Excerpted from Bob Koehler's column at
http://www.commonwonders.com/archives/col267.htm regarding a report
developed by field research in Iraq and published in Lancet magazine, quoted above:


Based on the findings, the researchers were able to estimate a death rate
before and after the invasion. The after rate - excluding the data from the
shattered city of Fallujah, which would have skewed the overall results, so
much greater was the death toll there - was 1.5 times higher than the before
rate, which extrapolates to about 100,000 "excess" dead.

Furthermore, most of the pre-invasion deaths were from heart attacks,
strokes and the like, whereas afterward, according to the Lancet article,
"violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread . .
. and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals
reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of
death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher . .
. than in the period before the war."

And most of the deaths were the result of coalition air strikes, leading the
study's authors to conclude that "Civility and enlightened self-interest
demand a re-evaluation of the consequences of weaponry now used by coalition
forces in populated areas."

I'm inclined to word that conclusion just a tad more hysterically: This is
slaughter, Mr. President! In the name of God, in the name of Allah, call it
off. What strategic end is worth what we're doing to the Iraqi people? What
consequences do you think will flow from it?

Your mandate for this war, sir, is based on gross ignorance - that the
collateral carnage we're churning up is minimal, that Iraqi deaths matter
less than American, that because we don't do beheadings we aren't barbaric.

A hundred thousand dead, sir. And counting. When does a conscience kick in?
When do we become worse than Saddam Hussein?