An Iraqi looks at the numbers


A few weeks ago some reputable scientists estimated (the Lancet Study) that approximately 650,000 more Iraqis have died since we attacked than would have, had we left them alone. It was a short lived story because George Bush, the statistician in chief pronounced their methodology flawed. In light of that, what could the chattering class do other than ignore the numbers? Would George Bush lie to us? And in any event, who are you going to believe about proper statisical methodology, a bunch of expert statisticians employing widely accepted methods, or George Bush?

I am revisiting this topic because it has bumped up against another subject that I was thinking about recently. I have a site bookmarked of a girl blogger (that's her self description) from Iraq, called Baghdad Burning. Not surprisingly, she posts rather sporadically, but of late I had begun to wonder whether something had happened to her. She hadn't written anything since August, and Baghdad being what it is, it seemed as likely as not that she had either left the country or this world.

But today, I checked in and she's back, with her own take on the Lancet study. She is obviously deluded because she questions the mathematical expertise of our President:

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons – with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.

Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years. After this latest report published in The Lancet, 300,000 is looking quite modest and tame. Congratulations Bush et al.

Everyone knows the 'official numbers' about Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the war and occupation are far less than reality (yes- even you war hawks know this, in your minuscule heart of hearts). This latest report is probably closer to the truth than anything that's been published yet. And what about American military deaths? When will someone do a study on the actual number of those? If the Bush administration is lying so vehemently about the number of dead Iraqis, one can only imagine the extent of lying about dead Americans…

Which sort of brings us back to the subject of a recent post, in which we wondered whether the Bush Regime is covering up massive casualties suffered by our own troops on October 11th.
Posted: Saturday - October 28, 2006 at 10:35 PM          

©