Checking the Science on 655,000 Iraqi Dead

October 12th, 2006

Filed under:
Politics, Science

Checking the Science on 655,000 Iraqi Dead

As you may have heard, the storied medical journal Lancet published a peer-reviewed study (PDF) which concluded that approximately 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

I’m always skeptical about surveys, polls and studies, so I wanted to read some criticism and debate of the study, to see how it stood up. Here’s what I found:

The Plank - “Coalition forces, after all, are killing an estimated 4,700 Iraqis a month–many via the air war that’s being conducted largely outside the media’s purview.”
The Liberal Avenger - A very through round-up of the right-wing blogosphere’s response to the study.
Right Wing Nut House - “Again, the study makes absolutely no effort to differentiate between innocent civilians and Iraqis trying to kill our troops.” I like how each comment is numbered.
Iraq Body Count - Another academic project which uses a different methodology. They haven’t commented yet, but I suspect their opinion will have considerable weight in the debate.

From what I’ve read, the study seems fairly solid. As somebody pointed out, even if the actual number is on the low end of Lancet’s estimate–say 400,000–that’s still pretty appalling.

UPDATE: Double left a comment referring to Crooked Timber, who makes the helpful point that the rate of death in Iraq since the invasion is roughly ten times that of the rate of death by violent assault in the US. That sort of comparison makes the number a lot more fathomable and plausable.

Comments: 4 Responses so far

Aaron Brazell
October 12th, 2006
11:07 am

I’m skeptical of the number but not for partisan reason. Just… it’s awful high.

My argument against the folks who say the report is bunk because the number doesn’t reflect casualties directly from coalition actions is that… these deaths might not be because of an IED or stray bombs, but how many of the deaths wouldn’t have been deaths if Iraq had never been invaded in 2003.

[Reply]

double-plus-ungood
October 12th, 2006
11:16 am

I’m skeptical of the number but not for partisan reason. Just… it’s awful high.

Crooked Timber has a post on this, and say:

Convincing those critics who see this number and declare “that can’t possibly be right,” or “my gut says no” or “this doesn’t even pass the smell test” is difficult. This is partly because some will just think that any estimate that sounds bad must be false, and take refuge in old saws about lies, damned lies, and what have you. But it’s also partly because six hundred thousand violent deaths since the war began seems huge—and, frankly, it is. As this typical guy says, that’s equivalent to 3 to 10 Hiroshima atomic blasts, 6 to 20 Nagasaki atomic blasts or 10 Dresden bombing campaigns. Yes, that’s right. Those events happened in a single day or over a very short period. The present estimate is for a large country of twenty six million people over three and a half years. Sadly, this means it’s quite achievable. As Juan Cole points out, you just have to believe that for our five people a day are being shot or otherwise killed in each of Iraq’s major towns outside of Baghdad.

As they point out at the end, this rate is only about 10 times the deaths due to violence in the US each day - and given the situation in Iraq, that’s quite believable.

[Reply]