MMR vaccine and autism in children and the Putzai study of adverse effects of GM potatoes on health, both of which were essentially uncontrolled pieces of apocryphal gossip. Indeed, the Lancet has been publicly criticised by several eminent UK scientists in open letters for the willingness of the editorial team to publish poorly researched and unscientific papers in a search for headlines or to pursue particular political agendas. I could go on at some length, but if you are genuinely interested I suggest you study the Iraq Body Count and Royal Holloway/London/Oxford press releases on the subject of the latest Lancet study which I am sure you can find by a rather simple Google search. I did. They have also been summarised briefly of late in the Times Online, which is the internet version of the Times of London. Happy reading.
qmmuseum.lee.army.milTwo words:
“Operation Tiger”
Late at night, on April 28, 1944, at least 749 soldiers were killed (by the Germans) while training for D-Day. The Germans had no idea what these men were training for, exactly … Thankfully because the 21st Century MSM wasn’t in existence back then …
http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/historyweek/22-28apr.htm
“The brave men who died that day contributed to the success in France six weeks later. Indeed their sacrifice was a Prelude to Victory.”
“but if you are genuinely interested”
That’s the problem with TC, johnr–he’s not. Just wants to muddy the water with moonbat memes.
If anyone would like to research casualty figures I suggest you start with official DOD figures from the little known Directorate for information, Operations and Reports (DIOR) at http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/
castop.htm
The problem with TS is that he has what I call a systemic error. Meaning, his errors aren’t random or by the fate of chance, but due to a specific and consistent flaw in his thinking. Which because it occurs many times, the error reproduces itself.
I’ve found out that regardless of the scientific method, humans still use the deductive reasoning model. Meaning for the vast majority of human beliefs, things that humans can believe in, are a binary set. Whether the sun will come up or not, is a binary subset. And humans therefore are naturally and unconsciously deductive concerning such things, because people act as if they assume the sun will come up tommorow, with no actual proof other than. If we acted via the scientific method, we would be thinking to ourselves that there is a 95% chance based upon previous records, that the sun will come up tommorow. But that’s not humans operate. Humans assume things to be true, and then act as if they are true, without regard at all for uncertainty or probabilities.
This is important because regardless of the scientific validity or what not of any study, so long as the users of those studies (TC) has got one of their binary beliefs wrong, the whole house of cards fall down.
Technically, if you have a binary choice set, 1 or 0, then if you choose randomly half of the time you will be right and half of the time you will be right. However, humans don’t do a lot of random choice sets. We use a system. And if you have a systemic error in your system of thinking, then you will be like TS, and get your assumptions wrong 90% of the time. Statistically totally abnormal.
Here’s another point to consider. The failure of economic sanctions to rid Iraq of Saddam despite the deaths of 1.5 million people (refer to Wikipedia article) Had the US acted about 13 years earlier to support the uprisings that occurred after the Gulf War, many of those would not have died, at least not of disease and starvation. And by this time the fledgling democracy in Iraq might actually be working.
johnr.
Thanks for the effort. But, note, that it was quite a performance. TC knows this stuff as well as you do. But he had to do so little to make you do so much. He wins.
Who do you think will quit first?
Unless you figure out some way to make it a macro or whateve it is that can be shoved in there with the touch of a button.
It’s always best to have a point of reference when we talk about casualties. Let’s try these stats:”Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers — for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.”
“as well as the fact that the death rates required on a daily basis were entirely incredible as well as incredible in aggregate (death rates in conflict zones in Iraq ie the Sunni triangle higher than Rwanda).”
The numbers-
Iraq: 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.) per CIA world factbook.
26,783,383/655,000=40.89
So if one takes the study at it’s word, one out of every 41 Iraqis has been killed within the last four years. Since we know that the violence isn’t uniform, that would imply that in some areas it would be far worse. You’d be seeing towns whose entire populations have been decimated. Imagine one out of every forty of your acquaintances being gone. No way would that be unreported in the MSM, or for that matter, anything less than obvious. You wouldn’t need a survey to tell you things were that bad. In Rwanda, by comparison, in a country of about 8.5 million, perhaps as many as a million were murdered. But that’s half the rate the Lancet study is claiming in Iraq.
Complete wogwash.
I notice we haven’t seen TC again since the facts appeared…
TC has accomplished his goal; wearing out the refutation effort.
He knows he’s full of it, and he only pretends to be “debating”. To debate implies a good faith possibility that one’s mind might be changed by facts.
TC’s mind won’t be changed–he knows the Lancet study is nonsense. He actually agrees.
But it is politically useful to try to fool those who may not know better and wear out those who do so as to reduce the refutation.
Boy – am I popular.
All in good time. And I am familiar with the argument about cluster sampling and bias. And, in a word, it’s not applicable to this study for reasons the authors identify.
Don’t have the time now to get into it – but I will be back.
Just for you, Richard.
Just for you…
Actually – off topic but very interesting is this article in the American Conservative about Douglas Feith being given an investigative ‘pass’ – probably temporarily(his partner Larry Franklin is serving 13 years for passing state secrets to Israel).
Fascinating stuff about where the lies about Iraq basically started – as well as providing some the finer points of neoconservatism we were discussing not that long ago.
Please check it out..
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article1.html
Richard: I think I have an answer for you, about how to deal with TC when he makes statements like this:
“And, in a word, it’s not applicable to this study for reasons the authors identify.”
Sounds a lot like this, doesn’t it?
Me: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
TC: I told you once.
Me: No you haven’t.
TC: Yes I have.
Me: When?
TC: Just now.
Me: No you didn’t.
TC: Yes I did.
Me: You didn’t
TC: I did!
Me: You didn’t!
TC: I’m telling you I did!
Me: You did not!!
TC: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Me: Oh, just the five minutes.
TC: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
Me: You most certainly did not.
TC: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
Me: No you did not.
TC: Yes I did.
Me: No you didn’t.
TC: Yes I did.
Me: No you didn’t.
TC: Yes I did.
Me: No you didn’t.
TC: Yes I did.
Me: You didn’t.
TC: Did.
Me: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
TC: Yes it is.
Me: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
TC: No it isn’t.
Me: It is!
TC: It is not.
Me: Look, you just contradicted me.
TC: I did not.
Me: Oh you did!!
TC: No, no, no.
Me: You did just then.
TC: Nonsense!
Me: Oh, this is futile!
TC: No it isn’t.
Me: I came here for a good argument.
TC: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
Me: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
TC: It can be.
Me: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
TC: No it isn’t.
Me: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
TC: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Me: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
TC: Yes it is!
Me: No it isn’t!
TC: Yes it is!
Me: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
TC: No it isn’t.
Me: It is.
TC: Not at all.
Me: Now look.
TC: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
Me: What?
TC: That’s it. Good morning.
Me: I was just getting interested.
TC: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
Me: That was never five minutes!
TC: I’m afraid it was.
