Psyche, Science, and Society

Los Angeles Times estimates Iraqi dead at 50,000

June 25th, 2006

The Los Angeles Times has a new study estimating Iraqi deaths at 50,000, but also acknowledge the existence of a serious undercount. [War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000] Unlike Iraq Body Count, which goes to great lengths to distract attention from the gaps in its coverage, the LS Times article emphasizes the weaknesses in its estimates and makes it clear that many more have died:

”At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies — a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since.”

Perhaps most importantly, the article reports that casualties in Al Anbar province are not reported accurately, due to the extent of the fighting there:

“Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west. Health workers there are unable to compile the data because of violence, security crackdowns, electrical shortages and failing telephone networks.

The Health Ministry acknowledged the undercount.”

The article provides further evidence of undercounting in official statistics:

”The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from “military clashes” and “terrorist attacks” from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137.

However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion.”

The article cites Iraq Body Count figures. It is a clear statement of how carefully IBC hides the nature of its figures that even an article as nuanced as this one, citing the weaknesses in its figures, is evidently unaware that IBC figures are also serious underestimates:

”Iraqi Body Count estimates that 38,475 to 42,889 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion. The estimate does not include deaths among the Iraqi security forces.”

Compare this article’s calling attention to the limits in its data to IBC’s disguise of similar weaknesses in its March 19th Press Release:

”Figures released by IBC today, updated by statistics for the year 2005 from the main Baghdad morgue, show that the total number of civilians reported killed has risen year-on-year since May 1st 2003 (the date that President Bush announced “major combat operations have ended”):
• 6,331 from 1st May 2003 to the first anniversary of the invasion, 19th March 2004 (324 days: Year 1)
• 11,312 from 20th March 2004 to 19th March 2005 (365 days: Year 2)
• 12,617 from 20th March 2005 to 1st March 2006 (346 days: Year 3).
In terms of average violent deaths per day this represents:
• 20 per day in Year 1
• 31 per day in Year 2 and
• 36 per day in Year 3.”

To be fair, IBC does detail weaknesses, but these weaknesses are all a matter of the databse not being quite up-to-date:

”The IBC figure for Year 3 includes no deaths from March 2006, excludes the bulk of killings which followed the 22nd February bombing of a major Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, and lacks Baghdad morgue data for January and February this year. If January and February 2006 are excluded as being clearly incomplete, then the daily death rate for the remaining part of Year 3 rises to 40 (11,480 deaths over 287 days = 40 per day). However even before Year 3 has ended, and with incomplete data for its final months, the number of civilians reported killed is already higher than for all of Year 2 (12,617 vs. 11,312).”

While IBC does say elsewhere on its site that these figures are based only on reported deaths, and that “it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media”, they neglect to put this caveat in their Press Release. Why?

Also, compare the LA Times’s detailing of the limits and biases of official counts, including the impossibility of getting a good count in Al Anbar, where the “insurgency” is centered and where a large fraction of counter-insurgency attacks have occurred, with IBC’s dealing with the issue of limitations in their database:

”A third source of bias is the potential lack of ability of news to be collected and to travel. This will be dependent on the level of development of a country, its infrastructure (roads, telephone lines) and its institutions that are official depositories of information (e.g., hospitals, police stations, morgues). The fact that most relatives are able to produce death certificates is a signal of a country peopled with officialdom and bureacracy. Iraq is quite similar in this respect to how Greece or Portugal might have been 20 years ago. It should not be compared to Afghanistan or the DRC.”

Somehow, the war has just disappeared as a factor influencing the accuracy of their data . [To be fair, the war is mentioned in at least one place on their web site – “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.” – with no discussion as to how war limits the accuracy of data.]

Unfortunately, neither IBC nor the LA Times deal with the issue of potential deliberate bias, when the government collecting the figures is a party to a civil war. Ther have been several accounts since the occupation began of United States and “Iraqi government” officials ordering the counting of civilian casualties to stop. The United States took the extraordinary and illegal step of occupying the main hospital in Fallujah, and of barring press access to the city for many weeks after its destruction in November, 2004. Presumably, one reason for these actions was to hide the extent of civilian deaths.

Further, the fact that mortality estimates come from government sources raises questions as to the accuracy of attributed causes. After all, attributing deaths to “terrorist attacks” is more acceptable to the powers-that-be than is attributing tem to “American forces” or to pro-government militias and death squads. Thus, without strong confirmatory evidence, we should be suspicious of claims, such as the LA Times statement that, among the 39% of reported deaths from Health Ministry:

”Almost 75% of those who died violently were killed in “terrorist acts,” typically bombings, the records show. The other 25% were killed in what were classified as military clashes. A health official described the victims as “innocent bystanders,” many shot by Iraqi or American troops, in crossfire or accidentally at checkpoints.”

Entry Filed under: Iraq, Social Issues, War and Peace