|
The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq
The reporting of the Iraqi death toll - both in its scale and
account of who is doing the killing - is profoundly dishonest
By George Monbiot
11/08/05 "The
Guardian" -- -- We were told that the Iraqis don't
count. Before the invasion began, the head of US central command,
General Thomas Franks, boasted that "we don't do body counts". His
claim was repeated by Donald Rumsfeld in November 2003 ("We don't do
body counts on other people") and the Pentagon last January ("The
only thing we keep track of is casualties for US troops and
civilians").
But it's not true. Almost every week the Pentagon claims to have
killed 50 or 70 or 100 insurgents in its latest assault on the
latest stronghold of the ubiquitous monster Zarqawi. In May the
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that his soldiers had
killed 250 of Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants" (or so 500 of his best
friends had told him). But last week, the Pentagon did something
new. Buried in its latest security report to Congress is a bar chart
labelled "average daily casualties - Iraqi and coalition. 1 Jan
04-16 Sep 05". The claim that it kept no track of Iraqi deaths was
false.
The report does not explain what it means by casualty, or if its
figures represent all casualties, only insurgents, or, as the
foregoing paragraph appears to hint, only civilians killed by
insurgents. There is no explanation of how the figures were gathered
or compiled. The only accompanying text consists of the words
"Source: MNC-I", which means Multi-National Corps - Iraq. We'll just
have to trust them.
What the chart shows is that these unexplained casualties have more
than doubled since the beginning of the Pentagon's survey. From
January to March 2004, 26 units of something or other were happening
every day, while in September 2005 the something or other rose to
64. But whatever it is that's been rising, the weird morality of
this war dictates that it is reported as good news. Journalists have
been multiplying the daily average of mystery units by the number of
days, discovering that the figure is lower than previous estimates
of Iraqi deaths, and using it to cast doubts on them. As ever, the
study in the line of fire is the report published by the Lancet in
October last year.
It was a household survey - of 988 homes in 33 randomly selected
districts - and it suggested, on the basis of the mortality those
households reported before and after the invasion, that the risk of
death in Iraq had risen by a factor of 1.5; somewhere between 8,000
and 194,000 extra people had died, with the most probable figure
being 98,000. Around half the deaths, if Falluja was included, or
15% if it was not, were caused by violence, and the majority of
those by attacks on the part of US forces.
In the US and the UK, the study was either ignored or torn to bits.
The media described it as "inflated", "overstated", "politicised"
and "out of proportion". Just about every possible misunderstanding
and distortion of its statistics was published, of which the most
remarkable was the Observer's claim that: "The report's authors
admit it drew heavily on the rebel stronghold of Falluja, which has
been plagued by fierce fighting. Strip out Falluja, as the study
itself acknowledged, and the mortality rate is reduced
dramatically." In fact, as they made clear on page one, the authors
had stripped out Falluja; their estimate of 98,000 deaths would
otherwise have been much higher.
But the attacks in the press succeeded in sinking the study. Now,
whenever a newspaper or broadcaster produces an estimate of civilian
deaths, the Lancet report is passed over in favour of lesser
figures. For the past three months, the editors and subscribers of
the website Medialens have been writing to papers and broadcasters
to try to find out why. The standard response, exemplified by a
letter from the BBC's online news service last week, is that the
study's "technique of sampling and extrapolating from samples has
been criticised". That's true, and by the same reasoning we could
dismiss the fact that 6 million people were killed in the Holocaust,
on the grounds that this figure has also been criticised, albeit by
skinheads. The issue is not whether the study has been criticised,
but whether the criticism is valid.
As Medialens has pointed out, it was the same lead author, using the
same techniques, who reported that 1.7 million people had died as a
result of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). That
finding has been cited by Tony Blair, Colin Powell and almost every
major newspaper on both sides of the Atlantic, and none has
challenged either the method or the result. Using the Congo study as
justification, the UN security council called for all foreign armies
to leave the DRC and doubled the country's UN aid budget.
The other reason the press gives for burying the Lancet study is
that it is out of line with competing estimates. Like Jack Straw,
wriggling his way around the figures in a written ministerial
statement, they compare it to the statistics compiled by the Iraqi
health ministry and the website Iraq Body Count.
In December 2003, Associated Press reported that "Iraq's health
ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during
the war". According to the head of the ministry's statistics
department, both the puppet government and the Coalition Provisional
Authority demanded that it be stopped. As Naomi Klein has shown on
these pages, when US soldiers stormed Falluja (a year ago today),
their first action was to seize the general hospital and arrest the
doctors. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected
as an early target because the American military believed that it
was the source of rumours about heavy casualties". After the
coalition had used these novel statistical methods to improve the
results, Blair told parliament that "figures from the Iraqi ministry
of health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our
view the most accurate survey there is".
Iraq Body Count, whose tally has reached 26,000-30,000, measures
only civilian deaths which can be unambiguously attributed to the
invasion and which have been reported by two independent news
agencies. As the compilers point out, "it is likely that many if not
most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media ... our own
total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position,
because of gaps in reporting or recording". Of the seven mortality
reports surveyed by the Overseas Development Institute, the estimate
in the Lancet's paper was only the third highest. It remains the
most thorough study published so far. Extraordinary as its numbers
seem, they are the most likely to be true.
And what of the idea that most of the violent deaths in Iraq are
caused by coalition troops? Well according to the Houston Chronicle,
even Blair's favourite data source, the Iraqi health ministry,
reports that twice as many Iraqis - and most of them civilians - are
being killed by US and UK forces as by insurgents. When the Pentagon
claims that it has just killed 50 or 70 or 100 rebel fighters, we
have no means of knowing who those people really were. Everyone it
blows to pieces becomes a terrorist. In July Jack Keane, the former
vice chief of staff of the US army, claimed that coalition troops
had killed or captured more than 50,000 "insurgents" since the start
of the rebellion. Perhaps they were all Zarqawi's closest
lieutenants.
We can expect the US and UK governments to seek to minimise the
extent of their war crimes. But it's time the media stopped
collaborating.
http://www.monbiot.com
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
