oldreliable67

A couple of problems with this statement, which you have now repeated a couple of times. First, what would you offer in support of your assertion of "usually underestimated?"

Second, in the sampling process, especially where the research records are not made available, there is a real risk of "curbstoning," as I think it is referred to. That is, it is not entirely proven that the samples were valid, that some researchers didn't simply sit down on a curbstone and fill out fictitious forms. Here again, the sympathies of the researchers must be taken into account: were they padding the results to get the numbers they wanted? One would wish not, but without the ability to verify, how can one be sure?

Third, a priori, what reasons can you offer that "entire families [being] wiped out" would lead to under-counting as opposed to over-counting? Everything that I have read suggest a (rather pronounced) tendency on the part of civilians-especially those aligned with or sympathetic to the insurgency-to exaggerate the number of deaths and casualties resulting from coalition actions.

I am not saying that your assertion is incorrect. But it is, IMO, in need of further support before it can be accepted at face value.

oldreliable67

Without commenting on whether he is has a point or is full of it, here is one bloggers attempt at answering your question:

Key to the blogger's analysis is this quote from GBN:

Read the whole thing at Confederate Yankee and make up your own mind.

ashurbanipal

I wasn't referring so much to you as to the general apparent mood in the national debate over this issue. The conversation often starts out with the Lancet number, criticisms are levied, and then a lower number is proposed, and everyone who hasn't made up their mind breathes an almost audible sigh of relief. This is understandable from the context of human nature, but (like many other things about human nature) is obviously incorrect.

However, I did not mean to suggest that you, in particular, are relieved by the lower numbers.

Point taken.

IIRC, some of the estimates initially were absurdly low--2,500-3,000. Those were based on reports from our soldiers to their commanding officers about civilians killed.

Then there were some other estimates that relied on a collation of eyewitness reports collected by journalists (this is an ongoing project) that landed in the 20,000 to 30,000 range.

600,000 seems extraordinary because it's a lot of people. But it was not unprecedented in foreign news. Estimates ranging from half a million to a million were being tossed around in the European press a few months before the Lancet study was published. One possible explanation is that the Lancet study result was leaked--and if this is the case, given the timing, it does call the study itself into serious question (if they knew, three months prior to publication, what the number was, what were they doing for those last three months? Waiting for the stars to get into proper alignment?)

Those numbers were based on educated guesses by military analysts who had some experience with the type of war we were fighting.

All of that just comes from memory, so I don't want to absolutely stand on it, but it seems about right.

When the Lancet study came out, I was prepared for a pretty high number just from my talks with veterans of other wars.

I tend to believe it is correct for these reasons--but I do acknowledge there is room for doubt and some valid criticisms of the study can be leveled.

Agreed. I really wish they would make their research data available to an independent group of researchers, who will agree to keep it confidential, so that it could be reviewed. I can understand, if they told the families interviewed that they'd keep the data secret, why they'd want to do that. But I'd like to see some kind of independent verification of their data and their process.

There certainly is that kind of pressure--and it amounts to psychological pressure as well amongst liberals or anyone who doesn't like the idea of the war. I would agree that the Lancet study has become a kind of political weapon within the larger context of the war. I would agree that it's wrong to fail to acknowledge the potential flaws when presenting the case.

Billo_Really

Unless you are an expert in the field of epidimeology, how can you even begin to comment on this topic? Of coarse, many laymen and pundits who back the illegal invasion and brutal occupation think the Lancet survey has "flaws"...... but ask any expert in the field and you get a different story.The only ones who know for sure who died of what were the Iraqis themselves.
The Lancet study was careful not to include information that was in doubt.
Like it or not, were are responsible for these deaths.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Tashah

Like a fly to honey

__________________

DivineComedy

We’re certain your Greens are responsible for One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq! Glad to see you’re now taking responsibility.

July 1997: “Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) {bold emphasis added} President Saddam's speech on July 17 1997

See your Greens?:

“Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General…David Muller, South Movement, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia”
Workers World Oct. 4, 2001: Join a new anti-war coalition

As for the legality of the invasion and just occupation, for the umpteenth time:

“H32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” PROUD OF MY SON: Mahmoud Hamdan Kwasma, the Haifa bomber (Allah predicted 9/11 1400 years ago)

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ Palestinians Get Saddam Charity Checks, Family Of Suicide Bomber Among Those Given $10,000 By His Charity - CBS News
{Bold emphasis added to point out the spontaneous human combustion.}

“Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,” CNN.com - Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq - Nov. 8, 2002

*****

If civilians explode, no civilians were killed in Iraq, it was spontaneous inhuman combustion.

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

savoir-faire

WW2, the congo, the Korean war, numbers of holocaust victims were all underestimated during the time period of the conflict or slaughter.When an entire family was wiped out (some family members fleeing and others killed they would only report the death with multiple witnesses)-the JH study would count them however they did not include regions of unusually high violence. The MIT?JH study went to incredible leghts and actually their range was around 200,000 -800,000. The last study states explcitly it is most likely an underestimate and just that an estimate. The recent study mirrored numbers by the Iraq Ministry of Health of 100/day and that was bodies counted in a MORGE. Do you really understand what was happening during the worst violence with quick backyard burials and bodies floating down the rivers? Get real if you only want to consider bodies that were neatly lined up toe tagged in a morgue I have a time share to sell you in Mess-o-po-tamia!

Les Roberts actually applauded the recent study because it backs up his study-it was a low estimate and only serves to show the magnitude of the deaths from the invasion.

oldreliable67

You see, thats exactly why I questioned your previous statement: again, you offer quite broad assertions without any shred of evidence or proof. Here is the question being posed to you: what is it that makes you believe your assertions to be true? What have you seen or read or whatever that makes you offer those assertions? Or is it just a general gut feeling?

Actually, most probably unlike you, I actually have real-world experience with combat and civilian casualties. My real-world experience (Vietnam, '67-'68) leads me to believe that civilian deaths are as likely to over-estimated as under-estimated, depending on who is doing the counting and their motives for doing so. I've seen it, up close and personal; way too close and way too personal.

oldreliable67

Uh, Billo, Juan Cole is most certainly not "an expert in the field of epidimeology."

Actually, I apologize for that, it was a cheap shot. I know you didn't offer Juan Cole as an expert in epidemiology. But if you can offer Juan Cole, who knows a lot about the ME but (admittedly presumably) not very much about epidemiology, what fault can you find with reporting by independent investigative journalists? Other than the fact that you don't like or agree with their conclusions because they don't agree with your preconceived point of view?

Billo_Really

I have only been defending the Lancet study from the perspective that THEY are the experts in this field. I have not dismissed any other report. Don't kill the messenger.