News Is Civil War in Iraq Unavoidable?

[Astronuc]

It makes sense that, especially as a Shia, Fouad Ajami would be so strongly in favor of replacing Saddam's Sunni rule with one respective of the Shia majority in Iraq. However, I dispute his focus on the foreign nature of that "gift", as in doing so he is overlooking the the effect of our chosen method of delivery. Diamonds are a gift few can deny, but even the most adored gems can be unwelcome when delivered though the barrel of a gun.

Agreed! Especially since it was unnecessary. I don't agree with everything Ajami said. It will only be successful if the Iraqis - Shia, Sunni, Kurd and anyone else - can put aside the violence and start working together peacefully for common interest. Only then can Iraq be successful. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that the very un-democratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are holding on - with tacit approval/acceptance of the US.

I just heard this morning that a bus was ambushed enroute to the Shia shrine at Karbala. Fourteen men were removed from the bush and executed. The women were allowed to continue on and notified authorities. This is a civil war!

 

[McGyver]

Torture and Sectarian Intimidation Fuels Civil War

The pundits can use any number of adjectives to decribe what is happening within the sectarian communities of Iraq, but one thing is CLEAR: Torture and its Related Intimidation is Fueling the Conflict.

SEE MSN News Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14798662/

What is most disturbing about this report is how militias and sectarian activists use "torture and intimidation" to press their agendas. Such political tactics are extremely destructive to community sharing of views, long term growth, and personal freedoms.

It is SHOCKING that the collective Arab world is yet to speak out with "one collective voice" against the use of torture to advance one's political and religious views. Many cried foul over the reports of some U.S. military practices. But where it really matters, THEY remain SILENT!

 

[Astronuc]

Bodies Found Across Baghdad Show Signs of Torture
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6067132

NPR.org, September 13, 2006 · Police find 65 bodies across Baghdad, many in Sunni areas, showing signs of torture. [During 24 hrs]

Forty-five of the victims were discovered in predominantly Sunni Arab parts of western Baghdad, and 15 were found in mostly Shiite areas of eastern Baghdad.

Meanwhile, mortar attacks, car bombings and shootings left another 30 dead across Iraq.

None have been identified. Some may have been kidnapped for ransom.

 

[Astronuc]

The news from Iraq seems especially grim these days as sectarian violence continues, apparently unabated.

Eight women shot in Iraq

BAGHDAD: Gunmen attacked a group of Shi'ite women picking vegetables in a field yesterday, slaying six adults and two young girls and kidnapping two teenagers near a tense village south of Baghdad where many residents - Sunnis and Shi'ites - have fled to escape violence. The shooting was one of the deadliest single attacks specifically targeting women in Iraq's months-long wave of sectarian violence. Police said they suspected Sunni gunmen seeking to intimidate Shi'ites into fleeing the area.

The attack took place in fields outside Saifiya, a mixed Sunni-Shi'ite village on the southern outskirts of Baghdad.

Most residents have already left to escape violence, the Sunnis going to the nearby town of Madain, the Shi'ites to neighbouring Suwayrah.

In another sign of Iraq's escalating sectarian violence, police in the town of Duluiyah north of Baghdad found 14 beheaded bodies thought to be from a group of 17 workers kidnapped by gunmen on Thursday while traveling home to the nearby town of Balad, which is mostly Shi'ite.

The police discovered the bodies at noon Friday, but had no word on the fate of the three other abducted workers.

The group of women killed yesterday were gathering vegetables when gunmen pulled up in two cars around 8 am and surrounded the field. They opened fire, killing six women and two girls aged about 4 or 5 years old, said police Lt Mohammed Al Shammari. The attackers forced two teenage girls into their vehicles and escaped, he said.

Besides the attack on the women, at least 10 other Iraqi civilians were killed yesterday. A US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in northern Iraq, the 45th American death this month.

