Clueless in Canberra and Washington (another Lancet lot)

One of the surprising spin-offs from the release of Lancet/Johns Hopkins 2006 is that the US Government has officially announced an updated official Iraqi death toll, which apparently supercedes President Bush’s official estimate in December 2005 of “30,000 more or less”.

The US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, had the following to say regarding the Lancet study, as shown on ABC-TV’s Lateline program on Thursday night:

CASEY: I have not seen the study; that 650,000 number seems way beyond any number that I have seen. I’ve not seen a number higher than 50,000 and so I don’t give that much credibility at all.

REPORTER: The 50,000 number, where did you see that from?

CASEY: I don’t remember, but I have seen it over time.

REPORTER: That ... is that a US military estimate?

CASEY: I don’t remember where I saw it. It’s either from the Iraqi Government or us, but I don’t remember precisely.

Perhaps I can help the General’s recollection by suggesting the source of the 50,000 figure is probably a June 2006 publication by the Iraqi Health Ministry, reported in the Los Angeles Times (reproduced here).

Note that if both President Bush was correct last December, and the Iraqi Health Ministry was correct in June, then an additional 20,000 deaths in the intervening six months represents well over 3,000 additional deaths per month. One wonders if General Casey would “give that much credibility at all”.

However, the LA Times noted that: “Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since.”

Thus it appears the Iraqi Health Ministry’s assessment is likely to be way under what the actual toll really is. Poor General Casey... another victim of flawed intel.

President Bush’s estimate in December of 30,000 is commonly thought to be derived from the lower, conservative end of the Iraq Body Count tally at the time, or quite possibly some time earlier. (I say, “commonly thought,” because the White House has steadfastly declined to identify the source of the President’s estimate.)

As IBC counts only deaths reported in media, and as it’s generally accepted that the media under-report civilian deaths, it’s quite likely that the President’s estimate in December significantly understated actual mortality. I personally don’t believe the man did this deliberately, because by now I firmly believe he doesn’t have a clue anyway.

Nor, I believe, does the Australian Prime Minister have a clue. Mr Howard told ABC Radio National’s The World Today program on Thursday:

Well, I don’t believe that John Hopkins research, I don’t. It’s not plausible; it’s not based on anything other than a house-to-house survey. I think that’s absolutely precarious.

It is a … an unbelievably large number and it’s out of whack with most of the other assessments that have been made.

That Mr Howard apparently doesn’t trust house-to-house surveys may come as a shock to some critics of the Lancet/Johns Hopkins studies, who have often cited the UNDP’s Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 as a superior study that trumps Lancet. The ILCS was, of course, based on a house-to-house survey. Doubtless Mr Howard will soon be in urgent communication with the United Nations Development Programme to assist in correcting their errant ways.

Or admit that he, the Prime Minister, doesn’t have a clue either, just like his good buddy, the President.