Foreign Policy in Focus - A Think Tank Without Walls
Foreign Policy In Focus

FPIF column

The Casualties of Iraq

Conn Hallinan | October 17, 2007

Editor: John Feffer

Email this page to a friend

Comment on this article

Foreign Policy In Focus

The great 19th-century Tory Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once remarked there were three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is a dictum the Bush administration has taken to heart when it comes to totaling up the carnage in Iraq: If you don't like the numbers, just change them; and when in doubt, look 'em in the eye and lie.

For instance, according to the Department of Defense (DOD), the United States does not track civilian casualties. As former commander General Tommy Franks put it, "We don't do body counts."

But testimony in the recent trial of U.S. Army snipers from the First Battalion of the 501 Infantry regiment indicated the generals indeed do body counts. In a July hearing at Fort Liberty, Iraq, Sgt. Anthony G. Murphy said he and other snipers felt "an underlying tone" of disappointment from their commanders when they didn't rack up big body counts.

"It just kind of felt like, 'What are you guys doing wrong out there?'" he testified. When the snipers started setting traps to lure in unsuspecting Iraqis, the kill ratios went up and the commanders, he said, were pleased.

The choreography the Bush administration does around casualties is aimed at creating a dance of lies and disinformation to cover up one of the worst humanitarian crises to strike the Middle East since the Mongols sacked Baghdad.

That is not an overstatement.

A recent poll by the British agency Opinion Research Business (ORB) found that the war may have killed more than one million people, a toll that surpasses the 800,000 killed in the Rwandan genocide. The ORB used “excess mortality” as its measure, that is, deaths over and above mortality figures from the past.

The Grim Numbers

Trying to figure out the butcher bill in Iraq is an uphill task.

For instance, according to the London-based organization Iraq Body Count, by March of this year, civilian deaths stood at 65,160, although the organization noted that 2007 has seen "the worst violence against civilians in Iraq since the invasion." The conservative Brookings Institute's Iraq Index posts slightly higher figures, and the United Nations higher still.

The Iraq Interior Ministry is highly critical of the UN's conclusion that 34,000 Iraqis died in 2006, calling the figures “inaccurate” and “unbalanced,” but refuses to release its own figures. And the only sum the Bush administration has ever come up with is when the president commented to the press in December 2005 that the number of Iraqis killed was "30,000, more or less."

The first serious statistical investigation of the war's impact was a survey by Johns Hopkins University published in the British medical magazine, The Lancet. According to the study, from the March 2003 invasion through September 2006, the number of deaths due to the war was 654,965. Over half of those were women and children. The Johns Hopkins study also used the “excess mortality” methodology, which measures not only deaths from war, but violent crime and disease. It found that 91.8% of the excess mortality was due to violence, 31% of that inflicted by coalition forces.

President Bush immediately dismissed the study's methodology as "pretty well discredited," and the media either ignored it or accepted the White House's characterization.

In fact, there is virtual unanimity among biostaticians and mortality experts that the methodology used in the Johns Hopkins study is accurate. Following up on an earlier version of the study, Liala Guterman, a senior reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, says she contacted 10 experts in the field about the Lancet article, and "not one of them took issue with the study's methods or conclusions." Indeed, she said, the experts found the conclusions "cautious."

According to John Zogby of Zogby International, one of the world's most respected polling services, "The sampling [in the Lancet survey] is solid, the methodology is as good as it gets." Ronald Waldman, a Columbia University epidemiologist, said the method was "tried and true," and British Defense Ministry science advisor, Sir Roy Anderson, said the survey was "close to the best practice."

Indeed, the Bush administration used exactly the same methodology to determine the number of deaths in Darfur, figures that were used to convince the U.S. Congress to label the current crisis in the Sudan "genocide."

U.S. Casualties

The administration's sleight of hand on deaths and casualties even extends to its own forces. There are, for instance, no hard figures on the number of private U.S. and British contractors wounded or killed, even though private contractors outnumber the number of coalition troops in Iraq.

And when casualty statistics come out in ways the DOD doesn't like, it just changes how they are counted.

On January 29, 2007, the Pentagon listed 47,657 "non-mortal" casualties in Iraq. One day later this number had fallen to 31,493 by the simple device of dropping any casualty that did not require "medical air transport." The DOD also doesn't include vehicle accidents, or soldiers who are taken ill, including those with mental problems.

Other Consequences

No one has systematically collected information on the number of Iraqis wounded by the war, although a ratio of two or three to one wounded to killed is considered a good rule-of-thumb figure.

Besides the deaths and injuries, the war had unleashed, according to the Financial Times, "The worst refugee crisis in the Middle East since the mass exodus of Palestinians that was part of the violent birth of the state of Israel in 1948." According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 2.2 million Iraqis have fled their country, mostly to Jordan and Syria, and another 2 million have been turned into internal refugees. If one adds to that the ORB figures for deaths, it means at least 20% of Iraqi's pre-war population of 26 million has been killed, wounded, exiled, or displaced.

