Comments (14)

TheraP wrote on September 7, 2007 12:30 PM:

And let us not forget the study of deaths in The Lancet, published in 2004, which used a methodology of talking to people to find out if there had been deaths in the family and checking that with certificates. That study was considered to be highly credible, based on their methodology. Without some kind of careful scientific analysis, using scientific methods of data collection, and statistics that are open to review, we have nothing but anecdotes.

I applaud tpm for gathering the data. Do not forget the study by The Lancet.

Also, recall that, since so many have left Iraq and so many have already died, whatever the numbers, they are a higher and HIGHER PERCENTAGE of the population - year by year, month by month.

jak1 wrote on September 7, 2007 12:35 PM:

I was really looking forward to this.

Thankyou to all of the hardworking people over there at TPM Media. You guys are the best!

jak1 wrote on September 7, 2007 12:52 PM:

here's another thought. sooner or later those mounthly Iraqi deaths WILL go down by the month. That you can be sure of if we "Stay the course." (I NOTICED THAT THEY DUSTED THAT ONE OFF)

There just won't be any Iraqis left! Then we can call it a success! Benchmark met! We just need more time for the surge to work!

Right Observer wrote on September 7, 2007 1:12 PM:

Or, maybe the elected Iraqi government was just sick and tired of the America-hating, Israel-hating UN inflating the numbers to make them all look bad.

Nah. The pure UN could never be wrong. People who are on the ground and in the country every day have no idea what's going on.

Steve Garrett wrote on September 7, 2007 1:14 PM:

I would love to read a little more on how the UN and the Iraq Ministry compile their numbers. The simple way to do it, and probably the best, would be to just count the number of bodies that show up at the morgue with bullet holes or other signs of violent deaths. I suspect that some far more nuanced approach is going on. I would love to know the "official" methodology. It might explain at least some of the difference. However you do it, it is bound to be a difficult and inexact science.

DallasNE wrote on September 7, 2007 1:23 PM:

What "population protection"?

Yesterday there was a report that said Baghdad had gone from 65% Sunni to 75% Shia. If Baghdad had 5.5 million in 2003 it means that 3.575 million of those were Sunni. If Baghdad still has 5.5 million people (not likely)it would mean that only 1 million are Sunni. I said "not likely" because that would mean than 2.575 million Sunni's would have fled and been replaced by 2.575 million Shia. Some population protection that is!

Again, this points out how difficult it is to get reliable numbers on anything coming out of Iraq. When you apply math to the report that Baghdad is now 75% Shia you have to suspect that that number is not correct. Either that or we are in a lot worse shape in Iraq than anybody realizes.

Anonymous wrote on September 7, 2007 1:25 PM:

"Nah. The pure UN could never be wrong. People who are on the ground and in the country every day have no idea what's going on.

Posted by: Right Observer"

good point. the iraqi government, who needs our money and our troops, would never just tell the bush administration what it wanted to hear. [/hint of sarcasm]
p.s.: "people on the ground" = people on the ground in the green zone

RM wrote on September 7, 2007 2:41 PM:

These numbers are different than what I found in an AP story reported on 12/30/06 in the Alameda Times-Star (CA) (Pg. Unavail. Online), under the byline of Lauren Frayer of the AP. That story says that as of that December 28, 2006, the number of Iraqi civilian deaths for the month of December was "at least 2,139," the number in November was "at least 2,184" and the number in October was "at least 1,216." The first two are higher than your number. The October number is lower.
RM

Jim H wrote on September 8, 2007 3:00 PM:

We are not in Vietnam! There, the number of dead was counted as a victory. The figures were then inflated wildly, to prove that all was not in vain. Some of the numbers were real. Some of the numbers included civilians. And some of the numbers were just pulled out of some general's ass.

But in Iraq, comrade, all is different. In Iraq, numbers have to be small, to prove the invasion was doubleplusgood. Ergo, the smaller numbers are right, and the big numbers are made up by scum-sucking dogs to damage our friends the Eastasians, who have always been our allies!

There, isn't it nice to know the truth?

Anonymous wrote on September 8, 2007 5:40 PM:

Apples and Oranges are just the same to this administration as Australians and Austrians...

Anonymous wrote on September 9, 2007 5:33 PM:

And lets remember, as we listen to the General and the Commander-in-Cheep brag about less civilian deaths, -

That there are a lot fewer civilian targets than there were in March 2003. They’re dead or they’ve fled.
So, my question is, -

Is anybody who is doing the body counts, adjusting the count for the rapidly disappearing civilian population of Iraq?

Marnie wrote on September 9, 2007 5:34 PM:

And lets remember, as we listen to the General and the Commander-in-Cheep brag about less civilian deaths, -

That there are a lot fewer civilian targets than there were in March 2003. They’re dead or they’ve fled.
So, my question is, -

Is anybody who is doing the body counts, adjusting the count for the rapidly disappearing civilian population of Iraq?

Marnie wrote on September 9, 2007 5:36 PM:

And lets remember, as we listen to the General and the Commander-in-Cheep brag about less civilian deaths, -

That there are a lot fewer civilian targets than there were in March 2003. They’re dead or they’ve fled.
So, my question is, -

Is anybody who is doing the body counts, adjusting the count for the rapidly disappearing civilian population of Iraq?

ShorelineCT wrote on September 9, 2007 11:21 PM:

Iraqi death toll exceeded 34,000 in '06, UN Says
By Sabrina Tavernise Published: January 16, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/243bsu

BAGHDAD: The United Nations reported on Tuesday that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the failure of the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.

The report was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year. It was compiled using reports from morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq, and was nearly three times higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The Associated Press earlier this month.

...Despite the criticism from the Iraqi government, the United Nations said it used all official sources, most of which relied on counts of death certificates. The vast majority of Iraqi deaths are registered, at least to local authorities, so that Iraqis can prove inheritance and receive government compensation. Some deaths still go unreported, however, and the United Nations tally may in fact be lower than the true number of deaths nationwide...snip

If you want to explore the reports, produced every 2 months, here is the UN link:

http://www.uniraq.org/aboutus/HR.asp