Lower Casualty Numbers: American-Iraqi Lasting Relationship Will Benefit, But Not According to George Soros
January 13, 2008
Article Tools
Print this article
Email a friend
Leave a comment- Please Share This Article:
-
This morning I read an article sent in by my son, JJM that exposed a 2006 study that suggests that 650,000 people were killed in Iraq as a result of the invasion by the United States. The only problem? George Soros, that famous American hating billionaire funded almost half of the cost to engage the “study” through his “Open Society” organization.
Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.
Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”
If you believe that….I still have that bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
Also this morning, I read an article by Jim Dunnigan over at the Strategy Page titled, “Where Have All The Dead Americans Gone?” Mr. Dunnigan points to USA tactics, weapons design, equipment, rules of engagement and technology as well as American sensibilities as reasons for keeping casualty rates lower than any other time in the 20th century.
Please read the Dunnigan article just below.
Where Have All The Dead Americans Gone?
by James Dunnigan
January 13, 2008
U.S. forces suffered 107 casualties (dead and wounded) for the month of December in Iraq. Twelve months previously (December, 2006), there were 817. In between there was a bloody campaign, called “the surge,” which caused most of the 6,801 casualties American troops suffered that year. In 2006 there were 7,221 casualties.
The U.S. always put a premium on keeping American casualties down. This led to tactics, equipment and weapons designed to get the job done, with the fewest American dead and wounded. As a result, the casualty rate in Iraq was less than half what it was in Vietnam. There was also an emphasis on keeping civilian casualties down. It was difficult for most Americans to realize this, given the media’s fixation on real or imagined atrocities. In Iraq, over 90 percent of civilian casualties were inflicted by other Iraqis. The military encouraged the media to not cover the many procedures (”rules of engagement” or ROE) U.S. troops follow to avoid civilian losses. This was because the enemy would exploit those ROEs as much as possible.
In hindsight, U.S. troops will get credit for keeping their own casualties down to historically low levels (compared to any other 20th century conflict). Professional soldiers have already recognized this feat, and are studying American techniques intensively. Less well appreciated are the efforts the Americans made to keep civilian losses down. But foreign military experts are coming to appreciate that this aspect of the war paid long term benefits. Iraqis saw, day by day, the efforts by American troops to avoid hurting civilians. Initially, Iraqis saw that as an American weakness, but in the long run they recognized it as a sensibility rarely seen in the Middle East. This will have long term consequences for relations between the United States and Iraq.
Popularity: 54% [?]
Tags: american troops, casualty rates, civilian casualties, george soros, jim dunnigan, political slant, retrospect, sensibilitiesRelated Articles:
- Combat Survivability: US Troops Chances Are Better Than Ever!
- Iraq-Afghanistan Battle Deaths: Lower KIA, Higher Survivability Rates. Why?
- Iraq: Sunni, Shia, Kurd, PKK And The Turks. Facts, Thoughts And Hope.
- Iraqi Army Continues To Improve
- The Real War and Why It’s Ignored
- The Surge: More Facts, Good News and Repercussions.
- Iraq: Taliban Overshadowed By A Larger Threat
Comments
3 Responses to “Lower Casualty Numbers: American-Iraqi Lasting Relationship Will Benefit, But Not According to George Soros”
Got something to say?
Be fair about the funding issue, please. The funding was provided to the Lancet II study by MIT, not Soros. Initial funding for the survey and analysis were entirely internally sourced. AFTER THE STUDY was finished, additional funding was granted by the OSI (an organisation which Soros supports, not Soros the-man-himself) to disseminate results and stimulate debate over the matter. At no point during the study or the analysis were the researchers aware of any involvement at all by Soros, or even the OSI — the OSI provided funding to MIT, MIT gave it to the study team. And the OSI funding was NOT present from the start.
So it is hard to see how the name “Soros” influenced the results, given that (a) the money was provided without direct involvement either of the man or of the organisation, and (b) the money for disseminating and discussing the results of the survey wasn’t provided until after the analysis was finished.
Surely the best route to understanding what is going on is having all the facts in the public arena, and having a public discussion of the information available. That the Open Society Institute chose to “push” what they consider a vital but concealed issue into the public eye with a study which supports what they believe, does not make the study itself invalid or unimportant, or safely ignored.
