THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

you may want to read what CNN reported today .
i watched the CNN noonhour newscast where the number of 650,000 war deaths was announced .
john zogby (of zogby international , the pollster used by reuters news )was interviewed during the newscast and asked to give his opinion on the accuracy of the estimate .
he stated that he had reviewed the study method and its result and felt quite confident that the figure given was about 95% accurate . in his words , that's as close as any estimate can ever be .
he said that the sample size of 1,800 was actually higher than usual in doing such statistical work .
he also stated that earlier figures of about 50,000 iraqi war death were 'absolute nonsense ' .
the CNN report is well annotated and shows how the results were arrived at .
you may find the report quite interesting .
hbg


...IRAQI WAR DEATH AT 6000,000 PLUS...

Over half a million additional deaths in Iraq since US invasion

A new study by American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that there have been 665,000 excess deaths in Iraq since the U.S. invasion of 2003. This study, published in the Lancet, is the best scientific estimate of deaths attributable to the invasion. All other methods for estimating the number of deaths pale beside a population based study.

Instead of extrapolating the death toll from police reports or media coverage, Iraqi scientists fanned out over the country and asked Iraqis how many members of their households had died since 2003.

Public health scientist Cervantes explains the methodology behind the Lancet study. As he notes, the scientists observed standard protocols for investigating questions of this type:

So, the researchers set out to estimate deaths by means of a household survey using area probability sampling methods. This is a method used all the time in health surveys. It's a method I have used myself, in fact. To begin, you just need census data -- it actually doesn't even have to be highly accurate as long as any errors are essentially random, or unrelated to your study questions. Then, you pick geographic areas based on probability proportionate to the population they contain. This is usually done in stages. In the Iraq study, they first determined the number of clusters they would select in each province based on population size (Baghdad, with its population of over 6 million, got 12; Muthanna, with a population of 570,000, happened to get none.) Then, towns, blocks, and starting households were selected at random. For each household selected, the 39 nearest houses were also included. This survey had a total of 47 clusters, including 12,801 persons.

The researchers interiewed adult household members between May and June, 2006, to learn about births, deaths, and migration since January 1, 2002. They also asked people to report if an entire neighboring household had been wiped out, to account for households with no-one left to speak for them. They report that for 92% of reported deaths, the respondents were able to produce a death certificate. A substantial omission in the report, I must say, is the failure to state the response rate. The investigators also refer to procedures for substituting areas which were too unsafe to visit. They do not say how often this happened, but if anything, it would tend to bias the results downward.

To arrive at an estimate of total deaths for the country, they simply multiply the deaths in the study population by the appopriate weights for the number of people each cluster represents (i.e., the inverse of the probability that a person living in that province would have been selected). The clustering does not directly affect the estimates, but it does affect the so-called confidence interval. Since people living in a specific area are at greater or lesser risk of violent death than average, the statistical power of the study is less than it would be for a single stage probability sample of 12,801 persons, because of the possibility that the selection of clusters introduced sampling error. Although the manuscript does not discuss the specific calculations that were done to adjust for this, I am willing to give investigators from these institutions the benefit of the doubt that they did it correctly.

To recap: The investigators conducted interviews in 14 of Iraq's 16 districts. Regions were assigned interview sites (clusters) according to their populations. Households within each cluster were selected at random.

Why did the epidemiologists use the cluster technique instead of simply random sample. They did so because deaths rates might vary dramatically from one part of the country to another. If deaths occur in "pockets of violence," a completely random sample might miss some of these pockets, or accidentally oversample from the isolated violent areas. So, the researchers made an effort to take samples from as much of the country as possible. Having spread out as much as possible, they proceeded to pick participants at random.

In other words, the investigators made sure that they sampled all over the country (except to places too dangerous to visit) and they chose their subjects at random within those zones.

The investigators interviewed about 12,800 people out of a population of nearly 30 million. So, of course the 655,000 figure is an estimate. The fundamental question is whether one can meaningfully extrapolate excess death rates for the entire country based on a sample of 12,800. Based on the numbers they observed and the statistical limitations of their methods, the authors estimate that the true number of excess deaths would fall between 426,369 and 793,663 nineteen times out of twenty.

This study estimates the number of excess deaths since the invasion. The investigators compared the death rate shortly before the invasion to the death rate for the years following. The 665,000 is the number of deaths over and above what would have occurred if the pre-invasion death rate held steady over that three-year period.

Of course, there's every reason to believe that the vast majority of deaths go unrreported by the press. After all, most of the country is off-limits to journalists. The authorities who run the morgues keep journalists out, except by special invitation. Thousands of unidentified bodies are being pulled from the Tigris alone.

The the main critique of the study in the right wing blogosphere can be summarized as follows: But 665,000 is a lot!

The right wing Rick Moran shows off his math skills:

Someone is wildly off base here. Could it be the group that says that the US military has killed 180,000 Iraqis as a direct result of military actions?

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

The fact that those three percentages totalled up equal 101% isn't as ridiculous as 31% of deaths were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes. [Emphasis added]

The right wing blogosphere is already whining about how there's uncertainty in this estimate. Well of course there is! It doesn't change the fact that this is the best scientific estimate of the number of excess deaths in Iraq since the invasion. Rick Moran and his buddies are now praising Iraq Body Count to the skies. IBC uses media reports to estimate casualties. As admirable as this effort is, it's no substitute for going out and surveying people directly.

