The Liberal Avenger
Some people think that it’s best to just ignore the unpleasant stuff
A study (link) published in Lancet, arguably the most prestigious medical journal in the world, estimates that the Iraq war has caused 655,000 Iraqi deaths. Of course, reports of the study touched off a panic among right-wing bloggers, who have rushed to dismiss the study. Before examining these attempts, though, I’d like to point out a couple of things, and ask a couple of questions:
** With the publication of this story, the last justification for the war in Iraq evaporated. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no ties to al-Qaeda. The breakup of Iraq that we’ve fought 3 1/2 years to stave off is now imminent. And now we find that we have not saved the Iraqis from mass murder at the hands of a dictator, but instead have brought chaos and death on an apocalyptic scale.
** Hussein has been charged with killing 50,000 Kurds, and has been charged with genocide in connection with those killings. If the Lancet study was off by a factor of 5, the number of Iraqi civilian deaths would still exceed the number that are attributed to Hussein during his entire 24 year reign. (NOTE: Many credible sources put the death toll of Hussein’s Anfal Campaign at over 100,000, not 50,000. However, no credible source puts the total at over 200,000)
** This is just the beginning. There is no end in sight for this nightmare.
** This is only the toll on the Iraqi civilian population. Americans are also paying a price, albeit on an entirely different scale. 2,754 of our soldiers have been killed, and 1 in 4 (HT: Blondesense) of the returning veterans have filed for disability. For what? A fragmented Iraq? An escalation of global terrorism?
** What is the number of Iraqi civilian deaths that the wingnuts would consider acceptable? Would the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi civilians be justifiable? What about 100,000? If Saddam Hussein is to be executed for killing 50,000 Kurds, can we justify the killing of 50,000 Iraqis?
** If 655,000 Iraqis have been killed, is that justifiable? Which of the wingnuts is willing to come forward and say, “Even if the number is 655,000, that number would be justified.” Given the fact that the violence in Iraq is escalating, shouldn’t we decide whether or not 1 million civilian deaths would be justified before we press on in Iraq?
** Given the evaporation of our justifications for entering Iraq, and the fact that the situation is worsening despite our presence, how can we justify any action other than withdrawl?
***
As for the wingnut “debunkings”, it might be instructive to see what we can anticipate, given past experience:
A Newer World lists 5 wingnut talking points that we can expect, and dubunked them:
1. Right-Wing MythThis study is a pseudo-scientific hit piece because it uses a methodology that expert
statisticiansright-wing bloggers think is bogus.FactRonald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method tried and true, and added that this is the best estimate of mortality we have.
2. Right-Wing MythLancet is a liberal groupa left wing think tankintent on smearing America.
FactThe Lancet first appeared on Oct 5, 1823. From the beginning, Wakleys aim was to entertain, instruct, and reform. Instruction came in the form of transcribed medical lectures from the London teaching establishment; entertainment in the early days of the journal came in the form of theatre reviews and piquant political comment. The Lancet has been, first and foremost, a reformist medical newspaper. Thomas Wakley and his successors aimed to combine publication of the best medical science in the world with a zeal to counter the forces that undermine the values of medicine, be they political, social, or commercial.
The journal was, and remains, independent, without affiliation to a medical or scientific organisation. More than 180 years later, The Lancet is an independent and authoritative voice in global medicine. We seek to publish high-quality clinical trials that will alter medical practice; our commitment to international health ensures that research and analysis from all regions of the world is widely covered.
3. Right-Wing MythThis study is highly dubious because these researchers produced a study in 2004 that some people think was also highly dubious.
FactApplication of the mortality rates reported here to the period of the 2004 survey8 gives an estimate of 112 000 (69 000155 000) excess deaths in Iraq in that period. Thus, the data presented here validates our 2004 study, which conservatively estimated an excess mortality of nearly 100 000 as of September, 2004.
4. Right-Wing MythThe study is meaningless because it has a huge margin of error.
FactThe margin of error is indeed large. For all deaths the range is between 392,979 and 942,636 and for death by violence it is between 426,369 and 793,663. But in fact theres only about a 2% chance that the true figure is either half or double the reported figure. This is statistics. It provides the best possible estimate. Nothing more. Nothing less. Would there be no controversy if only 400,000 people had died as a result of the invasion?
