Iraqi Civilian Casualties: 2007 More Deadly Than 2006

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

It took some time and effort, but, with the aid of TPM readers, we’ve obtained two complete lists of monthly Iraqi civilian casualties from January 2006 forward. Taking these numbers on their own terms, they do not bear out the claims made by the Bush administration and U.S. military that the surge has reduced Iraqi civilian casualties. Comparing each month’s death toll in 2007 to the death toll from that same month in 2006, the numbers show that surge has not made Iraq safer for the civilian population. By some measurements, Iraqis are in greater danger than a year ago.

It’s a sign of how skewed the debate over the Iraq War is that these numbers are not readily available. Different Iraqi government agencies present different casualty figures. The U.S. military’s own casualty total is said to rely on the Iraqis, but it’s unclear which Iraqi agency it uses or what adjustments are made to the Iraqi figures. Even as today’s testimony from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker is considered a possible make-or-break moment for U.S. policy on Iraq, with the Bush Administration and the Pentagon touting the success of the surge in reducing civilian casualties, there is no general agreement on what civilian casualties have been or on what the most accurate methodology for tallying casualties is.

The two lists presented here rely on statistics gathered by the Associated Press and by Iraq Body Count, a reputable British organization that has done Herculean work in compiling civilian-casualty data. It’s important to note that these lists aren’t comprehensive. Tallying Iraqi civilian casualties is an incomplete and arduous task, made extremely difficult by the situation on the ground. Both surveys readily acknowledge that their figures are undercounts of the true Iraqi civilian casualty rate. But the significance of these two charts is that each study employs its own internally consistent methodology for determining Iraqi casualties and has done so over a significant period of time, allowing an independent assessment — albeit imprecise — to measure against what we’ll hear from Petraeus and Crocker.

Since April 2005, the AP has tracked Iraqi casualty data by relying on hospital, police and military officials and morgue workers, as well as reporters and photographers at the scenes and verifiable, two-source witness accounts. I tracked down the data that the AP had already reported, compiled it month by month, and the AP reconfirmed it for me to ensure that I didn’t neglect or misunderstand something. Comparing AP’s figures for each month in 2007 to those for its 2006 antecedent — see the first chart — 2007 is more deadly for Iraqis than 2006 was. Looking just at the post-February 2007 surge, the numbers for Iraqi casualties fluctuate month by month, and show no clear decline in civilian casualties.

The second list we obtained is from Iraq Body Count, whose methodology centers on “cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.” Its numbers tell a more complicated story. Unlike with the AP’s figures, the IBC’s reflect a minimum-maximum range owing to questions about the exact numbers of civilians killed, for instance, in a particular bombing, or the civilian status of others. (See the second chart.) But they generally find that the surge hasn’t resulted in significantly lower civilian casualties for Iraqis this year. So far, the first four months following the surge are deadlier overall than their 2006 counterparts, with May 2007 being about as bad as May 2006, and June 2007 being better than June 2006.

IBC’s Hamit Dardagan, to whom I am indebted for breaking these numbers down by month and explaining IBC’s methodology, caveats the organization’s assessment by saying that the more recent data are incomplete. The figures after March 2007, a month into the surge, are “probably lacking hundreds (though never into the thousands) of deaths each month, which it would contain if these months were as ‘finished’ as the earlier periods.” IBC is continually revising earlier months’ figures as new data becomes available. So expect the numbers to be revised upward in the coming months.

If you chart the month-to-month civilian casualty statistics just in 2007 then the post-surge monthlies in the AP’s count toggle a bit, but they hit a high in May, drop significantly in June, and creep back upward afterward. In the IBC’s count, since the surge begins, the numbers drop in April, tick up slightly in May and then drop in June. That pattern roughly tracks with the AP’s findings, giving confidence in the methodology of each. (However, the post-April 2007 figures are probably going to be revised upward.)

What the figures do show, however, is that 2007 remains more deadly for Iraqis, month for month, than did 2006. The two exceptions, May and June 2007 in IBC’s count, may not stay exceptions for long, but they count as less deadly months for Iraqis than the previous year. In neither count did Iraq experience fewer than 1000 civilian casualties each month in 2007.

Neither of these counts include other important metrics, such as population displacement or sectarian killings; nor killings by Shiite death squads vs. Sunni insurgents; or incidences of car bombings or other mass-casualty events.

Finally, let me extend my personal thanks to the literally dozens of readers who wrote in with invaluable research help. You’re what sets this medium apart. From what I’ve read over the last several days, I know I can trust you to correct me with any mistakes.

Latest Muckraker
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: