The Lancet study acknowledged its limitations. That’s why the reported spread in numbers (400,000 to 900,000) was so huge. Unfortunately, it’s been the only concerted effort to count the toll, which is why you don’t have a different number to point to. The U.S. and Iraqi governments deliberately avoid making the estimates themselves (although they are the only ones with the means to do it precisely).

Iraq Body Count – which is based exclusively on civilians reported killed (excluding security force deaths or unreported deaths) stands at 57,805-63,573 today.

The U.N. estimates that at least 34,000 died in 2006 alone.

George Bush’s estimate of 30,000 was completely unsubstantiated and undoubtedly based on the IBC count at the time – not on official numbers.

The few solid numbers we do get, show an exponential increase in the number of insurgent attacks throughout the country over time (about 75 per day a year ago, about 185 per day now).

I’ll be happy to believe the Lancet study was fatally flawed. Just as soon as someone makes a real effort to do a better count. Simply questioning the methodology is pointless.

The problems with this view is that it makes any war impossible. The Third Reich would still be happily in existence, as their was no possibility that Allied bombing or invasion would not kill innocent Germans.

Actually, the Nazis understood this mindset well. In occupied countries, they made a point of locating SS headquarters in dense urban areas, and placed their prison cells in the attics. Allied bombing targetting the SS would inevitably kill civilians and even prisoners.

If you read histories of the Second World War and Nazi propaganda, you will find Goebbels’s radio addresses frequently accusing the Allies of being the “real terrorists” (yes, he actually used the term) for killing innocent women and children in their bombing.

War is ugly, war is tragic, war is costly. Yet already we’re gearing up to attack Iran. Have we lost our collective minds and souls?

As far as we know, every man, woman and child only have one life to live. That life is precious. To take that away is really an unspeakable crime.

While I don’t find the timing to necessarily be suspect, there is nothing new in the Times story that wasn’t hashed and rehashed when the original study was published. I was skeptical of the study on its face until I actually read it and a detail explanation of the methodology, which made me somewhat less skeptical.

Where I come down is somewhere in the middle. I cite and link to the Iraq Coalition Casuality County numbers but believe they are too conservative, while the Lancet numbers are too liberal.

That is a good point. As the Times noted, doing door-to-door surveys in Iraq is almost suicidal…and in our polarized climate, the receipt of the numbers is politicized as well.

Probably, everyone should draw a breath and look more closely at what is even possible. Everyone is emotionally affected, the people trying to do the body counts as well as their sources. That’s not a good atmosphere for doing this kind of reporting.

Comrade Rudi…actually, the timing of this current study, and it earlier version, have widely been regarded as suspect – as both were released immediately prior to U.S. elections in 04 and 06.

Note that the criticism isn’t coming from Bush neocons but from respected academics.

By the time the ’04 study was widely debunked, the Lancet released the ’06 study. One of the most eminent US statisticians noted shortly after the release of the ’06 report that the sample selection was far smaller than a UN study done in Iraq at the same time, and due to flaws in its methodology pretty much worthless in terms of its reliability.

No one is doubting that large numbers of Iraqis have died.

But the Lancet studies have clearly inflated the numbers. The well-known political views of the authors of the study provide one reason for the high-balling…as well as the release.

I will bet anyone here there will be a further Lancet study – with even higher numbers – in the fall of 2008!