Progress Being Made in Iraq (NY Times)

bethievt · August 14, 2007, 6:41am

I agree with mini. Bad foreign policy is generally what has characterized the US government, under the banner of any party. Sadly, many of our best potential candidates for office can’t stomach our political system.

citygirlsmom · August 14, 2007, 12:43pm

ff, interesting that you find the Iraq #s exagerrated as to civilian death, where you get your numbers from, the military, yeah, the same ones who lied about vietnam for years and years

the same ones who can’t find billions of dollars, weapons, our own weapons,

yeah, that is one honest group there presenting the numbers Bush wants us to see

the GAO etc talks about poor accounting, etc and you trust the army numbers on how many civilians they killed?

they aren’t even honest about American deaths and injuries, etc, by skewing in how they cound both

it is almost laughable to believe the Bush numbers

fundingfather · August 14, 2007, 1:01pm

Now, now CGM, take a deep breath and stop frothing. No, I don’t get my numbers from the military. In fact I don’t have any numbers at all other than the view of NY Times reporter John Burns who, if he says that 700,000 is exagerated, would certainly say that mini’s estimates are a bit outlandish. But, I’m sure mini includes the “Clinton genocide” in his numbers. Are you prepared to support his view on that as well?

Question:
Now you’ve reported some very tough places, Sarajevo, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and after the liberation from the Taliban, and you’ve won Pulitzers for that. When you say cataclysmic civil war, what do you mean in terms of what you’ve seen before? What kind of violence do you imagine would break out after precipitous withdrawal?

John Burns:
Well, let’s look at what’s happened already as a benchmark. Nobody really knows how many people have died here, but I would guess that in terms of the civilian population, it’s probably not less than 100-150,000, and it could be higher than that. I don’t think it’s as high as the 700,000 that some estimates have suggested, but I think it’s, and I know for a fact, that the sort of figures that were being discussed amongst senior American officials here, as a potential, should there be an early withdrawal and a progress to an all-out civil war, they’re talking about the possibility of as many as a million Iraqis dying. Now of course, that is suppositional. It’s entirely hypothetical. How could we possibly know? But I think you couldn’t rule out that possibility.

BedHead · August 14, 2007, 2:42pm

FF: Since you are so fond of quoting Burns:

“And it leads me now to the conclusion that this probably was a mission impossible from the start because of the fissured society and because of the deeply wounded psyche of that society. They had been bludgeoned, mercilessly bludgeoned, for – we say 24 years of Saddam Hussein, but under the Baath Party for 30 years. And this was not a normal place the United States stepped into it in 2003 and it was certainly not for that reason, as well as many others, fertile ground in which to implant Western democratic ideals.”

Chadwick: "If you view the mission in Iraq as doomed from the beginning because of the society that Iraq has become; what do you see now for a possibility for Iraq and for the American presence there?

Burns: "I’ve been pondering this a lot as I prepare to leave here. And I think I can say that I have in common with many of my Western colleagues here a reluctance to conclude that this is completely lost. And that is partly something, if you will, a cry from the heart. The head tells us that this situation is close to, if not irretrievable, the heart tells us that once America makes that judgment and inevitably, if it does, decides to come home, the trauma of the Iraqi people is going to become very much worse.

“It’s in the face of that that we find it so hard to believe that there is no salvation here. We have been hopeful. The alternative to some kind of limited success here is so ghastly that it’s very hard to give up on the idea that there might be – even now there might be a turning of the tide, improbable as it seems.”

FF: Do you think that it’s fair to ask American soldiers to endure the most extended warzone deployments for the sake of a “cry from the heart”? I have no doubt that a lot of bloodshed could well follow our exit. But the situation is essentially irretrievable. It’s time for cool heads to prevail and realize the fact that the incredible blunder was going into Iraq in the first place. Delaying the inevitable does not change the inevitable; Iraq will falter, and many people will die – or it’s possible that not as many people will die as some think.

