Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Pyramid of skulls

by IdiotSavant Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 09:54:14 AM EST

Two years ago, a team of epidemiologists at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Heath in Baltimore published a study in the Lancet estimating that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq had led to approximately one hundred thousand excess deaths. While the study caused a storm of outrage among supporters of the war, its methodology and conclusions were generally regarded as robust and repeatable.  The authors of the study have now done exactly that, repeating their sampling with a greater number of clusters.  Their midpoint estimate for the number of excess deaths is now 655,000.

From No Right Turn - New Zealand's liberal blog. Promoted by Colman


Six hundred and fifty-five thousand - that's 2.5% of the Iraqi population, dead due to America's war.  Even the bottom of the confidence interval - 392,979 - is thirteen times higher than Bush's estimate of 30,000 dead, and more than twice as high as the estimated 182,000 killed in Saddam's Al-Anfal campaign of genocide against the Kurds, for which he is currently on trial. What does that suggest about the eventual fate of the architects of this obscene occupation?

(I am steadfastly Not Thinking about the top of the confidence interval.  It doesn't top a million, but its certainly within reach).

Thanks to George Bush, 500 more Iraqis are dying a day than died under Saddam.  92% of them are dying due to violence, and 31% of those deaths are directly attributable to US forces. The rest is mostly gunshot wounds, car bombs, and other explosions (the researchers don't seem to have included a category for death squads). 500 a day.  Maybe someone should start piling the skulls on the White House lawn?

For a war that was supposedly waged to help the Iraqi people, this has done precisely the opposite. "First, do no harm" is a basic principle of medicine.  Maybe we should think about making it a principle of foreign policy too.

Display:
Add that to Madeleine Albright's 500,000 dead children.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 09:54:06 AM EST
AP ran a story on this also. See story by Malcolm Ritter at Comcast cable

The other side of the story, so to speak, is that not everyone agrees with this count. Regardless, the war was unnecessary to begin with and even if the count were just 1, it would be too much.  I agree with those who say these studies are often politically motivated, but I say they are also necessary to wake people up.

From the story:

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study _ that one was released just before the November 2004 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate.



I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:01:37 AM EST
It the 50,000 refers to Iraq Body Count, those are just the deaths directly attributable to "coalition" military actions.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are they? I thought they included all direct deaths from violence as reported in the media, so missing any that reporters don't hear about.

They're a lower limit anyway.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, you're right.
The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks).

It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.



Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with those who say these studies are often politically motivated

Everything has political implications, and reality has a liberal bias.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:08:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Not everybody agrees with this count" More "he said, she said" in action. I think it is possible to make a critique of the study's methodology, but no-one has so far. They have used the standard methodology for estimation in disaster zones, which was used for the Pakistan earthquake, the tsunami etc. Mr. Cordesman specialises in high-level strategic analysis and has no visible credentials to analyse death estimates...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:16:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wish my machine would stop defaulting to HTML Format...

It's a lot easier to read in Auto Format, but I'll also take the opportunity to correct a couple of mistakes:

"Not everybody agrees with this count"

More "he said, she said" in action.

I think it is possible to make a [good] critique of the study's methodology, but no-one has so far. They [the researchers publishing in the Lancet] have used the standard methodology for estimation in disaster zones, which was used for the Pakistan earthquake, the tsunami etc. Mr. Cordesman specialises in high-level strategic analysis and has no visible credentials to analyse death estimates...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:19:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's that same old 'La la la I can't hear you' NeoCon approach to the harsh light of librul reality.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:21:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I met this guy (Cordesman) in a social setting a few years back.  We never did discuss politics (we were all on vacation on a small boat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, so I didn't really want to get into what might become a heated argument).

In this setting however, he came across like a reasonable individual.  Witty and entertaining.

by ericy on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:19:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was just looking at these numbers, partly because I know the White House and its lackys are contesting them, and partly because I read the story and saw that 500-per-day figure and thought, whoa, that seems high.  But having spent a little time checking around, it seems entirely possible that it's accurate.