Me: It wasn’t.
Pause
TC: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue anymore.
Me: What?!
TC: If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
Me: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
TC: (Hums)
Me: Look, this is ridiculous.
TC: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
Me: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
TC: Thank you.
short pause
Me: Well?
TC: Well what?
Me: That wasn’t really five minutes, just now.
TC: I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.
Me: I just paid!
TC: No you didn’t.
Me: I DID!
TC: No you didn’t.
Me: Look, I don’t want to argue about that.
TC: Well, you didn’t pay.
Me: Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
TC: No you haven’t.
Me: Yes I have. If you’re arguing, I must have paid.
TC: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
Me: Oh I’ve had enough of this.
TC: No you haven’t.
Me: Oh Shut up.
…and that’s why arguments with TC are disturbingly familiar.
My first comment mentioning casualty figures was in response to neo-neocon claiming that in 11/04 the war was going relatively well. I’ll continue using the same reference site we’re all pointing at. I said that by this point, over 1000 soldiers had died. The figures say that through 10/04, there were 850 deaths due to hostile action and a further 272 due to accident in Iraq. November itself then had another 126 killed by hostile action and 11 by accident in Iraq. At the time Bush declared the end of major combat operations, in 5/03, there had been 109 killed by hostile action and 30 by accident in Iraq. So we see a steady increase in the number of Americans dying in Iraq, indeed, somewhat of an acceleration. Furthermore, the majority of hostile deaths are caused by IEDs, which means that our soldiers aren’t dying mainly while trying to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, they’re dying while driving around. I stand by all of this as supportive evidence that the war was *not* going well that month.
My second comment was in response to the statement about military deaths during Carter’s last year being equal to military deaths now. The figures show that the rate of accidental death has been reduced by about half since then, and the military is smaller, so comparing simple totals is misleading, and I would say intentionally so. Death rates due to hostile action were 20/100k in 2003 and 43/100k in 2004 as opposed to 0 in 1980.
Since I believe that comparing these figures is intentionally misleading, I try to offset that by switching to counting wounded as well as killed. Unfortunately, I can’t find injury figures for 1980, but I see that through 10/04 there were 8435 wounded in action in Iraq, and then 11/04 alone added another 1429 (presumably due to the Fallujah battle). Then through February of this year, the total number of wounded in action and killed has exceeded 25,000, again seemingly accelerating.
Neo-neocon asks is there an equation by which we can weigh one death versus another. Of course the answer is yes. We weigh the deaths by what they are attempting to accomplish. In the case of the Iraq war, the perception of the public has shifted to believe that its claimed purpose is a lie, that the people responsible for running it are not competent to do so, and that victory is not even defined, much less possible. Therefore, every death incurred is a tragic waste.
As for myself, I believe, and have always believed, that the purpose of the war was to demonstrate America’s puissance as a global power – that we were so mighty that none dare stand against us. That was a powerful message to deliver in light of 9/11, and I supported the war back at the beginning. However, I was also afraid that we would mess up the execution of it, and indeed that has turned out to be the case. And because of that, and with a government that detains without trial, that kidnaps, that tortures, the demonstration of might has instead turned into a demonstration of how the mighty can be brought low.
Hyman:
The casualty rate for the Allies at the 1st Battle of the Somme was 30K in the first half-hour. There was no hostile action in 1980.
Do these have any bearing on Iraq? No. Soldiers die in combat and in combat situations (IED’s). War is hell. Defeat is worse.
Hyman. The idea that IEDs mean the troops aren’t fighting, they’re just driving around is one of those which is so silly it’s hardly possible to address it.
But I’ll try.
They’re driving around patrolling, getting to the fight and doing the various other things that combat involves.
Who, Hyman, do you think is stupid enough to believe you?
A bomber shot down by flak isn’t “fighting”, it’s just flying around.
Jeez. You ought to be ashamed.
Hyman Rosen said:
As for myself, I believe, and have always believed, that the purpose of the war was to demonstrate America’s puissance as a global power – that we were so mighty that none dare stand against us.
First of all, this seems an incomplete statement to me. The purpose of power is to be able to do something. If the purpose of the war was to demonstrate power, what is the purpose of demonstrating power? What is the purpose of convincing other nations that they can’t stand against us?
Perhaps, if you are liberal (or stuck in the mindset of the 17th century), you think the only purpose of such a thing would be to give our companies unfettered access to the exploitation of the natural resources of other nations. But another reason might be to discourage future terrorist attacks. Another reason: to attack and deny safe haven to the islamofascist enemy that has declared war on us and has already inflicted heavy civilian casualties.
Since I believe firmly that we are at war (a belief I share with the enemy that attacked us) I think comparisons of military casualties and deaths between wartime and peacetime are ludicrous. The only useful way to measure wartime casualties is against the achievement of objectives. And we can’t do that if we dont even know or agree on the objectives. That’s really the underlying problem.
Which brings me to my second (and third, etc.) question for Hyman:
Is there some other purpose of demonstrating power with which you would agree? Is it the power itself that you object to, or the purpose to which it is being put? What are the benefits/detriments of a world perception of American powerlessness?
Well, Hyman, about this: “Neo-neocon asks is there an equation by which we can weigh one death versus another. Of course the answer is yes. We weigh the deaths by what they are attempting to accomplish.”
I think it would most illuminating and helpful to our discussion if you would elaborate by telling us what you believe the value (or lack thereof) of the deaths of military personnel in 1980 under non-combat conditions were.
Thanks.
Oh, and your attempt at throwing around more numbers at the beginning of your post- well, the numbers you gave do indicate an increase, but you miss the whole point of this thread- our casualties in Iraq, and in the WOT in general are INCREDIBLY low by any and all historical standards excepting Gulf War I which was another incredible anomoly. Essentially, to crassly look at raw numbers (and not individual human tragedy) twice nothing still nothing. Your beating a dead horse, and it’s not a pretty sight.
oops, you’re beating a dead horse…
Let’s see – I may as well work backwards.
The value of non-combat military deaths is that they occur in the service of the readiness our armed forces.
Even though casualties in Iraq are proportionally low by historical standards, we may still ask whether the war which is causing them is necessary, and whether it is being prosecuted properly. Furthermore, with the litanies of “major combat operations over”, “mission accomplished”, and “turning the corner” our leaders are training us to expect few casualties.
The purpose of demonstrating power is precisely for deterrence. More precisely, it is to frighten state actors into not supporting groups who would attack us, and perhaps to directly oppose them. Had we been successful in Iraq, it might have worked nicely. But with our failure there, other state actors are now emboldened to act against us because it will be nearly impossible for us to attack another country.
We are not at war with the enemy that attacked us, at least not in Iraq. We are in some, but not great, danger from Islamist attackers, but since such attackers would strike by stealth and in few numbers, it’s difficult to see how prosecuting wars in the Middle East would stop them. The way to fight a war against “Islamofacism” or indeed any philosophy is to stand fast by our principles, take reasonable but not panicked steps to protect ourselves, and wait for the opposition to collapse under its own contradictions, much as Communism did.