Many people have already died, in fact:

For this kind of an estimate, you certainly don’t want to believe any one reporter who has done a “put the finger to the wind” or maybe a “pull it out my posterior” analysis. The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health did a very thorough study based on the principles of identifying health trends/failures in other contexts. The numbers, as indicated here for 2006, speak for themselves. And Burns claims to not know how many died, but seems pretty certain it’s not as high as others have suggested. At that same time, he gives a lot of credence in his statements to “American officials” who think the losses of civilians will be so great in case we leave. He is really putting himself in a position of great authority with respect to many of these questions without actually providing insight into what guided his thinking…

October 11, 2006

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods

As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion.

The estimates were derived from a nationwide household survey of 1,849 households throughout Iraq conducted between May and July 2006. The results are consistent with the findings of an October 2004 study of Iraq mortality conducted by the Hopkins researchers. Also, the findings closely reflect the increased mortality trends reported by other organizations that utilized passive methods of counting mortality, such as counting bodies in morgues or deaths reported by the news media. The study is published in the October 14, 2006, edition of the peer-reviewed scientific journal, The Lancet.

“As we found with our previous survey, the majority of deaths in Iraq are due to violence—although we also saw a small increase in deaths from non-violent causes, such as heart disease, cancer and chronic illness. Gunshots were the primary cause of violent deaths. To put these numbers in context, deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003,” said Gilbert Burnham, MD, PhD, lead author of the study and co-director of the Bloomberg School’s Center for Refugee and Disaster Response. “Our total estimate is much higher than other mortality estimates because we used a population-based, active method for collecting mortality information rather than passive methods that depend on counting bodies or tabulated media reports of violent deaths. Though the numbers differ, the trend in increasing numbers of deaths closely follows that measured by the U.S. Defense Department and the Iraq Body Count group.”

Key points of the study include:

• Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006

• Majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) caused by violence

• Males aged 15-44 years accounted for 59 percent of post-invasion violent deaths

• About half of the households surveyed were uncertain who was responsible for the death of a household member

• The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition

• Mortality data from the 2006 study reaffirms 2004 estimates by Hopkins researchers and mirrors upward trends measured by other organizations

• Researchers recommend establishment of an international body to calculate mortality and monitor health of people living in all regions affected by conflict

The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions. For the Iraq study, data were collected from 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. At each household selected, trained Iraqi surveyors collected data on the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006. To be considered a household member, the deceased had to have lived in the home at least three months prior to death. When interviewers asked to see a death certificate at households reporting a death, it was presented in 92 percent of instances. The survey recorded 1,474 births and 629 deaths among 12,801 people surveyed. The data were then applied to the 26.1 million Iraqis living in the survey area.

While the survey collected information on the manner of death, the study did not examine the circumstances of the death, such as whether the deceased was actively involved in armed combat, terrorism, criminal activity or caught in the middle of the conflict. The study outlines other limitations of the survey method, including the hazards of collecting data during a conflict.

The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group’s October 2004 mortality survey. The earlier study, also published in The Lancet, estimated over 100,000 additional deaths from all causes had occurred in Iraq from March 2003 to August 2004. When data from the new study were examined, it estimated 112,000 deaths for the same time period of the 2004 study. The new survey also found that the number of deaths attributed to coalition forces had declined in 2006, though overall households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition. Responsibility could not be attributed in 45 percent of the violent deaths.

According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003. This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraqi’s population having died as a consequence of the war. To put the 654,000 deaths in context with other conflicts, the authors note that during the Vietnam War an estimated 3 million civilians died overall; the Congo conflict was responsible for 3.8 million deaths; and recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur over the past 31 months.

binvolio · August 14, 2007, 2:57pm

BTW, the Iraqi Government is crumbling, which is to expected as it always was an American construct grafted on to a political culture and social history which few American technocrats made much attempt to understand.

fundingfather · August 14, 2007, 3:24pm

Cooler heads would heed Burn’s comment:

The ghastly results that he is talking about is not “just” Iraqi deaths. He is also talking about the Middle East erupting into a regional war that will profoundly impact the entire world. So, yes, in the face of such possible ramifications, you don’t give up when hope still exists - especially when positive results are being witnessed and reported by numerous independent observers.

Check out this view from a German reporter who, if you read his report, is by far no friend of George Bush:

Since the offensive began, day after day, night after night, along the length and breadth of the country, US troops have hunted down bombers and rocket-builders. They’ve tracked al-Qaida operatives and members of violent insurgency groups with names like Ansar al-Sunna, Jaish al-Mahdi and the Islamic State of Iraq. The campaign has been moderately successful, too. In January, Petraeus said, “The situation is not satisfactory.” That he can now add, “it gives rise to hope” is, indeed, progress.

