As a journalist it's a question that's so hard to answer. How many have died in these four years due to violence? In 2006 the medical journal, Lancet, estimated that excess deaths in Iraq due to the war were 654,965, 2.5 percent of the population. Iraq Body Count, which tracks civilian deaths, puts the number of documented deaths between 72,596 and 79,187. For a reporter it is difficult to know.
The official numbers differ if you can get them and numbers leaked to us from Iraqi ministries are incomplete pictures. This week a poll by the British market research company, Opinion Research Business, put the number at 1,220,580 deaths that were not natural causes, since the 2003 invasion.
According to the poll one in two households in Baghdad has lost someone. One in two households.
Can you imagine? If you haven't lost someone, than your neighbor has. The next most deadly provinces were Diyala and Ninewa in the north, notable because both Baghdad and Diyala are inhabited by both Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunni Anbar province, Shiite Karbala in the south and Irbil in Kurdistan were not included in the poll.
Among those polled 22.002 percent of people had lost at least one person in their household due to a non-natural cause. Five percent of them lost two people, one percent lost three and less than one percent lost four or more.
One thing peaked my interest, nearly half of the people polled who'd lost someone in their household said it was due to a gunshot wound. While the military has touted the drop in car bombs as a major victory, they only account for 20 percent of the deaths. While 48 percent of people were shot and killed. The murder rate implies sectarian violence.
I thought back to a media luncheon with a U.S. General earlier this week. I sat down and the American General asked the media to please change the perception that Sunnis and Shiites were killing each other in Iraq. He asked that when we go back to the United States we try to change that perception.
I couldn't believe it, doesn't he know? Sunnis and Shiites don't necessarily hate each other in Iraq but right now they have no choice but to fear each other. The fear is oppressive in Baghdad. If you're a Shiite and don't agree with the Mahdi Army, there is little you can do. To express your dismay is a death wish.
Sunnis have told me that in the past they didn't question Sunni extremists that controlled their neighborhoods; at least they protected them from Shiite militias. The fear is very real. Our Iraqi staff, both Sunni and Shiite, are friends. But the Sunni man does not visit the Shiite man in his Mahdi Army neighborhood, he knows it could be his end.
Shiites don't stroll through Sunni enclaves of Baghdad and Sunni son-in-laws in and his Shiite in-laws often can't visit each other in this divided city.
I told the General this and he asked me how I could explain some of the Sunni and Shiite marriages he'd come across.
Maybe he could explain to me the high divorce rate among Sunnis and Shiites. They were once common place here and now very few people inter-marry. Maybe he could explain to me why Sunnis map their routes to avoid Shiite neighborhoods and vice versa. Maybe he could explain to me the fear I feel every day for my staff and for myself.
Iraqis are not barbaric and all Sunnis and Shiites don't hate each other, but right now the fear trumps all. No one wants to end up a corpse on the side of the street. This is the reality that we report everyday. This is the reality.
A poll conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today included the question, "Q45 Do you think the separation of people on sectarian lines is a good thing or a bad thing for Iraq?" 6% of respondents thought it was a good thing; 94% thought it was a bad thing. This live-and-let-live attitude gets only rare mention in America, where the preferred belief has all Muslims/Arabs driven primarily by religious fervor.
Posted by: fred | September 19, 2007 at 04:21 AM
I understand both religions are based on the koran. Does it allow for killing of men, women and children of muslim faith?
Posted by: Linda Spurlock | September 20, 2007 at 10:47 AM
I understand both religions are based on the koran. Does it allow for killing of men, women and children of muslim faith?
Posted by: Linda Spurlock | September 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM
One problem, as Leila well knows, is the Democrats are able to significantly distort the reality in Iraq for political purposes. For example Democrats keep repeating their mantra that the US military shouldn't be between two sides in a "civil war".
As the Republicans largely don't talk about Iraq, and the media keeps repeating the Democrats allegations, a "civil war" in Iraq has become the reality for many Americans. A recent Pew poll found most Americans believe the US military is unable to prevent a "civil war" in Iraq by a 2-1 margin.
Posted by: Chris Baker | September 20, 2007 at 01:51 PM
A couple points:
How are the democrats distorting the reality in Iraq...if they were, wouldnt they be successful in creating the conditions for bringing the troops home? Republicans not talking about Iraq doesnt change the fact of a civil war. Do a google on "civil war" and you will see Iraq is in one and has been for some time.
2) It is pathetic to me that the generals are openly participating in the public relations effort to sell this occupation. Not surprising - Petraeu is openly political - from writing Op-Eds before elections to skewing statistics, he is betraying his own professionalism. Move-On is castigated for simply asking the question: should a general stick to the facts or sell a bad policy?
3) This may sound ridicuolusly elementary, but how does one tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shia...? Is it a surname thing? Last I checked they were all the same race. So I guess this isnt ethnic cleansing.
So many questions, so few answers.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Stewart | September 20, 2007 at 03:18 PM
A couple points:
How are the democrats distorting the reality in Iraq...if they were, wouldnt they be successful in creating the conditions for bringing the troops home? Republicans not talking about Iraq doesnt change the fact of a civil war. Do a google on "civil war" and you will see Iraq is in one and has been for some time.