Meanwhile, a new video on the Internet showed a man claiming to be an Iraqi Sunni insurgent asking Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to replace the leader of the group in Iraq because of its attacks against Sunni clerics. . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_shiite_cleric_1

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani once wielded so much influence he seemed to single-handedly chart the post- Saddam Hussein political future in Iraq. Now, the country's top Shiite cleric appears powerless as Iraq edges toward civil war.

With dozens of Iraqis dying daily from Sunni-Shiite reprisal killings, the failures of al-Sistani's pleas for peace underline a major power shift in the Shiite establishment.

"Their political interests now outweigh religious interests," said Mustapha al-Ani, a Dubai-based Iraqi analyst. "To some extent, the need for al-Sistani's endorsement is no longer a prerequisite to gain power. Those with street credibility and a militia now have the power."

It's a major shift from the more than two years following Saddam's ouster, when Shiite leaders hung on al-Sistani's every word concerning politics. His opposition to U.S. plans for elections and a constitution forced the Americans to make dramatic changes. His calls for Shiites to avoid violence were largely adhered to.

But priorities for Shiite political parties have changed and their leaders no longer appear to feel the need to be seen to be closely associated with al-Sistani to gain legitimacy.

The swing has stripped the Shiite clergy, with the Iranian-born al-Sistani at its head, of much of its influence and given a lead role to followers of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who does not recognize al-Sistani's religious authority.

It is a power shift that does not bode well for Iraq's Shiite-dominated government or the U.S.-led military coalition as they try to contain the stubborn Sunni insurgency and the wave of sectarian killings that has swelled since last winter.

Al-Sadr's supporters are widely suspected in many of the attacks on Sunni Arabs. His militiamen, who staged two revolts against U.S. troops in 2004, also have clashed with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad and southern Iraq in recent weeks.

Al-Sistani has responded to the bloodshed with a mixture of resignation and a deep sense of disappointment, said an official who is in regular contact with al-Sistani in the southern holy city of Najaf.

"He keeps praying for peace," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. "He feels the pain every day, but he has no magic wand. He tells visitors every day that what's happening does not please God or his prophet and has nothing to do with Islamic teachings."

. . . .

Essentially, Iraq is embroiled in a civil war. Various entities are jockeying for power and control, and that means targeting opposition groups. It seems to be a no-win situation at present.

 

[Astronuc]

Analysis
Are the Troops in Iraq in the Right Position?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6358685

Weekend Edition Saturday, October 21, 2006 · The Bush administration's recent Iraq strategy has been to concentrate troops in Baghdad. Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former 1st Infantry Division commander in Iraq, tells Andrea Seabrook the rest of Iraq also needs U.S. troops for security and training.

When a general of this caliber feels he can do more for his troops by retiring and leaving the military (Army), then something is very wrong with the government, as is certainly apparent when one reads Bob Woodward's book, "State of Denial".

 

[turbo]

Lately, Bush has said that he would listen to some of the generals in the field to see if tactics need changing. If he had done this years ago instead of listening to Rummy and Shooter, we might not be in as bad a mess as we are. As it is, the idiots have painted our military into a corner and their options are quite limited.

 

[edward]

Lately, Bush has said that he would listen to some of the generals in the field to see if tactics need changing. If he had done this years ago instead of listening to Rummy and Shooter, we might not be in as bad a mess as we are. As it is, the idiots have painted our military into a corner and their options are quite limited.

Actually Bush has been saying that he depends on information from his commanders in the field for the past several years. His commanders know that any request for more troops would be a career ending event.

In the case of Batiste, he retired so that he could express his displeasure with the current tactics.

As far as concentrating troops in one area, that too goes back several years. Iraq is like a balloon, we squeeze one area and the insergency expands in another.

Marine combat reserves are now preparing for a second tour in Iraq. Most people would presume that this would have already happened, but the Marine combat reserves are supposed to be the spearhead of our ability to fight wars on two fronts. The Marine combat reserves are not being sent to Iraq in addition to existing troops they are being sent as replacements for the battle worn units who will be leaving Iraq.

