PressEthic

About a week ago, a British medical journal called the Lancet published an estimate of the number of Iraqis who have died unnaturally (been killed) since the U.S. led invasion in March 2003. The Lancet was aided by the Bloomberg Department of Public Health at John's Hopkins University. Together, they averaged the Iraqi death toll to be around 655,000.

That is a whopping figure. Much higher than official American and Iraqi estimates, which put the figure around 60,000.

From the Wall Street Journal

point:

The study's lead researchers, Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins, have done studies in the Congo, Rwanda and other war zones. "This is a standard methodology that the U.S. government and others have encouraged groups to use in developing countries," said Mr. Burnham, who defended the study as "a scientifically extremely strong paper."

counterpoint:

Hamit Dardagan, co-founder of Iraq Body Count, a London-based human-rights group, called the Lancet study's figures "pretty shockingly high." His group tabulates the civilian death toll based on media reports augmented by local hospital and morgue records. His group says it has accumulated reports of as many as 48,693 civilian deaths caused by the U.S. intervention.

Mr. Burnham defends his study, saying that the study by the Iraq Body Count only focuses on Baghdad and a few other cities, not the whole country.

The methodology of the two death tolls is significantly different, but I won't get into it.

My purpose is to question whether the John's Hopkins-backed Lancet study was politically motivated. We are only a few weeks away from a major election.

My initial assumption is that it certainly must be politically motivated, to some degree. Aren't all studies like these? What is their practical purpose, if not to affect public opinion?

In a recent article on csnews.com, the editor-in-chief of the Lancet, Richard Horton, is attributed with some pretty political remarks.

Horton says:

The natural response to this deteriorating situation is despair. Military action in Iraq has dragged on, inflaming an already volatile atmosphere," said Horton. "The absence of any plan for reconstruction after the 2003 invasion has provided an inviting vacuum that continues to suck in violence and terror.

By making this a battle of values, Tony Blair and U.S. President George Bush risk pitting one culture against another, one religion against another. This could rapidly become -- and for many it already is -- the politics of humiliation," said Horton.

[T]he disaster that is the West's current strategy in Iraq must be used as a constructive call to the international community to reconfigure its foreign policy around human security rather than national security, around health and wellbeing in addition to the protection of territorial boundaries and economic stability.

While I think Horton makes some good points, it does seem like he has an agenda. Its impossible to object to anyone advocating a foreign policy initiative that focuses more on health and "human security", but is part of this initiative ousting the Republicans in November?

The real question is - was the Iraqi Death Toll purposefully exagerrated in order to make the Republicans look bad?

I am not equal to the task of answering that question here. Can anyone suggest how to get to the bottom of this? Is it possible?