If those 500 deaths a day were spread evenly between Iraq's 18 governorates, it averages out to 27 or 28 per day, per province.  The Baghdad morgue alone averaged 60 per day in July, according to this story and quite a few others reporting on the same figures (1815 bodies in the month of July, followed by 1500 in August). (The Baghdad morgue handles bodies only from Baghdad and the surrounding areas; other cities have their own morgues.)

Granted, not everywhere in Iraq is equally violent, and not every month has been equally violent, but all of this does point to the real number of deaths being within the study's expected range.

But let's look at it another way.  Even if we accept George Bush's 30,000 figure, that's still an average of roughly 900 deaths per month over the 33 months between March 2003 and December 2005, when Bush's statement was made.  That's about 30 per day.  (And never mind that that figure excludes the shocking increase in violent deaths during 2006, after the February bombing of the Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra.)

Not long after the 2003 invasion, the US Department of Defense estimated that Saddam's regime had executed 300,000 people during Saddam's 24 years in power.  That's an average of 12,500 a year, or 1,042 a month, or 34 a day.

So even by George Bush's own figures, the daily death toll in December last year was approaching Saddam's daily average of executions.  (Never mind what happens to the numbers when we assume Bush was lowballing and the DOD exaggerating....)

Now... getting back to the study in The Lancet:  If we take even the low end of the study's range, we still end up with more violent deaths in Iraq in the last 39 months than there were people executed during 24 years of Saddam's rule.  If we take the mid-range estimate, it's twice as many.

Mission accomplished?

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:27:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What was the mission?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:30:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It depends on the year, month, day and hour we're talking about... You get to pick among 27 options.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting.  For some reason, "making our old pal Saddam look good by comparison" isn't on the list.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:42:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Lancet article [pdf]...

Before this comes up: Note that IBC and the Lancet group are counting two different things. IBC counts deaths reported in the Media of Iraqi civilians. The Lancet study is basing its statistics on the increase of the overall mortality rate. The first count is certainly a small subset of the second.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:20:52 AM EST
The cost of the war is running at 8 billion dollars a month. 500 Iraqi deaths a day. Half a million dollars per death.

It is obscene.

The symbol of those skulls is a powerful and immensely tragic one. Pol Pot returns. Pol Bush.

He has taken the Hypocritical Oath.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:47:32 AM EST
The cost of the war is running at 8 billion dollars a month. 500 Iraqi deaths a day. Half a million dollars per death.

Hah! And they say that the Bush gang doesn't value Iraqi lives...

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake

by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:51:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pol Bush.

Good frame.

(A bit ghoulish to be thinking about this in terms of frames - but I think it gets the message across.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:57:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep - the old meme is powerful in these days of soundbites.

I think just the word 'pages' played a very important role in the continuing Foley scandal. I am sure the average  Joe Schmo was not aware of the system of using young lads and lasses in this way on the Capitol - so he had to think about it and what it meant. 'Pages' becomes the hook on which to hang all the other messages.

I was thinking earlier how Bush's membership of the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale could be tied in to a visual...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 11:58:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For sure. If they called them 'interns' - which is what they really are - the creepiness factor would have been somewhat smaller.

There's endless campaign potential in a statistic like this, and even more for creative interpretation.

Maybe someone should print out 655,000 skulls on paper and hand them in to Downing Street. Or start piling plastic skulls outside Westminster. (Until arrested.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 12:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or make a pdf mask of a full size photo-realistic skull face that could be printed on A4, cut out and worn with a piece of string. With the words "I met Tony".

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 12:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Got your message, Tony!"

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 12:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That number of skulls would fill 14 olympic sized swimming pools ( to take it to the absurd)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 12:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That number of skulls would fill 14 olympic sized swimming pools ( to take it to the absurd)

I'd figured five. An Olympic Swimming Pool is 50m x 25 m x 2m, or 2500 m^3.