There is a critical shortage of vehicles in the military. The Red River Army Depot recently announced that they have ramped up the rebuilding (reseting in army parlance) of Humvees to the rate of 32 per day compared to 3 per week a year ago.
http://www.army.mil/armybtkc/news/index.htm

As one military trade journal put it, half of the vehicles are in Iraq and the other half are in for repair. And this includes all types of vehicles.
We don't even have enough vehicles to do proper training of new recruits.
http://cw2.trb.com/news/nationworld/nation/kwgn-natl-military-vehicles,0,2458763.story?coll=kwgn-nation-1

We keep hearing that the Iraq military and polce must control the insurgency, yet the Iraqi police are only armed with hand guns and the military is only armed with AK 47's. They are outgunned by insergents who have RPG's and mortars. I have a gut feeling that we don't trust them with real weapons.

sorry, just a little rant

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi officials 'stole millions'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6076834.stm

A former Iraqi minister has said that officials in the former interim government stole about $800m (£425m) meant for buying military equipment.

Former Finance Minister Ali Allawi told the US CBS network that about $1.2bn had been allocated for new weapons.

About $400m was spent on outdated equipment and the rest stolen, he said.

Mr Allawi said the UK and US had done little to recover the money or catch the suspects, who were "running around the world".

"We have not been given any serious, official support from either the United States or the UK or any of the surrounding Arab countries," he said.

"The only explanation I can come up with is that too many people in positions of power and authority in the new Iraq have been, in one way or another, found with their hands inside the cookie jar.

"And if they are brought to trial, it will cast a very disparaging light on those people who had supported them and brought them to this position of power and authority."

'Pay-offs'

The head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, Judge Radhi al-Radhi, said he had obtained arrest warrants for a number of officials in October 2005, but almost all the suspects fled the country.

None of the officials have been named.

But CBS's 60 Minutes programme also played an audio recording of Ziad Cattan, who was in charge of military procurement at the time, apparently talking in Amman, Jordan to an associate about pay-offs to senior Iraqi officials.

The interim government was established by the Bush administration.

US official retracts Iraq remarks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6075934.stm

The US state department official who said that the US had shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq has apologised for his comments.
Alberto Fernandez, who made the remarks during an interview with Arabic TV station al-Jazeera, said he had "seriously misspoken".

His comments did not represent the views of the state department, he said.

The BBC's Sarah Morris in Washington says it is unclear if Mr Fernandez was told by his seniors to apologise.

His original remarks have resonated with many Democrats and some Republicans who have been urging the administration to shift their course in the conflict, she says.

They came at a time of intense scrutiny of White House Iraq policy, with mid-term elections due next month.

'Disaster for region'

Mr Fernandez is an Arabic speaker who is director of public diplomacy in the state department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

On Saturday, he told the Qatar-based broadcaster that the world was "witnessing failure in Iraq".

Based on what I have seen and heard eslewhere, Fernandez's initial remarks are on the mark.

US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6074182.stm

A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez made the remarks during an interview with Arabic television station al-Jazeera.

The state department says Mr Fernandez was quoted incorrectly - but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words.

Herein US really refers to the Bush administration.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi Realities Undermine the Pentagon’s Predictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/world/middleeast/25assess.html

BAGHDAD, Oct. 24 — In trying to build support for the American strategy in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said Tuesday that the Iraqi military could be expected to take over the primary responsibility for securing the country within 12 to 18 months.

But that laudable goal seems far removed from the violence-plagued streets of Iraq’s capital, where American forces have taken the lead in trying to protect the city and American soldiers substantially outnumber Iraqi ones.

Given the rise in sectarian killings, a Sunni-based insurgency that appears to be as potent as ever and an Iraqi security establishment that continues to have difficulties deploying sufficient numbers of motivated and proficient forces in Baghdad, General Casey’s target seems to be an increasingly heroic assumption.

On paper, Iraq has substantial security forces. The Pentagon noted in an August report to Congress that Iraq had more than 277,000 troops and police officers, including some 115,000 army combat soldiers.

