How many Iraqis died in the Iraq War? That’s the kind of question that should be asked, especially if you happen to live in the countries that launched the war that killed so many.
The results from a new poll commissioned by the British media watchdog group MediaLens exposed a startling disconnect between the realities of the Iraq War and public perceptions of it: Namely, what the Iraqi death toll was. When Britons were asked “how many Iraqis, both combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003?,” 44 percent of respondents estimated that 5,000 or fewer deaths had occurred.
As Alex Thomson, a reporter for the UK’s Channel 4 (5/31/13), wrote:
That figure is so staggeringly, mind-blowingly at odds with reality as to leave a journalist who worked long and hard to bring home the reality of war speechless.
And polls done in the United States have offered similar conclusions. A Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll (3/1/06-3/6/06) that asked how many Iraqi civilians had been killed since the beginning of the war yielded a median estimate of 5,000 deaths.
And when respondents were asked in a different poll (AP/Ipsos, 2/12/07-2/15/07) to give their “best guess” about civilian deaths, 24 percent chose the option of 1,001 to 5,000 deaths.
These answers are, of course, way off the mark. Estimates of the death toll range from about 174,000 (Iraq Body Count, 3/19/13) to over a million (Opinion Business Research, cited in Congressional Research Service, 10/7/10). Even at the times of those U.S. polls, death estimates were far beyond the public’s estimates.
Of course, these findings are disheartening because they reflect a very distorted public perception of the war. But they are indicative of an even bigger problem: corporate media’s inadequate coverage of the human costs of U.S.-led wars.
It seems that much of the mainstream media took Tommy Franks’ infamous quote, “We don’t do body counts” (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/3/03), to heart, because Iraqi victims of warfare were rarely of interest in news reports.
And when they are, they could be a massive undercount. A December 1, 2011 CBS Evening News report told viewers that “more than 50,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the war” (FAIR Action Alert, 12/2/11). This figure was sourced to iCasualties.org, which had one of the lowest estimates of civilian casualties at the time and warned readers that the number was probably a severe undercount.
The “corrected” figure that CBS put forth 11 days later was 115,676 civilians killed, and sourced to Iraq Body Count–still one of the most conservative estimates to be found (FAIR Activism Update, 12/13/11).
But the main issue here is that the press has kept the public in the dark: How can one make a decision about the impact of war if they don’t know, even roughly, how many deaths there were?
As blogger Joe Emersberger put it (Z Blogs, 5/30/13) , the MediaLens-commissioned poll results
are a striking illustration of how a “free press” imposes ignorance on the public in order to promote war. Future wars (or “interventions”) are obviously far more likely when the public within an aggressor state is kept clueless about the human cost.
UPDATE: The World Health Organization’s estimate of 151,000 violent Iraqi deaths from March 2003 to June 2006 should also be noted.
For whatever reason, this blog post leaves out the two best estimates of civilian casualties in the Iraq War: the two studies published in the Lancet and the Iraq Family Health Survey. They are the only two peer reviewed studies done on the subject. Thought the two do not agree with each other, both show deaths far in excess of the amateurish efforts of Iraq Body Count and iCasualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Family_Health_Survey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
Bodies that don’t count
I knew a good majority of the US population was ignorant but never thought the Brits were this ignorant. Gheez after all those years of being tormented by the West they probably had 5000 people die just from stress, heart problems and suicide. Look at the American troop suicide rate. Now imagine if it was on your soil.
Obviously, the mainstream media is in cahoots with the malfeasant so called security-supply- rebuilding corporations, the oil- oil chemical, weapons-munitions, corporations, etc.
I would really like to know why George Bush and his cronies are not behind bars awaiting execution.
The British broadcast media – including Channel 4 – always cite the Iraq Body Count figure but never, ever point out that it is a very conservative figure (based on an almost perversely stringent criterion). The ballpark figure of over a million has been arrived at by more than the one source you cite.
Incidentally, the British media are now routinely reporting that the death toll in Syria exceeds 80,000. I don’t know how the bloodshed there over the last two years compares with that in Iraq over the last decade, but what comes across on British media – deliberately or not, I don’t know – is that the internecine violence in Syria is much bloodier, which both downplays the culpability of our leaders for Iraqi deaths and suggests that, if we care about civilians in that part of the world at all, we really should be urging our governments to intervene in Syria!
