Iraq:
Ultimately more lives will be saved?
An article published in the Lancet on 29 October 2004 estimated the
extra Iraqi deaths from all causes since the invasion of Iraq at around
100,000. Amnesty International
estimated that “scores” of people were killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in
each of the two years before the invasion (that is, in 2001 and 2002). If one accepts these figures as reasonable,
it would have taken Saddam Hussein’s regime hundreds of years to match the
carnage produced by Bush and Blair in less than 2 years. Had Saddam Hussein been left in place
perhaps 200 people would have been killed by his regime in the interim,
compared with maybe 100,000 extra deaths as a result of his overthrow.
The
removal of Saddam Hussein is a good thing for Iraq. In the absence of “weapons of mass destruction”, that’s the only
excuse the Prime Minister has left for the invasion of Iraq.
Lurking
behind this assertion is the unspoken assumption that although the military
action has cost human life, ultimately more lives will be saved, because a
murderous tyrant has been overthrown.
He will no longer be in a position to murder innocent Iraqis.
This was the message the Prime
Minister gave
the House of Commons on the eve of the invasion (19 March 2003):
“Of course, I understand that, if there is conflict,
there will be civilian casualties. That, I am afraid, is in the nature of any
conflict, but we will do our best to minimise them. However, I point out to my
hon. Friend that civilian casualties in Iraq are occurring every day as a
result of the rule of Saddam Hussein. He will be responsible for many, many
more deaths even in one year than we will be in any conflict.”
The
message is clear: left alone, Saddam Hussein would kill more innocent Iraqis in
a year than will be killed in the upcoming conflict. Ultimately, more lives will be saved by taking military action to
overthrow him.
So,
on 19 March 2003, how many innocent Iraqis would one expect Saddam Hussein to
kill in the next twelve months, if he was left alone? Presumably, the Prime Minister had a figure in his head when he
spoke. Scores would seem to be a
reasonable estimate: Amnesty International estimated that “scores of people,
including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed” in 2002, a similar
number in 2001
and “hundreds” in 2000, and
nobody can accuse Amnesty International of being soft on Saddam Hussein.
An
article published in the Lancet on 29 October estimated the extra Iraqi deaths
from all causes since the invasion at around 100,000. If one accepts this figure, it would have taken Saddam Hussein’s
regime hundreds of years to match the carnage produced by Bush and Blair in less
than 2 years. Had Saddam Hussein been
left in place perhaps 200 people would have been killed by his regime in the
interim, compared with maybe 100,000 extra deaths as a result of his overthrow.
In
the light of that, it takes a strange sort of logic to describe the removal of
Saddam Hussein as a good thing for the Iraqi people.
US/UK not responsible
Of
course, the Government doesn’t accept that there have been 100,000 extra Iraqi
deaths because of the invasion. It has
no idea how many extra deaths there have been, because the occupying powers
have made no effort to count them. In
the infamous words of US General Tommy Franks, “we don’t do body counts”. If the bodies are Iraqi, he should have
added for completeness.
(The
deaths of US, UK and other foreign soldiers are meticulously recorded - as of
30 November, 1396 had been killed, 1258 US, 74 UK and 72 others - see, for
example, http://icasualties.org/oif/. The death rate in the month of November was
the worst ever, with 141 killed, slightly more than in April when the last
assault on Falluja took place.)
But,
whatever the number of extra Iraqi deaths as a result of the invasion, the
Government accepts responsibility for very few of them. On 17 November, Jack Straw made a formal
response to the Lancet study in a written ministerial statement. It began by reviewing what it calls the
“security context”, saying:
“In the period of major combat activities in Iraq
between the coalition and Iraqi forces loyal to Saddam Hussein, there were
inevitably civilian casualties caused by military action by both sides.”
So, the US/UK may have killed a
few civilians in March/April 2003. But:
“Casualties – civilian and military – which have
occurred since major combat activities ended on 1 May 2003 have done so
directly as a result of those determined to undermine the political process.”