But those figures, which have often been cited at Pentagon news conferences as an indicator of progress and a potential exit strategy for American troops, paint a distorted picture. When the deep-seated reluctance of many soldiers to serve outside their home regions, leaves of absence and AWOL rates are taken into account, only a portion of the Iraqi Army is readily available for duty in Baghdad and other hot spots.

One consideration - is the NY Times accurately with respect to the Sunni insurgency being as potent as ever? If so, progress is not being made. And if the Iraqi army is not going into the field, it ain't working.

Based on conflicting reports and what I hear from inside and outside the administration and military, I don't see Iraq getting better.

Bush needs to start being honest. Rumsfeld (and Cheney) should have gone a long time ago. Rumsfeld has not been honest with Bush, and based on that I'd say Rumsfeld has been disloyal.

Meanwhile - Idle Contractors Add Millions to Iraq Rebuilding
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/world/middleeast/25reconstruct.html

Overhead costs have consumed more than half the budget of some reconstruction projects in Iraq, according to a government estimate released yesterday, leaving far less money than expected to provide the oil, water and electricity needed to improve the lives of Iraqis.

The report provided the first official estimate that, in some cases, more money was being spent on housing and feeding employees, completing paperwork and providing security than on actual construction.

Those overhead costs have ranged from under 20 percent to as much as 55 percent of the budgets, according to the report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. On similar projects in the United States, those costs generally run to a few percent.

The highest proportion of overhead was incurred in oil-facility contracts won by KBR Inc., the Halliburton subsidiary formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root, which has frequently been challenged by critics in Congress and elsewhere.

The actual costs for many projects could be even higher than the estimates, the report said, because the United States has not properly tracked how much such expenses have taken from the $18.4 billion of taxpayer-financed reconstruction approved by Congress two years ago.

The report said the prime reason was not the need to provide security, though those costs have clearly risen in the perilous environment, and are a burden that both contractors and American officials routinely blame for such increases.

Instead, the inspector general pointed to a simple bureaucratic flaw: the United States ordered the contractors and their equipment to Iraq and then let them sit idle for months at a time.

Hah! Hippies did not order contractors and equipment and had them sitting around doing nothing while collecting huge paychecks.

 

[MeJennifer]

Based on conflicting reports and what I hear from inside and outside the administration and military, I don't see Iraq getting better.

It depends on the point of view.

To me it is obvious that the only reason the US went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan is to disable their military and economic power. I fear that the same is going to happen to Iran, Libanon and Syria.
"Helping" the population has nothing to do with it and one must be extremely naive to think that that was the real reason.

 

[edward]

Civil war apparently can have various definitions. But when the people start to leave the country to escape the violence, that is a good indicator there is something more than sectarian bloodshed going on.

Updated: 4:43 p.m. MT Oct 13, 2006
GENEVA - Thousands of Iraqis are fleeing the country every day in a “steady, silent exodus” and a spike in sectarian violence has stopped others from returning to their homeland, the U.N. refugee agency said on Friday.

 

[Astronuc]

Exiting Iraq: A Discussion
Exiting Iraq: Adeed Dawisha's View
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6397238

Weekend Edition Saturday, October 28, 2006 · Adeed Dawisha is a professor of political science at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Born in Iraq, Dawisha urges the United States to acknowledge that his homeland is a de facto segregated country. He wants American diplomats to urge the Iraqi government toward a peaceful partition or a loosely federated state.

Apparently something like 500,000 Iraqis have been internally displaced and sectarian killings are more or less a daily occurrence. It sure sounds like a civil war to me.

Partitioning the country would represent a failure. However, the Bush administration will redefine victory so as to claim victory.

Who will maintain security in Anbar province, which could become like the tribal lands in Pakistan? It would appear that the US forces will maintain a permanent presence in the region, which means Iraq and the other nations are not exactly free.

