As some of the Teeming Throng of Readers might have seen, Johns Hopkins in association with Lancet has released a study indicating that an estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died post-invasion who wouldn't have otherwise.
Naturally, the Usual Suspects (Bush apologists and Authoritarian cultists, as well as plain old Americans Who Like to Blow Shit Up and Kill Brown People) immediately came out and attacked the study from all conceivable angles. Never mind that many of these people are self-admitted innumerates, proud of the fact that they can't balance a checkbook, and adamant in their inability to understand where higher mathematics is applicable in 'real life' (Remember those guys in high school? “Where am I gonna use dis?” Well, how about in understanding statistical analysis before you can be even able to understand it, let alone determine that it is incorrect)
The astonishing thing about this reaction is not the arguing points. Really, it's the ability for all these people to just immediately dismiss anything, anything at all, if it contradicts their Ultimate Leader or puts him in a bad light; ignore the fact that they don't even understand the processes in the study or even the results. 655,000 has no meaning for them at all. Are they being willfully ignorant or just amoral? And at this point, what's the fucking difference?
Bush, of course, derides the study, sticking to his original number of 30,000 with not a single whit of evidence that either the Lancet study is off, or that his number has any basis in reality. Bush- criticizing a sophisticated numerical analysis. Laughable on the face of it, really.
No need to go through the various objections that have been frantically thrown in an attempt to deflect the impact, especially when others have done a much better job than I ever could. Crooked Timber has an excellent roundup of them, along with deft puncturing of each one. The first part of that post is here. Suffice to say that credible sources say the study was done with the best information available and in keeping with any conceivable best practices; professional number crunchers like Zogby have said the conclusions are likely correct, with 95% certainty.
Amanda at Pandagon has a nice bit on the basic outrage of the bloodshed. But for the true moral parameters of this debacle, libertarian Arthur Silber has a damning article, leaving us as Americans no room for ease, no comfort zone left.
Because the final result is indefensible. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and even more pertinent than that, killing in retribution is a lizard brain reaction, not the hallmark of a supposedly civilized society. After WW2, the West did not summarily execute the perpetrators of the Nazi atrocities, we put them on trial - a public, rigorously fair trial.
The reality, as Silber so deftly and painfully points out, is that as soon as the first Iraqi died in the invasion, America again tainted her ideals, perhaps irretrievably. 655,000, or 50,000, or 30,000, or 1; these were all human beings, not stalks of wheat; cutting them short harms us all irreparably. Nothing, especially empty words about 'freedom', will assuage the misery and grief if that One is your mother, daughter, brother. And when that number is multiplied by over half a million - the population of Milwaukee - the mind boggles. As one post asked, what IS the acceptable number of preventable loss of human life in a meaningless war? And at what point have we lost any pretense of humanity?
Have a nice weekend.
Music. Random. Take it. Take it all.
1. Good Weekend from the album “Bang Bang Rock And Roll” by Art Brut No, I didn't select that on purpose.
2. Small Hours from the album “Waiting For Herb” by The Pogues
3. Sweetest Girl (Extended Version) from the album “The Business (Disc 3)” by Madness
4. Up On The Sun from the album “Up On The Sun (Reissue)” by Meat Puppets
5. Butter Song from the album “Skull Orchard” by Jon Langford
6. Green Suede Shoes from the album “Green Suede Shoes” by Black 47
7. House On Fire (12“ Dub Version) from the album ”V Deep“ by The Boomtown Rats It is indeed.
8. Young Lovers In Town from the album ”The Brooklyn Side“ by The Bottle Rockets
9. In The Light from the album ”Physical Graffiti (Disc 2)“ by Led Zeppelin
10. Misty Mountain Hop from the album ”Pickin' On Zeppelin - A Tribute Vol. II“ by Various Artists That's kind of funny.
Now, the Bonus.
1. When It Rains ... from the album ”See How We Are“ by X
2. Shit From an Old Notebook from the album ”Double Nickels on the Dime“ by Minutemen
3. It's Always Raining Somewhere from the album ”Georgia Hard“ by Robbie Fulks
4. Tampa to Tulsa (Acoustic Version) from the album ”Rainy Day Music“ by The Jayhawks
5. Sure Feels Like Rain from the album ”The Pork N' Beans Collections“ by The Reverend Peyton's Big Damn Band
Lots of songs about rain; and the snow's coming on.
Batten your fucking hatches; weather's going to get rough.
Matt Gaetz, Deadhead
11 hours ago
Okay, I understand your outrage. Bush allowed Rummy to bullox Iraq something terrible, and thousands of people died that did not need to-- the merits of the original invasion I leave separate since I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on that.
ReplyDeleteBut, once again, there is a middle ground where it is possible to despise what has transpired in Iraq, and still find the Lancet's survey dubious. The methodology seems... odd at best, and statistics are inherently subject to bias. Mark Twain's "lies, damned lies, and statistics" and all that rot.
Anyway, you might find this site: http://notropis.blogspot.com/ interesting. In the spirit of avoiding being people "with the ability... to just immediately dismiss anything, anything at all, if it contradicts their Ultimate Leader or puts him in a bad light; ignore the fact that they don't even understand the processes in the study or even the results."
Have a good weekend, dude, and take some time out to relax. You seem stressed-- bad for the body. Seriously. Go Outback tonight-- the world will still be there tomorrow.
Okay. Looking over the blog (which seemed to be established for the singular purpose of responding to the Lancet study) it seems to be, post by post, going throught he major objections as detailed at Crooked Timber.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may - the methodology does not appear odd to people versed in statistical analysis. There are different ways of approaching a problem such as this, sure, and the current condition of Iraq certainly limits the methods available, but the point here is...
well, Tapped has a good distillation. http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/10/post_1656.html#013964 The point isn't to establish a number of deaths, and the number of 655,000 is only certain to the extent that it is almost certainly NOT the real number.
The purpose of the study was to put forth, on an analytical basis, an answer to the question "Are things better or worse in Iraq?" In a way that is supported by evidence, as established by any evident shift in the death rate.
The astonishing part is that, even with a staggeringly wide interval of 95%, the answer cannot even be made to come out 'yes' in ANY permutation of the data.
The staggering number of the deaths postulated is a symptom of the degree of bad that Iraq is currently in.
And, as Arthur Silber pointed out, it is the nature of these excess deaths that damns us - what our country has done in our name.