Grim Statistics from Iraq
Filed under: Democracy, Iraq, Middle East, Near East, War in Iraq, War on Terror — Kemal on July 6, 2008 @ 8:11 pm CEST
Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, a Canadian engineering professor and national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, published an article on the grim statistics in Iraq. It’s not clear where he gathers all of these statistics from, although there is one reference to the British Oxford Research Bureau. If any readers have insight into where these numbers come from, your comments and identification of sources would be welcome.
More than one million Iraqis have been killed over the past five years, a large number of them civilians, especially women, children, the elderly and the ill. The British polling agency, Oxford Research Bureau, estimates the Iraqi death toll to be even greater, at 1.3 million.
Today in Iraq there are more than one million widows, most of them under 30 years of age, and a staggering five million orphans. Of these, 1.6 million are under 12. All of these millions are destitute and many are homeless as well. An increasing number support themselves and their families through prostitution, according to beleaguered Iraqi humanitarian aid organizations, whose meagre resources cannot begin to address the scope of need.
The drop-out rate among school children is at an all-time high of 33 per cent. Urgently needed social services, such as mental health and therapeutic counseling for school-aged children - some of whom have lost all members of their immediate families-is almost non-existent.
Even further marginalized beyond the reach of most relief resources are the estimated three million Iraqis with special physical and mental needs; many of them require constant medical care and are not receiving it.
Contrary to U.S. president George Bush’s claim that an influx of 30,000 more American troops last year quelled bloodshed, preventable deaths from all causes are in fact rising in Iraq. Deaths rose again sharply in February and early March of this year. New figures from the Iraqi government also indicate that civilian casualties in February 2008 were 33 percent higher than in January.
Internal and external displacement is another under-appreciated crisis that has ravaged Iraq over the past five years under occupation. More than 150,000 Iraqis languish in American military prisons, or in those of the puppet Iraqi government. Many of these prisoners are women and children, aged eight to 14.
Three million civilians have left their homes in and near conflict zones and moved to remoter parts of the country in hopes of greater safety. Another four million have become destitute refugees, mainly in Syria and Jordan. Their numbers have overwhelmed the aid resources of both countries, resulting in one of the worst - and most under-reported-humanitarian disasters of recent history.
Unemployment has reached a staggering 90 percent and there is a crisis in skilled services resulting from the deaths of some 400 professionals, including doctors, nurses, professors and teachers. As a result, medical facilities are almost non-functional and no sustained care or treatment can be given to people with serious conditions, or illnesses such as cancer. Electricity is available for only a few hours every day, and only 25 percent of schools and universities are even minimally functional.
Food staples, when available (and often, they are not) are distributed through monthly ration cards, while at the same time Iraq’s oil resources are being robbed-literally from under the nation’s feet - by American interests who are providing no fiscal accountability to anyone.
Whoah, wait a sec, here I was going to righteously object to the accusation of thievery and unaccountability, but then I remembered that the U.S. lost $8 billion in cash in Iraq that was earmarked for reconstruction of the country. Okay, so Dr. Elmasry continues…
Not surprisingly, Iraqis believe that the U.S. is financing its $3 trillion war against them by looting their oil.
Ironically, they can no longer afford to use their country’s only economic resource - consumer prices for gasoline and other kinds of petroleum-derived fuels have gone up by an incredible 2000 percent since the American invasion, while other services (when you can get them) have risen 100 to 150 per cent above pre-occupation levels.
Well, we do know that at least one of the Iraq’s perceptions is inaccurate. The U.S. is not financing its war, at least not completely, by looting Iraqi oil. It is financing it by borrowing money it doesn’t have from China. And, thus, ironically, it seems like today’s U.S. citizens and their future generations have lost quite a bit of freedom … to China.
Somehow this “gift of freedom” doesn’t seem very “precious” anymore, does it?
1 Tully
July 6, 2008 @ 10:34 pm CESTLemme give you a handle to start with, Kemal.
First, the "Oxford Research Bureau" cited by Elmasry does not exist, so it’s gonna be hard to find that poll using that name, especially as it means wading through dozens of anti-war screeds citing Elmasry’s article and others who have it wrong. The rerference is actually to a poll by Opinion Research Business, a fairly new UK polling firm founded in 2005. (Apparently the idea is that when one sees initials, one should simply invent the most presitigious sounding read of them.) ORB is a small firm with little experience in international opinion polling–their major business focus is advertising market research. ORB did not actually perform the survey–they subcontracted it out to an Iraqi polling firm, IIACSS*.
