[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [SRRTAC-L:14880] RE: Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000 | New Scientist

[Alfred Kagan]

It only gets worse.

>From: "Rhonda Neugebauer" <rhondan at ucr.edu>
>To: SRRT Action Council <srrtac-l at ala.org>
>Subject: [SRRTAC-L:14880] RE: Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 
>100,000 | New Scientist
>Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:15:38 -0700
>Thread-Index: AcS9dNMsjki/pmg9SOiWnPRSCs9MswAbfRIQ
>Reply-To: srrtac-l at ala.org
>Sender: owner-srrtac-l at ala.org
>
>Dear SRRT/PLG:  I am glad that these figures are coming out.  On a recent
>flight to a conference, I sat next to a military office (who was reading a
>book about Cuba; that's what started us talking).
>
>He is a fighter pilot and he told me that the minimum number of Iraqi
>civilian deaths exceeds 500,000!
>
>What does that tell us?  That the US GOV/MILTARY DOES have some idea of how
>many people they've killed in Iraq.  It just so happens that it doesn't
>serve their narrow, oily interests to admit that their bombs are not
>surgical, their "routing" out of terrorists includes whole innocent
>families, and their "collateral damage" is too alarming to admit to
>publically!
>
>Rhonda
>
>***************************************************************
>Rhonda L. Neugebauer
>Interim Head, Collection Development Division
>Bibliographer, Latin American Studies
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-PLGNet-L at listproc.sjsu.edu
>[mailto:owner-PLGNet-L at listproc.sjsu.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Rosenzweig
>Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:25 PM
>To: plgnet-l at listproc.sjsu.edu; srrtac-l at ala.org
>Cc: alacoun at ala.org
>Subject: Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000 | New Scientist
>
>
>Dear Colleagues
>
>This horrendous figure comes from The Lancet, the premier medical
>journal in the U.K.
>
>It is many times higher than the count at
>http://www.iraqbodycount.net, which draws solely upon deaths reported
>in the news media.
>
>1100 Americans killed; 5000+ young Americans seriously maimed -- loss
>of arms, legs, hands (sometimes BOTH hands, as shown in Michael
>Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"), and poisoned by inhalation of Depleted
>Uranium from _American_ weapons.
>
>And, if there are 100,000 Iraqis dead from the war -- how many
>maimed? 500,000? How many poisoned by DU?
>
>All this to profit a few obscenely rich oil companies even more? To
>use as a threat against rival capitalists in China or Western Europe,
>who are dependent upon Middle East petroleum?
>
>The US invasion of Iraq is a crime of same kind, and equal magnitude,
>as Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939. And with even less
>'justification' -- for Poland and Germany had serious territorial
>disputes.
>
>Meanwhile, Iraq posed no threat to the US at all. Quite the opposite
>-- the US-sponsored blockade of Iraq from 1991-2003 left about
>1,000,000 Iraqis dead!
>
>The US invasion of Iraq is an immense crime.
>
><http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99996596>
>
>
>
>
>Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000
>
>    18:44 28 October 04   NewScientist.com news service
>
>The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to
>the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific
>study to examine the issue.
>
>The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally
>expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among
>women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on
>Thursday.
>
>The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence,
>mostly caused by coalition air strikes, reveals the study of almost
>1000 households scattered across Iraq. And the risk of violent death
>just after the invasion was 58 times greater than before the war. The
>overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than
>before.
>
>The figure of 100,000 is based on "conservative assumptions", notes
>Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,
>Baltimore, US, who led the study.
>
>That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data
>from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess
>deaths since the outbreak of war.
>
>
>Public health
>
>"These findings raise questions for those far removed from Iraq - in
>the governments of the countries responsible for launching a
>pre-emptive war," writes Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet in
>a commentary accompanying the paper.
>
>"In planning this war, the coalition forces - especially those of the
>US and UK - must have considered the likely effects of their actions
>for civilians," he writes.
>
>He argues that, from a public health perspective, whatever "planning
>did take place was grievously in error".
>
>"The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and the
>attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves,
>been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian
>population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not
>fewer," he asserts.
>
>He also praises the "courageous team of scientists" for their
>efforts, and notes the study's limitations.
>
>
>GPS sampling
>
>The team of US and Iraqi scientists recorded mortality during the 15
>months before the invasion and the 18 months afterwards. They carried
>out the survey of 988 Iraqi households in 33 different areas across
>Iraq in September 2004.
>
>Using a GPS (global positioning system) unit, the interviewers
>randomly selected towns within governates. They then visited the
>nearest 30 houses to the GPS point randomly selected.
>
>Families living under one roof were asked about deaths in their
>household before and after the war. "Confirmation was sought to
>ensure that a large fraction of the reported deaths were not
>fabrications," write the team. The interviewers did ask for death
>certificates, but only in two cases for each cluster of houses. This
>was because of concerns that implying the families were lying could
>trigger violence.
>
>But the team believes that lying about deaths is unlikely and, if
>anything, "it is possible that deaths were not reported" because
>families might want to conceal them.
>
>Horton acknowledges the potential for recall bias among those
>interviewed and also the relatively small sample size. "The research
>was completed under the most testing of circumstances - an ongoing
>war. And therefore certain limitations were inevitable and need to be
>acknowledged right away," he says.
>
>But he also calls for an "urgent political and military response".
>
>Journal reference: The Lancet (early online publication)
>
>
>
>Shaoni Bhattacharya


-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu