The best current estimate of the number of Iraqis who have been killed in consequence of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq is 1,200,000. This figure is consistent with the earlier estimate of 655,000 published in the Lancet in October 2006, if some account is taken of the intervening orgy of sectarian killing.
The responsibilty for all this death belongs to the United States, as a matter of international law. Kofi Annan's summary of the relevant articles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Convention of 1907 is perfectly clear: "In any area under military occupation, responsibility for the welfare of the population falls on the occupying power."
I call it a Holocaust because no other word does justice to the magnitude of this abomination.
The following discussion was part of a question-and-answer session sponsored by the BBC last year with the epidemiologist Les Roberts, one of the authors of the first Lancet study of post-invasion mortality in Iraq. I hope it answers some of the usual questions in advance. You can also find a summary of objections by the authors of the Iraqi Body Count in the first link to the 2006 Lancet survey.
How do you know that you are not reporting the same fatality multiple times? For example, if you were to ask people in the UK if they know anyone who has been involved in a traffic accident most would say they do. Applying your logic that means there are 60 million accidents every year.
Andrew M, London, UK
To be recorded as a death in a household, the decedent had to have spent most of the nights during the three months before their death "sleeping under the same roof" with the household that was being interviewed. This may have made us undercount some, but addressed your main concern that no two households could claim the same death event.
It seems The Lancet has been overrun by left-wing sixth formers. The report has a flawed methodology and the counting process shows signs of deceit.
Ian, Whitwick, UK
This study was the standard approach for measuring mortality in times of war, it went through a rigorous peer-review process and it probably could have been accepted into any of the journals that cover war and public health.
Can you explain, if your figures are correct, why 920 more people were dying each day than officially recorded by the Iraqi Ministry of Health - implying huge fraud and/or incompetence on their behalf?
Dan, Scotland
It is really difficult to collect death information in a war zone! In 2002, in Katana Health Zone in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) there was a terrible meningitis outbreak where the zone was supported by the Belgian Government, with perhaps the best disease surveillance network in the entire country. A survey by the NGO International Rescue Committee showed that only 7% of those meningitis deaths were recorded by the clinics and hospitals and government officials.
You and your colleagues claim to have used the same method to estimate deaths in Iraq as is used to estimate deaths in natural disasters. Is there any evidence that the method is accurate?
Rickard Loe, Stockholm, Sweden
That is a good question. In 1999, again in Katana Health Zone in the Congo, I led a mortality survey where we walked a grid over the health zone and interviewed 41 clusters of five houses at 1km spacings. In that survey, we estimated that 1,600 children had died of measles in the preceding half year. A couple of weeks later we did a standard immunization coverage survey that asked about measles deaths and we found an identical result.
Why is it so hard for people to believe The Lancet report? I am an Iraqi and can assure you that the figure given is nearer to the truth than any given before or since.
S Kazwini, London, UK
I think it is hard to accept these results for a couple of reasons. People do not see the bodies. Secondly, people feel that all those government officials and all those reporters must be detecting a big portion of the deaths. When in actuality during times of war, it is rare for even 20% to be detected.