Iraqi Death Count

The Economist has a good article on the controversy around the recent study done by the Briths journal Lancet, which estimated close to 100,000 Iraqis had died so far in the war. Two Harvard professors support the cluster sampling method which the survey uses and while they caution against the number of samples taken, it's been accepted that this is the best that can be done in war-torn Iraq.

I had read some criticisms of the study online where they pointed to the fact Fallujah was included as one of the 33 clusters, and they dismissed the count saying that of course it was bound to be high if you included Fallujah. Either these criticisms were lazy readers or were dishonest, as the death estimate totals were calculated with Fallujah excluded, precisely because it is such a high casualty zone.

The article points out there are two other reasons why the survey results in higher numbers than most. One is that it includes insurgent deaths, which other reports (which tend to average about 12,000-15,000 Iraqi deaths) do not. Secondly, the survey attempts to account for deaths not caused directly by violence, but by other factors such as infant mortality or disease (caused due to lack of access to hospital/dangers in going outside) and accidents that seem to be related to the violence in some aspect. These are examples, both the demonstration of the destruction of infrascture of a country during wartime and the deaths that can result from other war-related factors, of the complexities of war, which can often get forgotten.

The survey estimates 60,000 people ahve been killed by violence directly, however the Lancet also thinks that total could be low, as deaths are reported using passive techniques, which in the past have shown a tendency to under-report death totals. Read the full article for an expansion on these points, quotes and so forth.