To me, IEDs mean that the enemy has gained the initiative. Guerrilla wars are like that, especially when the attackers can hide within a civilian population that the defenders are loath to offend.
“Had we been successful in Iraq, it might have worked nicely. But with our failure there, other state actors are now emboldened to act against us because it will be nearly impossible for us to attack another country.
Okay, 1. Define “success in Iraq”
2. Define how Iraq is currently a “failure”
3. List the “other state actors” that are now “emboldened” to act against us, and
4. Tell me why it’s “impossible for us to attack another country.”
Furthermore, communism did not “collapse under its own contradictions”…it was made to collapse by attempting to compete with the capitalistic US, which was much more successful in both production and innovation precisely because of capitalism.
And perhaps you were “trained to expect few casualties”, but I seem to remember an administration that told me the war against terror (or Islamofascism) might perhaps be a generational war, fought by my children’s children. With weak-hearted defeatists like you around, that’s probably more true than not.
As for myself, I believe, and have always believed, that the purpose of the war was to demonstrate America’s puissance as a global power – that we were so mighty that none dare stand against us. That was a powerful message to deliver in light of 9/11, and I supported the war back at the beginning.
Much as I like the gallic flavor of “America’s puissance”, I doubt very much that Hyman has ever believed this, though you never know. It reads like a lefty caricature of American foreign policy motivations, and a particularly thick-headed one at that. Nobody was or is much worried that any state, however vile, will stand against us — the point of concern is the number of states, expecially in the Middle East, who are quite happy to harbor terrorists who will act against us. And all they need to convince the likes of Hyman at least — i.e., the liberal-left generally — to look the other way as they do so is the thinnest of “plausible denial” tissues. That way they’ll have America running around the world chasing this or that individual, and hoping that maybe sometime all these state-supported murderers will eventually “collapse of their own contradictions”. Meanwhile, the left-libs can get back to the really important business of bashing America generally, the current administration particularly — which is the only reason he refers to casualty figures at all.
I keep telling you guys about TC. He’s not a “kool-aid drinker” or a “true believer”, he’s a Nazi. His tools are those of his mentor, Joseph Goebbels. Notice how no matter the subject, it always comes back to Israel, the Israeli lobby, Woolfowitz, Feith, Pearle, Kristol, etc.? As someone has already said, he’s here not to change the minds of the regulars, or present a cogent arguement; he’s here for those “surfing through”, to reinforce views already held by many of them. TC is this site’s resident obfuscator. It’s not because he “really” believes his own tripe, it’s because it’s his JOB.
And don’t forget about those “Christian Zionists” either.
Oh dear lord, the Lancet study again.
The Lancet study assumed that pre-war Iraq was a paradise, with a death rate lower than any of the advanced Western nations. Finland? Belgium? In the Lancet view, these were deadly hell holes compared to Iraq, where people lived long and healthful lives!
After that, it didn’t matter how many deaths they counted or didn’t count or how badly their clusters were… Since all they did was compare a new death rate to a bogus prewar death rate, any answer they got was doomed to be bogus.
In other words, if you build a house and use crap instead of concrete for the foundation…
Anyone who defends the Lancet study must answer one question: What was the prewar death rate in Iraq over the decade preceding the invasion? And if you give the Lancet answer, which is “lower than in any western nation!”, well, it’s time for the guys in the white coats to collect you, you’re beyond my reach.
Oh, yeah, the kicker- the same people who tell us that the Lancet study was accurate, implying they actually believe the baseline numbers, also told us the sanctions killed a half million children.
So there you have it. A half million excess deaths, and STILL the place beat out the death rate in Scandinavia. Must be something in the water.
Ben
Ben.
Dammit. You’re not supposed to say stuff like that.
It makes the baby Jesus cry.
There’s probably not much use in this, but let me try again anyway. Despite what the government ever claimed, I believed and believe that the purpose of our attacking Iraq was to demonstrate to nations that might have been emboldened by the 9/11 attacks that we could bring their governments down at will and replace them with ones more to our liking. I hoped that this might indeed be the case, and so felt that attacking Iraq might on balance be a good idea. Unfortunately, while we found the first part of the task, bringing down the existing government, to be almost trivially easy, we have completely failed at the second part, replacing the government with a better one. Perhaps it was impossible to begin with, but certainly there was enormous hubris and incompetence shown in the effort (and no surprise that those two go together). We are now several years past the point where this failure is incontrovertible. At this point, there is no longer any reason for us to be fighting in a war there, and I believe our government refuses to acknowledge this not because they believe victory is still possible but because to admit defeat would be to lose face and suffer political losses at home. Because I believe this, I believe that additional casualties we are incurring in this war, no matter how proportionally low by historical standards, should not be happening at all, and taking active and public cognizance of them will help to make them cease.
We cannot intensify the war until we win, because we have completely lost the civilian population by failing to protect civil society once the government fell. As long as we remain there, our soldiers will be targets for IEDs set by attackers who blend in with ordinary people. If we attempt to root them out, we will make the populace even more hostile towards us than they already are (if that’s possible). We cannot win a guerrilla war when the guerrillas have the support of the people, not without causing civilian casualties that will be politically unacceptable at home.
You must realize that you cannot win a war simply because you want to. In order to win, your strategy and tactics must be correct, and you need a good bit of luck besides. Intensifying the war in Iraq would simply to continue to drain men, money, and material from our available resources without showing any results for it, just as has been happening for the past few years. Such ongoing failure also means that starting a war against a second country becomes nearly impossible politically – you can see the preemptive pushback against attacking Iran, for example – which means that those countries who might be willing to support attackers against us will feel more free to do so. And the reason that this is politically impossible is not that Americans lacks courage or willingness to take casualties, but because they lack faith in the ability of their leaders to conduct such wars capably and honestly, having seen no examples of this.
The notion that you can defeat a philosophy through battle is laughable. Who do we have to fight and defeat to destroy Islamofacism? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Indonesia? Iran? Lebanon? Are we going to attack country after country? How will we know that the Islamofascists are defeated, anyway? Is there someone who speaks for all of them? All this because a dozen attackers succeeded against all odds in a spectacular mission? All we need to do is live our lives, take reasonable steps to protect ourselves, remembering that this particular enemy must cross vast oceans to get here, and leave it at that. The Islamic nations are going to have to work out their own forms of government, and what will be will be.
The wars in which we were involved to try to defeat Communism, Korea and Vietnam, were failures, or ties at best. We never went to war to liberate Eastern Europe from Communism. We prevailed by being strong in defense, not offense, and by demonstrating that our way of life is more attractive. That’s the way we’ll beat Islamofascism too, unless of course we begin to be governed by Christofascism. Fortunately, the Christofascists who run our government now are undergoing a spectacular flameout which will leave them in ruins for a decade or two.
