[I'm putting my reply up here; it's to what follows, of course.]
I'd bet the numbers are higher than the IBC web site indicates as well. However, anyone who wants to argue against the conflict using casualty statistics alone simply must be extremely cautious about the numbers used.
Even if they're accurate, estimates putting the numbers well into the tens of thousands sound somewhat hysterical, and they *do not stand up* to cursory examination when compared to the IBC tally. Hawks would use that fact quickly, loudly and dismissively, not bothering to look into the details: "Those anti-war, pro-terrorism leftists are saying as many as 200,000 are killed ... but one of their own liberal media web sites can't pin the number down with certainty to more than 14,000. Looks to me like the lefties need a reality check."
Furthermore if *estimated* figures are higher than what eventually is proved, credibility will also be lost.
The safest, sanest approach -- it seems to me -- is to begin the argument at the numbers we know are there, and cautiously put forth that the totals might be much higher, but we simply cannot be sure.
Regardless of how low the IBC numbers are relative to reality, it is inarguable that 14,000 to 16,000 -- up to five times the number killed at the Pentagon, WTC and Pennsylvania combined -- are excessive in prosecution of this ill-thought-out debacle.
Afghanistan's invasion made sense. Iraq was a damned foolish thing to do. As long as that message remains clear, from my point of view, I'm optimistic that the true American patriots will eventually prevail. Keeping the numbers tossed around consistent and conservative, grounded in data, will help keep the message laser-precise, which is what is needed now.
BTW, FWIW I suspect you and I might agree that the conflict's simply a disaster from almost every conceivable perspective.
On Nov 10, 2004, at 11:00 AM, Martin Lewis wrote:
Kaplan mentioned the IBC materials, which are based in much less theoretical means than epidemiology (which, as noted, is not the same as war).
On this point Juan Cole mentions that:
"The methodology of this study is very tight, but it does involve extrapolating from a small number and so could easily be substantially incorrect. But the methodology also is standard in such situations and was used in Bosnia and Kosovo."
He goes on to say:
"I think the results are probably an exaggeration. But they can't be so radically far off that the 16,000 deaths previously estimated can still be viewed as valid. I'd say we have to now revise the number up to at least many tens of thousand--which anyway makes sense. The 16,000 estimate comes from counting all deaths reported in the Western press, which everyone always knew was only a fraction of the true total. (I see deaths reported in al-Zaman every day that don't show up in the Western wire services)."
http://www.juancole.com/ 2004_10_01_juancole_archive.html#109902941049326214
Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