In many cities and villages in Iraq’s 18 provinces, terrorist networks are either weaker or have been destroyed entirely. The number of attacks is declining, as is the number of racially or religiously motivated killings. In January, death squads executed, murdered or tortured 1,800 Iraqis to death, merely because they were Sunnis or Shiites or Christians. Indeed, religious hatred was the cause of dozens of deaths every day.

In June, 600 people were killed for the same reasons – a number that is still atrocious, unacceptable and horrific – but at least it represents a decline. And while these numbers are still disappointing, they do give reason for hope.

Earlier this year, thousands of attacks occurred every week, and hundreds died daily. It seemed that terror reigned supreme, that its resources were inexhaustible. But now the trend appears to be reversing itself. Terror is weakening, and its leaders, most recently al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are issuing dramatic appeals to radical communities not to give up the fight. This is a good sign. “They are no longer on schedule,” Petraeus says. “They have a problem.”

One is that Iraq has come a long way in developing its own security forces. There are now 194,000 police officers in uniform, and the Iraqi army has 154,000 newly recruited soldiers. These organizations are still not as fully functional as they should be, and there have been many reports of corruption and religious activities, but there’s been a noticeable shift nonetheless. In the past few weeks, the Americans were not the only ones capturing and killing terrorists. The Iraqis have also been successful. The local police forces, for example, regularly obtain information directly from the population that leads them to the terrorists’ weapons caches, training camps and bomb factories.

Something is happening in Iraq that is consistently concealed behind images of bombings. The situation that the White House and its deceptive advisors had erroneously predicted before their invasion – that the troops would be greeted with candy and flowers – could in fact still come true. That’s already the case in many places. It’s as if the terrorists have lost popular support, as if their acts of violence have driven the Iraqi people into the arms of the enemy, the Americans.

But there is little talk of these developments outside of Iraq. The world continues to debate the Bush administration’s lies, which hang over the entire operation like a curse, concealing its successes. The lies are legend, and they continue to color the picture the world paints of Iraq.

<hr>

Those who believe that a speedy withdrawal of US troops would result in the problem capable of resolving itself are deeply mistaken. Though this premise might have rang true in late 2003 or early 2004, when terrorism had not yet stirred up the infernal forces of religious hatred, the situation today is different.

In the Iraq of 2007, that is, in its capital Baghdad, the respective factions in a future civil war are forming along religious lines, and so far only the Americans have been able to prevent it from happening. If the forces in Washington that are demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq prevail, the country will descend into full-fledged civil war, complete with reports of horrific religious cleansing operations, large-scale massacres arising from the blind fury of fanaticism and acts of revenge against anyone who has ever dared to cooperate with the Americans.

<a href=“http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html[/url]”>http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html</a>

BedHead · August 14, 2007, 4:24pm

^^^^

I’ll take the above response as a concession on the issue of the numbers of lives lost. A study from JHU is a heck of a lot more trustworthy than one man’s estimate based on being mostly in one city in a place the size of, what do they say, California?

And regarding the other point, I’ll respond later more fully. But remember: democracy promises to reward the majority Shi’ites spectacularly. Since they’ve already started religious cleansing of the Sunnis – and vice versa – the question of us as liberators will be largely irrelevant.

fundingfather · August 14, 2007, 6:28pm

“I’ll take the above response as a concession on the issue of the numbers of lives lost. A study from JHU is a heck of a lot more trustworthy than one man’s estimate based on being mostly in one city in a place the size of, what do they say, California?”

Concession? Please go back and read my posts - I never said that I knew the correct number. I only said that mini’s numbers were extremely excessive as both John Burns and the study that you reported would concur. From Burns’ perspective, the Johns Hopkins numbers are exaggerated. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong. But both agree that mini’s numbers are wrong.

However, here’s someone else who not only disagrees with the Hopkins numbers but claims that their use of the methodology was significantly flawed:

The group–associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health–employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in “clusters” within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible. 

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey,” the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn’t survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points. 