2) It is pathetic to me that the generals are openly participating in the public relations effort to sell this occupation. Not surprising - Petraeu is openly political - from writing Op-Eds before elections to skewing statistics, he is betraying his own professionalism. Move-On is castigated for simply asking the question: should a general stick to the facts or sell a bad policy?
3) This may sound ridicuolusly elementary, but how does one tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shia...? Is it a surname thing? Last I checked they were all the same race. So I guess this isnt ethnic cleansing.
So many questions, so few answers.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Stewart | September 20, 2007 at 03:21 PM
i suggest you recomend to the iraqi terrorists to stop killing there own fellow iraqis,this is daily news worldwide.muslims of the world unite.reap vengence on the al-quida terroroists who blow themselfs up and kill poor iraqi GOD fearing people.long live iraqi civilization
Posted by: tussi | September 20, 2007 at 08:42 PM
It's a common veiw in Australia (not one held by myself) that Iraqi's have been fighting amongst themselves for decades, that they can't form a govt. because of it & the Americans are there to sort it....So wrong! but the people here have litte understanding and only go by what the mainstream media portray...media coincidently owned by america
Posted by: gale | September 27, 2007 at 08:35 PM
Do you realize that you wrote:
"I couldn't believe it, doesn't he know? Sunnis and Shiites don't necessarily hate each other in Iraq but right now they have no choice but to fear each other."
First you wrote that they don't necessarily hate each other... and then you go on to suggest that the general is off his rocker for clearing the air on that matter.
Leila, as a reporter, you are letting your own personal bias affect how you write.
If that one statement there doesn't make it clear to you, nothing will. That's coming from a PJ student.
Please re-evaluate how you are letting your own opinions of how people "should" think affect how you write.
There are people who will die if you are not accurate. That's what the general was trying to tell you. That same fear that you complain about is being fueled by you, even when you admit that Sunnis and Shiites don't hate each other.
-John
Posted by: John Abbott | October 23, 2007 at 02:16 AM
To Jeff Stewart;
Yes, if you Google "civil war" and "iraq" you'll find that Iraq is in a civil war. -And if you Google "9/11" and "bomb" you'll find that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the government to take us to war.
My point is that just because you can Google it, it doesn't make it true.
There have been several polls taken of Iraqis where the majority of Iraqis do not believe that they are in a civil war.
Don't you think that they would know, if they were?
The re-definition of what's going on in Iraq into a civil war was done a year ago, when the Democrats wanted to make an argument to get out. They couldn't argue that we should leave terrorists alone, so instead, they talked about how "civil war" was coming. It was imminent.
Its still, apparently, imminent, a year later.
So yeah, I argue with your concept of civil war.
-John
Posted by: John Abbott | October 23, 2007 at 02:21 AM
Not Enough Yet
To some that may sound uncaring, but plz let me explain. The way to truly end this horrible,needless war lies in the OIL.We all know that. So act on it. Actions creat reactions good and bad. Action 1: Build a fortifcation wall around the largest oil feilds and most important structures for processing and delivering this most coveted liquid other then water. Action 2: Pull all hated US troops behind these walls. I'm sure that half the troops there can do that job so send the rest home to silence the war critics. Now Action 3 Iraqi's are not gonna like but they are the ones that can disolve it. Action: 3: Allow the civil wars and the atttacks till they see that such (actions) only hurt them. It's been going on for centuries so how are the Americans gonna convince them to stop. Mission Impossible. This is still action 3 now so stay with me. While allowing these tribal shite sunni wars and a little bin ladin mixed in to continue while Iraqi oil is sold on the market and the money put into a fund. Let that fund grow and grow cause these muslim cival wars can last decades. Action 4: Is the most important. Return this huge sum of money when the Iraqi people relize that it will be to their benefit to end the senseless atrocities they're befalling on they're own brothers and sisters. Minus a fair sum to the US for all the billons wasted. A fair sum should silence the American tax payer whom the US government is supposed to be working for. The rest returned to the Iraqi people for reconstruction or however IRAQI'S wanna spend it other then weapons for first strike capabilities. Defense weapons should be allowed to a point. Iran must not be allowed to prosper over all the death they caused in Iraq. So eliminate them from every equation pertaining to the reconstruction of Iraq's leadership be it dictator or western style government. I am 99% sure the dictator style will prevail. This dictator must show he is for every style of Iraqi person presently in Iraq. All that money will help Iraq become a MODEL NATION for others to follow.
Posted by: Black32zx | October 27, 2007 at 09:15 AM
Has a reporter ever asked GWB if he thinks that 80,000 (600K, 1 million) deaths is worth the mission (whatever it is at the moment)?
I'd like reporters to ask him repeatedly about these numbers.
Also, we, the American people, should constantly be reminded of the deaths of EVERYONE, not just the American GIs. There's a difference in hearing every day of a war that has cost 4000 lives and hearing that the war has caused a million deaths (or 80,000).
Fourth estate: It's up to you.
Posted by: Joe | November 09, 2007 at 05:25 PM