Skip to content or view screen version

Iraqi Civillian Fatalities - 37% are caused by US troops!

Poster | 21.07.2005 11:01 | Anti-militarism | Health | Repression | World

The report that appeared yesterday on this site shows that 37% of Iraqi cvillian fatalities have been caused by US/UK coalition troops with 25,000 dying in the first 2 years of the conflict. Previous research published in the Lancet suggest things are even worse.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


New evidence has emerged of the horror that was visited on Iraq by the invasion and occupation. A report published by the Iraq Body Count provides a detailed analysis of civilian casualties caused by the US/UK invasion of Iraq. "A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" (pdf format) is the first detailed account of all reported non-combatant deaths or injuries during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.

Some of their main findings:

- 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two
years of the war
- Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all
civilian deaths
- US-led forces killed 37% of civilian
victims
- Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for
36% of all deaths
- Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of
civilian victims
- Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was
almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215)

Speaking at the launch of the report in London yesterday, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the reports authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. ....It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

The IBC report is one of several that have attempted to estimate the impact of the invasion and occupation on Iraqi public health. The only nationally representative mortality survey conducted so far was published in the Lancet in October 2004 and estimated that 100,000 additional deaths had occurred in Iraq as a result of invasion and occupation. This estimate included both civilians and combatants but most deaths reportedly caused by collation forces were women and children.

The IBC do themselves acknowledge that the method they have adopted, whilst having many advantages, "is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording". Therefore, while the IBC report published yesterday is an invaluable contribution to understanding what is happening in Iraq it cannot be assumed to represent the full magnitude of the horror.

Faced with the weight of the evidence, even the BBC was forced yesterday into reporting, probably for the first time in two years (please comment if this is incorrect), that the widespread killing of Iraqi civilians by US forces is a continuing, serious, and barely acknowledged reality. Previous attempts by John Simpson to describe the extent of US killing were blocked, probably after intervention from the Prime Minister's office in Baghdad.




Poster
- Homepage: http://craigmurrayfriends.blogspot.com/

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

Read the report

21.07.2005 11:54

So 37% of the fatalities were caused by Allied Forces, meaning of course that 63% were not. As the official response of the Iraqi government points out:
"The Iraqi government welcomed the attention the report gave to Iraqi victims, but said it was a mistake to claim that the "plague of terrorism" had killed fewer Iraqis than the multinational forces.

"The international forces try to avoid civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists target civilians and try to kill as many of them as they can," it said in a statement.

"The root cause of Iraq's suffering is terrorism, inherited from Saddam's fascist regime and from mistaken fundamentalist ideology.

"Everybody knows that international forces are necessary in Iraq, on a temporary basis and they will leave Iraq at a time chosen by Iraqis, not in response to terrorist pressure."

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692589.stm

Then we find that 82% of these "civilian" casualties were male adults, eerily similar of the mendacious lists of "civilians" trotted out by Palestinian apologists. So, for many of these "civilians", read "armed civilian" or "fedayeen".



vor


...

21.07.2005 13:46

If the occupation forces try so hard to avoid civilian casualties, how come they have killed so many more civilians than the 'evil terrorists'. There are many reports of arbitrary killings by the US in Iraq, just recently the Iraqi envoy to the UN complained his cousin had been murdered in cold blood by the US forces.

The majority of those killed is by criminal violence, caused by the anarchy and insecurity plaguing Iraq. That did not exist until AFTER the illegal invasion of Iraq, and is directly OUR responsibility. From whatever perspective you look at it, right or left. From the perspective of the left, what we did was immoral and wrong, and from the perspective of the right, what we did was incompetent, with too few troops, and no post-war planning.

You cannot look at the situation in Iraq and see that a good thing is happening there. It is a mess!!!

Hermes


some people will always be apologists for mass murder

21.07.2005 14:30

The last poster -'vor' - perfect example of dickheads in denial. Can not accept the truth that war and occupation kills people...needs to distort reality to fit his/her tiny mind.

Just fuck off, 'vor'.

bk


For vor read utter prick

21.07.2005 15:33

vor - Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of
civilian victims
NO YOU READ THE REPORT YOU TWAT

vor responder


RE: read the report

21.07.2005 18:13

"The international forces try to avoid civilian casualties"

Oh so that's why they fly bombing planes at 15,000 feet, knowing full well that the likelyhood of being off target is greatly increased, maybe that's why they target offices and buldings of media and broadcast also, not to mention Cluster bombs and depleted uranium, daisy cutters, etc...


B


Wars suck, and so does occupation

22.07.2005 13:20

While I agree there have been and will continue to be many civilians, militia, terrorists, soldiers, etc, killed in this "war" or "occupation" or whatever you want to call it. I would seriously questions the accuracy of a study done based on news reports. News reports...we are trusting the main stream media for our body count info, but not for anything else, thus we read this indymedia stuff? I'm confused...do we only listen to the mainstream media when it suits our stance on a subject, but blast away at it when it opposes our views?

War sucks, I've been there, I know...it is a shame that these things happen, but let me ask you this...if you are so angry at the US and other allied military members at the "evil" that they are doing, and so angry at the govenments of those countries, then why are you not over there bringing help and comfort to those people who are being so cruelly treated by this occupation force? Why are you sitting in the comfort of your home, shaking your fist at the oppressors, yet really doing nothing to assist those you sympathize with so much.

Look, I don't know exactly what prompted this dang war to start. I can guess a thousand different things, but when it comes down to it, less people will die because of this war and the "oppression"/"occupation" than died by the hand of Saddam during his reign. If Iraq comes out of this with an elected government, some freedom and equality, and a greater sense of country, then this will have been all worth it.

Remember, while you whine for the civilians killed in this thing, remember the soldiers who are over there suffering and dying, in the hopes that someone else, whom they do not know, and will never be repaid by, can have a better life for them, and their future generations. Not to mention the families of those sent over to do it, who suffer for no reason but the freedom of another.

Peace be with us all.

DaveUS


...

22.07.2005 15:26

The occupation is killing about twice the number of people per day that Saddam did. Most of the deaths caused by Saddam took place in the Iran-Iraq war, when we supported him and provided him with the chemicals for his chemical weapons.

Saddam killed a great deal of people, over a 20 year period. If we continue at the same casualty rate, we will have killed many more in the same time period.

Maybe some of the soldiers believe they are dying for the freedom of another people, but in reality they are dying for the ideology and imperial foreign policy of the US.

You ask, why don't we go and help the Iraqi's? Because the situation is so unsafe, I could get kidnapped by the resistance and executed, or shot by the US troops like that Italian hostage.

If Bush and Blair really care about the Iraqi's, why don't they go and help, instead of sending young, naive soldiers to die for their policies.

Hermes