Hyman: “Because I believe this, I believe that additional casualties we are incurring in this war, no matter how proportionally low by historical standards, should not be happening at all, and taking active and public cognizance of them will help to make them cease.”
Translation- ‘I think the war is wrong (now) so I’m going to use our dead and wounded military to try to convince people that it’s wrong. Never mind that if you look at the facts rationally, it’s an irrelevant issue.’
Thanks for clarifying that. That’s what we’ve been having a problem with all along, not your opposition to the war- you’re entitled to your opinion there, as wrong as I think you are. I just think it’s crass for you to use casualties in that manner, and I don’t think I’m alone. I don’t think it speaks well to your arguments either, that you’d think you needed to pull that card…
Fortunately, the Christofascists who run our government now are undergoing a spectacular flameout which will leave them in ruins for a decade or two.
Or so he wishes. All that verbiage, and it comes down to that — just another desperate bit of lefty hyperventilation and fantasy. This is why it’s clear he’s simply lying when he says that he once thought attacking Iraq “might on balance be a good idea”, in the same way that rabid partisans lie, who say they used to be on the other side but changed because of so-and-so — it’s just an old and cheap rhetorical trick for sowing doubt among one’s enemies.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq is indeed in a perilous situation, but is at this point far from a “failure”, as Hyman and his ilk both know and fear. “Who do we have to fight and defeat to destroy Islamofacism?” he asks — and the answer, of course, is (among other things) all those nations who actively or passively support the islamofascists. Which, over time, we certainly can, and I believe we will, do, regardless of losses. Iraq is a start, but it won’t be the end, even long after the Bush administration is history.
But there’s more to it than that. Hyman makes the ridiculous statement that “this particular enemy must cross vast oceans to get here”, as though we were still in the 18th century. He knows very well how trivial it is to “cross vast oceans” in the 21st, but this is simply of a piece with his other deliberate misdirections, all of which are intended to put us back to sleep again. It’s not that Hyman himself matters here — it’s just that his argument is illustrative of a tactic engaged in by those whose disdain and contempt for their own culture shares many similarities with the hatreds animating “this particular enemy”, and ends up supporting it in effect. Hyman is but a representative of this enemy within that the islamofascists are openly counting on to disable us. It remains to be seen how effective they’ll be.
Does anybody understand what Sally just wrote?
I don’t think she knows what she wrote either.
Sally -you are asleep – even comatose if you believe that radical Islamists constitute a credible threat to the domination of the U.S – or any western country.
It’s an idiotic thesis. And I note how you replied to the obvious fact that Islamists are poorly organized and do not have the resources to travel unimpeded to the United States – with a garble of rhetorical garbage.
You have no proof, no argument – nothing to back up the claim that Islamists present a serious threat, beyond the odd terrorist attack(which is now less likely with improved homeland security measures).
You sound like a complete moonbat….
Ben – the Lancet study didn’t say that Iraq had fewer pre-invasion deaths than any western nation. Or even imply it.
You don’t understand what your talking about, clearly.
And sanction did kill 500, 000 mostly children in Iraq.
Thats been established for a long time….
TC.
I guess, if the sanctions did kill 500,000 children–not established, btw–then the UN ought to be ashamed of itself and we ought never to do anything it says.
And the Lancet study said the pre-war death rate was five. The US had about 8.9, the aging European countries in the low double digits.
So that point’s wrong.
Some folks have tried to work the sanctions into the situation. But it didn’t work. Either the pre-war death rate included the years of sanctions, or it didn’t. If it did, then the spike in kids’ deaths on top of the normal death rate means 5 is impossible.
If it didn’t, the situation is different. The younger a population averages, the lower the death rate–except in Third World countries–so we would have an Iraq population shorn of 500,000 kids who otherwise would have brought the death rate down. Subtracted from the population, the death rate should have been higher, there being fewer kids to hold it down.
Or, if the death rate is low, the sanctions must not have killed all those kids. You need kids to hold the rate down, although 5 is still too low.
So, either way, the Lancet study and you are lying.
But we knew that.
And other sources, UNICEF, WHO, and certain others had a much higher rate. So, even if Lancet found this someplace instead of making it up, they cherry-picked.
It’s been said the pre-war death rate came from self-reporting–they asked the respondents in Iraq. Hard to believe.
The real kicker, for me, is that they asked for death certs in a number of cases. About 80% of the requests resulted in the respondent coming up with a death cert for the late lamented. That’s good. Problem is, it means you ask the government how many certs were issued and multiply by 1.25. Doing that results in very, very much smaller numbers. They didn’t do that.
TC. I don’t say this to convince you of what you already know. I say this to convince you that others know it, too, and you’re wasting your time.
Go tell your lies to somebody else. Maybe you could find some unfortunates loose from a group home to believe you.
Well, I have to say that I, for one, take Hyman at his word. I don’t think he is lying, I think he really did believe, or at least hope, at the beginning of the war that we would be able to accomplish the task of replacing Saddam with something more useful, pro-American, and destructive by its very nature to islamofascism. i.e, democracy.
As I recall, quite a few people on the left felt that way at the time. We were more united then. We still mostly believed Iraq had WMD. Most of our politicians, even on the left, supported the war. I applaud Hyman for acknowledging that, which is something many on the left don’t do.
However, I do disagree with his analysis of our current situation, mainly because I, like most of the neo-con commenters on this board, am not nearly ready to concede defeat. Certainly, of course, pulling our troops out of Iraq would bring about defeat, but defeat is by no means certain if we leave them in, or even (better yet, in my view) increase the numbers.
What Hyman is not recognizing is that 1) We are NOT actually fighting against the majority of Iraqis. The majority voted, they want democracy, and I doubt they want to descend into civil war. We are not imposing democracy against the will of the people (an oxymoron if I ever heard one), we are trying, with both hands tied behind our backs, to destroy the forces of tyranny who are inciting civil war and who are in league with (or in some cases are themselves) the islamofascist terrorist enemy. Many of these forces we are fighting aren’t even Iraqi.
2) Hyman does not acknowledge any of the steps the Iraqis themselves have made and are continually trying to make to save their country. He seems to recognize progress made by insurgents, but none made by Iraqi forces themselves. The situation there is fluid and changing, and the U.S. and the insurgents are hardly the only actors. Fleeing does not mean acknowledging a defacto loss, it means abandoning the Iraqis who are working so hard to improve Iraq.
It seems to me that the difference between those, like Hyman who initially supported the war, but now want to withdraw and those, like me, who still support it is that they thought it would be relatively quick and easy and we thought it would be really difficult and would take a very long time. Thus we see the casualties as surprisingly light, and they see them as too much.
“if you believe that radical Islamists constitute a credible threat to the domination of the U.S – or any western country.
