Lancet: A Look Back
Today The Chronicle of Higher Education looks at last year's Lancet study of deaths in Iraq. That article, you may recall, concluded that "about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths."
Despite its newsworthy findings, the paper disappeared quickly from the press -- and, the Chronicle notes, it ran into some unfortunate obstacles when it was discussed:
The Washington Post, perhaps most damagingly to the study's reputation, quoted Marc E. Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, as saying, "These numbers seem to be inflated."
Mr. Garlasco says now that he had not read the paper at the time and calls his quote in the Post "really unfortunate." He says he told the reporter, "I haven't read it. I haven't seen it. I don't know anything about it, so I shouldn't comment on it." But, Mr. Garlasco continues, "like any good journalist, he got me to."
Mr. Garlasco says he misunderstood the reporter's description of the paper's results. He did not understand that the paper's estimate includes deaths caused not only directly by violence but also by its offshoots: chaos leading to lack of sanitation and medical care.
You can read the Lancet paper here, and you can read a vigorous defense of it (with links to its critics) here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Well, whatever the number of people killed, I know that the people on this forum are too hard-nosed to worry about squishy humanitarian concerns like that. Let's talk about what really matters:
What about all the private property that's been destroyed?
thoreau. tisk tisk.
had kerry been president, he would have socialized the land so the damage to the public property would have been much worse.
Fred Kaplan in this Slate review says it best:
"It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language?98,000?is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board."
(btw, I just read the rhetort and I fail to see how it refutes anything. Other than calling Kaplan names and attempts to discredit his writing abilities.)
I just read the rhetort and I fail to see how it refutes anything. Other than calling Kaplan names and attempts to discredit his writing abilities.
In other words, you didn't read the retort. It includes three rather detailed criticisms of Kaplan's complaint that don't have anything to do with his writing abilities.
Acouple of points. Many of those who dismiss the study as nothing but a "dart board" typicaly have no problem inflating the number of victims of Saddam's brutality. Secondly, perhaps if the occupying force maintained or cared about the number of victims and released it to the public, people will not be left estimating the numbers in less than ideal circumstances.
Thoreau, the loss of human and physical capital are equally deplorable as an economic loss.
Calculating the loss is more difficult and extremely subjective and highly dependent on what you think of the war.
So you either think PPDD is a greater than WGASAN or PPDD is less than WGASAN (where PPDD equals 'people and property damaged and destroyed' and WGAS/AN equals 'war goals actual and stated, achieved and not achieved').
Those Lancet numbers CAN'T be true, because if they are, it might imply America is doing a bad thing. And as we all know, America doesn't bad things--at least not any more. Maybe in the past it did, but it is really, really, really sorry about that stuff anyway.
Anyway, even if the numbers are true, it's all worth it. Saddam was worse. And innocent people died on 9/11, too--"let's roll."
Q.E.D.
In other words, you didn't read the retort. It includes three rather detailed criticisms of Kaplan's complaint that don't have anything to do with his writing abilities.
I did read all three. And mostly he seems to do the same thing he accuses Kaplan of doing, notably: "It really looks to me as if Kaplan had decided he didn?t want to believe the Lancet number and so started looking around for ways to rubbish it"
The same arguement could be said of CT, he so wants the data to be correct that he looked for ways it could be.
He betrays himself with the following: "I would hazard a guess that anyone looking for more Real Problems For The Left would do well to lift their head up from the Bible for a few seconds and ponder what strange misplaced and hypertrophied sense of intellectual charity it was that made Kaplan, an antiwar Democrat, decide to engage in hackish critiques of a piece of good science that supported his point of view."
Had CT not engaged in schoolboy named calling it would have lent some credence to his statistical perspective. However, when he all but admits a bias based on confusion ("why would anyone who is supposed to think like me find this wrong?") it taints his findings as well.
He still does nothing in any of those three points to illustrate that the 100,000 is any more than a "best guess" made based on data in a region that doesn't lend itself to easily to population guesswork. As much as Kaplan wants to paint the "numbers are likely smaller" picture, CT wants to pain the "numbers are likely larger" one.
ranger, would you care to share the reasons you find the analysis suspect, or should we just assume that it "has to be" bad science because of the author's stated political beliefs?
Assuming for the moment these numbers are correct.
Are these excess deaths above and beyond legitimate kills or are they in excess of the numbers of innocent dead over a similar time period during Saddam's rule? I.e. have we killed 100,000 innocents total or 100,000 more than Saddam would have in twoish years?
The article give me the impression its the former when the *really* important question in this regard is are we killing more or less innocents than Saddam.
While a useful survey, there are several notable issues to keep in mind.
Much of the reporting on it describes it as a survey of civilian deaths. It is not. This is from the CHE piece, "In late October, a study was published in The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, concluding that about 100,000 civilians had been killed in Iraq since it was invaded by a United States-led coalition in March 2003."
But later in the piece we are told, "The paper that they published carried some caveats. For instance, the researchers admitted that many of the dead might have been combatants."
Secondly, the time periods covered. From the Lancet abstract, "We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it." This means the after period is more than 20% longer. I haven't seen an explanation for why this was done.