The White House has simply ignored the refugee crisis.

In 2006, the United States budgeted $3 million for refugees, although according to Amman-based researcher Noah Merrill, none of the relief organizations, including the UN, has seen any of that money. And if they had, Merrill points out, it would come to a grand total of $3.50 per person. "Jordan is an expensive country, " he says, "and $3.50 will not help anyone -- not even for a day." 

Half of Iraq's population are children, nearly 20% of them under the age of five. Some 25% are malnourished and 10% suffer from acute malnutrition. According to a UNICEF study, 70% of Iraqi's children suffer from traumatic stress syndrome.

Food rationing, a system on which five million Iraqis rely to stay alive, is breaking down, and according to Patrick Cockburn of The Independent, two million can no longer be fed because of security concerns. Unemployment is at 68%. Once the most industrial country in the Arab world, Iraq is devolving into an oil-rich, agrarian backwater. Some 75% of the country's doctors and pharmacists have fled, bringing its medical system -- at one time the best in the Arab world -- to the point of collapse.

And finally, like a biblical plague, cholera is working itself down the country's river system, from the Kurdish north to Basra in the south. Over 7,000 cases have been confirmed in northern Iraq, according to the World Health Organization.

In 1258 the Mongol generals Hulagu and Guo Kan besieged and took the city of Baghdad. They murdered its inhabitants, burned its libraries, and ravished its lands. The Bush administration has done the same, but hidden it behind a smoke screen of lies and voodoo statistics.

For the average Iraqi, there is little difference between the Mongols and the United States. Both have laid waste to their country.

 

Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.

 

Subscribe to
World Beat

FPIF's weekly ezine


Support FPIF


Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.

Recommended citation:
Conn Hallinan, "The Casualties of Iraq" (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, October 16, 2007).

Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/4649

Production Information:
Author(s): Conn Hallinan
Editor(s): John Feffer
Production: John Feffer

Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment. Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected.
 
Name Casualty Monitor Date: Oct 18, 2007
Thank you for a useful review of the situation regarding casualty statistics in the Iraq war. I would however like to disagree with one of your assertions. A ratio of two or three to one wounded to killed is, in fact, likely to underestimate the total casulaty burden. When looking at military casualties, where those at risk have the benefit of advanced protective clothing, the ratio is generally regarded as being at least 7:1 or higher. In civilian populations the ratio is unknown for the wars in Iraq. However, 1:3 should be regarded as the lowest end of the scale. http://craigmurrayfriends.blogspot.com/2005/09/mod-figures-reveal-one-thousand.html
Name deteodoru@yahoo.com Date: Oct 22, 2007
AL FROM, THE ROVE WANNA-BE THAT MAY DESTROY HILLARY

It is most striking to recall that a lot of the Zio-extremists in the Clinton Administration were proto-neocon cons advising Bill Clinton on the Middle East. After the Lewinsky Affair, Clinton understandably was desperate to make a major advance in the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis in order to obtain a Nobel Prize with which to cover-up his impeachment. But Bill never realized that his gonadal hypertrophy was not his real problem which he had to compensate for in order to become a memorable president. Rather, his sexual escapades were symptom of a disease he suffered from since the start of his political career. What made this utterly brilliant and really caring man an utter failure as a dignified and admirable President can be summed up in the perseverance notion: WHY SHOULD I CHOOSE WHEN I CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS? Thus, for example, he tried to befriend both the Israeli Right and Arafat through the use of a smoke-and-mirrors magician, Denis Ross, who had a long track record of now-you-see-it, now-you-don't diplomacy. By the time Clinton stumbled into something both sides could work out after his pressing demand-- I NEED desperately a solution for my own reasons-- a solution came, but a bit too late. By the time Bush came to power, Israel had been taken over by the Zionazis and the Palestinian struggle by the Jihadis. After 9/11, Bush saw no need to get entangled in that mess while he sent an expeditionary force to Iraq in order to both comply with the demands of his Saudi masters and to feed the wants of his oil cronies, stealing Iraq's oil cheaply, forcing on it PSA "privatization."

Of course, Bush was an utter failure because he is incompetent and chose loyalty over competence as the basis for his administration. We are now hopelessly mired in Iraq, have lost our best troops and are spending ourselves broke with no oil in sight as ALL Iraqis, whatever their differences, choose death over again surrendering their black gold, as they had to the British almost a century earlier.

The day after the Democratic Party's Kerry debacle in 2004, there was a debate between an anti-war ADL Democrat and Al From, one of the sleazy campaign advisers to Bill Clinton (sort of the Dick Morris ilk) who is a proto-neocon con man and sought to argue that the Dems must become "Trumanesque" on the Middle East as Truman was with Stalin. The case he was making was about as vapid as that Shrum made about Kerry's Vietnam war hero emphasis in the 2004 presidential campaign-- even Kerry found Shrum repulsive and sought to evade it!