TC, I’m pretty sure no one here has intimated that radical Islam represents a “credible threat to domination” of the West–rather, it represents a credible danger in that fundamentalist Islamists seek to possess and use WMD against the West. While this doesn’t pose a threat of “domination”, it sure worries me…in that I don’t particularly want to be a statistic in the next 9/11. Perhaps you do.
Additionally, statements like “Thats been established for a long time….” really don’t “establish” anything, or prove your point. It’s just an “It Is So (If You Think So)” moment. If you insist on attempting to “debate” with commenters here, you’d best have something to back up your arguments. Others have demolished your “arguments” with facts, and you just respond with “That’s wrong, and you know it” statements. Won’t wash, and people will wind up ignoring you.
Jen: Well, I have to say that I, for one, take Hyman at his word. I don’t think he is lying, I think he really did believe, or at least hope, at the beginning of the war that we would be able to accomplish the task of replacing Saddam with something more useful, pro-American, and destructive by its very nature to islamofascism. i.e, democracy.
I didn’t use the word “lie” lightly, Jen — I agree that there remains a rational and decent left that is against the Iraq war (now or from the beginning) for honest and reasonable motives. Sadly, however, that’s a rapidly shrinking portion of the left, and much of the rest is sinking into an ugly morass of petty partisanship, self-righteous bigotry, hate, and sometimes outright treason. So which left does Hyman represent? Well, an honest, much less a decent, leftist would not slip into describing the present administration as “Christofascists”, however much they disliked Bush. And I doubt very much that any rational or decent person, left or right, would support the invasion of another country simply as a way of demonstrating “American puissance”. Strip the comical, perfume-ad tone, and you have the attitude of a fascist thug — which would be an apt label for Hyman if he ever actually believed that.
(For another and grosser example of the intellectual and moral degeneration of the contemporary left, by the way, I give you our resident troll, T-that’s-been-established-C.)
I like to call the present executive branch of the government by nasty names because it makes me feel better, and because it annoys people who like them. I despise everything they stand for – their stance on social issues giving me the Christo- part, and their stand on secretiveness, torture, civil liberties, and free spending giving me the -fascist part. I know that they are probably not technically fascists by Wikipedia’s definition, but as I said, I like name-calling.
And Sally, my bit of lefty hyperventilation and fantasy turned out to be quite real in 2006, empowering a Democratic House to further shine light into the dark corners of the Christofascist Right and send the rats scurrying for cover. (More name-calling. Whee!) Pardon me while I indulge in a bit more of the same for the next twenty months, and we’ll meet back here after the 2008 elections and see whose fantasy came true.
Hyman.
Thanks. You make it unnecessary to take it you debate in good faith.
It is no longer necessary to attend to you.
See what I mean, Jen? These types don’t disappoint.
Well, Hyman, they better get that light ‘a shinin’. So far, the Dems have used one sixth of their time to do not much more than whine and cry. Didn’t you elect them to get us out of this unjust and illegal war? Why are they dragging their feet? Haven’t the people spoken? Or is the Dems inaction Bush’s fault, too? Maybe he’s bought Pelosi off. Well, guess what, Hy, the Dems DO want to get reelected. You really think we’re gonna “cut and run” with THEIR names tied to the policy? HA!(lemmie just say that one more time) HA! And the sad part is, guys like you, Hy, actually thought that’s what you voted them in for. Suckers!
Since the elections, we’ve had Rumsfeld resign, we’ve seen the attorneys general scandal emerge, and I hope ultimately take down Gonzales, Wilson, and Domenici, we’ve had the Walter Reed scandal take down more Republican appointees, the resignation of Cully Stimson, the general repudiation of Peter Pace, the prominence of the Democrats running for president in 2008 and the disarray of the Republicans doing the same. I’m quite happy with the way things are going domestically.
I’m not surprised that there isn’t much progress on getting out of Iraq. As you say, many Democrats are fearful that acknowledging that we have lost the war in Iraq maybe dangerous to their careers, and courage is rarely found among politicians. Just as the Christofascist administration is trying to run out the clock on their term so that they can hand over the problem to the next Democratic government, the House is probably just as happy to let the Republicans keep screwing themselves in full public view, given the difficulty in actually getting a pullout through the Senate and White House.
Oh, and the war is neither unjust nor illegal (the torture, kidnap, and imprisonment conducted by the Christofascist Inquisitors is, but that’s not the war itself). It is merely lost, and therefore needs to be ended.
Jen:“It seems to me that the difference between those, like Hyman who initially supported the war, but now want to withdraw and those, like me, who still support it is that they thought it would be relatively quick and easy and we thought it would be really difficult and would take a very long time. Thus we see the casualties as surprisingly light, and they see them as too much.”
I like most of what you said, Jen, but I think you’re a bit off here. The point of the original post is that if you look at the numbers and analyze them like an actuary, you realize that our casualties in this war are phenomenally low by any rational metric you can apply. So it isn’t about our perceptions, this is about facts and how people like Hyman feel it’s o.k. to twist them around to suit their agendas. Truth is irrelevant to them. THAT’s the point.
Hyman, after listing a bunch of pseudo-scandals amongst Republicans:“I’m quite happy with the way things are going domestically.”
Positive guy, aren’t you Hyman. If the Dems were self destructing, I wouldn’t be so gleeful. Says something about you, methinks.
“I like to call the present executive branch of the government by nasty names because it makes me feel better, and because it annoys people who like them.”
Yeah, that’s what REALLY matters, isn’t it? How you FEEL, and who you can annoy. What are you, 13?
It’s been nice having you around to illustrate all that is misguided about the left.
It’s been nice having you [Hyman] around to illustrate all that is misguided about the left.
They’re a pretty sick bunch alright, Douglas, but it’s actually a little sad to see them clutching at routine administration shuffles and tribulations to try and cheer themselves up. If you give a star for positive thinking, Hyman gets it, but now he’s got to hold his breath for 20 months and hope and pray that death and destruction in Iraq goes up and not down, or else he and the other rodents will be looking for their dark hiding places again come 2008.
You know, it’s no wonder that Religiofascists of all stripes get themselves into so much trouble. Since their core beliefs are counterfactual, they must spend all of their time discounting evidence and persecuting heretics. That works for them a lot of the time, but they are ever surprised that the universe itself doesn’t bow to their whims. Eventually, ignoring reality is fatal.
I am pleased at the tribulations of the Republicans because it exposes them for what they are – inept, corrupt, and outright evil. As far as casualties in Iraq, there is a difference between hoping that they will increase and expecting that they will increase. Naturally, those unwilling to face the fact of defeat will attempt to conflate the latter with the former.
You know, it’s no wonder that Religiofascists of all stripes get themselves into so much trouble. Since their core beliefs are counterfactual, they must spend all of their time discounting evidence and persecuting heretics.
Exactly — e.g., take a look at Kos and his sour band of nutroots re: Lieberman.
