Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

Hear Hear!

In fact, the war is turning out quite boring. Ah! The old wars are never coming back, are they?

"Imposing democracy" has happened before, you know. Think "Germany" and "Japan", buddy. And yes, sadly, some guys had to be eliminated in the process.
True enough, it's not something you do by a click of the mouse, but it's doable nonetheless.

Yes, it's not the first article and surely not the last either, but unfortunately for you and the quality of this thread it's about the very same study (of the "Johns Hopkins" University of Baltimore, initially published in the London "The Lancet") that johnny_bi brought about a while ago.
Preposterous methodolody, preposterous "results" but they confirm like nothing else the old adage of the good doctor Joseph Goebbels, the oft forgot Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich: "Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth.”

This post has been edited by valachus on January 07, 2005 11:26 am

"Imposing democracy" has happened before, you know. Think "Germany" and "Japan", buddy. And yes, sadly, some guys had to be eliminated in the process.
True enough, it's not something you do by a click of the mouse, but it's doable nonetheless.

So what's wrong about Germany or Japan?

He he. Excuse me but I thought this was the Bushites technique for sinking USA's image in the world at lightning speed.

So what's wrong in the lancet report, apart from the fact that the neocons don't like the conclusions.

"Preposterous methodolody"

I invite you to develop this. You can also point us to another analysis/report leading to a different conclusion and we might have a point of comparison.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on January 07, 2005 01:27 pm

Detailed Summary

Background

In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it.

Methods
A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6-month period preceding it.

Findings

The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation
Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

Source: Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham, summary, “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey”, The Lancet, Vol 364, No 9445, 30 October 2004,

Valachus ? ...

Man, you really need a confruntation right now.... May I propose the theme: "European Union: The Evil Empire of Fat Cats"?

Valachus strongly suggested that I posted lies without care, so naturally I wanted to discuss the specifics of that accusation. There was a trick however, there is no other report than the Lancet analyzing the subject of civilian casualties in Irak. The neocons are outraged by the Lancet but can't show any contradictory data.

I might take you up to your EU challenge but post that elsewhere. I am in "angry at EU bureaucracy" period, so beware that we might end up agreeing on many things

OK, sorry for the delay but i've had a rather busy time after the winter vacation, which didn't allow me to answer your challenge properly. In fact, I still don't have the necessary resources, because usually to counter a full-fledged "scientific" study the contradictory answer should be proportionately dimensioned. The Lancet study had an internationally reputed institute's full team of scientists behind it, while all that I have in this matter is my PC and a cable internet connection.
Still, the internet is resourceful enough. On to the topic at hand, then.

Issue no. 1: "there is no other report than the Lancet analyzing the subject of civilian casualties in Iraq" - unfortunately, that is utterly false.
There is the well-known Iraq Body Count Project, an ongoing cooperative effort by british researchers and NGOs, which started even before the eevil Coalition forces entered Iraq and removed from power its peaceful president and its ruling party.

I must say that I personally have more confidence in the accuracy of the IBCP figures (albeit their open oposition to the military intervention in Iraq and the fact that they make no distinction whatsoever between civilians and Iraqi police killed by terrorists, terrorists and insurgents killed by Coalition forces, and the civilian victims of the Coalition!), because the IBCP DOESN'T USE ESTIMATES OR PREDICTIONS.
The IBCP uses only hard data, informations coroborated by at least two independent sources, including NGOs, hospitals and morgues in Iraq. For conformity, the IBCP has so far counted "only" 15.000 to 17.500 deaths since the beginning of the Iraq campaign, but I stress out the fact that as mentioned above, that figure includes the Iraqis killed by terrorists and the dead terrorists too!

Issue no. 2: re to the fact that the Lancet study is worthy of unreserved praise and respect. Facts about the Lancet study:
1) the fact-finding part was conducted by a team of 7 men (Iraqis), working for only a month in situ. The Magnificent Seven of Demographics, they must have been.
2) there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Remember also that figures don't lie, but liars figure. Examples to that effect: the survey surveyed 988 households. BUT HOLD ON TO THAT FIGURE: in only 78 (seventy-eight) of them, the Magnificent Seven asked for a death certificate. Here's the quote from the original report (I swear I'm not making this up!):

Or, to put it MY WAY: out of the 988 Iraqi households surveyed, only in 63 (sixty-three) of them did the Magnificent Seven see a death certificate. That is 6.37% of the total figure. The rest is make believe ("my husband is in hajj at Mecca and only he knows the password to the Ali-Baba cave where we keep the death certificate of our step brother's brother-in-law cousin - but i swear he's dead!", "we Johns Hopkins epidemiologists here in the cosy USA know all about Iraqi customs and mores although we've never actually set foot there" etc etc).

