A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
October 26, 2006Lancet / Burnham,Lafta,Doocy,Roberts Article ThreadLancet / Burnham et al Article ThreadThread Lancetabout Lancet studies. My opinion is complicated. I don't believe the overall death projections. It's too far at variance with with other surveys, like UNDP and Iraqi Body Count. Clusters are intrinsically vulnerable to sampling error, especially for guessing levels of quantities that vary by orders of magnitude across the survey. Note that in the first one, they threw a cluster because it was so high. And they did understand the problem, because they put the data through rather alot of stages to try and deal with it. But since the result is quite far from others, I feel they probably failed. They had a sample population of roughly 12,000 out of the total population of 27,139,584. Suppose (to oversimply drastically) there were 2,000 total deaths in a couple of neighborhoods in Fallujah, of which, say, 90 were seen by the survey. Say 10 deaths were seen elsewhere in Iraq, representing 10 * (27,139,584/12,000) = 23,000 deaths spread uniformly over Iraq. The death rate would then be (deaths seen / total study pop) = (100 / 12000) = 0.8% death rate. There'd then be 0.8 * 27,139,584 = 230,000 projected deaths, all but 25,000 of which are really phantom, resulting from the 90 deaths seen of the mere 2,000 deaths in the hard 'hoods in Fallujah. Of course, there are really several such high-death spots, not just one in Fallujah, or the study probably wouldn't've seen them. The key here is that high-mortality regions are probably highly concentrated, just like in NYC or LA in the 70s. And many observers on the ground do tend to talk in terms of smallish high-risk areas. Also, I think we have to be skeptical about the death cause stats, since unlike deaths, the word of the surveyed was taken for that, and plenty of the enemy must be included in the sample. On the other hand, there is enough evidence here to support an assertion I've read plenty, but never before seen backed up numerically: things are getting worse in some parts of Iraq, e.g., in those bad areas. Notice that, according to the paper, Iraq Body Count's and MNC's numbers also show increasing death rates. Is ethnic cleansing from militias getting worse? Some interesting responses here and here, and here Posted by Jon Kay at October 26, 2006 08:43 PMComments
I agree. I've followed some comments on the death tolls since they appeared and believe them to be greatly overestimated. It is also true that ethnic murder is on the rise. Many accounts of death have been attributed to coalition forces rather than ethnic strife. On another note, Tito's death triggered ethnic warfare. There the world acted. Rwanda produced hundreds of thousands dead. Sudan and Congo are presently slaughter grounds. In those cases it seems the world could care less about death tolls. Against the great moral weight of tyranny and genocide, America has stood at the front lines of intervention. The US is not responsible for violence between Iraqis and Republican strategic rationale for being in Iraq was to prevent the Saddam State to militarize with French and Russian help and acquire WMD along with developing ties with the Jihadist network. I have posted a few links to the state of sanctions in the months preceding our invasion. Either Iraq would remain a dictator's MIC powered by oil revenue, or without Saddam, the Sunni v Shia conflict would have to play out. Both scenarios produced their own death projections, but it was the eventual death projection imagined with a Saddam acquiring nukes, delivery systems and global operatives financed through enormous oil wealth, that drove Bush policy. Without arm chairing, history appears to confirm that either overwhelming force or a different occupational tactic would have been better than the direction Iraq seems heading. It is the perception that America's poor post-war planning helped create the present mess and requisite death tolls, which make many feel the US should take a portion of responsibility beyond the blood of our soldiers. Since little accountability is forth coming, I expect this issue will be pursued by a Democratic majority in the House. I think the South Park where Cartman witnesses our founding father’s debate going to war over Independence is illuminating. Franklin had a great idea. Manipulation of facts and the selective context they are presumed to support seems the style of the day, and probably of yor. |
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Some Smart Surging
Democratic Disgrace Obama: Tastes Great or Less Filling Should United States Attorneys be Professionalized? Don't you dare change your mind! Erin Go Open Thread NCAA tournament thread Blog that Brouhaha to death, AMIIGAF! Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG) The Right Immigration Questions
|
