Iraq Casualty Study in The Lancet

[JJackson]

Ken, I would be interested in why you think that.
I read it at the time and followed the arguments - not here but in mainly in the MSM and scienceblogs. I did not have a problem with the paper, sample size or methodology - but always wondered how accurate a picture that kind of survey would give in the midst of a war and what compromises it would be forced to make on the choice of sample sizes or sites. I still think it is likely to be a better guesstimate than counting morgue stats or deaths that made it to the media etc.

A couple of threads recently have been discussing 'accounting' and 'cost calculation' with regard to military operations and I (being me) look at this from a rather un-military perspective. A very high priority for me would be 'can we do this without killing (or destroying the livelihoods of) vast numbers of civilians in the country we are about to attack and if not what right do we have to start this war?'. My concern is that US (and UK) planners are much more interested in their own $ and casualty costs and the fact that the vast majority of those adversely effected are not on anyone's side (at least at the outset) gets a very low weighting.

My bete noir in this regard is Somalia. I do not believe Ethiopia invaded without getting the nod from the US and the interactions at the time between the US and its principal allies in the region - Ethiopia & Kenya - seem to point to a high level of co-ordination (what on earth is the US doing in bed with these two anyway? not exactly shinning examples of democracy or 'freedom'). The unfolding humanitarian disaster was very predictable. My question is - assuming someone in Washington thought about this operation and did some kind of planning - what did they expect to gain and what did they think the costs were going to be. My fear is they thought they might bag a couple of people on their wanted list and did not think it would cost much in $ or Americans and did not really care about the rest. If they thought in the long term it was likely to produce a stable, and more US friendly Somalia, than trying to talk to the UIC then they must have been sipping Rumsfeld's cool-aid.

All of that rambling is really an explanation of why I was reading this old thread to see if there was any serious discussion here on the costs to those being trampled underfoot rather than the tramplers.