There’s a deeper problem that needs to be raised here: in most countries and especially in the UK and the United States, which have not had major military ground battles on their territory within living memory, people from foreign countries are not generally perceived as being real, flesh-and-blood human beings.
The media contribute enormously to this perception, by giving far more prominence to news involving nationals, and particularly nationals of the dominant races/social groups in their country, than to “others”.
See for example the massive fuss raised (justifiably) about a few people killed in Boston, Mass, or a single person in Woolwich, London, and the (unjustifiably) minimal coverage given to dozens or hundreds of dead in Iraq, Pakistan, Mexico or just about anywhere else.
Another gross media double standard is the coverage of Syrian refugees in neighboring countries while never mentioning that Syria hosted a far greater number of Iraqi refugees during the height of the U.S. war there.
To quote Wikipedia:
“Syria had taken in roughly a million refugees by December 2006 . . . . The reason for its large refugee population can be attributed to more than just geography. Syria maintained an open-door policy to Iraqis fleeing the war-ravaged country.”
The very first casualty in EVERY war is the truth. End justifies the means, is a norm, and the actions by the military are not evaluated by any moral codes. Winners decide what was legal, or illegal, and historically, few of those who perpetrated massive genocides were ever brought to justice, less yet, punished.
Wars are as a rule, an organized actions by the governments for various purposes that ignore legalities, and a moral judgments.
A number of our Presidents should have been tried as war criminals, but, who has the power to put do that?
The American War in Iraq is not over. People are still dying in Iraq because of the illegal American invasion.
The European Empires (including the USA) have ruled by the principle of “divide and conquer”. They exploit existing divisions in countries like Iraq, or they create divisions in countries like “South Vietnam”. Civil wars often follow independence from an European Empire: Nigeria, India, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Palestine/Israel, Lebanon/Syria, and of course Iraq (The American War in Vietnam was a continuation of a colonial war after the French Empire in Indochina collapsed).
American incessant intervention across the globe has been turning this country into that military/industrial/congressional complex that General Dwight Eisenhower had warned us about. Think of how much health care we could provide with the funds from war machines like aircraft carriers and ballistic submarines and fighter jet programs et cetera.
After WWII the Germans and Japanese learned their lessons well.
What have Americans learned after their “victory” over the Soviet Empire?
The use of the ORB survey that estimated 1 mil Iraqi deaths was a poor choice. That study has been discredited in academia. It was not peer reviewed, the person who conducted it had little training or field experience for the survey work, the study itself has some anomalies, gross over estimations, and most importantly has no scientific standing.
Better estimates of Iraqi deaths based upon survey work in the country are the Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group published in the New England Journal of Medicine in Jan. 08 that estimated 104,000-223,000 deaths from 2003-2006.
Woah thar.Forget about the fact that you are leaving the blame for the war at our door….The premise here is wrong from a few points.Number one is how many did we kill in the war….And how many did the other side kill?Before the war 1500 were dying every week under Saddams rule(that we know about!)Thats 80 thou roughly per year.Then of course how many did we kill in combat against us?Then how many died as our enemies mixed among the people after an attack?The only number that matters is how many innocent -non aligned people died-at our hands.Granted one is to many.But that is the number that matters most.
Joel Wing said
“Better estimates of Iraqi deaths based upon survey work in the country are the Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group published in the New England Journal of Medicine in Jan. 08 that estimated 104,000-223,000 deaths from 2003-2006.”
Those are deaths only from violence. The lead author of that study, Mohamed Ali, said their research corresponds to 397,000 deaths between 2003-2006 when you consider increased mortality from all causes (disease, malnutrition, lack of sanitation) and not just violence.
Those people who minimize the number of deaths (and, therefore, the significance) caused by the U.S. invasion are omitting a couple of things:
1. Even where death and destruction were the immediate result of sectarian violence, the fact remains that such violence and mayhem were a direct result – that is, caused by – the U.S. invasion. It was the predictable result of the American intervention. It would not have happened otherwise. And it did not happen before the invasion, regardless of how bad was Saddam Hussein (who was fully supported by the U.S. in the late 1980s, the period when he committed his worst atrocities).