To make a long story short: the Johns Hopkins institute team used their familiar epidemiology statistical methods in an entirely unapropriate and unscientific manner. Conflict zones are not epidemy-stricken areas, and proportional statistics applied there are simply bad science. And bad science is even worse when there are political axes to grind: towards the end of the report, the impartial epidemiologists talk about the Geneva Convention like versed lawyers. Lawyers they are not, demography specialists they are not, but political and scientifical hacks they are for sure.

Oh, one more to chew on: here's an enigmatic phrase in the report (and its keystone, actually): "We estimate that there were 98000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000)". [98.000 is the actual figure that gets rounded up nicely in the media to 100.000].
What about the "95% CI 8000-194.000" part? Again: there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Also, figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"95% CI 8000-194.000" is the figure that statistics and probabilistic calculus lead to, taking into argument the unsubstantiated death claims (of which, remember, only 6.37% are backed by solid evidence). What does "95% CI 8000-194.000" mean? "CI" means "confidence interval". "95% CI X-Y" means there's 95% chance that the result is between X and Y. "95% CI 8000-194.000" means that there's a 95% chance that the correct result is somewhere between 8.000 and 194.000
deaths. Between 8.000 and 194.000. So, because it's very nice to the ear, the Johns Hopkins researchers estimated that their figure of choice is 98.000 civilian dead.
Hell, even I could be more accurate (and provide remarkable figures too) - here's my own estimate, after searching the net and watching the news today: I reckon there were some 99,9999% CI 1-22.000.000 dead in Iraq since the intervention there. Why shouldn't I settle for 11.000.000? Because I see it in the news that there are still some alive iraqis there. Some seem dead alright, though. So, why bother with facts when off-the-hat estimates are so much more comfortable?

[later edit by valachus for clarity]

This post has been edited by valachus on January 13, 2005 11:12 pm

US Ends Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

Source: Voice of America


"The United States has ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, after a fruitless effort of more than a year and a half. Administration officials blame faulty intelligence for their mistaken view of Saddam Hussein's weapons program, and say the invasion that toppled his regime was justified on other grounds anyway.

Officials confirm the news first reported in Wednesday's Washington Post newspaper, that the search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq ended in December. The Post quotes members of the U.S. inspection team as saying they suspended their effort because they were not finding any new information, and because of the continuing danger of working in Iraq.

The head of the team, Charles Duelfer, issued an interim report to the U.S. Congress several months ago, in which he said Iraq possessed none of the dangerous weapons the Bush administration had claimed in justifying the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Other nations, including some major U.S. allies, disputed the U.S. claims and refused to join the coalition that invaded Iraq.

On Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed that the major work of Mr. Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group is done, and that no significant new information is expected in his final report, which is due next month.

"At this point, the members of the Iraq Survey Group who are still there in Iraq, obviously if they hear additional reports about anything, they will follow up on those reports,” he said. “But I think Charles Duelfer has made it pretty clear, and it is my understanding, that the comprehensive report he issued last year is essentially the completion of his work."

Mr. McClellan also said President Bush stands by his decision to invade Iraq, saying the removal of Saddam Hussein made the world a safer place, and is contributing to the U.S. effort to spread stability and democracy in the Middle East.

Officials say remaining members of the Iraq Survey Group are now mainly involved in efforts to fight the anti-U.S. insurgency, but are available to deal with weapons issues if any new information emerges. In addition, a team of translators and analysts based in Qatar is working its way through thousands of pages of documents and computer files confiscated from Iraq's former government in search of information on its activities. "

Iamandi

Quite logical.

Well, that must explain why they reach a figure in the lower spectrum of the Gauss curve. Unfortunately we are not WWI pilots seeking to confirm kills while looking for the Blue Max. Hard data is generally not available in such conditions and estimates must be made based on several parameters and correlations with similar events.

Anyway, the IBCP site gives this :

Min Max
15289 17503

Now any scientist will laugh at such data. 15289, uh right up to the unit ?
If you want to be considered seriously it's always better to avoid college grade fuckups.

I have yet to see a supporter of the Irak war acknowledge the results of the Lancet Report. It must be a psychological issue. It would be too horrible. It cannot be. Therefore it is not.

thsi is wishfulthinking at its worst. i expect the number to be twice as big actually...

Of course it's wishful thinking at its worst, wishing for the death of tens of thousands just so that a WMD wielding national-socialist tyranny can be reinstated in Iraq and you and your buddies can point a finger and laugh at the Great American Satan for its failed attempt to build democracy somewhere in the world!

Well, until that happy moment comes, here's a comparative example re the civilian casualties of war. World War II. *THE* Total War. Careful not to choke on it:

And if you have a minute to spare, let's do a bit of math: 100.000 divided by 600 days (roughly) since the beginning of events in Iraq equals 160. I'm sure you won't have trouble finding some internet link to a SINGLE news piece about the violent death of 160 people in a SINGLE day in Iraq, no?

I'll be looking forward to that.

Regards,

valachus