 

[Astronuc]

The Case For Dividing Iraq
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555130,00.html
With the country descending into civil war, a noted diplomat and author argues why partition may be the U.S.'s only exit strategy
By PETER W. GALBRAITH

Iraq is broken!

Iraq's national-unity government is not united and does not govern. Iraqi security forces, the centerpiece of the U.S.'s efforts for stability, are ineffective or, even worse, combatants in the country's escalating civil war. President George W. Bush says the U.S.'s goal is a unified and democratic Iraq, but we have no way to get there. As Americans search for answers, there is one obvious alternative: split Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'ite states.

The case for the partition of Iraq is straightforward: It has already happened. The Kurds, a non-Arab people who live in the country's north, enjoy the independence they long dreamed about. The Iraqi flag does not fly in Kurdistan, which has a democratically elected government and its own army. In southern Iraq, Shi'ite religious parties have carved out theocratic fiefdoms, using militias that now number in the tens of thousands to enforce an Iranian-style Islamic rule. To the west, Iraq's Sunni provinces have become chaotic no-go zones, with Islamic insurgents controlling Anbar province while Baathists and Islamic radicals operate barely below the surface in Salahaddin and Nineveh. And Baghdad, the heart of Iraq, is now partitioned between the Shi'ite east and the Sunni west. The Mahdi Army, the most radical of the Shi'ite militias, controls almost all the Shi'ite neighborhoods, and al-Qaeda has a large role in Sunni areas. Once a melting pot, Baghdad has become the front line of Iraq's Sunni-Shi'ite war, which is claiming at least 100 lives every day.

Most Iraqis do not want civil war. But they have rejected the idea of a unified Iraq. In the December 2005 national elections, Shi'ites voted overwhelmingly for Shi'ite religious parties, Sunni Arabs for Sunni religious or nationalist parties, and the Kurds for Kurdish nationalist parties. Fewer than 10% of Iraq's Arabs crossed sectarian lines. The Kurds voted 98.7% for independence in a nonbinding referendum.

Iraq's new constitution, approved by 80% of Iraq's voters, is a road map to partition. The constitution allows Iraq's three main groups to establish powerful regions, each with its own government, substantial control over the oil resources in its territory and even its own regional army. Regional law supersedes federal law on almost all matters. The central government is so powerless that, under the constitution, it cannot even impose a tax.

American leaders seem to be in denial about these facts. . . . . .

The Bush strategy has failed, and failed as Bush was declaring "Mission Accomplished". What happens with Sunni and Shiite areas if Iraq is divided. Will the US be welcome? Maybe in the Kurdish north, but that may be it. Resentment may last a generation or two for all the people killed during the US occupation.

 

[BobG]

Partitioning will be messy - just like it was in Yugoslavia. It's easy to designate some areas as definitely Kurdish, Sunni, or Shi'ite, but there will still be trouble over the overlapping regions. There also has to be a way to give the Sunni region at least enough of the oil revenues to keep them from raiding the Shi'ite and Kurdish regions.

There's going to be a lot of concern by Iraq neighbors if the country breaks up into an independent Kurdistan, Sunni region, and Shi'ite region. Some of Iraq's neighbors might be a little more accepting of any idea that avoids total catastrophe, or maybe they'll just stand in the way of any decision that they've been left out of.

That doesn't mean I don't think partitioning isn't a more realistic and easier solution than we're pursuing now. It just means I'll be surprised if it's a lot easier. Any direction points to a long road, which probably makes it even more important not to waste too much time following the wrong one.

 

[Astronuc]

It would be great if the various groups could reconcile and stay together as on stable nation state, but how do they overcome the incessant retribution and retaliation. If they would stop with the tit-for-tat killings and kidnappings, there might be a chance.

 

[edward]

The jobless rate in Iraq is horrible. These people need jobs. If these people had jobs to go to it would decrease the violence. They need some kind of a public works program, and a leader that wasn't selected by the USA.

We have 14 permanent military bases under construction in Iraq along with a $5 billion dollar embassy. Most of the workers are from India, because we don't trust the workers of the country which we liberated.