As for casualties in Iraq, there is indeed a difference between hoping for, and expecting an increase — the difference is exemplified by Hyman, whose “core beliefs” require him to hope for an increase, without which those “beliefs” will be exposed as the mere wishes or frauds that they are.
Attorneys General are political appointees who serve at the discretion of the President. They can fired for not adhering to policies set by the President, for example, not pursuing the death penalty or not enforcing certain laws. They can also be removed for political reasons. The latter the very reason Clinton, with Janet Reno, fired 93 Attorneys General. You are falling, through ignorance, for a fake scandal.
It’s amazing how Neo’s posts manage to bring out the truth of the warped worldview of the left time after time. If it weren’t so depressing, I might enjoy the spectacle of people like Hyman and TC…but the fact that there are so many of them is deeply distressing.
Your the only one lying, Richard. And you know it – your ‘criticisms’ are irrelevant tripe – they don’t have any bearing on the studies conclusions, which are the best estimates we have of the death toll in Iraq. The best.
” Sanctions critics almost always leave out one other salient fact: The vast majority of the horror stats they quote apply to the period before March 1997, when the oil-for-food program delivered its first boatload of supplies (nearly six years after the U.N. first proposed the idea to a reluctant Iraqi government). …
As the U.N. Office for the Iraqi Program stated in a September 28, 2001 report, “With the improved funding level for the program, the Government of Iraq is indeed in a position to address the nutritional and health concerns of the Iraqi people, particularly the nutritional status of the children.” Even two years earlier, Richard Garfield noted in his survey that “the most severe embargo-related damages [have] already ended.” …”
“And other sources, UNICEF, WHO, and certain others had a much higher rate. So, even if Lancet found this someplace instead of making it up, they cherry-picked.”
They did because they were calculating from a different period. So your claim is crap. Like your weak attempt at statistical critique.
“It’s been said the pre-war death rate came from self-reporting—they asked the respondents in Iraq. Hard to believe.”
Again – it shows how little you know about the process. They did, as a fact.
“That’s good. Problem is, it means you ask the government how many certs were issued and multiply by 1.25. Doing that results in very, very much smaller numbers.”
Does it? How would you know? Very, very little.
The real kicker is you don’t have a clue what your talking about – your just kicking up sand as as to look like you do.
Good for you…
stumbley – I hear you.
But yes I’ve read people claiming the possibility of being conquered by Islamic radicals on this board many times.
And Sally is one of them.
Ask her…
But the effects of sanctions on Iraqis is ‘well-established’ – well documented and without much debate – except in the numbers. Which range from over a million to just under half a million. Unicef claimed deaths from sanctions at 500 000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
It is correct that Attorneys General are political appointees who may be replaced at any time. As such it is routine for newly seated presidents to replace all of them at once, which is what Clinton, and other presidents, did. And the president is permitted to replace them in midterm as well. Of course, if it should turn out that they are being replaced because they have exposed too many corrupt Republicans or because they have failed to prosecute innocent people despite Republican exhortations to do so, then there will be consequences for that, especially as government officials squirm and lie about it. Until there was a Democratic House, Republicans could have some confidence that their corrupt schemes would not be investigated. Fortunately that is no longer the case.
Good point, Hyman. But one problem, two of the Federal Prosecutors in the West were dismissed because they were not following the policy directives. That leaves you with six, show us which ones were about to expose corrupt Republicans.
The “until there was a Democratic house” is a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy.
Really, Hyman, do you think the Democrats aren’t corrupt?
TC. How would I know about the death certs? The numbers are available. The study itself referred to asking for certs and finding them available in about 80% of the cases.
The deaths of the kids was, I said, either in the pre-war death rate, or they were not. I said. In either case, the sanctions’ supposed deaths of children would have made the pre-war numbers suspect.
I will not go over that, having made the case already, although, as usual, you misrepresent it.
The study itself insisted that the pre-war death rate was found by asking the respondents about deaths in the family in the previous couple of years. For various reasons, the result is hard to believe, since it is considerably lower than any other nation’s rate. So either the respondents got it wrong or the study misrepresented its findings.
Even your attempt a a refutation is indicative of deliberate, not innocent, attempts to misinform.
I didn’t say “about to”, I said “had”. And you may believe that a Republican-controlled Congressional committee would have decided to investigate the firings, but I do not.
Democrats are less corrupt than Republicans because they have been out of power for a long time. Lack of power limits opportunity for corruption. In any case, perhaps you can supply the Latin term for the fallacy of “it’s OK because they do it too”.
When democrats are corrupt, they don’t even bother to point out corrupt republicans.
They merely dare you to do something about it.
See Sandy Berger.
“which are the best estimates we have of the death toll in Iraq. The best.”
It Is So (If You Think So)
“But the effects of sanctions on Iraqis is ‘well-established’ – well documented and without much debate”
It Is So (If You Think So)
“Again – it shows how little you know about the process. They did, as a fact.”
It Is So (If You Think So)
Interestingly, TC, your “facts” have no citations to back them up, save one from the notoriously “factual” Wikipedia.
Hyman,
Tu quoque is the logical fallacy for “you do it too”. However, that wasn’t my point. The assumption that you are making regarding “not in power” reducing their corruption is a flat assertion without fact. They were in power for over 40 years and 12 years “out of power”. In the last 20 years, Democrats holding office have been convicted of crimes at about 3 times that of Republicans. Institutionalized corruption doesn’t melt away when a party goes into minority.
Congressional hearings can be called and held due to the corruption of the investigators. In today’s world, the assertion of criminal behavior is often good enough to tar for life. That was my point.
As for tu quoque, Clinton lied in a courtroom and was disbarred for it. Rightfully so. If Scooter Libby lied to investigators, as a jury has found, then he deserves punishment also. Tu quoque does not fly in my household or in my life.
But yes, I’ve read people claiming the possibility that the administration is being influenced by Zionists.
And TC is one of them.
Just ask him…
Yes I am. And it is(so say I.)
And if you disagree with those facts, stumbley than say why.
But don’t quibble mate – if your accusing me of playing hard and loose with the facts than offer your own. But I needn’t provide sources for stuff you can verify easily enough on your own if you doubt me….
“The study itself insisted that the pre-war death rate was found by asking the respondents about deaths in the family in the previous couple of years. For various reasons, the result is hard to believe, since it is considerably lower than any other nation’s rate. So either the respondents got it wrong or the study misrepresented its findings.”
Which countries would it be lower than? Not countries similar to it – like Syria and Jordan who had exactly the same pre-invasion death rate; which is why the authors used that instead of the UN figure of 10 which the authors felt was outdated considering the last Iraqi census had been done 10 years before.
So as I said – your ‘feeling’ that it can’t be right is just that – an unfounded, illogical attempt at critique…
TC. Figure Jordan and Syria having the lowest death rates in the world? Nope.
In addition, your half million kids who would have been holding down the death rates were gone. Sanctions, remember?