It never hurts to get the whole story. In a shameful twist to this story, Montague was absolutely aware of these facts of the funding, and chose not to include them in the story for the Times, but instead to imply that it was directly supported by Soros from the start. Why?
Anyway, I’m curious…do you think that conservative politicians never pick up and fund the spread of research which supports their pet causes, or that this automatically means that the research is suspect and/or wrong, even if the politician’s support comes after the research was done?
Lynne, nobody is perfect, or without sin.
The fact that Mr. Soros’ name is associated in any way with the financing of this study HAS to raise the hairs on the back of your neck. Would it for you if George Bush’s name were there instead?
Any objective source finds inherent fault with the 650,000 killed-number as depicted in the study, except perhaps, Rosie O’Donnell.
Thank you for your very intelligent presentation. Please come back….discussion, respectful disagreement and good manners are most welcome within these pages.
Ah, I believe that translates to “thank you for being coherent and polite, but I’m going to ignore your point anyway.”
Seriously, I personally have enough understanding of the laws of causality not to think that the validity of data is affected by who publicises them. Yes, if I were to see a study saying “eating chicken every day prevents diabetes” and I find that the study is sponsored by the Poultry Farmers Of America, then I will take the study with a grain of salt until I see the details and can judge on the merits of study design and data. But if the study is done, say, by the University of Maryland, and after the study is finished the Poultry Farmers of America finds it and trumpets it to the heavens, then I will reserve judgement until I evaluate it on study design and data. On the other hand, if I were to see a university study which concluded that eating chicken prevents diabetes and the Poultry Farmers *didn’t* sing its praises to high heaven, then I would have to scrutinise the study closely for methodological flaws or signs of obvious fraud, because I would wonder what was wrong with it. But then, I’m a naturally cynical kind of person.
I don’t and can’t see how any study can be judged on its accuracy on the basis of any post facto association, only on study design and quality of data.
This, I suppose, is where your statement “Any objective source finds inherent fault with the 650,000 killed-number as depicted in the study” comes in. Well, but no; many objective sources have conceded that although the sample size is smaller than it should be, the methodology is sound, and although there is a probable overestimation of how many deaths are due to direct violence, the overall mortality number is within a credible range. I haven’t got time to go into this in detail, this is more a post-and-run, but, just for example, note the letter submitted to the Australian paper The Age, online here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-iraq-deaths-study-was-valid-and-correct/2006/10/20/1160851135985.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2 — and note the signatories; in addition, I know that the paper and its methodologies are supported by such as Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University, who has no particular dog in this fight.
Further, I would like to point to the ORB survey, which was definitely not a professional scientific study, merely a local poll, but one which pointed to 1.1-1.2 MILLION dead; and the recent NEJM survey which concluded 151,000 dead, but this was assumed to be at least a 35% undercount and admitted that it could be a 50% undercount, and which included questions only for deaths by direct violence (rather than all excess deaths, which the Lancet II study actually polled for) and which survey was carried out by Iraqi Ministry of Health personnel, so there might have been a rather more serious underreporting issue there than they admit to. In other words, an excess death of 600,000 is on the high side, and there are some valid criticisms on their sampling method which may lead to an overestimate, but the real figure is almost certainly over 200,000 and 600,000 is not flatly impossible.
As to Rosie O’Donnell’s opinion on the matter, I confess it had never occurred to me to either wonder or care. Um…and still don’t.
I think we may never know the exact number of people killed in Iraq. One thing is clear, however: too many have been killed in the current morass of internecine warfare and revenge killings, and because of the loss of infrastructure and medical facilities. The situation was badly planned from the start, and how it’s been handled is a complete mess. This has nothing to do with Soros funding anything.
Please do not confuse this statement with not respecting or supporting the troops who are over there; my father was a WWII vet, immensely proud of his stint in the army, and I was raised with a great deal of respect for military service and what it demands of people. However, I do not myself conflate respect for people on the ground in a combat situation with respect for the numpties who sent them there and failed to have a realistic strategy for dealing with inevitable local chaos. And I think the Iraqis have a legitimate beef with how things have gone.