So,
all deaths after Bush landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and
declared “mission accomplished” are the responsibility of those who continue to
resist occupation. The fact that none
of this would have happened if the US/UK had not invaded is, of course, an
irrelevant detail.
(It’s
like the assistant bosun of The Herald of Free Enterprise, saying: “It
was nothing to do with me; I just left the bow doors open”. Except that, he had an excuse – he fell
asleep, and 193 people drowned off Zeebrugge; Bush and Blair have caused much
greater carnage in Iraq with their eyes wide open.)
Straw
continued:
“Security Council Resolution 1546, adopted on 8 June 2004, noted
the request of the Iraqi Interim Government that the Multi-National Force
should remain to help the sovereign Government of Iraq to ensure security and
reaffirmed its authorisation on that basis. The Multi-National Force has
been acting under that mandate, in support of the Iraqi security forces, to
ensure the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq. The mandate
specifically authorises action against terrorists.”
Shamefully, that is true. In passing 1546 on 8 June,
the Security Council voted unanimously to authorise the occupying forces to use
whatever force their US commander considered necessary to put down resistance
to occupation. This repeated the
authorisation first given with the passing of resolution 1511 on 16
October last year. So, every Iraqi
killed by the occupation forces since then has been killed with the blessing of
the UN.
If
the US commander had considered it necessary to raze Falluja to the ground, and
kill everybody in it, thanks to resolution 1546, he would have been acting in
accordance with the UN Charter in doing so.
* *
* *
Apart from the Lancet study, there
are two other sources of information about Iraqi deaths since the invasion:
(1) the
ongoing count of civilian deaths prepared by the Iraq Body Count organisation,
and
(2) figures
collected by the Iraqi Ministry of Health for the period 5 April 2004 to 5
October 2004.
I will now describe these,
followed by the Lancet study. In doing
so, I have drawn on the following two documents by CASI (Cambridge Solidarity
with Iraq, formerly Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq) at http://www.iraqanalysis.org/:
(1)
The Lancet Iraq
mortality survey: the UK government’s response is inaccurate and misleading
(2) The
Government’s Response to the Lancet Mortality Survey
The
Iraq Body Count (IBC) organisation continues to compile a count of civilian
deaths derived from online media reports of incidents in which civilians are
reported killed (see http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). As of 30
November, their estimate ranged from 14,563 to 16,742. The range is a reflection of the fact that
different sources often report differing number of civilian deaths for a
particular incident. An attempt is made
to distinguish military from civilian deaths (and most of the difference
between the maximum and minimum reported arises from this issue).
In
a comment on the Lancet study on its website, IBC emphases that “our own total
is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in
reporting or recording”. There is no
attempt to make up for this inevitable underestimation by other means. It only includes deaths directly reported by
the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues
and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media –
and, if they are not reported, they are not recorded by IBC.
The Iraqi Ministry of Health recently published civilian
casualty figures for the 6-month period from 5 April 2004 to 5 October 2004,
which put the number of violent deaths at 3,853, and the number injured at
15,517. These are based on returns from
Iraqi hospitals. Inevitably, the figure
for deaths is an underestimate, since at best it only includes those who are
brought to hospital dead, or who die in hospital.
On 25 September, Knight Ridder
Newspapers published an article by Nancy Yousef entitled Iraqi civilian casualties
mounting, which reported on a
slightly earlier version of these figures. It quoted Iraqi
health and hospital officials agreeing that “the statistics captured only part
of the death toll”. It continued:
“… families often bury their dead without telling any government
agencies or are treated at facilities that don't report to the government. …
The numbers also exclude those whose bodies were too mutilated to be recovered
at car bombings or other attacks, the Ministry said.”
This may account for the fact that the Ministry of
Health figures for Fallujah in April, when the first assault on the city took
place, are substantially less than in May after the assault was called off –
344 dead and 1415 wounded in April, compared with 749 dead and 1983 wounded in
May (see The Government’s Response to the Lancet Mortality Survey).
