jimmy22

'25,000 civilians' killed in Iraq

More than half of civilian deaths were caused by explosive devices
Nearly 25,000 civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003, a report says.
Based on more than 10,000 media reports, the dossier is the first detailed account of such deaths.

"The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq," said John Sloboda, one of the report authors.

The Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group, made up of academics and peace activists, carried out the survey.

The Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005 says 37% of all non-combatant deaths were caused by US-led forces.

Neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed

John Sloboda
Report author

Many of these occurred during the invasion phase, which it counts as ending on 1 May 2003.

But killings by anti-occupation and criminal elements also increased steadily over the entire two-year period.

Insurgents are said to have caused 9% of the deaths, while post-invasion criminal violence was responsible for another 36%.


The number of civilians who have died has almost doubled in the second year from the first, according to the report.

Almost a fifth of the 24,865 deaths were women or children and nearly half of all the civilian deaths were reported in the capital Baghdad.


"On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003," said Mr Sloboda.

"It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two-and-a-half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

The Iraqi government welcomed the attention the report gave to Iraqi victims, but said it was a mistake to claim that the "plague of terrorism" had killed fewer Iraqis that the multi-national forces.

"The international forces try to avoid civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists target civilians and try to kill as many of them as they can," it said in a statement.

"The root cause of Iraq's suffering is terrorism, inherited from Saddam's fascist regime and from mistaken fundamentalist ideology.

"Everybody knows that international forces are necessary in Iraq, on a temporary basis and they will leave Iraq at a time chosen by Iraqis, not in response to terrorist pressure."

The IBC wants to see an independent commission set up in Iraq to give the best estimate of civilian deaths and full details of how each person died.

Human rights groups say the occupying powers in Iraq have failed in their duty to catalogue the deaths of civilians.

But the US and Britain say the chaos of war-torn Iraq has made it impossible to get accurate information.

More than 1,700 US soldiers and dozens of other coalition troops are known to have died.


The Iraqi government says 1,300 Iraqi police and military have been killed since security forces were set up in late 2003. But US think-tank the Brookings Institute puts the figure at almost twice this number.

More than half of all civilian deaths were said to have been caused by explosive devices, which disproportionately affected children.

At least 42,500 civilians were reported to have been injured.

The UK-based Iraq Body Count - run by academics and peace activists - is one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian death toll in Iraq.

The Oxford Research Group describes itself as an independent organisation "which seeks to develop effective methods whereby people can bring about positive change on issues of national and international security by non-violent means".

Shek

Is there a link to the report? The conclusions seem somewhat suspect to me.

1. Insurgents are responsible for only 9% of the deaths, yet more than half of the deaths were caused by explosive devices. Whom does the report think is setting up the IEDs?
2. Of the civilian deaths caused by coalition forces, how was their civilian status verified? For example, every airstrike into Fallujah between April 2004 and November was claimed to have hit only civilians, which is laughable.

Don't misunderstand me here - there have certaintly been civilian deaths at the hands of coalition forces, and each and everyone is sad. However, only a handful of them have been the result of actions outside the rules of engagement, which are consistent with the law of land warfare.

jimmy22

This news is by BBC and it could be read at their website

Anon

Gotta agree with Shek.

The conclusions of that report are mired in fantasy.

highsea

The IBC website is here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

It seems like a pretty credible site as far as actual numbers, but as far as saying who's a civvie and who's a combatant, well they pretty much call everyone a civvie. But they do maintain a database of all the incidents, so the numbers are backed up a lot better than the other surveys that claim 100,000 dead, etc, and use very questionable sampling techniques for their estimates. The IBC at least tries to substantiate their numbers.

The numbers for Fallujah are less precise, because they are taking statements from hospitals and doctors without verification. They do this in other places, where precise numbers are unavailable, which is why there is a high/low figure given.

Naturally, the BBC takes the high number, the low side is several thousand less. But at least you can look at the database and and see that the car bombs, IED's, etc. are responsible for most of the killing.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Shek

I was referring to the primary source, the report itself. It can be found here:

http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_d..._2003-2005.pdf

Overall, the report looks relatively solid. However, it's last date of data entry was 19 March, and insurgents and terrorists have been adding to their totals by the bushel since. In contrast, 95% of casualties caused by the US has been during the three periods of high intensity combat (see below). What the report doesn't discuss with enough clarity is specifics on separating civilian deaths with insurgent deaths during the two assaults on Fallujah, as the number of civilian deaths seems too high for those two periods.

If you look at page 12, you see three spikes of deaths due to US forces: the ground war in March/April 2003, Fallujah I, and Fallujah II. The first period, during the ground war, accounts for 74% of civilian deaths at the hands of the US. The last two periods account for another 21%.

Also, it clarified its terminology of explosive devices, which includes everything that goes boom, and refers to IEDs as roadside bombs instead.

Garry

Well I guess that US and UK are responsible for all deaths caused by both coalition soldiers and by constant fighting in the country that is going....

I am glad this bustard Sadam has gone as he could murdered much more without hesitation. But did US and UK ever though of what their intervention will bring to Iraq? Peace and Freedom? Hardly even after constition gets approved.

Is this a role of US and UK to go to other nations where tyrans rule and intervene with troops to install democracy? Who decides where to intervene and where not? A guy in Arizon? Does he really care about those kids and women now killed in Iraq during endless fighting? Seems like americans on all forums discuss mostly how much marines/soldiers were shut there......