<hr>

What happens when you don’t use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP’s survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths–four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

<hr>

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census. 

Dr. Roberts said that his team’s surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don’t take my word for it–try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108</a>

Sounds to me like the study from JHU may not have been worth the paper that it was printed on.

However, whether there were 150,000 deaths or 700,000, the important message is that there is a general consensus that this will be just the tip of the iceberg. Those who advocate for an early withdrawal are signing the death warrant for many more than the number who have already died.

Allmusic · August 14, 2007, 6:36pm

FF, how do you propose we deal with the redeployment issues? Our troops are tired, worn out, physically and psychologically. How might we keep up this current level of troop involvement, for many years, with the current strain in the military?

This cannot go on indefinitely. The American people have spoken. They don’t want to sacrifice more of their children for this charade. The military is overextended, and things are getting worse, not better.

Eventually, because we don’t have enough soldiers to deploy, and because the political capital is spent, the troops will be withdrawn (with the exception of those there guarding our permanent bases ;)). It’s just a matter of time.

BedHead · August 14, 2007, 6:52pm

Now that’s intellectually dishonest to claim above that you depend on numbers of someone who doesn’t appear to apply any methodology other than “I think,” but now that that’s brought into question, you say it doesn’t really matter. Cheap.

I am not certain about the Johns Hopkins cluster analyses, but I am certain that the methodology is open to examination. I am also aware that a lot of energy went in to casting what the team did in a lot of doubt because people didn’t like its conclusions.

But that’s ultimately beside the point because you come around to agreeing that it could be as many as 700,000. I would argue, given the numbers of educated Iraqis that have fled, the long-term effects on the country will be measured in the millions of death of non-combatants and people who can’t sustain themselves in the devastated Iraqi economy. Add in mini’s “Clinton genocide” numbers and you’ve got a whopper.

I think it’s really funny that you are quoting John Burns and this Der Spiegel reporter both of whom say that this administration clearly lied its way into this war – and a war which Burns concludes is aimed at pursuing an impossible mission. You are now saying that because of the death of Iraqis and conflagration that would follow – though there is a lot that’s already come over the transom – we shouldn’t leave.

Burns effectively says that it’s obvious the mission is irretrievable.

Do you have no respect for our American troops?

How, indeed, do you ask a man (or woman) to be the last to die for a mistake, for a failure?

mini · August 14, 2007, 6:52pm

“But both agree that mini’s numbers are wrong.”

Actually, virtually everyone agrees that the numbers regarding the Clinton genocide are correct. The only question about them is how many of the children were under age 5 (some say as few as 400,000).

As for the deaths under Bush, as noted, I think they still pale in significance to the Clinton genocide, and I’d further caveat them that not all are directly related to the hostile, aggressive occupation. The flipside, however, is that the basis for the JHU is more than three years old. We know that more than 70% of the two million refugees created are post March 2004; it is likely (but undocumented) that deaths since 2004, with infrastructure, hospitals, electricity disappearing rapidly within some areas, and violence increasing, the death rate has soared similarly. This is what the revised Bloomberg numbers suggest.

But numbers are numbers. The combined Clinton/Bush death toll is somewhere between 1,200,000 and 1,700,000 (including 500,000-700,000 children), with two million refugees and rising. Normalize that to the U.S. population - 15-20 million dead, 40 million refugees.

conyat · August 14, 2007, 6:53pm

All the more reason to make sure none of the Bush clones gets elected. We simply cannot afford another “cakewalk” like this.

But my question, FF, how far are you willing to go to try to undo the mess created by the neoconservatives in the White House and the AEI? Are you willing to keep escalating, escalating, escalating, till the US is bankrupt and so stretched militarily that Andorra could take us?

I understand you feel a moral imperative to try to make it up to the Iraqis for the awful decisions that we made on their behalf–but does conscience dictate that we do so at the cost of our own sovereignity?