5. Right-Wing MythThis study is Absolute Bull. Its hackery This is utter and complete crap. Period. No thinking person can possibly believe these numbers. Why, you ask? BECAUSE IGAIUS OF BLUE CRAB BOULEVARDSAY SO!
FactIn Iraq, as with other conflicts, civilians bear the consequences of warfare. In the Vietnam war, 3 million civilians died; in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, conflict has been responsible for 3·8 million deaths; and an estimated 200 000 of a total population of 800 000 died in conflict in East Timor.3335 Recent estimates are that 200 000 people have died in Darfur over the past 31 months.36 We estimate that almost 655 000 people 2·5% of the population in the study areahave died in Iraq.
Those myths have already proliferated across the right-wing echo chamber, and I have noticed a couple of others:
6. “This study’s conclusions can’t possibly be true, because the number of deaths is too high.”
This is the argument regularly made by Holocaust deniers. Among others, Allahpundit and Bob Owens have tried this one. They’re asking for 500,000 death certificates. Sure. As soon as they produce 5 million death certificates for Jews murdered in Europe during WWII.
Owens’ use of this argument is particularly egregious; in his article he refers to the fact that researchers asked for death certificates 87% of the time, and the certificates were produced in 90% of these cases.
7. “The study must be inaccurate, because it is politically motivated.”
Uncle Jimbo pulled this one from his colon over at Black Five:
The same folks who brought us outrageously inflated claims about the number of Iraqis killed in our initial invasion have, shockingly, now brought us outrageously inflated claims about the number killed in the two years since. And somehow the timing just happened to be the month before elections.
So, if the study had been published 6 months ago, Uncle Jimbo would have immediately howled in outrage over the fact that an unnecessary war had killed 655,000 people, right? If the study had been held until after the election, he would be saying that the timing proved that researchers were not politically motivated, correct?
In reality, wingnuts always say that bad news is reported by biased journalists, no matter when it’s published. They’ve been telling us for 3 1/2 years that the left-wing media (which appears to control the entire worldwide media apparatus, except Fox News, a few blogs, and some American radio talkers) has been covering up the amazing progress that’s being made in Iraq. That’s 3 1/2 years of steady progress toward victory over a foe that was virtually defenseless when we attacked. I think it’s about time that the wingnuts started to admit that not all of the reporting that they don’t like is inaccurate.
So far, I’ve found a lot of right-wing attacks on the study, but they’ve all been variations of one of these 7 debunked arguements. I wanted to group them by category type, but that’s not practical since so many of the attacks use multiple arguments. If anyone can spot a valid attack that doesn’t fall within these 7 categories, please let me know:
Some have yet to weigh in, but I’ll be very surprised to see any variation from the 7 categories of attack. Captain Ed has yet to weigh in, and Michelle Malkin promises an article soon. Manshake decided to outsource the job.
I don’t expect very many people to have the time to sort through all of those links in an attempt to find a new argument, but I do ask both of my readers to each click on a couple of them, and see if any of them are using an argument against the study that hasn’t already been debunked.
If you’re still not convinced that the study is valid, try reading this short analysis by Ethan Zuckerman.
***
As I pointed out above, the death toll on Iraq’s civilian population is accellerating, and there is no plan to withdraw. The final tally for the Iraq war could exceed one million. That would be more the total killed in the Rawanda genocide.
If the number is 400,000, it’s more than the number killed in Darfur.
If it’s more than 250,000, it exceeds the number of Milosevic’s victims.
If it’s more than 500,000, it’s more than the number of Iraqi civilians murdered by Hussein during his entire 24 year reign.
I find it appalling that so many have dismissed the findings of the story, simply because its conclusions make them uncomfortable. I can’t understand how a person could answer such a study by saying, in effect, “You’re wrong. I’d be surprised if we’ve more than 50,000.” As if 50,000 deaths could be justified by a non-existent threat. As if 50,000 deaths could be justified by the attacks of 9/11.
John Cole has studied the sort of people who can make such arguments longer than I have, and he has a Top 10 List of justifications for the carnage in Iraq.
(cross posted at appletree)
