Condoleezza Rice, US Press and Iraqi Civilian Deaths

Dear Edward M. Gomez,

In ‘Condoleezza Rice in Britain: A "public-relations nightmare" and "huge diplomatic fiasco"’ (Edward M. Gomez, SFGate.com, April 03 2006), you write:

“Meanwhile, Iraq Body Count, another well-regarded Web site, is reporting (based on reliable media accounts) that nearly 38,000 civilian deaths in Iraq "have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the [United States] and its allies." The site's tally "includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition['s] presence," such as attacks by insurgents or terrorists.”

The “well-regarded Web site” Iraq Body Count simply records the Iraqi civilians deaths reported in the English language media with an online website. On the IBC website, you may read: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.”

A few weeks ago, the Independent wrote:

“But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)

On 29 October 2004, the British medical journal The Lancet published ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’:

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)

Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)

Source: Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004


"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004)

The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote:

“This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

The Chronicle of Higher Education on January 27, 2005 wrote

“’Les has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,’ says Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact -- and have acted on those results. (...) Mr. Roberts has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention. ‘Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,’ he says.” (Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)

According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

Yesterday the New York Times wrote:

“Unfortunately, after three years of policy blunders in Iraq, Washington may no longer have the political or military capital to prevail. That may be hard for Americans to understand, since it was the United States invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and helped the Shiite majority to power. Some 140,000 American troops remain in Iraq, more than 2,000 American servicemen and servicewomen have died there so far and hundreds of billions of American dollars have been spent.” (“The Endgame in Iraq”, NYT Editorial, 2 April 2006)

Anything missing from the New York Times’ Editorial ?

Your short bio reads:

“Edward M. Gomez, a former U.S. diplomat and staff reporter at TIME, has lived and worked in the U.S. and overseas, and speaks several languages. He has written for The New York Times, the Japan Times and the International Herald Tribune.”

Please, since you have access to so well regarded publications, could you take a look into this matter and write about it?

Thank you for your time and I look forward for your comments.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

P.S. Here some important articles regarding the Iraqi civilian deaths.

Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005

When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2

BURYING THE LANCET – Update

Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006