Somehow we have to get the men of Iraq back in the workplace. If half of those 14 U.S. bases were converted into trade and commercial centers complete with trade schools, housing, police and jobs I think it would help. "As my mother used to say: Idle hands are the devils plaything."

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi Official: 150,000 Civilians Dead
from The Associated Press
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5642694

BAGHDAD, Iraq November 9, 2006, 5:03 p.m. ET · A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, as Iraq's health minister estimated at least 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war -- about three times previously accepted estimates.

Moderate Sunni Muslims, meanwhile, threatened to walk away from politics and pick up guns, while the Shiite-dominated government renewed pressure on the United States to unleash the Iraqi army and claimed it could crush violence in six months.

After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.

Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000-50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month-old conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports.

No official count has ever been available, and Health Minister Ali al-Shemari did not detail how he arrived at the new estimate of 150,000, which he provided to reporters during a visit to the Austrian capital.

But later Thursday, Hassan Salem, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, said the 150,000 figure included civilians, police and the bodies of people who were abducted, later found dead and collected at morgues run by the Health Ministry.

Seems an awful lot like a civil war to me.

 

[edward]

Another study has the death toll over 600,000. Is that possible or am I miscounting zero's?

A new household survey of Iraq has found that approximately 600,000 people have been killed in the violence of the war that began with the U.S. invasion in March 2003. The survey was conducted by an American and Iraqi team of public health researchers. Data were collected by Iraqi medical doctors with analysis conducted by faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The results will be published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf

 

[Office_Shredder]

That study has been largley discounted, because it used a number of methods that artificially boosted the count (such as interviewing people who lived on main roads exclusively, even though people who live on main roads have a higher chance of being killed)

 

[Gokul43201]

That study has been largley discounted, because it used a number of methods that artificially boosted the count (such as interviewing people who lived on main roads exclusively, even though people who live on main roads have a higher chance of being killed)

It has been discounted? I'd like to see the rebuttal.

Edward, the peer-reviewed study you quote does not count the number of killed but in fact does a calculation based on estimation of death rates (so it counts the increase in number of deaths as a result of the war) - the same kind of calculation that has been used for years now to calculate deaths from epidemics and famines. I saw a CNN(?) interview where (I believe it was) John Zogby (who) said the survey methodology was sound and that he felt confident in its results. He also said that the disparity between this number and the typical numbers reported by the media is partly because the media isn't counting all the deaths in the country (most of the media is concentrated in the green zone, and has little knowledge of what happens in remote parts of the country) but also because the two different sources are talking about two different numbers.

 

[turbo]

It has been discounted? I'd like to see the rebuttal.

Edward, the peer-reviewed study you quote does not count the number of killed but in fact does a calculation based on estimation of death rates (so it counts the increase in number of deaths as a result of the war) - the same kind of calculation that has been used for years now to calculate deaths from epidemics and famines. I saw a CNN(?) interview where (I believe it was) John Zogby (who) said the survey methodology was sound and that he felt confident in its results. He also said that the disparity between this number and the typical numbers reported by the media is partly because the media isn't counting all the deaths in the country (most of the media is concentrated in the green zone, and has little knowledge of what happens in remote parts of the country) but also because the two different sources are talking about two different numbers.

And anybody that thinks the Iraqi Health Ministry knows about ALL the people killed in this war and is willing to report on all of them is in serious need of some education.

 

[Astronuc]

Another study has the death toll over 600,000. Is that possible or am I miscounting zero's?

No, this the same study Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health which was reported in October and is to be published in the Lancet, the principal medical journal in the UK.

'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm


I don't know that the study has been discounted, but it has been dismissed by the Bush administration, and certainly is disputed by others. We may never know because people have just disappeared, which could be due to internal/external migration, kidnapping, in addition to being killed.

 

[edward]

No, this the same study Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health which was reported in October and is to be published in the Lancet, the principal medical journal in the UK.

'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

I was referring to a previous study published in the Lancet that had the total around 100,000. I think it was done in 04.

