Iraqi Deaths: Three Independent Sources

This Entry is a Work-in-Progress

Despite what the establishment media is willing to report, three credible, independent sources estimate hundreds of thousands.

First, everyone should be familiar with what's called the Johns Hopkins Study on excess deaths between March 2003 and July 2006, published in The Lancet British medical journal. The study estimates a range of about 400,000 to 900,000, with a average of about 655,000.

Second, former US military intelligence analyst, pfc. Evan Knappenberger, cites an independent number:

At the time we had concluded that there were close to 3/4 of a million civilian deaths over the course of the Iraq war. Now I would guess it is probably upwards of a million.

Knappenberger bases his statement on his own involvement in intelligence analysis:

I personally read through about 30,000 separate reports of civilian casualties in Iraq and put together a picture over a very long period of time, of the situation around Baghdad as far as what they call SECMAK now, which is sectarian murders and killings. After a month of reading through these reports, we started to get a picture of what was going on. Unfortunately, it was pretty much ignored by the chain of command.

In response to Knappenberger's estimate, Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow made the following statement, leading me to search for a third independent source:

Well that actually coincides with the two studies done most recent, a million, and before that The Lancet, the British medical journal published that study from Johns Hopkins University, saying around 655,000.

Editorial Note: I'm trying to track down Amy Goodman's reference to another study that estimates 1,000,000 excess Iraqi deaths since the US assault.

Sources:


Johns Hopkins Study Press Release, October 11, 2006.

DemocracyNow, June 12, 2007.

Katie Couric and CBS Perpetuate Undercount of Iraqi Civilian Deaths

.
So, how many inaccuracies can be found Katie Couric's Video Notebook? Here's another.

On March 19, 2007, Katie Couric reported 50,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, despite the well-known Lancet study citing an estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006 (the low end of the estimated range was about 400,000).

A Johns Hopkins School of Public Health web site states:

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.

The Guardian reports:

Scientists at the UK's Department for International Development ... concluded that the study's methods were "tried and tested". Indeed, the Johns Hopkins approach would likely lead to an "underestimation of mortality".

The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study".

We know that people are buried quickly in the Islamic tradition, leading to lower reporting of deaths to officials. We know that the mass media is unable to report on vast areas of Iraq due to increasing violence, again leading to under reporting.

So, why does Katie Couric and CBS continue to report a number that is an order of magnitude lower than the best available estimate? Partly because of the human capacity for denial. Partly because corporate media insiders live in a celebrity bubble; they and their wannabe helpers are isolated from realities that would allow them to believe the numbers of additional civilian deaths could be so high. Perhaps to avoid accepting responsibility as a democracy for such a gross crime against humanity.
~