The press has had a field day recently, promoting the publication of a survey by an organization called Iraq Body Count, that claims the civilian death toll in the two years of conflict in Iraq has now reached 25000, with 42500 injured. The blame for all of this, obviously, is placed squarely at the feet of George Bush and the imperialist, oil-ravenous White House.
Something struck me as strange about these figures, and prompted some further investigation. Doesn't it seem odd, that the number of injuries is less than double the number of deaths. We've seen just in the last month, the figures from the London terrorist bombing, where 56 were killed, and over 700 injured sufficiently to require hospitalization. Over the five years of terrorist attacks in Israel, about 1000 have been killed, and more than 15000 injured. This ratio, of roughly 10 injured to 1 death, seems to hold fairly true across most areas of conflict that I have seen reported. So, if the "maximum" death count is true, then we should expect nearly 5 times more injured. And if the injured count is true, then the "body" count is overstated by a factor of 6.
What makes the attacks in Iraq so deadly? Are the victims being deliberately shot dead after they are injured? Are they using some form of explosive that is deadly over a short distance, but peters out beyond that range, so that people standing 10 feet away from a blast are always killed, but those 11 feet away do not even get a scratch?
Before I'd believe these, or other equally ludicrous suggestions that may support these figures, I'd rather look at the methods, motive, source and funding of the survey itself. Dare I say that this is something the press should have done itself before giving such wide publicity to the so-called survey, but still, we know by now what to expect of yellow journalism.
Iraq Body Count is an organization founded in 2003 to "establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies in 2003. In the current occupation phase this database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation".
Note - they don't collect data themselves from any independent source, they read newspapers and websites, and collect statistics. And what are their criteria for inclusion in their count?
"Maximum deaths". This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources." So if any two sources publish a claimed fatality, then it's in. And who do their sources comprise? Amongst others, the following ...
Al Jazeera network
Commondreams.org
Jordan Times
Nando Times
Middle East Newsline
Middle East Online
Middle East Report
Human Rights Watch
Hindustan Times
So if, for example, Hindustan Times and Al Jazeera, two outstanding examples of free, unbiased reporting, come up with an estimated body count after an incident of 50 civilians murdered by Iraqi criminals, or dying from disease induced by rotten food, then the number is in, and Bush did it. It's interesting also to see that they have concocted a "minimum body count", which anyone who hasn't studied their method would conclude is a rock-bottom count that has been verified and validated widely. However, the "minimum" will only differ from the "maximum" if more than two of their sources quote a different, lower, figure from the maximum. Far from a "minimum", this is just another estimate with exactly the same reliability as the maximum.
So much for the veracity of the method. Another look at the organization behind the study gives further interesting insights. It's principals are HAMIT DARDAGAN and JOHN SLOBODA . Dardagan is a freelance researcher currently working in London. His only claim to fame is that he has written for Counterpunch (one of their sources). He is such an eminent social and academic force that a search of Google with his name turns up nearly a thousand entries. However, I was unable to find a single one that wasn't directly connected to the IBQ organization. As a prominent research personality, he scores zero.
John Sloboda, however, is a notable person. He is (wait for this) Professor of Psychology at Keele University in the UK, where he directs the Unit for the Study of Musical Skill and Development.
Nuff said???