2. The 1500 people dying every week before the war were mostly dying because of the extremely severe “sanctions regime” imposed by the United Nations, under strong pressure from the United States. Those sanctions had the deliberate effect of crippling the Iraqi public health system, which previously had been one of the most advanced in the region. The sanctions hurt the population, but had the side-effect of strengthening the rule of Saddam Hussein, who was able to promote himself as the champion of the Iraqi people, fighting against the evil Western outsiders. This sanctions policy was regarded as near-genocidal by two high U.N. officials – Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck – who both resigned their positions, in protest against the deadly results of those sanctions. Once again, the U.S. was largely responsible for those deaths.
Sumwun My lord are you cutting Saddam a break.Remember the mass prisons of torture and rape factories run by he and his demon sons?So now it is all our fault and the United nations the Iraq war and its after math.Well I just wish all to heck that that great man was back in charge and the garden of eden that was Iraq return..Well I guess you can chalk all the dead in Europe up to our entrance into WW2 in 1941 as well.Come on this is all a history redux in the extreme.Lets get real
Michael E:
Get real yourself. I did not “cut Saddam a break”. Pointing out the destructive things accomplished by the American invasion and prior sanctions regime – not to mention the FIRST U.S. invasion in 1991 – does not imply approval of anything that Saddam ever did. He was bad enough, going back a long way, when he was supported and armed by the U.S.; it’s not necessary to blame him for crimes which are in fact the result of U.S. imperialism. I simply noted some very highly relevant facts which you chose to ignore. Many real experts on Iraqi society, in addition to the two men I noted, have commented on the horrendous effects of U.S. policies.
World War II has nothing to do with it. Take off your blinders and rein in your creative imagination.
I will say it again..GET REAL.So US imperialism was to blame huh?For what …….the madness that is endemic in that part of the world/For choosing sides in no win contests?
Michael E:
How obtuse can you get? Just read what I actually said (and also what the other commenter, “Anthropologist”, said). Explain, if you can, why it is wrong, either factually, logically, or historically. But to simply say that “madness is endemic” is to avoid any kind of reasoned explanation of situations, politics, causes, effects, relations, responses. It is really a confession of your own ignorance (“They’re all crazy! That’s all there is to it!”). But I won’t bother with you any more; you can have the last word (and I do hope it is your last).
Where sir is the reasoned explanation of situations ,politics,causes and effects when it comes to THIS country?All thrown out the window and explained away with two words (US imperialism).How obtuse can you get?
And as far as spending a great deal of time giving the benefit of the doubt to enemies of this country.To their attempt to murder freedom of religion.To those who espouse sharia law.To those who beg for the honor to kill every Jew.Ever ride down the main thoroughfare in Tehran?How about those massive posters portraying dead Jews.Better than Broadway posters for sure.You honestly want me to give the same benefit of the doubt to middle eastern governments as I would this country?We would have to fall a country mile sir before we even appear on the radar of the governments you are equating with us.Relativism for Dummies Vol 8!!!!
I still don’t see this figure published in the media; perhaps we should start naming names and pointing fingers at those media people responsible. So that they go down in history not only as liars, but as supporters of this genocide.
Michael e ……the 1500 that as dying each week under Saddam was due to the west forbidding the import of vital foods and medicines, and most deaths were of old peole and small children. Regardless of who/what and where, it is their country that is now in a state of complete disarray, and we the west are responsible.
“The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces—with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships”.
Michael……So the torture facilities where hundreds died every week were due to us in some way?And the 1500 that died under Saddams hand were due to embargoes imposed by us?Gosh did not seem to stop Saddam from building one palace after another as he amassed a huge fortune did it?As he rebuilt his military?Yet those of his people who suffered under the embargo were due to us?As if the embargo was a whim and not warranted?Was the gassing of entire villages our fault as well?I have heard it stated here that his launching of a war against his arch enemy Iran where a million died was our fault as well.Well now……….How many Iraqis died in the last six months of our occupation.There is a true determiner of our will.At that point we could do as we wanted.Friend of mine was there.He said he never saw so many weddings.The streets were clogged.Gis playing soccer with the kids.We gave them a chance at freedom with our blood.Those who hate America first are saps.They have lost rational thinking.