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THOSE VICTIMS JUST LIKE RUSSIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIGHTING VICTIMS IN CHECHNYA KILLED BY ALL PARTIES. It was you who made decision to get to Iraq while Iraq did not attack you.....

Bluesman

Hey, look everybody - an IDIOT!

Let's all point and laugh at him.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Anon

"but as far as saying who's a civvie and who's a combatant"

Therein lies the catch.

Obviously insurgents are civilians....but how many of the 25,000?

See, the numbers are meaningless unless they also report who is who, which the report doesn't.

Therefore, it is mired in fantasy.

Anon

"YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THOSE VICTIMS JUST LIKE RUSSIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIGHTING VICTIMS IN CHECHNYA KILLED BY ALL PARTIES. It was you who made decision to get to Iraq while Iraq did not attack you....."

30k Iraqi civvies were dying a year under saddams regime. In the three years since, that's about 90k that would've been dead vs the 25k who are.

That's a net gain of 65k.

And you're right, the US and UK ARE responsible for that net gain.

Shek

Wrong. The US/UK is not responsible for terrorists slicing Iraqis heads off or planting bombs that kill Iraqis.

When you look outside of the three periods of high intensity combat, or in otherwords, the other 26 months of the insurgency, there have been 334 deaths due to US forces. Compare that to the terrorists, and they've reached the same level in the past month. Apples and oranges.

As far as who makes the decision, since you don't have a democracy, I'll explain. The American people vote every two years for their Representative, every four years for the President, and every six years for their Senator. The President is the Commander in Chief of the US military and takes the lead on US foreign policy, with the US Congress approving treaties and authorizing the use of force. In the case of Iraq, the joint authorization pass with about 80% in favor. Also, based on the intelligence at the time, the deception and refusal by Saddam to fully comply with 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and his previous use of WMD, the decision was made to defeat the Iraqi regime before they decided to attack us through proxy terrorists.

Also, if you compare the US assault on Iraq, it is orders of magnitude more restrained when compared to the scorched earth assault on Grozny by the Russians after that got spanked the first time around.

At least you got the "glad that Saddam is gone" part right.

highsea

Garry,you are saying if the US hadn't gone into Iraq, many of these people would be alive. That may be true, but many more would be dead at Saddam's hand, with no hope for a better future. He was killing more than 7 or 8 thousand a year, on average, over a period of something like 28 years.

Accountability should rest with those directly responsible- the US isn't setting the roadside bombs, strapping on vests and entering markets, etc. Most of the dead are killed by terrorists, and they are specifically targeting Iraqis civilians, not coalition soldiers. Can you blame Boeing for 9/11? After all, they built the jets, without which the attack wouldn't have happened.

The US and her allies are taking great pains to avoid civilian casualties- the insurgency is not. If they stand down, casualties go to zero, and Iraqis could get back to rebuilding their country. The elected government of Iraq has asked us to stay, so we need to do that until they feel they are able to secure the country against these terrorists, or until the Iraqi people elect someone who tells us to go home.

Garry

Hi Highsea, Sniper and Shek

sorry but terrorist are killing those people under your rule. Same as people who die in Chechnya are being killed while Russian forces "control" the area....

I agree with you. There is one gain - Saddam has gone and there is a slight chance that the war raging in Iraq may come down with years and less killing will be observed... but americans can do really little to influence this now.

Saddam was killing a lot but I don't want to start body arithmetics here Spiner. It is not like you have a choise to kill 25,000 to save 65,000.... this should not be compared.

Uzbek president recently murdered 745 of people. In Sudan para-Government troops were killing many thousand people, and god knows how many people die in Africa without food. You can not help all them with your army.... once you leave the place a new tyran raises if people internally used to live this way. That is why Moisus was making jews 40-years in desert - until new people were born. The slave and the tyran are the same, but just different sides of same thing.... unfortunatelly same with Iraq, Uzbekistan, Sudan and many other places..... democracy could not be installed with power

You already forgot why you came there. Your president told you that Iraq is a danger to US and responsible for September 11th. He also told that there are WMD there and if this gets to terrorists US is in great danger. US demanded Saddam to show his weapons stores not to reform his rulling.

Later you came and found now WMD. And suppressed people were happy that you released them.

But this society has very few people who can respect other's rights or claim properly their rights. In this condition every policement gets to local bloody tyran.... (that what is happening now with Iraqi police). Every party there knows that it can secure its rights by only fighting and Saddam was just a bloody balance between them.

You will make a parliament, constitution, army and courts but who would fill those institutes? Formerly suppressed people who are ready to suppress others now.

Read more of Francis Fukuyama and you understand why people at Bush administration hoped that democracy will rise in Iraq.

I am idealist. And I am really sorry that Fukuyama's ideas turned wrong.... at least in short-term

Shek

We haven't forgotten why we are in Iraq. Eliminate WMD weapons and programs. The weapons weren't there, and the programs are no longer there. That was the near-term objective. The next was to install democracy in order to end up with a government that was friendly towards the West and to cause a chain reaction of democratic process across the Middle East. The early signs are promising. Where you may see dead Iraqis at the hands of Islamic extremists and pro-Baathist insurgents, I see a fledgling government with security forces that grow stronger everyday, citizens that take control of their destiny everyday by turning against the insurgents and terrorists and turning them in to authorities, and political progress that has insurgent groups attempting to negotiate their way back into the mainstream. The government won't look like the US in our lifetime, which should be no surprise. A country with a large majority of Muslims will have a different form than a nation that is over two centuries old and has a Western values system.

Leader

"sorry but terrorist are killing those people under your rule."

Not this argument again. Blame America first BS.

__________________