We simply cannot wage a campaign like this for 40 or 50 years, no matter how badly some might want to. The USSR learned that a long time ago. Something’s got to give.

mini · August 14, 2007, 6:56pm

Fundingfather - I wish the Administration cared for the Iraqi people as much as you do - and I don’t mean that sarcastically. I just don’t see any evidence of it.

conyat · August 14, 2007, 6:59pm

They’d be counting the bodies instead of rounding to the nearest thousand per month or so. And they certainly wouldn’t have called for a surge: escalating the war the way they did makes the situation after we leave even more perilous.

fundingfather · August 14, 2007, 7:02pm

Allmusic,
I agree that it can’t go on indefinitely, but by all accounts it can be maintained until spring '08. And then, it’s not as if we must then withdraw all of our troops - just that current levels would strain our forces if we go beyond that. The positive news (if you care to look at positive news) is that the Iraqi forces are actually starting to be effective. They pretty much are in total control of Mosul which used to be an insurgent hotbed. Our forces there have been dramatically reduced. This means that perhaps we will have bought them enough time to start to stand on their own as we begin to phase out. We’ll see.

As far as “the people have spoken” - how have they spoken? In the 2006 elections, the place where the war was most prominent - Connecticut, pro-war Joe Lieberman defeated his avidly anti-war opponent with the support of the complete national anti-war movement including all of the Hollywood heavyweights. Elsewhere, other issues dominated. Were it not for Macaca, Virginia would have stayed in the R column. Were it not for problems in Ohio with the Republican Governor, Ohio may well still be Republican. In Missouri it was stem cell research and the flap over Michael Fox. Certainly the war was an issue and it did cost the Republicans some elections, but it was not the only issue, nor could it be interpreted as a mandate.

If you mean the people have spoken by means of the polls, please note that not even a majority of Democrats advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. So, as lonely as you like to portray those who still support the war, those who advocate an immediate withdrawal are an even smaller group.

mini · August 14, 2007, 7:08pm

I think FF is correct - we will see. The Dems are a bunch of moral cowards, and I expect they will continue funding the hostile, aggressive occupation of Iraq well into the next decade.

conyat · August 14, 2007, 7:22pm

Overall, Iraqi Army readiness is down, by the Pentagon’s own statements. The surge has weakened the ability of the Iraqis to secure their country.

And the news from Mosul isn’t nearly as “good” as one would think:

Allmusic · August 14, 2007, 7:23pm

Oh, I think the Dems are moral cowards as well. They pander as well as their Republican counterparts.

As far as the Iraqi taking control, I think you are a tad optimistic, FF. It is still unclear which side the man in the Iraqi uniform is on. As long as there continues to be this level of sectarian strife, I don’t think you can be celebrating the Iraqi victory over their own insurgents.

Any way you look at it, I also think we will continue an aggressive occupation for the next decade.

fundingfather · August 14, 2007, 7:24pm

Talk about intellectually dishonest … if I had quoted someone who was a Bush supporter you would have dismissed it as nothing but blabber from a Republican idealogue. If I quote someone who clearly does not support Bush, you question why I quote them as well. That should be a sign to you that you don’t exactly have an open mind on this issue.

Also, perhaps you can show me where John Burns said that Bush lied. Plus, he does not say that the “war is lost” as Harry Reid was so quick to exclaim.

I have plenty of respect for the troops. I question your respect for them, however. Every single one of them volunteered after this war was started, so they all knew what they were doing when they volunteered. Many have gone to Iraq and then re-upped to see this through. They are the ones who have invested with their blood and are the ones who see firsthand the positive effects of their efforts.

Yet, it is people who claim to have the soldiers best interest at heart and who are not there who are insisting that they come home. Can you imagine if you have been there multiple times and seen friends killed and perhaps been wounded yourself and, just when the thing that you have been working for for years start to shows signs of improvement, you get pulled out by people with a political agenda and all of your efforts go down the drain.

conyat · August 14, 2007, 7:28pm

Absolutely utterly not true. Some of the people who have been re-activated to fight in Iraq first joined the military during Vietnam!

Respect for the troops requires acknowledging the fact that many, many had left the military years ago and were called back to occupy Iraq–whether they thought it was the right thing to do or not, they had to go.

An enlisted person is eligible for recall for something like 8 years after leaving the service–and once re-called must stay in until released. An officer can be re-activated for up to 20 years after leaving the military unless the commission is resigned.

Please don’t base your assessment of the war on this kind of misinformation.

Progress Being Made in Iraq (NY Times)

CONNECT WITH US