The only possibility is that the sanctions killed the weak, leaving the strong and when the stronger got filled up on OFF food and medicine, they had a temporary burst of near-immortality.
Other nations with equally young populations, such as Mexico, had higher death rates.
Lastly, death rates are bragging points among certain less-than-truthful regimes, and not to be taken without salt.
I already demonstrated thatt the sanctions weren’t included because by then(when the pre-invasion figures were used)the oil for food program had alleviated the worst of the suffering.
Your saying that it is the lowest death rate in the world – based on what? Syria and Jordan had death rates of 5.5. in the same year.
Death rates weren’t calculated by listening to the bragging of regimes, either….
Nope? Great then cough up some evidence rather than boring me with your baseless refutations….
TC, How about you, who make many claims, “… cough up some evidence rather than boring me with your baseless refutations….”
Thanks.
Of course, you believe that since we’ve been in Iraq, one out of every 41 Iraqis has died.
*sigh*
Sadly, I must concede that Sally is right. I think it was the blatant assertion that he thought the country was doing well because Republicans were having problems that really made me see Hyman for who he is. Yeah, and the Christofascist remark.
I think he uses Christofascist as some sort of retort against the term Islamofascist — as if he is trying to say that the Bush administration is just as bad as the enemy. (Tu quoque, I think Anna would say.)
He is tossing this term off flippantly, but I use it very thoughtfully to describe our enemy. I think they have quite a bit in common with the Nazis. They are absolutely totalitarian and want to create a model society (a coercive utopia) in which there is private ownership of property and businesses, but government direction of the economy and of people’s personal lives. Of course, this ideal is formulated around Islam (hence the Islamo- part), rather than on notions of Aryan racial supremacy, but other than that it is very similar. They have even chosen the same scapegoat: the Jews.
This is not speculation, we have seen their ideal (coercive utopia) realized in at least one country: Afghanistan under the Taliban. The Taliban is pretty much what I mean by Islamofascist.
So I wish Hyman would actually take some time to really compare the U.S. and the Taliban. Does Bush exercise anywhere near the kind of supreme authority in the U.S. that Mullah Omar did in Afghanistan? Are people being stoned to death for “unchristian” behavior? Are women being told what to wear? Girls denied education? Has learning from the Bible replaced all other teaching in our schools? Are journalists being killed in the U.S. for honest reporting? Are all other (nonchristian) houses of worship being destroyed and the worshippers killed or imprisoned? Has all dissent been crushed?
Obviously nothing of the sort is happening. This is why the tu quoque label “christofascist” is just stupid. Undoubtedly, Hyman will now jump in to say that I am taking his flippant remarks way too seriously. Don’t worry Hyman, I am taking you for the fool you are. I’m just asking you to think about what you’re really saying.
Oh, and Douglas, point well taken.
doug – you may have missed it, but that’s what I’ve been doing.
You can always verify what I’ve said on your own….
TC, doug hasn’t missed a thing. I see you parroting what those who compiled the report say to rationalize why they are “correct” and everyone else is “wrong”, but I have yet to see you demonstrate YOUR expertise in this field. All you have acomplished is say: “Lancet says it’s right, so it must be right.”. Hardly the irrefutable evidence you claim to have presented. Keep trying, though, loser. Who knows, you may even be able to convince yourself.
Apparently neither you or doug can read.
I’ve presented numbers which can be fact checked.
I’ve presented evidence to counter the claims criticizing(without any evidence) pre-invasion numbers.
And of course the study is universally backed,and approved by the scientific community – the Lancet is a highly regarded scientific journal.
And none of the reasons offer make any sense in terms of changing the conclusions and numbers in the study.
And no – comparing Islamic radicals – highly unorganized groups, or in small primitive, highly religous societies – to nazis is stupid.
The Nazis came from a highly industrialized, culturally advanced and liberally democratic capitalist nation with several factors and variables to consider in their rise to power eg economic conditions, social conditions.etc.
It’s simply an well worn propaganda ploy to compare the two – inappropriate and ignorant.
See if you claim that Iraq’s pre-invasion numbers were too low – lower than any other country in the world – then you would need to produce evidence.
Like the numbers for the example you provide – Mexico.
And if you don’t than you are providing baseless critiques that are a waste of time.
And if I provide numbers – like those for Syria and Jordan – than I am producing evidence. That you can verify yourself.
So what do you agree with Lee, Dougas, and Jen?
Or are you just yacking?
Germany highly industrialized, ok. Culturally advanced, fine. “Liberally democratic” though, leaves much to be desired. As I recall, Germany had a “Kaiser”, a monarch who ruled as such. Unless you’re counting the Weimar Republic, which was rejected by the German people in favor of “one strong man” in a few short years. So when it came to “democratic” principles, there wasn’t much in the German’s experience up to that time.
But at least here in America we’ve had a long history of “individuality” which breeds free thinking. Add the German example from history, and you get a lot of people who now can recognize propaganda for what it is, TC, and you work for the ministry, don’t you.
“don’t you?”
In fact, TC, I’d like to sit you down some day and show you just how similar the Qur’an and Mein Kampf are politically AND religiously. So, to compare Islamists to Nazis(like you) is quite rational. In fact, they are ideological brothers.
Mohammed taught Hitler EVERYTHING he knew.
slate.comweeklystandard.comiq.undp.orgOkay, let’s get it done, the hard way.
First the sanctions and the original 100,000 dead report published in the Lancet:
100,000? Get with the times, that’s long ago debunked. Where, pray tell, do you get your info? This article at Slate slams the [Lancet] survey, and they’re no fans of the Bush admin. He goes with Iraq the body counts numbers, but they’re dissected here. You won’t like the source, but I’d like to see you refute it with logical argument.
Of course, then you’d have to explain why a more complete survey by the UN puts the number FAR lower… link
They say:”War-related Death
The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey data, children aged below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare.”
One then has to also keep in mind that some of those casualties are ‘civilian’ combatants/insurgents, many were innocent civilians killed BY insurgents, or used as human shields, victims of crime would be indistinguishable from those of warfare, intersectarian violence, etc. Also, subtract all those who weren’t killed by Saddam since he’s been out of power… It actually doesn’t leave all that many for our helicopter gunships and smart-bombs, does it…
Now, any scientist faced with several reputable studies getting results within a reasonable margin of error, and one departing from those by 100 fold would immediately be highly suspect of the one flyer, and would see the cluster of similar results as reinforcing each other to some extent. Hope you understand that.
Are you starting to see yet why we don’t simply take all you claim as fact at face value???
cbc.casfgate.comscoop.co.nz.
Next, the newer report:
(this is rehash of old posts, but it’s got all the facts, so please excuse the lack of continuum from these comments):
655,000 Iraq dead myth
Iraq: 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.) per CIA world factbook.