But by then Carl Rove came to be seen as an electoral guru. Politicos in both parties are by now convinced that voters are idiots who vote tropistically like roaches responding to light (negative tropism: they run AWAY from it). So Al From sought to argue for a 2008 Campaign that is preceded by a "having it both ways" 2006 Congressional Campaign. I have often heard him pontificate for his cause and he sounded like the same pudgy but hollow-headed "guru," Carl Rove, he was claiming to overcome. The vague "the American people" want this and that is the trademark of both; and it translates into deceive these dumb goyim. Bush had the Christian Right, but Al From was convinced that a Trumanesque Hillary would be able to get the Zionist Jews, AIPAC and the neocons with a "Trumanesque National security Policy Line." (???) So now Hillary comes across as a ROBOT trying to have it both ways. I say "robot" because she is a highly educated woman and quite sophisticated and so she knows-- from personal experience as Bill's humiliated wife-- that you CANNOT have it both ways. But Al From pressed on and she is trying-- though obviously unconvinced-- to comply, seeming like a robot because her heart and mind are not in it.

Finally, in 2006, Al From got a chance to prove that his-- no so much "Trumanesque" but more "Nixonesque"-- "Southern Strategy" of trying to have it both ways in his advice to the Harold Ford Tennessee Senatorial Campaign (an approach that in the words of Lincoln, fools some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time as didn't the "I did not have sex with that woman..." memorable Clinton speech); Al From's thesis is that the more Harold Ford, a black man, can sound like a Southern cracker while running for the Tennessee Senate seat, the less the rednecks will see his color. However, by putting in another of the "good old boys" cracker as their candidate, the Republicans made Harold Ford seem as black as night. And, as usual, the blacks did not vote in force for Harold Ford while the white crackers all voted for the cracker Republican. But it seems, Al From is not through with Harold Ford yet; using him as a shill to give Hillary advice, with Harold Ford as first author, he penned the following dribble as Mideast policy in IDEAS PRIMARY: The Presidential Election as a Battle of Ideas:
http://www.ideasprimary.com/?p=354&print=1

It really should be read as a prototype of throwback advice to the Bill Clinton Era of saying nothing and passing it off as a great new idea in order to be able to have it both ways. How vapid his "thinking" (sic) is, is evident from one quote: "REPUBLICANS ARE HOLDING OUT FOR AN ILLUSORY VICTORY. DEMOCRATS RIGHTLY WANT TO FORCE A NEW DIRECTION, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT IF THE ONLY OPTION THEY OFFER IS IMMEDIATE PULLOUT."

He then insists that the new policy he advocates: "focuses on containing the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world." Yet, he insists further that: "The key to a new course is to forge a bipartisan agreement in support of a small sustainable military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future to guard our strategic interests in the region."

Huh? The only thing there is "bipartisan agreement" on-- forged by a bloody reality forced on our troops--is that our "boots on the ground" commitment was totally inadequate for the mission assigned them. But Al From wants us to: "train the Iraqi military, interdict terrorists from coming over the borders of Iran and Syria into Iraq, carry on the fight against Al Qaeda and prevent genocide in Iraq. A SMALLER MILITARY FORCE CAN ACHIEVE ALL OF THESE OBJECTIVES, WHILE PREVENTING THE IRAQ WAR FROM TURNING INTO A WIDER CONFLICT IN THE REGION."

Al From insists that troops reduction send the Iraqi Government a message that will wake it up: "When the Iraqis see the United States is serious about reducing and re-deploying our troops, they will be more open to striking the agreement necessary to create political reconciliation and stability in the country" to defining "redeploying," by which Al From means: "re-deploying them to perform more strategic missions" like "changing our strategy and straightening our position to fight terrorism in that part of the world," from suggests that like Jesus, he can make five breads and two fish into 5000 breads and 2000 fish.

Duuhhh! Quoting Gen. Petraeus before the Senate when asked by Senator Warner if the war in Iraq makes Americans safer, From concludes: "The General said he could not say for sure. THIS IS THE MOST CREDIBLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT WE HAVE THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR STRATEGY. WE NEED A BIPARTISAN POLICY THAT WILL MAKE US SAFER AND STRAIGHTENS OUR ABILITY TO BRING PEACE AND STABILITY TO IRAQ"-- more with less!!!!

