[wvns] Iraq's Death Toll Far Worse Than Our Leaders Admit
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the
Rwandan genocide
Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is
preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq.
The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion
between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have
pointed out the absurdity of this statement.
There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it
were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia,
Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher
violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many
North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a
similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have
been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems
simply ridiculous.
Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000
deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population
of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the
need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not
consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline.
And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The
Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death
toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was
done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate
mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are
imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq
government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10.
There are several reasons why the governments involved in this
conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our
Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is
rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of
war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system,
Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's
figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources
independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC
listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches
the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced.
Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the
Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press
attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of
violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one,
not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are
the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but
Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such
credence when representative survey results are available.
The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or
amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the
embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and
we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost
no reports of the damage appearing in the press.
Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third
of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even
further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in
Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the
province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the
surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not
reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked
months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the
limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were
associated with coalition forces.
The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are
profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a
surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the
coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of
10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of
resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80
families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study
suggests?
If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the
Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will
they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next
government that kills thousands of its own people?
For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our
worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with
regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour
rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople
effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial.
Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a
time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If
that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this
deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will
record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed
the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history
record that Britain led them out?
The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman
School of Public Health
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment