| Iraq Body Count Project |
Article Index for Iraq |
Website Links For Iraq |
Information AboutIraq Body Count Project |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT IRAQ BODY COUNT PROJECT | |
| 2003 iraq conflict | |
| human death in iraq | |
|
Since the occupation of Iraq, the IBC database does include indirect deaths caused by the broken and Hague Regulations . This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation." {Link without Title} THE PROJECT'S AIM According to the project's website, it was created "to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military actions by the USA and its allies in 2003" for the purpose of "holding our leaders to account." {Link without Title} Another aim has been to disprove the often repeated claims of political leaders that it's simply impossible for them to get any kind of reliable count, and therefore they will not try. If a group of volunteers working with nothing other than their home computers can compile a count, the claim that governments with all their man power and resources simply couldn't keep a count rings hollow. The project quotes the top US general in Iraq, in Afghanistan and was referring to counts of enemy soldiers killed, in the context of using enemy body counts as a measure of military success. The website, which omits the context of the quote, could be said to conflate the meaning of "enemy body count" with "civilian deaths caused" and to imply that the US is not interested in the number of civilian deaths its military operations cause. On the other hand, the US army in general doesn't provide detailed statistical information about civilians killed and harmed by their actions, so one could perhaps argue that the quote, though not in context, is true even when interpreted out of context and contrary to its probable intended meaning. Biographical information of group members is shown on the group's website METHOD The project, which is rooted in the Anti-war Movement , is staffed by volunteers who measure the number of violent Civilian deaths in the Iraq War Of 2003 by compiling news stories, and all available morgue and hospital records. Each incident reported by at least by two independent news sources is included in the Iraq Body Count database. IBC is purely a civilian count. IBC defines civilian to exclude Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, suicide bombers or any others directly engaged in war-related violence. A "min" and "max" figure are used where reports differ on the numbers killed, or where the civilian status of the dead is uncertain. IBC is also not an "estimate" of total civilian deaths. It is a compilation of documented deaths, meaning that any deaths not reported or which were not recorded or made public by morgues or hospitals will not be counted. Only the central Baghdad area morgue has released figures consistently. While that is the largest morgue in Iraq and in the most consistently violent area, the absense of comprehensive morgue figures elsewhere will likely lead to some undercounting. IBC makes it clear that its count will almost certainly be below the full toll in its 'Quick FAQ' on its homepage. However, some have suggested bias of sources could affect the count. If a number is quoted from a pro-Iraqi source, and the Allies fail to give a sufficiently specific alternate number, the pro-Iraqi figure is entered into IBC's database as both a maximum and a minimum. The same works vice versa. The project argues that these potential over- and undercounts by different media sources would tend to balance out. IBC's online database shows the newspaper, magazine or website where each number is reported, and the date on which it was reported. However, this has been criticized as insufficient because it typically does not list the original sources for the information: that is, the NGO, journalist or government responsible for the number presented. Hence, any inherent bias due to the lack of reliable reports from independent or Allied sources is not readily available to the reader. BODY COUNT Deaths in the Iraq war.
The website recently released a report detailing the civilian deaths. They claim the US and its allies are responsible for 37% of the 24,865 deaths. This works out to 9,200 deaths. The remaining 15,665 deaths are attibuted to the insurgency, foreign terrorists, Iraqi forces, and crime. Findings include: Who was killed?
When did they die?
Who did the killing?
What was the most lethal weaponry?
How many were injured?
Who provided the information?
CRITICISM OF IRAQ BODY COUNT Criticism of IBC has been widespread. Typically the criticisms have come from the political right, but in 2006 some on the left have also begun criticizing IBC, claiming their figures are far too low due to media bias and inadequate reporting due to its heavy reliance on "Western media" sources, and that IBC do little or nothing to correct misuse of their figures by public officials or media organizations. A chief concern has been the misuse of IBC figures by George W. Bush, who cited IBC's then current figure of about 30,000 deaths as an estimate of total Iraqi deaths, even as the questioner had asked him for a number including all Iraqis, insurgents, soldiers and other categories which IBC explicitly does not cover. A related concern is that the mainstream media often use the Iraq Body Count numbers wrongly as an estimate of the total number dead and ignore the 2004 mortality study published in the Lancet Medical Journal, which estimated a higher figure. This critique was mostly based around the website Media Lens, who published four pieces on what they saw as the "massive bias and gaps" reflected in the IBC database and their totals. Most of these pieces are linked to below. IBC has recently published a detailed response to these critiques entitled "Speculation is no substitue: a defence of Iraq Body Count", also linked to below, in which they argue that their critics have gotten several key facts wrong and that, while IBC agrees it is bound to be below the full toll, these errors have led these critics to greatly exaggerate the likely extent of such an undercount. SEE ALSO EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|