According to Nancy Yousef’s article, Ministry of
Health officials believe that most of the dead are non-combatants, since
relatives would be inclined to bury dead combatants immediately rather than
bring them to hospital.
Also, Yousef reports that “Iraqi officials said about
two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by multinational forces and police”
and “the remaining third died from insurgent attacks”:
“The ministry began separating attacks by multinational and police
forces and insurgents on June 10. From that date until Sept. 10, 1,295 Iraqis
were killed in clashes with multinational forces and police versus 516 killed
in terrorist operations, the ministry said. The ministry defined terrorist
operations as explosive devices in residential areas, car bombs or
assassinations.”
The Lancet study is the work of Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield,
Jamal Khudhairi and Gilbert Burnham, academics from the
John Hopkins University School of Public Health in Baltimore, from Columbia
University in New York and from Al-Mustansiriya
University in Baghdad. It is entitled Mortality
before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey.
The Iraq Body Count
attempts to count the number of civilians who have died violently since March
2003, but certainly understates the number, because not all such deaths are
reported in the online media. The
Ministry of Health probably measures violent civilian deaths also (but not from
March 2003) and also understates the number, because not all such dead are
brought to hospital.
By contrast, the Lancet study
aimed to estimate the total number of extra Iraqi deaths from all causes, as a
result of the US/UK invasion in March 2003 (and therefore should come up with a
much larger figure). The estimate was
done, not by counting individual deaths, but by a cluster sampling technique,
where a number of “neighbourhoods” in Iraq were selected at random, and
households in each “neighbourhood” were surveyed. (This form of sampling is more prone to uncertainty than picking
households at random, but this wasn’t possible because no reliable census data
exists in Iraq).
During September 2004, data were
collected from 33 clusters of 30 households about household composition, births
and deaths since January 2002. This
enabled a comparison to be made between Iraqi mortality in the 14.6 months
prior to the invasion and the 17.8 months afterwards. By this means, the authors concluded that the most likely figure
for extra deaths was 98,000 (and this was after excluding data from a cluster
in Falluja, the inclusion of which would have given a much higher figure). More
than half the deaths reported as caused by the occupying forces were women and
children.
As with any sampling technique,
there is uncertainty associated with the result, which in this case is
expressed as a “95% confidence interval” (8,000 to 194,000) within which it is
95% certain that the results lie. Jack
Straw tried to rubbish the result in his ministerial statement by implying that
“any figure in the range is consistent with the data”, which is formally true;
however, figures near the centre of the “confidence interval” around 98,000 are
more likely to be accurate. According
to the authors, there is, for example, only a 10% chance that there has been
less than about 45,000 deaths (see The Government’s Response to the Lancet
Mortality Survey).
The study was reviewed
in The Economist on 4 November, which found nothing seriously wrong with its
methodology.
Note
that this survey technique aims to count extra deaths from all causes. Thus, it makes no distinction between
combatants and non-combatants; however, since it is a household survey, in
which deaths were only counted if the deceased was living in the house at the
time of death, and for two months previously, few of the recorded deaths are
likely to be regular Iraqi army deaths.
Note also that the survey aims to count extra non-violent deaths from
causes attributable to the invasion and occupation, for example, an increase in
infant mortality because of uncertain provision of water and electricity.
No reliable figures
The
Government has been under pressure for some time about its refusal to provide
an estimate of Iraqi deaths. In the
House of Lords on 7 September, for example, Lord (Norman) Lamont contrasted the
Government’s apparently precise knowledge of the numbers killed by Saddam
Hussein, with their self-confessed ignorance of the number of Iraqi deaths
since March 2003. He said:
“Re-reading the
Government's dossier on Iraq’s alleged WMD, I was struck by the very precise
estimate that the Government made of the number of people who were killed by
Saddam Hussein through the use of mustard gas in the Iran/Iraq war – 20,000.
The precision of that estimate, of course, stands in complete contrast to the
Government's coyness and refusal in response to repeated questions to make any
estimate of the number of Iraqis who have been killed in this war – a point
made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and also by the noble
Lord, Lord Judd.