This Michael E. guy is like a pesky fly that just won’t go away. No matter what you throw at him – facts, logic – it has no effect; he comes back for more. A million Iraqis died from a wrecked health care system? Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. Secretary State, defends it as “worth the price” on network tv? No problem! Michael E’s buddy saw weddings and fun and games in the streets of Iraq! Therefore none of the bad shit matters! Michael E. is a dude that doesn’t see further than the tip of his nose.
Anathomutha I am not trying to say people have not suffered in Iraq.One, or a million is a horror.I am challenging your view of how this war began.How it was conducted.What the motives were.Pretty much everything most people on this sight believe is ……hate America first.That everything flows downhill to America in the blame dept.I mean it is nothing new.WW1 WW2 had the same type of people- though you seldom read of it.Just don’t expect everyone to follow this mindset like lemmings.My point was we shed our national treasure to give these people a chance.They risked their lives to vote(higher percentage than here).We removed a madman, and hopefully some day a more peaceful Iraq will help in an area of the world to often gone mad.Today the Egyptian parlament was caught by cameras speaking about who their real enemies were.The new leader said it was America and Israel.Then realizing it was going out to the world he said “careful we are being taped”.Silence descended.Too many in this country do not see these people as OUR enemies.By the actions of this administration you can see they view the American people as the enemy.Just like too many people on this sight.On this sight you will find few and far between who stand behind the USA.Sad
My point is proven. Michael E. is a pesky fly and an out-of-control firecracker, run amuck. He takes any statement that does not fit in with his ideology, and runs on and on, over a half dozen topics, a half dozen decades, with not the slightest attention for historical accuracy, logic, or what his opponents actually said. But it’s my own shortcoming, letting myself get rattled by such a rattlesnake.
I used to be very pleased to seek out this internet-site.I needed to thanks to your time for this glorious read!! I definitely enjoying every little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.
This blog looks awesome. Keep on this good job and pls upload some more stuff like this. U can al so check out ours 2.
The Lancet study was proven to be fake, and the fiction writer who wrote it refused to reveal his sources. Get with the times.
The Iraq Body Count is the most accurate count, as it counts real deaths, is backed up, and involves no imagination nor does it involve shade techniques
George said: “I would really like to know why George Bush and his cronies are not behind bars awaiting execution”
Because there is absolutely no evidence of any war crimes.
Hawk said: “Being Angry About America’s Destruction of Iraq Is Not A ‘Syndrome’”
It shows a person is quite unintelligent to blame the destruction of Iraq by Saddam and the other terrorists on the people who have led the effort to rebuild Iraq.
Jason: You are correct. In fact. the US action in Iraq saved hundreds of thousands of lives. This is easily figured out by looking at the average killed per year by Saddam when Iraq was a socialist country. Then apply this number, times 10, for the number that would have died had Iraq remained socialist. The difference between this figure, and the actual deaths, is several hundred thousand.
Michael E: Your points are refreshing compared to the bloody-minded and sad pro-Saddam views pointed out here. Good going.
Snowden said: “war on terror,” in which the United States invaded and occupied two countries…”
Only after these countries attacked it first, and only as a last resort.
Don’t worry they are going to be with all those virgins.
2011 end onward ………………………
$ 40 crisis it back born bloody internecine deep from rise misery serial by White House Inside no safe . Connection up to date sink serial that tough ultimate ‘ please you know, please just awake and understand pretty incredible happen way closing . This insight year long fail dead end situation US Republican team find out and report make $ 16 trillion loose’ !!
