shark hazard...,
2008-11-13 01:04:34
| Main |
a fitting successor to the education president...,
2008-11-13 11:34:53
iraq mortality studies:
Did you know the Bush administration censored the views of epidemiologists from the Center for Disease Control concerning scientific surveys of the death toll in Iraq? No? Well, neither did I. I don't know how or why I can be at all shocked by that, but somehow I am.
The major "flaw" with the Roberts, Health Ministry, and UNDP ILCS studies is that none of them go past June of 2006. This lops off the most violent period in Iraq's civil war, between July 2006 and August 2007, at least as measured by the proxy of news agency reports. Reported violence has only declined below the already atrocious levels of 2005 in the past couple of months, suggesting that since August 2007 excess mortality continued at rates comparable to the initial "controversial" Lancet study.
The Opinion Research Business survey included that period, running to August 2007, and the numbers are outright genocidal: 946,000 to 1,120,000.
As for taking credit for security gains since late 2007, only a little less than half of Americans credit the surge, surprising considering the conventional wisdom in the press. But that number is nevertheless off the charts compared to how many Iraqis feel that way [pdf, 3/17/2008]:
few [Iraqis] give the United States direct credit for security gains. When those
who see security as having improved are asked who deserves the most credit, Iraqi
institutions lead the way – 26 percent cite the national government, 18 percent the police, 13 percent the army. Just 4 percent mention the United States or U.S. forces.
That probably had a lot to do with the fact that half of respondents still considered the security situation worse.
