WS MoreOrLess: Counting the Dead in Iraq

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: More or Less
Episode: Counting the Dead in Iraq
Host: Tim Harford
Date: January 13, 2014

This episode of More or Less, hosted by Tim Harford, tackles the challenging and contentious question of how many people have died in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. The show dissects the methodologies behind war death statistics, examining why estimates range from 120,000 to as high as a million. The episode also features a lighter segment where comedian Matt Parker humorously explains the imperial system of measurement.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Difficulty of Counting Iraq War Deaths

• Introduction to the Issue

  • Tim Harford highlights drastically different estimates of Iraqi deaths since 2003, from the Iraq Body Count's 120,000 to journalist John Pilger's claim of a million.
  • "Many deaths will certainly go unreported, while others may be counted twice. But even so, the range of uncertainty in the case of Iraq seems to be very wide indeed." (Tim Harford, 00:51)

• Methods of Counting Deaths

  • Direct Counting (Violent Deaths):

    • Dr. Glenn Rangwala explains that some counts tally only immediate victims of violence using morgue, police, and journalist reports, resulting in about 120,000 deaths.
    • "They just tally the number of death reports that come in from morgues and police stations and from journalists that are attributing deaths to violent conflict and generally come to something in the range of 120,000 people up to the present day." (Dr. Glenn Rangwala, 01:23)

  • Survey-Based Estimates (Excess Deaths):

    • Other organizations use surveys of Iraqi households to determine if any household members have died; the difference between pre- and post-invasion death rates is used to estimate "excess deaths."
    • The 2006 Johns Hopkins study estimated 655,000 excess deaths in 3.5 years.
    • "Probably the most famous study was one conducted by Johns Hopkins...which found that 655,000...excess deaths have occurred in Iraq in that period of just three and a half years." (Dr. Glenn Rangwala, 02:11)

• Disparity in Methodologies and Estimates

  • Pilger's figure of one million comes from an Opinion Research Business poll, but Dr. Rangwala expresses skepticism about their reliability, citing five other studies with lower, yet still divergent, numbers.

  • "All those different analyses since 2003, conducted by established researchers, have themselves come to different estimates. Anywhere between 405,000 to the 655,000 in 2006 by the Johns Hopkins team." (Dr. Glenn Rangwala, 03:14)

  • Summary of Methods:

    • Tim Harford recaps: two main approaches—counting violent deaths (~120,000) versus broader surveys comparing pre- and post-war death rates (400,000 to 655,000, possibly more with a large error margin).
    • "So in short, there are two ways to count the dead in Iraq...And that suggests perhaps half a million deaths with a considerable margin of error." (Tim Harford, 03:34)

---

2. Iraq’s Demographics and Population Paradox

• Unexpected Growth in Iraq’s Population

  • Charlotte MacDonald notes that even a conservative war-related death estimate implies a catastrophic impact, yet Iraq's population has grown from 25 million (2003) to 33 million (2014).

  • "There were 25 million people in Iraq in 2003...But there are around 33 million people in Iraq today." (Charlotte MacDonald, 04:37)

  • Reason for Population Increase

    • Patrick Guerlain (UN Demographics) attributes growth to high birth rates:
      • "A lot of families have a relatively large number of children, about 4 on average or more...the end result is basically an overall continuous population increase." (Patrick Guerlain, 05:01)

  • Memorable Comparison

    • "A million people is such a big number. That's more than half the population of Northern Ireland, a fifth of the population of Norway." (Charlotte MacDonald, 04:08)

---

3. (Bonus Segment) The Imperial Measurement System—A Comic Interlude

• Comic Critique and Defense

  • Tim Harford introduces a light-hearted segment with Matt Parker, who pokes fun at and then attempts to praise the imperial measurement system.
  • "Meters are vastly superior to inches." (Matt Parker, 06:01)
  • "I've come along very, very apologetic. I was unnecessarily mean and critical of unit system. And so what I thought I could do is now praise the merits and kind of promote the imperial measurement system for all of its wonder." (Matt Parker, 06:18)

• Absurd Complexity of Imperial Units

  • Matt humorously lists increasingly obscure imperial units and their convoluted relationships, highlighting the system’s lack of logic and coherence.
  • "If you then get 12 of those inches you get a foot. And if you get three of those feet, you get a yard...and this carries on nice and systematically because 1,760 yards gives you a mile..." (Matt Parker, 06:34)
  • "So, as you can see, it’s a nice, consistent, straightforward system of measurement units." (Matt Parker, 08:50)

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Methodological Debate:

  • "Not all deaths that occur in a conflict are caused by immediate acts of violence." (Dr. Glenn Rangwala, 01:47)