US President Obama and US Democratic chair spirit burn start !! Its afraid touching in $ 40 solution deep , there extreme voices and it back caucus[ and I[ US President and Democratic Chair] don’t need to tell you how extreme some of them can be] 2011 end solution emerge / pretty incredible happened White House inside !! B.K.JOHN
I HOPE THE BETTER FOR IRAQ . GOD MAKE THIS COUNTRY SAFE
There is one thing that wasn’t taken into account in this story and I haven’t even seen it in the comments. This is a country where “civilian” does not necessarily mean they’re a “non combatant.” How many of these so-called “civilians” were actually killed because of what ‘wonderful’ organization they belong to? I mean organizations such as the al Qaeda in Iraq or members of Saddam’s Republican Guard troops who ditched the uniform for civilian clothes??? ‘Civilian clothing does not a non combatant make’….by the way, I’m not an English failure.That sentence is a play on an old saying. Anyway… I was in Iraq and I know the looks you get. Most Iraqi’s know what we did has helped them even if it’s more in the long run. They know how brutal Saddam and his worthless spawn of satan were. The ones that hate the West no matter what we do are the ‘civilians’ I’d like to know more about. Were these “civilians” who were killed just people who were trying to kill Americans but weren’t part of any organized military and how do they know either way??? Do they take the word of their family members that they were “civilians” and not combatants?? What else would they tell them, “nope, he LOVES the United States”??? Yea right!!! We will never know exactly how many of these “civilians” killed were ACTUAL civilians. As for you idiots who mention putting Bush in prison……SHUT UP, YOU IDIOTS!!!! Bush is a moron but not a criminal. Saddam was a criminal. Al Qaeda members are criminal. The Taliban are criminals…..and “yes” I know the Taliban is in Afghanistan and not Iraq, just using them as another example of criminals we’re in the process of killing. Besides, WE DIDN’T START THIS BS!!! DON’T START NONE, WON’T BE NONE!!!!!
Michael E:
The invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression. Saddam Hussein was trying his best to AVOID a war with the U.S. You have a pretty short memory son. You don’t remember the following sequence of events in the winter of 2002-2003 and spring of 2003?
1.Bush demands “You let the weapons inspectors back in or we’ll invade your country.” Saddam lets the weapons inspectors back in.
2.Bush demands “Well… now you have to let them roam around and go wherever they want or we’ll invade your country.” Saddam reluctantly lets them roam around wherever they want, jumping through the second hoop to avoid a war.
3.An increasingly frustrated Bush now demands “Either you let us interview your scientists or we’ll invade your country.” (By the way, when was the last time the U.S. let IAEA weapons inspectors into the U.S. to inspect American nuclear weapons facilities? How about never? But hypocrisy never seems to register in an American mind.) So Saddam grudgingly lets them interview Iraqi scientists. By this time anyone in the world with more intelligence than a retarded 10-year-old can clearly see which side is desperate to have a war and which side is trying their best to avoid one even though it means submitting to humiliation after humiliation.
4.Bush then demands “Unless you let our spyplanes have overflight rights over all your territory, not just in the no-fly zones, then we’ll invade your country.” Saddam, again, reluctantly complies. For the fourth effing time.
5.STILL this isn’t good enough for Bush, Cheney and the oil-hungry warmongers. Now they make a demand that no leader on the planet would agree to, that Saddam leave the country in the next 48 hours and take his sons with him or else the U.S. will invade his country. When Saddam refuses to comply Bush smugly folds his arms and exclaims “See?? See?? Saddam Hussein is being defiant!! Time to invade Iraq!!”
Sorry but that’s a war of aggression, plain and simple. If you can’t see that it is then you need to take the red, white and blue blinders off and start seeing the world (and the U.S.) for how it really is.
It goes without saying that all deaths, property destruction etc. that results from a war of aggression (including every death from sectarian violence that only started when the U.S. deposed the one stabilizing factor in Iraq, its Baath Party government such as it was, which was a 100% predictable result) can be laid at the doorstep of the aggressor nation. And you as well as this article neglect to mention the fact that the “liberators” of Iraq have used a hell of a lot of depleted uranium munitions that are currently causing Iraqi leukemia rates to skyrocket and have turned large parts of the country into a carcinogenic wasteland for the next several thousand years. If you think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or justified then you are part of a very tiny minority because the rest of the world is smart enough and has enough psychological courage to know aggression when it sees it. Enjoy your fantasy world where America is this white knight that never does anything underhanded because the world at large sees the U.S. for the cowardly bully that it is, picking on small countries that it thinks won’t fight back but avoiding a conflict with North Korea which actually DOES have W.M.D.s and flaunts them, literally daring the U.S. to do something about it. Nah, the U.S. doesn’t want a real fight, it lacks the stomach for one. It will stick to beating up on oil-rich but militarily weak failed states and ignoring the real threats because that’s what kind of country America is. Like the Third Reich but with only a tiny fraction of the balls.
“One” would have more credibility if “they” were more attentive to grammar. Sorry, i do not mean to downplay the gravity of the topic, merely request better editing of releases.