We can expect a bumper crop of straw men in the right wing blogosphere. Some wingnuts are complaining that the authors didn't differentiate between civilians, military personnel, and police. No, they didn't. But you see, they didn't claim to, either. The investigators just wanted to estimate how many Iraqis have died since the invasion and compare that number to what we would have expected to see if pre-invasion death rates had continued. I know it's hard for right wingers to wrap their heads around this but: all those dead people were people. Scientists don't keep separate sets of books for the "good guys" and the "bad guys."

Then there's the correlation/causation thing. The wingnuts will emphasize that just because the death rate shot up dramatically after the US invaded doesn't mean that the US invasion actually caused all those extra deaths. No, it doesn't. However, I'll be curious to see what alternative hypotheses they have for the soaring death rate after the invasion. Global warming? Bird flu? Sun spots?

Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon'
By TIM SHIPMAN

The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk catastophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.

In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt stated explicitly that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Sir Richard also warns that a "moral and spiritual vacuum" has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine "our accepted way of life."

The Chief of the General Staff believes that Christian values are under threat in Britain and that continuing to fight in Iraq will only make the situation worse.

His views will send shockwaves through Government.

They are a total repudiation of the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly insisted that British presence in Iraq is morally right and has had no effect on our domestic security.

Sir Richard, who took up his post earlier this year, warned that "our presence in Iraq exacerbates" the "difficulties we are facing around the world."

He lambasts Tony Blair's desire to forge a "liberal democracy" in Iraq as a "naive" failure and he warns that "whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance."

In one of the most outspoken interviews ever given by a serving soldier, Sir Richard also reveals:

* He was "outraged" by reports of injured soldiers recouperating in hospital alongside civilians being confronted by anti-war campaigners who told them to remove their uniforms.

* He gave Defence Secretary Des Browne a dressing down about the "unaccepatble" treatment of injured soldiers, warning him that the government was in danger of breaking the "covenant" between a nation and its Army and should not "let the Army down."

* He understands why Prince William and Prince Harry want to serve on the frontline but has not yet decided whether they will be allowed to fight in Afghanistan.

But it is Sir Richard's views of the situation in Iraq that will enrage Downing Street.

He says clearly we shoud "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

"We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear."

As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.

"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."

"That is a fact. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

In comments that set him at loggerheads with Mr Blair, Gen Dannatt warns that the good intentions of 2003 have long since evaporated - pitching British troops into a lethal battle that few at home can understand.

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he said.

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."

"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naive hope history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted that British troops must stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to take charge - a forlorn hope as the country has slipped to the brink of civil war.

Sir Richard warned that the consequences will be felt at home, where failure to support Christian values is allowing a predatory Islamist vision to take hold.

He said: "When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn't make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country."

"Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind."

"There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in."

"We can't wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life."

"We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it."

"It is said that we live in a post Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The broader Judaic-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British army."

General Dannatt says he has "more optimism" that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

But he condemned the treatment of injured British soldiers, who have been forced to share wards with civilians in Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.

Sir Richard said he confronted Mr Browne about the "covenant" between a nation and its armed forces.

"I said to the Secretary of State the army wont let the nation down but I don't want the nation to let the army down."

"It is not acceptable for our casualties to be in mixed wards with civilians. I was outraged at the story of someone saying 'take your uniform off'. Our people need the privacy of recovering in a military environment - a soldier manning a machine gun in Basra loses consciousness when he is hit by a missile and next recovers consciousness in a hospital in the UK."

"He wants to wake up to familiar sights and sounds, he wants to see people in uniform. He doesn't want to be in a civilian environment."

He added: "I am going to stand up for what is right for the army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth."

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "When I was in Iraq, soldiers told me the same thing."

"They said the reaction had gone from welcome, to consent to mere tolerance and they said that this meant we didn't have an indefinite licence to be there."

"To have one of our senior military figures speaking out on behalf of those under his commenad is a refreshing change."

"General Dannatt is completely right to say that it's a scandal ro have injured servicemen on mixed wards with civilians."

Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "This is the frankest assessment we have had about Iraq. It illustrates that the government has no clear strategy."

The party's defence spokesman Nick Harvey added: "This drives a coach and horses through the government's foreign policy."

McT, how serious is it to see charges such as this in Britain, in a major newspaper?

I have an idea of how serious they would be here, but ya never know with other countries.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn, it should be relatively easy for you to outline the tactics necessary to accomplish your international diplomacy plan.

...
I'll begin my next phase of this discussion with another question to you: Do you believe that killing innocents creates more insurgents and terrorists, or not?
Cycloptichorn

First, answer my question that I posted immediately preceding this one of yours. My answer to this question of yours may depend on your answer to my preceding question.

Cycloptichorn, it should be relatively easy for you to outline the tactics necessary to accomplish your plan. Why do you not do so?

Quote:

Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon'
By TIM SHIPMAN

The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk catastophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.

In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt stated explicitly that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq.
...

...
Cycloptichorn

What are the likely consequences for both Iraq and British society of not removing British troops from Iraq until the Iraq government asks the British government to remove its troops?

What are the likely consequences for both Iraq and American society of not removing American troops from Iraq until the Iraq government asks the American government to remove its troops?

Don't forget, you read it here first.