26,783,383/655,000=40.89
So if one takes the study at it’s word, one out of every 41 Iraqis has been killed within the last four years. Since we know that the violence isn’t uniform, that would imply that in some areas it would be far worse. You’d be seeing towns whose entire populations have been decimated. Imagine one out of every forty of your acquaintances being gone. No way would that be unreported in the MSM, or for that matter, anything less than obvious. You wouldn’t need a survey to tell you things were that bad.
“Care to back up your assertions with some math, or other hard evidence, or must we always be left with only your (questionable) word?”
”Clearly Pete was referring to the Johns Hopkins epidemiologocal study which is the most authoritative estimate of the death toll. I’m surprised that an expert such as yourself hasn’t heaard of it.”
You mean the one by the same people who were discredited in their survey two years ago? They’re reliable. I don’t have time to do a point by point, just go here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20061012.html
for a dissection.
”These are figures you can cite with authority.”
You mean like the last one they did that was total hooey? Right.
”WHO estimates the death toll from the sanctions at a minimum of 1.25 million including a minimum 500,000 children. This is from the sanctions alone and does not include deaths from illnesses caused almost certainly by the chemical and radiological weapons used by US forces during the Kuwait war or direct civilian deaths from bombardment during the war.”
The funny thing about this is that you don’t even realize that, if true, it shoots your Johns Hopkins study down in flames. Given the WHO numbers you claim, the baseline death rate used by the JH study would be WAY off.
Then there’s this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/12/MNGUTLNP6C1.DTL
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said in a statement that “these numbers are far from the truth, and the Iraqi government is making efforts to protect the Iraqi citizens from forces of terror.”
And this, if you require credentials along with facts:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0610/S00436.htm
Lancet Iraq Study Flawed: Death Toll Too High
Friday, 20 October 2006, 10:36 am
Press Release:
Lancet Study Fundamentally Flawed: Death Toll Too High
October 19, 2006 — 1 page —
For immediate release:
Researchers at Oxford University and Royal Holloway, University of London have found serious flaws in the survey of Iraqi deaths published last week in the Lancet.
Sean Gourley and Professor Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London contend that the study’s methodology is fundamentally flawed and will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq.
->The studyï€ suffers from “main street bias” by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed.
->Main street bias inflates casualtyï€ estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighborhood types that the researchers surveyed.
->This obvious selection bias would notï€ matter if you were conducting a simple survey on immunisation rates for which the methodology was designed.
->In short, the closer you are to a mainï€ road, the more likely you are to die in violent activity. So if researchers only count people living close to a main road then it comes as no surprise they will over count the dead.
During email discussions between the Oxford-Royal Holloway team and the Johns Hopkins team conducted through a reporter for Science, for an article to be published October 20, it became clear that the authors of the study had not implemented a clear, well-defined and justifiable methodology. The Oxford-Royal Holloway team therefore believes that the scientific community should now re-analyze this study in depth.
The team can be reached for comment at;
Gourley: s.gourley1 @ physics.ox.ac.uk mobile:+44 (0) 7733113558
Johnson: n.johnson @ physics.ox.ac.uk
Spagat: M.Spagat @ rhul.ac.uk
”I am no epidemiologist, but I use their statistics regularly in my work. If I took the vague words of a WSJ (an extremist propaganda rag) propagandist over the results produced by the world’s preeminent epidemiologist, considered authoritative enough to be published by the world’s preeminent medical journal, I’d have been out of business years ago.”
Preeminent Epidemiologist? If you say so. But you still miss the point of the criticisms- it’s not that epidemiology is a bad method, it’s that it doesn’t work so well in these less than ideal conditions, and with such a small sample size. Don’t those points make you even a little concerned about the possibility of error? Or does it fit your preconceptions so well, it can’t be wrong? Several of the links I provided you with discuss the fact that it’s a good method under the right circumstances, and when there is a sufficient sample, but lacking those… Even proponents of the study only use quotes backing the soundness of the method in general. Above were a couple of scientists giving their opinion as to some problems with the survey. What makes you right and them wrong? Let me know. By the way, as of now, you have yet to actually fabricate a complete argument against anything I’ve presented other than that you don’t like some of my sources. ”(Mr. Moore, a political consultant) Hmmmm.”
Stunning argument. Where exactly is your quibble with his analysis? How about a real argument please.
”The study’s method is accepted by governments all over the world including yours. The results also marry up with other smaller studies by other bodies.”
Again, it’s not the method, it’s the application- a method is only as good as it’s application- garbage in, garbage out. That is the leading criticism here, and you’ve offered nothing to counter it. I’ve offered several supporting links.
”BTW. If you can find a reliable epidemiologist or even a statistician to cast doubt on the Johns Hopkins/Lancet study, feel free to post it. There’s a good chap.”
The Oxford and U of London fellows good enough for you? (Sean Gourley and Professor Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London contend that the study’s methodology is fundamentally flawed and will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq.- and they were kind enough to leave email addresses at the end of the piece, you can take it up with them if you feel they aren’t up to snuff) How about a rebuttal that actually has links to something other than wikipedia and some real facts? Have at it, and good luck.
slate.comweeklystandard.comiq.undp.orgSorry- differing standards for links- first post re: 100,000 flawed study:
“This”
http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
“Here”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/554awdqo.asp
“Link”
http://www.iq.undp.org/ilcs/population.html
Enjoy.
TC:“That you can verify yourself.”
You’re the advocate- you provide validation. Something more substantial than ‘because I say so’.
Don’t worry, Douglas. TC will need some time to go over your sources(that is, his puppetteers). Give them, say, three days. Then you’ll see post after post of their “refutations”(probably something like: Sean Gourley is Jewish, ’nuff said).
Pingback:Body Bags In the News Every Day « Den of Hydralisks
Pingback:saving money
Pingback:Bad Breath Remedies
Pingback:Lucia
Great piece. God – where are the apologies for the WAR FOR OIL arguments when the oil is still in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq??
Liberals aka: anti-American government ingrates can’t even admit when they didn’t get, no, lied to obfuscate the real reasons we care about what happens in the rest of the world.
Sad that they don’t spend more time on protecting, preserving and furthering this country’s way of life.
Though it all, I have a question:
Of the casualties, what were the MOS’s of the majority of deaths? (example: Cavalry Scouts, Infantry, etc…)
-A1C Alecia Stenson
Pingback:affordable web sites
Muslims – What myths about Islam do you want people would quit believing?
The fact that folks are absolve to worship any religion of their selecting.
That Islam doesn’t power or convert people. Furthermore, Allah understands
who believes and who doesn’t. No one can lie to Allah,
He knows people’s hearts. Islam can be an invitation, you either accept the
faith, the religious beliefs and message of… show more
No based on surah Al Kafirun of the Quran we have tolerance
to other religions’s followers,Your religion is your my religion is
mine.You would not worship my God (Allah swt) and I
would not worship your god.There is no compulsion to enter Islam and we Muslims would not kill; the infidels
as long as thery do not attack us.