Les Roberts, author of two Lancet studies on deaths in Iraq, spoke at Hamilton on October 23. Roberts introduced his team's follow-up study on deaths in Iraq, released October 12, and the way it is being covered by the media, compared with the way his first study of Iraqi deaths was received by the media.
In 2004, said Roberts, "I was a little puzzled when I listened to the news." News reported only those civilian deaths in Iraq caused by a direct result of war—namely, by bullets, bombs and other warfare. However, in most wars, "more people die from malnutrition, [disease, etc.], than from bullets and bombs," said Roberts. He became interested in the actual number of deaths in Iraq since the American invasion and arranged to perform a broad survey in Iraq in order to report a more accurate number.
The objective of the study was to determine how many people died because of the invasion and how they were dying. Doctors went door to door in Iraqi neighborhoods surveying the citizens. They asked who lived in the household (including age and gender), if anyone had died since January 1, 2002 and the cause and date of death, and finally asked to see death certificates, which 92% of respondents were able to produce. Since they had death certificates, said Roberts, "they must be telling the truth."
The study was able to compare "every neighborhood to itself," said Roberts, by comparing the death rate before and after the invasion. Before the invasion, 14 months before the survey, the death rate in Iraq was 5 per every 1,000 people per year. After the invasion, the survey reported, the death rate had more than doubled. Based on statistical analysis, Roberts and his team concluded that there had been approximately 100,000 deaths in Iraq since the American invasion 14 months before.
When the 2004 study was released, "There was an astonishing contrast between press coverage in the U.S. and press coverage in Europe," said Roberts. It was on the front page of most European newspapers, while the survey results were reported on page A-8 of the New York Times and page 12 of the Washington Post. Two spin articles were published the next day, claiming that the range of the results was too wide and the survey proved "we can not know." According to Roberts, these spin articles "ignored the statistics." Still, they spread through blogs and list-servs, and people overwhelmingly heard that the survey was wrong.
Roberts and his team repeated the study in the summer of 2006 using the exact same method. However, this time around they went to twice as many households. Because it was two years later, the war had spread around the country. "When you go to any one neighborhood, there is more of a chance a bad episode had occurred there," explained Roberts. "The variation between neighborhoods diminished."
The follow-up survey reported approximately 650,000 deaths since the American invasion. Other findings reported that more of the deaths were due to gunfire than bombs and air strikes, and adult males accounted for 78% of violent deaths. This meant "Iraqis shooting Iraqis," said Roberts.
When this study was released about two weeks ago, the President was asked to comment within four hours and the authors got much more press coverage. Roberts credits this to the changed opinions of the American public. "A lot has changed…the American public has come to understand things are not going well in Iraq. They're willing to hear that, so the media is willing to report it," he said. This study has "entered common dialogue."
Roberts closed with an explanation for this reaction. "It is in the absolute best nature of man to be irrationally optimistic," he said. But if plans or suggestions fail, we expect contrition. This does not mean saying "I was wrong," explained Roberts; rather, it means saying "I'm sorry for your pain." What we need to say, but what there is unfortunately no political space to say, said Roberts, is "Iraq, we're really sorry this happened."
-- by Laura Trubiano '07