Though looking at it, I'm probably guessing the size of my skulls wrong; 2L is only 12.6 cm a side.  Baby skulls?

by IdiotSavant on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 11:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to retreat to the safety of mathematics to make sense of this.
by Number 6 on Thu Oct 12th, 2006 at 08:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How big would a pyramid made of 655 000 human skulls be?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 12:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I asked myself the same question.  The working is here, but the short answer is "taller than the White House", and "enough to bury every floor of that building to a depth of 2.5m".

It's actually somewhat smaller than I thought - my initial comparison point was going to be the Washington Monument - but I guess skulls just aren't that big.

by IdiotSavant on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 04:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My math is weak today, but I'll try some morbid counting anyway.

v= volume
h= height
a= area of the base
s= length of the base along the ground.

Okay, imagine an egyptian pyramid. Square base, four sides. The volume should be v=(h*a)/2

Let's then say that the height is the same as the side of the base so a=s*s and h=s gives v=(s*s*s)/2

From your link we know that 655 000 skulls have a volume of 13100 cubic metres. That gives 13100=(s*s*s)/2 which gives 26200=s*s*s which gives that, the square root of three of 26200=s

I think. But I have lost my calculator so somebody else have to calculate s.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 06:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A pyramid is ah/3, and if you don't want your pyramid to fall over because it is too steep, h should be s/2. So for a square-based pyramid, your equation is v = s^3 / 6, and h = 21.4 metres.
by IdiotSavant on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 06:41:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
yes, it was meant to be a pile....scrub the pools.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 06:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh my god what a stupid calculation I made. But I did warn you.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 06:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, we are looking for a 13100 cubic metres pyramid. The Louvre Pyramid is 8412 cubic metres.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bush press conference, right now, which I am watching against my better judgment.

He was just asked about these numbers.  He said the "methodology has been pretty well discredited" and the numbers are "not credible" and "guessed at."

Not true.  Moving on.

He also said, and this made me shout out loud, something like this:  "These are a people who want so badly to be free... that these are levels of violence that they are willing to tolerate."

Excuse me?  Willing to tolerate?  Have you asked them?  Are you high?!

Honestly, he said it.  I could not make this up if I tried.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 11:34:39 AM EST
Is anyone buying it?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 11:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We'll see in a month or so.

I wish the press could be even more aggressive about its questioning.

Dismissing The Lancet as 'not credible' says a lot in itself.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 12:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No one considered the opinion of Iraqis, including people that were against the war. Call it arrogance, ego, narrow-mindedness.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 06:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's the full transcript:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Back on Iraq, a group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war.

That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure? And do you consider this a credible report?

BUSH: No, I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials.

I do -- I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me. And it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence.

I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's a level of violence that they tolerate.

And it's now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods so people can feel -- can feel, you know, at peace.

No question it's violent. But this report is one -- they put it out before. It was pretty well -- the methodology is pretty well discredited.

But I, you know, talk to people like General Casey. And, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.

QUESTION: So the figure's 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure, 30,000?

BUSH: I, you know, I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life. 600,000 or whatever they guessed at is just, it's not credible. Thank you.



The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The video is here.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 08:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After reading that nonsense - another vote here for AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHH.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 08:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you.
It (can't be a "he" or a "she") is slightly less unbearable in text form.
by Number 6 on Thu Oct 12th, 2006 at 08:58:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Add the number of Iraqi soldiers who died defending their country against the illegal foreign aggression 2003. Let's face it. They were honorable patriots. Their sacrifice is no less valuable than that of Soviet soldiers who died defending Stalin, or that of French soldiers who chose to resist defending the third republic.

I will become a patissier, God willing.
by tuasfait on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 12:13:03 PM EST
Juan Cole thinks the John Hopkins figures are plausible.