A corollary issue to this is the pre v. post argument. This paper uses consider the invasion to merely be an instant on March 19th, 2003 with everything after it falling post-invasion. It could also be considered that the time period from March 19th until about April 9th would qualify as during the invasion, therefore making this paper a comparison of pre-invasion and during/post-invasion. This is a minor point but not completely irrelevant.
Table 2 of this paper holds the key raw data, but even here we see another discrepancy in sampling (although less consequential than the time period difference). Pre-invasion saw 42 deaths in a sample of 7438 people. During/post-invasion saw 142(90 outside of Fallujah) deaths in 7868. There is an increase of 5% in sample size in the post-invasion group. This difference is accounted for in later analysis, but it should be noted when looking at the raw data.
Ranger: You'd be more convincing if you'd reply to CT's actual argument, rather than to a tendentious misreading of one of his asides.
Chthus: You're quite right to distinguish the reporting on the study from the study itself. There were a lot of inept summaries of it in the press and the blogosphere, from both supporters and opponents of the war. The line in the CHE piece is indeed inaccurate.
Well, after after doing some, uhm, *research* it seems the study is claiming the latter - 100,000 extra deaths above what would have happened without the invasion.
Though the pre-war comparison numbers eem to come from an *extrapolation* of data gathered in the mid-90's and not gathered immediately pre-war.
But how much more property damage has been inflicted? That's the only question that real libertarians should care about.
Jesse,
Not just the reporting, but the headline itself.
"Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored"
This is what frustrates me most about this survey. While I have some minor issues and quibbles with how it was conducted, the reporting of it was horrendous (this is the norm for science reporting in general though). The fact that it is now used as a standard for discussing civilian deaths (I've come across the 100,000 civilian deaths in various articles and personal discussions, usually without mention of the article) is very disappointing.
Ranger: You'd be more convincing if you'd reply to CT's actual argument, rather than to a tendentious misreading of one of his asides.
Jesse> I concede that perhaps my own bias tainted my perception of CT's rebuttal. It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part to what appeared to be yet another "study" to support the "America's murderous imperialism" claims.
I still contend that the stats are based on too many assumptions and do provide too large of gap. Thus the multitude of people that are able to find evidence of more AND less deaths from the same stats.
I agree with chthus that the reporting on the story painted a much different picture than the data itself. It seems that I fell into the same trap as the reporters.
That being the case, I rescind my original (knee jerk) support for the Kaplan piece in light of more actual research needing to be done on my part.
I wonder if I can convince anyone that's it's McDonald's fault that I jumped to conclusions?? =/
Ranger: You'd be more convincing if you'd reply to CT's actual argument, rather than to a tendentious misreading of one of his asides.
Jesse, I think the fact that CT stops in his piece to childishly hound an ideological peer for daring to question a study that 'supports' their position on the war is pretty relevant.
Ranger: It was the coffee! The hot, hot coffee... 🙂
Josh: I wouldn't call that a fair description of what CT did -- but even if it were, it would reflect poorly on his character, not his argument.
I guess left-libertarians are the ones who think they're funny...
I have no sympathy for idiots who don't know what a confidence interval, but don't mind opening their big-fat-stupid mouths (Kaplan). If you haven't taken an elementary statistics class, keep your damn mouth shut. This is obvious. The right published so much absolute trash trying to debunk the article it was ridiculous (c.f. TechHackStation for a truly atrocious example).
America, and the "liberal media", (a) don't care and (b) are scared shitless of Bush to say anything bad about "Dear Leader". Following in the foot-steps of its stellar WMD reporting,
In a short article about the study on Page A8, The New York Times noted that the Iraq Body Count, a project to tally civilian deaths reported in the news media, had put the maximum death toll at around 17,000. The new study, the article said, "is certain to generate intense controversy." But the Times has not published any further news articles about the paper.
FUCK THE NY TIMES. Fuck our incomptent media who can't even call one of the hundreds of staticians or MPHs at any god damn university in the country, to figure out the validity of the study. Lastly, fuck the 101st keyboarders who have been wrong on EVERYTHING (wmd, Sadam/al-queday, wmd-syria, and now causalties).
I guess left-libertarians are the ones who think they're funny...
Hey! I'm offended!
😉
Let us not forget those who died on 9/11. We had to attack the Iraqis after their attack on us on 9/11. There was overwhelming evidence that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.
By the way, this sampling technique is all that could be employed because (a) the US won't count Iraqi deaths, and (b) the US won't let "our" Iraqis count Iraqi dead. Of course the prospects for a truthful count would be about nil if the US DID allow it, but let's keep our eye on the ball here.
This all sounds vaguely Central America-ish, circa 20 years ago. I wonder if they'll be digging up some "El Mozote"s when, errr if, the US ever gets the hell out of there.
Jor,
The reason major press outlets aren't reporting on these numbers is (partially) fear of a huge PR fiasco if they're wrong about the numbers (see Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, etc.). However, they are doing their damndest to portray Iraq as the sixth circle of hell without mentioning any actual statistics. To tell the truth, I have no clue who to believe anymore, especially since most reporters are too afriad (for good reason) to go to actual combat zones and see what's happening; all we get is two sides of partisan spin without any verification, aside from a trip to Fallujah. I can't pay for that, I'm a student.