Iraqi deaths far less than Lancet Study says
January 2nd, 2007 by Double Tap
Remember the Lancet Study? The one that said that around 655,000 Iraqis had died violent deaths since the invasion? That works out to about 218,000 per year. Remember how the Left were all up in arms about this?
Monday, the Iraqi government released their own numbers -
Iraqi authorities…reported Monday that 16,273 Iraqis — including 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers — died violent deaths in 2006.
You think that number is too conservative? Well, it exceeded the Associated Press count of reported deaths by more than 2,000 in 2006.
More than 16,000 Iraqi dead is a huge number, no doubt, but worlds away from the estimates given in that study. We’re talking an estimated difference of 13 times the Iraqi government estimate in a one-year period.
(H/T Gateway Pundit)
Category :
Uncategorized 
Tags :
Iraq 
Similar Posts:
- Despite the liberal squawking, military deaths are no more than Clinton and Carter presidencies
- Despite what you’ve heard, casualties are DOWN
- Study finds linkages between anti-war reporting and Iraqi insurgent attacks
- Sorry liberals, casualties are down 50% from last year
- Al Qaeda in Iraq leader arrested - by Iraqis (Updated)
- Liberals seem to only support the military when they can complain about the President in particular, and conservatives in general
- The truth about jihadi deaths in Iraq
- And they say Iraq is violent…
- Slew of bad news out of Iraq
- Don’t look now, but the U.S.-backed Iraqi government and army might be winning the war
You should read the comments to the Gateway Pundit’s post. This report does not discredit the Lancet study. This number is the tally of people whose deaths were officially registered. The Lancet study interviewed 18,000 people and used undisputed statistical methods to extrapolate a range for the total deaths.
Here’s what I wrote to GP’s post:
Saddam Hussein is credited with murdering as many as 350,000 of his own subjects, yet he was convicted and executed for killing 148 people.
The difference is between what can be estimated using statistical sampling and other forensic methods versus what could be proved in court. Even the murders that were proven in Hussein’s trial were often established with shaky 3rd-hand testimony.
If you want to impose a standard on body counts that demands official documentation, then good luck proving that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis (this is an estimate based mainly on census data), that more than a couple thousand people were killed by the Khmer Rouge or that any Armenians were killed by the Turks in the early 1900’s.
According to your standards of evidence, America invaded Iraq to depose a “tyrant” whose crime against humanity was killing 148 people. Of course we know there were many, many more victims, but can you provided “official reports” documenting them as such? If so, where were those reports during his trial?
Cheers,
Winston
Winston smith, let me congratulate you on one of the better comments I’ve received. Usually, it’s a “drive-by” with just some sort of snide remark. I don’t entirely agree with your analysis, but nevertheless, well thought out.
For example, IIRC, earlier figures from the Iraqi government included no deaths from the Anbar province, AKA Sunni Guerrillaland, because the gov’t there didn’t report any deaths.
The dominant forces within the Iraqi government, AFAIK are militia leaders or their representatives. I’d take their counts with a generous helping of salt.
The issue isn’t really the need to use estimates to determine a death toll, it is Lancet’s shoddy study.
It isn’t disputed?
Here is just a sampling.
Of course we have to estimate deaths at times, but it’s a big help when you have credible estimates. Lancet is neither credible or, in that case, a reasonable estimate of any kind.
Therefore it has removed “credible” and “estimate” from the credible estimate requirement, as set forth by the central committee on credibleness in estimationing.