• On Population Paradox:

  • "So the population has risen by 8 million people, almost a third over the last decade." (Tim Harford, 04:48)

• Comic Absurdity:

  • “Each cable, if you have 10 of those, you get a nautical mile. If you have three nautical miles, you get a league...Now, each foot, if you divide that into thirds, you get a hand...If you take three inches, you get a palm...If you divide it into four, you get digits…” (Matt Parker, 07:18–08:50)

---

Timeline and Timestamps

• 00:19 | Introduction and context for Iraq war death statistics
• 01:20–03:34 | Dr. Glenn Rangwala on direct counts vs survey-based estimates; range of estimates; methodology critique
• 04:08–05:20 | Discussion of Iraq’s population trends with Charlotte MacDonald and Patrick Guerlain
• 05:35–08:50 | Matt Parker’s comedic deep-dive into imperial measurements

---

Episode Takeaways

• Counting the dead in conflict zones is fraught with methodological challenges, resulting in dramatically different estimates.
• The most credible studies suggest a figure between 400,000 and 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq due to war and its aftermath, while higher numbers like a million lack robust support.
• Despite the violence and emigration, Iraq's high birth rate has led to a steady increase in total population, a startling contrast to the scale of reported deaths.
• On a lighter note, the episode closes with a satirical breakdown of the imperial measurement system, showcasing the show's signature blend of serious analysis and humor.

---

For further exploration or to listen to the full episode, visit bbcworldservice.com/moreorless.

Transcript

[Charlotte MacDonald]

This is the short edition of More or Less, first broadcast on the BBC World Service.

[BBC Announcer]

Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts

[Tim Harford]

hello and welcome to More or Less on the BBC World Service. I'm Tim Harford. This week we ask an Australian comedian to explain the system of imperial measurements because. But first, I'm afraid we have more serious statistics to discuss. The United nations recently announced that in 2013 almost 8,000 civilians and 1,000 members of the security forces had been killed in Iraq. Estimates of how many people died overall since 2003, when Saddam Hussein was deposed, vary widely. A website called Iraq Bodycount gives a figure of 120,000. The the campaigning journalist John Pilger recently cited a number of a million. We've looked at the difficulties of counting war dead before. Many deaths will certainly go unreported, while others may be counted twice. But even so, the range of uncertainty in the case of Iraq seems to be very wide indeed. So I spoke to Dr. Glenn Rangwala from Cambridge University in the United Kingdom to guide us through the numbers.

[Dr. Glenn Rangwala]

Some people are just counting the immediate victims of acts of violence. They just tally the number of death reports that come in from morgues and police stations and from journalists that are attributing deaths to violent conflict and generally come to something in the range of 120,000 people up to the present day. However, not all deaths that occur in a conflict are caused by immediate acts of violence.

[Tim Harford]

So how do we try and record those deaths?

[Dr. Glenn Rangwala]

What a number of organisations and institutes have tried to do have been to do a sample based survey within Iraq. So they've asked our households whether any members who were resident ordinarily at that household have died and then they've extrapolated from that to a crude death rate in the country. So how many people per thousand per year are dying in Iraq? And I've compared that to the pre invasion death rate. So probably the most famous study was one conducted by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of public health in 2006 which found that 655,000, what are called in the terminology excess deaths have occurred in Iraq in that period of just three and a half years.

[Tim Harford]

Was it reasonable for John Pilger to say that a million people had died in Iraq as a result of American and British involvement?

[Dr. Glenn Rangwala]

John Pilger was drawing upon a series of polls conducted by a London based organisation called Opinion Research Business, which conducted these polls in Iraq, asking People, if any, of their family members had died from violent causes. And extrapolating from that, they came to a figure, firstly of 1.2 million later, 1 million to deaths in Iraq. Unfortunately, that organization, I don't think, has produced the most reliable study. There have been five other studies of much greater detail. That said, all those different analyses since 2003, conducted by established researchers, have themselves come to different estimates. Anywhere between 405,000 to the 655,000 in 2006 by the Johns Hopkins team.

[Tim Harford]

Glenn Rangwala. In short, there are two ways to count the dead in Iraq. You can try to tot up the violent deaths, a method which produces a stark total of around 100 or 120,000, or you can try to compare some broader measure of the overall death rate with what that death rate used to be before the war. And that suggests perhaps half a million deaths with a considerable margin of error. When we were researching this item, we were pretty stunned by this number of a million that had been circulating. It got our reporter Charlotte MacDonald, thinking.

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Yeah, the thing that got me is that a million people is such a big number. That's more than half the population of Northern Ireland, a fifth of the population of Norway.

