putting Iraqi casualties in perspective . . .

a few days ago it was reported that the latest estimate of Iraqi casualties during the invasion and occupation exceeds 300,000 . . . this got me thinking -- what does this number mean? . . .

the population of Iraq is about 26 million . . . 300,000 casualties, therefore, represents about 1% of the nation's entire population . . . put another way, one in every 100 Iraqis have been killed in this conflict . . . and chances are that EVERY Iraqi citizen has known someone (probably many someones) who has lost their life -- family, friends, acquaintances, business associates, etc. . .

the population of my town is about 14,000 . . . if a similar casualty rate were applied, we would have lost 140 of our residents . . . the outcry, I can assure you, would be monumental . . .

what would it mean if 1% of your community were killed? . . .

The reason that I'm asking is that 300,000 sounds high for the estimated number of Iraqi deaths. Casualty can mean death or serious injury and I'm wondering if that is how it is being used here - I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of that number, I just haven't heard that high an estimate for the number of deaths.

Casualties in Iraq" that appeared in The Hindu, the "online edition of India's national newspaper" . . .

http://www.hinduonnet.com/

since they only post the current day's articles, I'll have to go back to previous issues to see if I can find it . . . don't have the time right now, but will check later today . . .

number apparently didn't include Falluja, and it's been a year and a half since then.

discussion . . . the article linked in the lead post doesn't seem to exist online anymore . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1443692

used by the Lancet authors (here). The article is on ZNet, I can't testify to the politics of that magazine or of the author of the article. They do give a good description of the methodology, and it sounds like a legitimate statistical approach.

I did find another source for Iraqi civilian deaths. Their estimate is around 43,000.I don't know what their methodology is. The difference in estimates is huge; although they both show that our invasion of Iraq had catastrophic consequences for the Iraqi people.

I appreciate you taking the time to look into this a little further. I think these numbers are important, and if I use the 300,000 number, I want to be able to give the source and some idea of the methodology used.

The Lancet's methodology and conclusions were never questioned.

I'm not sure that Les Roberts ever made the estimate of 300,000 dead. I cite an article that he wrote on February 8, where I don't think he actually estimated 300,000 dead although you could interpret his statements that way.

I think we need to be careful about the statistics we cite. An incorrect citation can cost you an argument.

Whatever the actual number, the tragedy in Iraq is beyond our comprehension.

A few years ago their estimate was 100,000 dead. Their latest estimate is now 300,000 dead, not wounded. Their studies are based on mortality only, not injuries. I don't have a source, because I heard it on Pacifica radio.

That's what it would be like if the same level of killing hit New York -- over twenty times the number killed on 9/11, which was traumatic enough.

I can't wrap my mind around what the Iraqis are experiencing.

When they say 300,000 casualties, they mean killed and injured.

Does it somehow make it right that we are killing them now?

... The article that was cited on DU(here) contains this: On February 8, 2006, Les Roberts (the lead author of the The Lancet's report) said that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths had now risen to 300,000..

Here's an article written by Les Robert's on February 8, 2006.In part it says:

The contrast between the graph showing 400 violent deaths a month in portions of Baghdad served by this morgue, and oft-cited Iraqbodycount estimate of about 500 violent deaths per month in the entire country, could not be more dramatic. The Iraqbodycount estimate is certainly low and the morgue-recorded deaths are probably overestimating the increase in mortality. (The dramatic increase in deadly violence is likely resulting in a larger fraction of decedents bypassing hospitals and having their deaths recorded at morgues.)

It is probable that the level of violence and increase in mortality is overestimated by the Figure 1 and by those in the foreign press who cite such numbers. It is more probable, however, that the estimates of 20,000 to 30,000 civilian deaths cited in the American press are too low, most likely by a factor of five or ten.

Now, if you take the 30,000 and the factor of 10, you arrive at 300,000. But, in the next paragraph the article says:

The casualty count is significant for many reasons. There are, of course, moral considerations. Is the way we wage war now indiscriminate with regard to non-combatants? Is the rhetoric about "precision" in our airborne weaponry masking a darker reality of unnecessary carnage on the ground? Avoidable killing of non-combatants is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, regardless of the actions of the insurgency. And the possibility that the Coalition forces could be responsible for as many as 200,000 Iraqi civilian deaths or more would likely alter the political mood in the United States with respect to the legitimacy of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

If this is the actual article that they're citing, I'd take the 200,000 as a possible estimate from Roberts rather than the 300,000.

say the figure is 3/4% of the population rather than 1% . . . apply that to your own community to see exactly how devastating that kind of number actually is . . . and that doesn't even account for the seriously wounded who survived . . .

My concern about the number is the effect the citation of an incorrect statistic has when you are trying to make an argument. Once you cite 300,000 in an argument and someone points out that your number is wrong, you lose a lot of credibility. Even if the correct number were 45,000 ( based on Les Roberts credentials, I tend to think his number is probably close to correct), it's still a monumental tragedy. My belief is that in the end, there are 2 alternatives here, either we install a new Saddam - probably a Shiite - call it a democracy and leave - in other words we return to the status quo ante; or, Iraq disintegrates into a very bloody civil war probably dragging in other Middle Eastern countries and the death count continues to rise astronomically.

unfortunately, George W. won't be available for a few years yet . . .

Do you think his estimate is on the high side or the low side?

Don

...The 200,000 dead figure refers to Iraqis killed by Coalition forces, which means it's certainly possible that 300,000 have been killed in all because the other 100,000 dead were killed by someone else. Not that I know either way.

will kill exponentially more.

That would be 3,000,000 Americans. If only 2/3 of 1% of Americans were killed, that would only be 2,000,000 Americans dead.

In terms of numbers of dead, 3,000,000 Americans dead is roughly 3 times the number of American lives lost in all of our wars combined. In terms of deaths per capita, the population of the US was roughly 100,000,000 during World War I, and roughly 100,000 Americans died in it. That's .1% of the population, so if we've killed 1% of their population, we've inflicted America's World War I per capital casualties on them ten times over.

In terms of numbers of dead, more Americans died in the American Civil War than all other wars combined (roughly 600,000, compared to 300,000 in World War II, roughly 100,000 in World War I, roughly 50,000 each in Korea and Vietnam, and a few thousands each in the Revolution, Mexican War, Spanish-American War, and various others that were barely more than skirmishes compared to these other five. Per capita, if the American Civil War was fought today, about 5,000,000 Americans would be killed in it. So we haven't pushed them quite that far yet...

I get my figures from users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm. Or google search for "Twentieth Century Atlas Death Tolls".