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.

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.

and the captcha word is TRUTHFULLY.

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.]