Normally, I might simply say that the man is an idiot and leave it at that. But the three top Democratic Presidential Candidates refused to commit to having US troops out of Iraq by 2013! So clearly Al From has had some influence. But his influence does not come from his strategic genius of having a way for us to do more with less when we are failing because we are trying to do with too little in the first place; it comes from his repeated insistence before Democratic leaders at the Democratic Leadership Conference meetings that he has found a Rovarian way to pen-in the sheep, all those dumb goyim who will run away from any deviation from the Bush line that supposedly beat Kerry. His prototype argument under the title: "PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS A BATTLE OF IDEAS" is a protoneocon con on all those dumb-goyim, just like his move-right fake trick to get Harold Ford elected by the Tennessee crackers!

Note that he labels the "fools" as those for "immediate withdrawal." But in fact, everyone knows that "immediate" withdrawal is impossible. The real counter policy to the Bush "victory through staying put" is SET A WITHDRAWAL DATE some time hence-- even up to two years-- so that Iraqis both have time to shape up and also will know that we will not stay put beyond then. Above all else, a date certain for withdrawal proves that we are not in Iraq to steal their oil with our forces, as the British had tried to do. This would take the oomph out of a lot of the mostly nationalist resistance to our war.

But Al From thinks that this will make us look as if we are abandoning Israel because we are not attacking Iran. And so, figures he, we will not get the Zio-crackers and the neocons to fund the Democratic instead of Republican Campaign in 2008. So his solution is a Solomonic-Bill Clinton solution: cut it in the middle so you can have it both ways. But less--even in the neocon's graft arithmetic-- has yet to come out as more. So all his argument in the name of ill-served Mr. Harold Ford is nothing but more Bill-type: why choose when you can have it both ways?

Al From is nothing but the underside of Senator Lieberman, the "Democrat" neocon elected in Connecticut by only Republican voters against the real Democrat candidate. Above all else, they do not speak for 87% of American Jews who voted for Kerry or just against Bush and his "war on Islamofascism." The mass majority of these loyal American Jews, many who enlisted in the military after 9/11, are neither "self-hating Jews"-- as the neocons would have us believe-- nor dumb goyim, as From would have you believe. They are neither "goyim" nor "dumb" and so will not turn to mambo-jumbo that muddles whether we will expand Bush's war to attack Iran. Support for Israel is not based on whether we destroy the Arabs and Iran but whether we start from where Bill Clinton left off at the end of his presidency, realizing that you can't just have it both ways and carefully choosing every step on his way to peace in the Middle East.

Al From, instead of aping Rove, might have realized that, careful strategic goals achieved through carefully chosen tactical moves in the diplomatic arena, cannot help until the Islamic World realizes that the US is very pro-Israel-- which they don't really mind-- but is not the puppet of the Saudi regime, nor of the Zionazis. How can anyone engage us in diplomacy when they all know that the reason we removed Saddam was to steal his oil so we can fill-er-up our SUVs cheap?

Al From was seen for what he is by most Democrats listening to him debate on the day after the 2004 election fiasco. But he was not seen by Hillary, it seems. For Hillary is bowing to Bill's assuredly superior logic: WHY SHOULD I CHOOSE WHEN I CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS? Monica Lewinsky proved that you can't have it both ways, as did all his last minute Mideast negotiations. Had he realized it sooner, he might have gotten his Nobel Prize-- as did Al Gore by sticking to his issue, rather than listening to the Rove-wanna-be, From-- and we might remember him as we remembered Carter as a great peace maker.

Clinton-- who was not such a bad president in many ways-- proved to be a model ex-President, just like Carter and Bush Sr. I am devoted to defeating diabetes and other self-abuse life style diseases through molecular geriatric medicine because of Bill's brilliant speech on health care before the 2005 Governors' Conference. The man is brilliant when he decides to be a realist instead of a swindler. But if he sends out Rove-look-alikes like From to advise Hillary, he will assure the victory of Giuliani in 2008....So Bill, apply the lesson you learned the hard way on Monica and the Middle East and let Hillary be Hillary-- a brilliant and caring woman-- instead of poisoning her with Al From's dumb advice, the way he poisoned Harold Ford in his Tennessee race.

There is no "immediate" withdrawal plan advocated by any Democrat. There is only a choice between expanding the war to steal oil or coming to terms with the region by proving that we are not thieves, insisting on a negotiated date certain for our total withdrawal, no matter how far away. Only then can we count on the region to make sure things are in order by the date we withdraw. Al From should learn from the defeats of both his disciple Harold Ford and the Bush jettisoning of Rove because he was too obvious a liability to this administration....Why do you want to be yet another Rove in the White House after the Democrats win? Is it worth it to you to risk a Giuliani Republican victory in 2008 for that?

Daniel E. Teodoru

Discussion for this article has been closed.
 
Contact FPIF's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.
 

Support FPIF

You Might Also Like:
 

Related Iraq Coverage

Iraq Policy Outlook: 2009
Mar 12, 2009

Feinstein: Bad Choice for Intelligence
Dec 23, 2008

A Bold Step for U.S. Good Will in Iraq
Nov 4, 2008