The poll is not getting big media play because frankly no one who understands polling really believes it’s remotely valid. It used a badly designed and poorly constructed poll and overly assumptive "multi-stage random sampling techiques" that are even less valid than the discredited cluster technique used in the much-criticized Lancet studies, and draws huge conclusions from a relatively small sample using those bad techniques. In short, the study was hogwash, and not even good hogwash.
The citation technique used by Elmasry in the article is called "pulling it out of your ass and making it sound truthy." An interesting guy, Elmasry, but he’s not exactly on my "trust to be honest in citation" list.
The biggest and best and most robust polling on this particular issue has been done by the World Health Organization, which consistently comes up with numbers about 10% of what the ORB study did. Independent polling by other NGO’s and agencies has been steadily consistent with the WHO numbers. The best ongoing polling and metrics on conditions in Iraq can be found though the Brookings Institute’s Iraq Index, which publishes monthly updates. They too come in at about 10% of the ORB study’s claims. Their figures for other things are also wildly at variance with Elmasry’s claims.
[*–Very little is known about IIACSS, or its relevant expertise and ability…and agenda. Its founder, Munqith Daghir, has been quoted in National Journal as saying that he started the firm "as a patriotic job that could help in putting more pressure on the government, or on the invasion forces to withdraw." Your own mileage there, but in my view that makes anything coming out of IIACSS suspect.]
2 RRRocks
July 7, 2008 @ 12:54 am CESTThis is pure bunk
and the captcha word is TRUTHFULLY.
3 Kemal
July 7, 2008 @ 1:12 am CESTThanks for the info Tully. I will look into the stats compiled by WHO and the Brookings Institute.
The citation technique used by Elmasry in the article is called "pulling it out of your ass and making it sound truthy."
Actually, I did a little digging, and to be fair, it looks like the perpetuation of an error made by Noam Chomsky in an article published by him some time ago.
An interesting guy, Elmasry, but he’s not exactly on my "trust to be honest in citation" list.
Yes, he has some interesting opinions, and some not so interesting. However, what he writes about above are not his opinions, but what are supposed to be cold hard facts that should have a tangible source to back them up.
While the Brookings Institute study most likely does not overestimate numbers, I wonder if they underestimate them. I can’t imagine that it’s that easy to gather statistics in Iraq right now if you’re an American and I’m not sure there’s a lot of incentive on the part of Iraqis to be forthcoming if an American or one of their representatives comes a-asking questions. It also seems that U.S. sources, especially those in favor of the Iraqi invasion, might have a bias toward undercounting.
Nevertheless, given the situation on the ground, which is not entirely secure, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could gather accurate statistics.
I probably needn’t tell you that the ORB numbers are being reported by the media in the Middle East, which is why I wanted to know if anyone knew where they’re coming from.
4 Tully
July 7, 2008 @ 7:30 pm CESTYeah, it’s tough to get good stats, but Brookings is as good as you’re likely to get for Iraq. They’ve been doing it monthly with very consistent methodology for a few years now. And WHO has as much or more experience at getting reliable info from war zones and other tough-to-measure areas as any organization on Earth.
Brookings, BTW, would by staff bias be more likely to overstate than understate. The staff was decidedly anti-war-inclined overall. But they don’t–they play it straight up despite staff bias.
Bottom line is that the "best available" sources all agree within the meta-margin of error of their compiled studies, and all come in at about 10% or so of the ORB/IIACSS claims. As far as is measurable, such consistency from differing sources argues strongly for accuracy and validity. Maybe a little off one way or another, but not much.
It’s true that Elmasry purports to be offering facts, but he shows no signs of doing even the most basic checking on his sources (can’t even get the source cite correct!) or questioning even the most outlandish and improbable claims, so what he offers is at best cherry-picked third-hand propaganda. He himself is not a source–he has no first-hand knowledge to relate, much less any primary involvement in the gathering of the "data" he spreads. And his history of pronouncements argues against him citing accurately rather than merely offering his own agendized opinion. Such a biased "source" can indeed be dismissed out of hand when what they offer is so obviously misrepresented.
5 Bret
July 24, 2008 @ 3:21 pm CESTTully, you are awesome for debunking this crap. Thank you!