5 Comments »

1. The PMOS notes –

   "Our worries centred on the fact that the technique in question appeared to treat Iraq as if every area was one and the same."

   Interesting that no worry is expressed over the possibility that Blair’s war has cost 100,000 Iraqi civilians their lives.

   If Blair genuinely gave a damn about Iraqi corpses they’d have actually done a "detailed body count", or, at the very least, contacted the academics who produced the report and got clarification over their bogus quibbles about methodology. But he doesn’t give a damn.

   Blair and his gang should be sitting in a cell next to Saddam Hussein, for crimes committed against the Iraqi people.

   Comment by Ron F — 29 Oct 2004 on 8:05 pm | Link

2. "Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique rather than a detailed body count."

   This is accurate but misleading, since it is intended to call into question the figures estimated by Les Roberts et al. The paper — which you can read on the Lancet’s site, at
   <a href="http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf">http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf</a&gt;
   describes the full study. The researchers used a standard methodology which yields estimates with confidence ranges; the 100,000 deaths is correctly described as a conservative estimate. The authors excluded data from Fallujah from that figure because of difficulties collecting data in that area; if their estimates for Fallujah are included, the total rises to c. 300,000, though with wide confidence bounds.

   "Consequently, we did not believe that extrapolation was an appropriate technique to use."

   This is nonsense, and a shameful thing for the PMOS to say. Cluster sampling of this type is a standard technique (and one which is used by much of the government’s own research); the study considered 33 separate locations throughout Iraq, not concentrating on "areas such as Fallujah" as the PMOS implies, and — in the absence of a more detailed study — should be considered the best available information yet available on the casualties of the war.

   If Downing Street wants a more accurate figure, let’s see some funding for a bigger study. Up until then, "put up or shut up".

   There’s a wider point here, which is that the Allied forces in Iraq have explicitly refused to provide estimates of the numbers of casualties caused by the war. For the British government then to stand up and try — on completely spurious grounds — to rubbish the work of those who are doing so is absolutely disgraceful.

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 29 Oct 2004 on 8:17 pm | Link

3. Spot on Chris.

   Comment by Colonel Mad — 29 Oct 2004 on 11:11 pm | Link

4. Chris is absolutely right. The Fallujah point is disingenuous, as Fallujah was excluded, and in asking for a body count to compare deaths before and after the War, they are literally asking for the impossible.

   But the most telling point is that when asked: "if the Prime Minister was concerned about a survey published today suggesting that 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the war in Iraq" his concerns were with the methodology of the survey, rather than the deaths of the civilians.

   This is a shame, particularly in light of the forthcoming attack on Fallujah, given that the survey’s conclusion is that it "should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes". I’m not holding out any hope that those changes are going to happen.

   Comment by square peg — 30 Oct 2004 on 11:15 pm | Link

5. There are also the deaths that will occur in the future from the hundreds of tonnes of depleted uranium weapons that thve been dropped there and left to contaminate the people and land. To those who say that it poses no significant threat to life (live dubya), id ask would you and your children be perpared to live amongst it ?

   Comment by tony — 1 Nov 2004 on 6:27 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.