There’s an odd omission of context in that article just published in the Lancet, on Iraqi mortality before and after the U.S.-led coalition’s 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. While the article purports to measure and categorize the causes of death, none of the following names or words appear:
1. Iran
2. Syria
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Palestinian
5. Saddam Hussein
6. Terrorist/Terrorism
This is curious, because the violence in Iraq is not taking place in a U.S.-U.K.-occupied vacuum. While the U.S. and U.K. have been spending blood and treasure in the attempt to engender a secure and democratic Iraq, terrorists and their backers — including Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, Palestinians, brutal Saddam loyalists, and such personalities as the late Zarqawi — have been busy for years now poisoning the Iraqi pot, with the evident aim of maximizing carnage and conflict. To the questions being asked about the methodology of this study, may we add a query about why the authors apparently concerned themselves so little with trying to measure that lethal element, and so much with blaming the U.K. and U.S.? And if they really mean to imply that it would be a safer world, or even a safer Iraq, with Saddam still in power –which is the scenario of their baseline assumption — that raises another question. May we hear more about the methodology by which they assured themselves that Saddam — who filled mass graves, gassed his own people, started two wars, and by 2003 via Oil-for-Food had pretty much corrupted his way out from under UN sanctions — would have gone on no new binges of butchery and war?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
5 Comments
1. The Red State Baron:It’s politically incorrect among conservatives (and today’s conservatives are much more wedded to their own PC orthodoxies than liberals are to theirs) to say that Iraq was better off under Saddam. But PC be damned: Iraq was better off under Saddam, and there’s no reason to believe that more Iraqis would be dying if Saddam, horrible as he was, were still in power.
The point is not to “blame” the U.S. or U.K.; the point is simply to face the reality that after the “liberation” of Iraq, many more people have died than would have died if we hadn’t invaded. We should learn from that and reject the conservative PC orthodoxy that overthrowing a dictator always makes things better.
See also: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/10/innumerate_cowa.html
Oct 13, 2006 - 10:50 am 2. Gabriel:I guess thats one more nail in the Zogby polling empires coffin.
Oct 13, 2006 - 11:53 am 3. Brian:You’re absolutely right –
Had I been a reviewer, I’d have put the kabosh on it straight away, using words something like these, though more polished:
But if memory serves, this is not the first time the Lancet has published such crapola (this example was debunked soon after it appeared).
So — if the Lancet and its reviewers are unable to distinguish good science from bad, or the journal deliberately publishes papers for political impact rather than on the basis of scientific merit, why should we regard any article published in it, be it about Iraq or some purely medical matter, to be credible, much less authoritative?
Alas, this is just another example of politicizing science . . .
(And, Claudia, I continue to be outraged that you weren’t awarded a Pulitzer for your Oil for Food work.)
Brian
Oct 13, 2006 - 2:58 pm 4. Steve:It is amazing the number of publications that destroy their credibility by publishing politicaly oriented drivel. They don’t seem to catch on to the fact that all they accomplish is to diminish their voice.
Oct 13, 2006 - 9:03 pm 5. The Interface:Curious argument from Red State – are you saying that they would have been better off under Sadam as fewer would have died – or that the struggle for a reasonably free and open society is not worthwhile?
Ditto Brian’s remarks on the Pulitzer – you have been the difinitive voice on that important subject.
For more details and analysis of the methodology from a slightly more statistical perspective, but hopefully still readable, try
http://theinterface.townhall.com/g/8c4c50a3-75be-4c03-adf8-7684cf43be0a
Oct 14, 2006 - 12:40 am