(...) There is heavy fighting almost every day at Ramadi in al-Anbar province, among guerrillas, townspeople, tribes, Marines and Iraqi police and army. We almost never get a report of these skirmishes and we almost never are told about Iraqi casualties in Ramadi. Does 1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4? 10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is impossible?

There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq. If we subtract Baghdad, where about 100 a day die, that still leaves 89. If an average of 4 or so are killed in each of those 89, then the study's results are correct. Of course, 4 is an average. Cities in areas dominated by the guerrilla movement will have more than 4 killed daily, sleepy Kurdish towns will have no one killed.

If 470 were dying every day, what would that look like?

West Baghdad is roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. It is certainly generating 47 dead a day. Same for Sadr City, same proportions. So to argue against the study you have to assume that Baquba, Hilla, Kirkuk, Kut, Amara, Samarra, etc., are not producing deaths at the same rate as the two halves of Baghad. But it is perfectly plausible that rough places like Kut and Amara, with their displaced Marsh Arab populations, are keeping up their end. Four dead a day in Kut or Amara at the hands of militiamen or politicized tribesmen? Is that really hard to believe? Have you been reading this column the last three years?

Or let's take the city of Basra, which is also roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. Proportionally speaking, you'd expect on the order of 40 persons to be dying of political violence there every day. We don't see 40 persons from Basra reported dead in the wire services on a daily basis.

But last May, the government authorities in Basra came out and admitted that security had collapsed in the city and that for the previous month, one person had been assassinated every hour. Now, that is 24 dead a day, just from political assassination. Apparently these persons were being killed in faction fighting among Shiite militias and Marsh Arab tribes. We never saw any of those 24 deaths a day reported in the Western press. And we never see any deaths from Basra reported in the wire services on a daily basis even now. (...) So if 24 Iraqis can be shot down every day in Basra for a month (or for many months?) and no one notices, the Lancet results are perfectly plausible.

...

The UN estimate for Iraq in its current state is around 100 killed per day.


Jan Egeland, UN Under-Secretary General, told a news conference that sectarian violence and military operations had forced over 315,000 to flee their homes in the past eight months.

"Some 9,000 have been displaced every week... even worse, perhaps 100 people are killed every day," he said.
(...)
Between 1.2 and 1.5 million Iraqis were sheltering in neighbouring states, with some 2,000 crossing into Syria each day, Egeland said.

Many of those who were fleeing were highly educated people, such as doctors, leaving the country facing a considerable brain drain, Egeland said.

"Some estimates are that universities and hospitals had a loss of up to 80 per cent of their professional staff. A third or more of Iraqi professionals have also left the country," he said.

...........

I don't feel up to commenting on all this "in my own words" any more - I keened and retched throughout Shock n' Awe, Fallujah, Ramadi, Tal Afar... freaked out over the Ashura Festival massacre in March 2004... have been generally wailing and keening about death-death-death chain-reactions and blood-debts all over my personal blog for the last few years ... No words left.

.......


"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami

by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Wed Oct 11th, 2006 at 11:48:23 PM EST
P.S.

...one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000...

In the words of the great Palestinian poet Mahmud Dawlish:

Our Country is a Graveyard

Gentlemen, you have transformed
our country into a graveyard
You have planted bullets in our heads,
and organized massacres
Gentlemen, nothing passes like that
without account
All that you have done
to our people is
registered in notebooks

...so even taking that "reassuring" best-best-best-case estimate of 50,000 dead Iraqis, after deducting roughly-3000 US military deaths plus probable later deaths of severely wounded soldiers...AND a further roughly-3000 deaths for 9/11 plus firemen's cancer-deaths etc... despite the fact that Iraq and Iraqis had zero-zilch to do with all that, from an ME "lex talionis" standpoint the US (and/or "the West") now owes Iraq (and/or "the Muslim world") well over 40,000 lives.

"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami

by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Thu Oct 12th, 2006 at 02:21:58 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]