The Scrutinator

IraqBodyCount.net is back in the news, estimating 25,000 civilian casualties.

In their Press Release, they say "30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003." Further, "US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims." and "Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices."

Let's do some math: 30% of 37% of 24865 civilians killed, or 2760, were killed by US-led forces during the invasion phase. Civilian deaths not involving explosives devices (100% - 53% = 47%): nearly 1300. Most of these deaths should be able to be corroborated by the hundreds of embedded reporters traveling with the military at that time. Where are they? These reporters should have witnessed many of these killings, or at least have seen the victims' bodies soon after their deaths.

Further, I reviewed this project on 9/8/2004 (before this blog existed). Here are my notes:

Listening to NPR, they did an interview of the web-site iraqbodycount.net. They claim between 11,800 and 13,800 civilian deaths to date, since the start of the conflict. However, scrutinizing their methods, here’s what I find:

• Their list of media sources is long, but it’s unlikely that most of these sources have trusted reporters doing independent, original, eye-witness reporting throughout Iraq (e.g., the Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times). So it’s not likely that all stories are really from independent sources.
• They consider as news sources commondreams.org (“Breaking news & views for the progressive community”) and intellnet.org (now defunct with the message “well folks, that time in my life has finally arrived; I have finally graduated and found employment…”), and the famously anti-American Al Jazeera.
• Consider the typical ambush against U.S. soldiers. The enemy (let’s assume Saddam loyalists) prepare carefully and lie in waiting. As much a part of that ambush as those who trigger the road-side bomb or fire the RPGs is the “innocent bystander” who’s ready to meet the press with reports of coalition forces’ butchery. So corroboration is essential, but do we have any?
• “The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.” Per my remarks above, this doesn’t establish the level of independence and rigor they assume. One point they’re trying to make is that the press’ interconnectedness has a self-correcting nature, but it shows that independence and interconnectedness are in tension, if not at odds.
• By their accounting, if a group of Saddam loyalists or terrorists went from house to house murdering indiscriminately, they count that exactly as though a coalition soldier pulled the trigger. Are these equivalent? Not a chance.
• “The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). … In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.” If one has a different interpretation of “those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization”, then the numbers are meaningless. Technically, Iraq didn’t comply with the conditions for the first Gulf War’s cease-fire, nor with a dozen other UN Resolutions. Finally, Bush gave Saddam the 48-hour ultimatum to seek exile, and it was his refusal that led to war. Any of these facts technically and/or morally shift the burden of responsibility, making the entire project meaningless.
• Taking that same statement to its logical conclusion, if we were to shift the burden of responsibility, then by their own statements, we could carpet-bomb Fallujah and they would put every civilian death “squarely on the shoulders” of Saddam. Yeah, right.
• Their standard would apply equally to our actions in Afghanistan, too. We didn’t get explicit UN permission there either.
• Ironically, even using their criteria, Saddam would have murdered more Iraqi civilians in the same time-frame. Estimates of Saddam’s brutality (from mass graves found) suggest that he killed on average 36 people every day he was in power (not including soldiers who died in the Iran-Iraq War). So let’s compare their numbers to his. From 3/20/2003 (start of the war) to today is about 1 year, 5-1/2 months, or about 530 days. They report a maximum of 13,802 civilian deaths. Saddam would have killed 530 x 36 = 19,080 civilians: or over 5,200 more. Further, those civilians would have died with no reporting from any news outlet—no voice at all.
• Their raw data may contain errors: the Iraq war began on March 20th, 2003, but they have entries “10 Feb 2003” (x003) and “12 Feb 2003” (k011). Do they mean 2004? Or are they counting things before the war? In fact, it looks like they go back to “01 Jan 2003” intentionally—entry “x001”.

My conclusion: anti-American propaganda.

HT: NRO's Media Blog: first, second, third, fourth.

Update: Edited a bit for wordiness.

Welcome, NRO Media Blog readers!

One more belated thought (12/30/2005): The web-site's background graphic (bombs falling endlessly from a distinctively American bomber) is part of the propaganda, suggesting that the majority of deaths were from American bombing. Misleading.

Update, 12/30/2005: GatewayPundit's analysis shows progress in Iraq.

By The Scrutinator @ 11:42 PM