“I find it very
difficult to reconcile the willingness to estimate Saddam Hussein’s actions in
killing people and our inability to estimate how many people we killed in a war
in which we participated and in which we fired the ammunition and in which we
know how much ammunition we fired.”
In reply, Baroness Symons
protested the Government’s compassion for dead Iraqis, but added:
“… there are no
reliable figures for Iraqi civilian casualties not because we do not care, but
because so far it has proved impossible to collect them. I shall be frank and
say that I regret that enormously. I believe that it is a shortcoming that
needs urgently to be remedied.”
She did not explain how the
Government apparently managed to count the deaths caused by Saddam Hussein, but
is unable to estimate the number killed under US/UK occupation. Could the reason be that Iraqis killed, or
allegedly killed, by the previous regime are politically useful, but Iraqis
killed under US/UK occupation are politically embarrassing?
Straw responds
In his first response to the Lancet
survey on Today on 29 October, Jack Straw did quote figures for Iraqi
civilian casualties, even though, according to Baroness Symons, no reliable
figures exist. He quoted the Iraq Body
Count figures, presumably because, whatever about their reliability, they were
a damn sight lower than those from the Lancet study.
However, by the time he made his
considered statement on 17 November these figures were back in the unreliable
category. Then, he preferred the even
lower Ministry of Health figures and he quoted an apparently reassuring statement
(dated 29 October) from the Iraqi Minister of Health about their reliability:
“Every hospital reports daily the
number of civilians (which may include insurgents) who have been killed or
injured in terrorist incidents or as a result of military action. All
casualties are likely to be taken to hospital in these circumstances except for
some insurgents (who may fear arrest) and those with minor injuries. The
figures show that between 5 April 2004 and 5 October 2004, 3,853 civilians were
killed and 15,517 were injured. I am satisfied that this information is
the most reliable available.”
The
assertion that “all casualties are likely to be taken to hospital” is very
different from what the Ministry officials told Nancy Yousef (see above), in
particular, that families often bury their dead without telling any government
agencies or are treated at facilities that don't report to the government.
Commenting
on the apparent discrepancy between the Ministry of Health figures and those
from the Lancet study, Straw said that “hospitals in Iraq have no obvious
reason to under-report the number of dead and injured”. Probably not, but
they do have to receive the dead and injured before they can report them.
Nevertheless,
Jack Straw concludes:
“So while
recognising the bravery and professionalism of those conducting the Lancet
study, the Government does not accept its central conclusion, and continues to
believe that the most reliable figures for casualties in Iraq are those
provided by Iraqi hospitals to the Iraqi Ministry of Health.”
That is a nonsensical statement,
since the latter are for 6 months only and, unlike the Lancet study, do not
pretend to measure all the extra deaths caused by the invasion and occupation.
Under the Geneva Convention on the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, the occupying powers have a
duty of care to civilians under their occupation. Article 27 of it says:
“Protected persons … shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall
be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and
against insults and public curiosity.”
The Lancet article concludes:
“The fact that more than half the deaths reportedly caused by the occupying
forces were women and children is cause for concern. …
“It seems difficult to
understand how a military force could monitor the extent to which civilians are protected against violence without
systematically doing body counts or at least looking at the kinds of casualties
they induce.
“This survey shows that with
modest funds, 4 weeks, and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their
lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained. There seems to be
little excuse for occupying forces to not be able to provide more precise
tallies. In view of the political importance of this conflict, these results
should be confirmed by an independent body such as the ICRC, Epicentre, or WHO.
“In the interim, civility and
enlightened self-interest demand a re-evaluation of the consequences of
weaponry now used by coalition forces in populated areas.”
* *
* *
A final
word: all of the studies show that violent deaths of Iraqis have skyrocketed
since the invasion began, that tens of thousands of Iraqis who were alive then
are now dead, and there is no end of the carnage in sight.
And the
vast majority of them would have been alive if Saddam Hussein had been left in
power.
Labour
& Trade Union Review
December
2004