The latest one was funded by MIT.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N45/45iraq.html

Duh Ok we are talking about the same study.

 

[edward]

That study has been largley discounted, because it used a number of methods that artificially boosted the count (such as interviewing people who lived on main roads exclusively, even though people who live on main roads have a higher chance of being killed)

I would like to see a source for that info.

The Johns Hopkins team conducted its study using a methodology known as "cluster sampling." That involved randomly picking 47 clusters of households for a total 1,849 households, scattered across Iraq. Team members interviewed each household about any deaths in the family during the 40 months since the invasion, as well as in the year before the invasion. The team says it reviewed death certificates for 92% of all deaths reported. Based on those figures, it tabulated national mortality rates for various periods before and after the start of the war. The mortality rate last year was nearly four times the preinvasion rate, the study found.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831.html

 

[Astronuc]

Syria and Iran: Keys to Iraq Peace?

Nov. 12, 2006 — Despite past disagreements with Syria and Iran, if a bipartisan commission recommends talks with them to improve the situation in Iraq, the Bush administration will be open to the suggestion, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told ABC News' "This Week."

Bush is slated to meet Monday with the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker. The panel is supposed to advise the president on new strategies in Iraq.

Recently on "This Week," Baker indicated that he thought negotiating with Syria and Iran could be a strategy for improving the situation in Iraq. The commission will reportedly recommend such a solution during talks with Bush this week.

"Iran and Syria have been meddling in Iraq in a very unhelpful way," Bolten told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "Iranian weapons and technology have found their way into the Iraqi conflict and are being used to kill Iraqis and American soldiers. … That needs to stop."

"That said, we'll be open to what the Baker/Hamilton commission has to recommend, and we'll be trying to treat that in as open and bipartisan a way as possible," he said.

After meeting with the president and other top administration officials Monday, the study group plans to brief Democrats on Tuesday. The group's members hope to release their final report within weeks.

Analysts Weigh In

"There's no silver bullet here," said retired U.S. Gen. Jack Keane, an ABC News military analyst. "So I think their plan will reflect a political strategy, a military strategy, an economic one and a very strong diplomatic one."

. . . .

A bit too early to plan a vacation in Baghdad or Basra.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1930001,00.html

The critics argued that the Lancet paper does not indicate that the researchers moved far enough away from the main street. "The further away you get, the further you are from the convoys that roll down the streets and the car bombs and the general violence," said Sean Gourley. "By sampling only cross streets which are more accessible, you get an over-estimation of deaths."

 

[Gokul43201]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1930001,00.html

I don't see anything there that says the "study has been largely discounted". All I see is one group of people arguing that the methodology is flawed and the other group rebutting that (i) the first group does not know the complete details of the methodology, and (ii) that the sampling was done to relfect actual distributions and hence isn't flawed (and it certainly doesn't say that it "exclusively" interviewed people on main streets...in fact, it clearly rebuts any such thing).

 

[edward]

Sean Gourley and Professor Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London, claimed the methodology of the study was fundamentally flawed by what they term "main street bias".

Perhap these guys should actually go to Iraq before making a judgement call. The Shiite vs Sunni killings are not just happening on the main streets. In other incidents, more people are killed on the main streets because more people are on the main streets as compared to more rural areas or side streets. If the bombs were blasting craters in vacant streets the death toll would naturally be lower.

 

[edward]

In the meantime we have a new death toll guestimate by the Iraq health ministry.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773

This reminds me of Vietnam when we called such counts a WAG. (wild arse guess)

 

[BobG]

It looks like any debate over whether civil war is inevitable or whether Iraq is already in a civil war will be ended in a few days. Whatever Baker's group's recommendations may be, they'll be too late to ever be implemented.
Sunni mosques attacked
al-Sadr's group may only control 30 seats in the parliament, but I think their effect will be larger than that. It will be the start of the break up of the Iraqi government.

I don't see any hope of maintaining even a semblance of control.