[Tim Harford]

And even if a better estimate is, say, 400,000 deaths, according to Glenn Rangwala, you would expect that kind of death toll, that scale, to have a huge impact on Iraq's demographics.

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Exactly. And loads of Iraqis have left the country to seek refuge elsewhere. So I expected that the population would have fallen sharply.

[Tim Harford]

And has it?

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Well, listen to this. There were 25 million people in Iraq in 2003, the year of the British and US invasion. But there are around 33 million people in Iraq today.

[Tim Harford]

So the population has risen by 8 million people, almost a third over the last decade.

[Charlotte MacDonald]

And that's because there are many more births than deaths there. Patrick Guerlain from the UN's Demographics team has been talking me through the numbers,

[Patrick Guerlain]

because a lot of families have a relatively large number of children, about 4 on average or more. The end result is that every year you keep having about 600,000 more people in the country. The end result is basically an overall continuous population increase.

[Tim Harford]

Thanks to Patrick Guerlain and thanks also to Charlotte MacDonald. Now, we're no strangers to controversy on More or Less, but even we were shocked when we saw this video on YouTube on a channel called NumberHub.

[Matt Parker]

We have no idea where US letter size came from. The main argument I've heard is that if you get a guy's arm right

[Tim Harford]

now, there's nothing shocking in the posting of a video critiquing paper sizes per se. No indeed. We were enjoying Matt Parker's comparison of the US paper sizing system to A4 system. But then, well, Matt, the stand up mathematician and friend of more or less, he overstepped the mark.

[Matt Parker]

Meters are vastly superior to inches.

[Tim Harford]

Unbelievable.

[Matt Parker]

I mean, the official original definition of an inch is that it's three barleycorns. What do you expect from a measurement that was developed?

[Tim Harford]

I'll spare you any more. We've asked Matt Parker to come on and justify himself. Matt?

[Matt Parker]

Yes, I have come along very, very apologetic. I was unnecessarily mean and critical of unit system. And so what I thought I could do is to now praise the merits and kind of promote the imperial measurement system for all of its wonder.

[Tim Harford]

Where would you start?

[Matt Parker]

So I mentioned the barley corns in my video and what I didn't say is that if you get three of these barley corns you get an inch. If you then get 12 of those inches, you get a foot. And if you get three of those feet, you get a yard, which is all very straightforward. And this carries on nice and systematically because 1,760 yards gives you a mile. You take an eighth of that mile, you get a four furlong, you divide the furlong in tenths, you get a Gunter's chain. If you divide the Gunter's chain into elevenths, you get a fathom. If you have 15 fathoms, you get a shackle. Or alternatively, if you take 100 fathoms, you get a cable. Now, each cable, if you have 10 of those, you get a nautical mile. If you have three nautical miles, you get a league. Or alternatively, you can take a nautical mile and split it into 6,080ft, which means that the film 20,000 Leagues under the Sea should be 40,533,333ft under the sea.

[Tim Harford]

Catchy.

[Matt Parker]

Yeah, exactly. Now, each foot, if you divide that into thirds, you get a hand. Well, of course, three hands to the feet makes sense. Each hand. If you cut that in half, you get a stick. If you take a stick and snap it in half, you get an inch. If you take three inches, you get a palm. If you divide it into four, you get digits. You take three digits, you get a nail, you take four nails, you get a span. If you take two spans, you get a cubit. Now that cubit. If you divide that into thirds, you get a Chapman, which is a slightly insulting unit. And if you are actually keeping track, Tim, that would be 243.2 million shapments under the sea.

[Tim Harford]

I knew that.

[Matt Parker]

It's a much catchier title. Now, five chapmet in a row is a pace. If you take two paces, you've taken one step. If you take four steps, you've just walked along a rope. If you take five ropes, you get a Ramsden's chain. Because Ramsden didn't want to use gunters, he's got his own chain. You take 50 Ramsden's chains in a row, you get a Roman mile.

[Tim Harford]

Is that similar to the nautical mile?

[Matt Parker]

It is similar, but subtly different to all the other miles. Because you don't want just one mile. Why not have more than one for different occasions? A Roman mile is exactly 60,000 inches. That's nice and straightforward. Whereas a standard mile is a slightly messier 63,360.

[Tim Harford]

For when you just need that little bit more.

[Matt Parker]

Yeah, yeah. So if a Roman goes the extra mile for you, you get less value for money. Now, each inch, if you divide that into sixths, you get a picker. If you take a picker and divide it into 12th, you get a point. You take a point and divide it into 20th, you get a twip. The smallest unit I will be mentioning, you then take six points. That gives you a poppy seed. And now four of those poppy seeds takes us right back to where we started, the barleycorn. So, as you can see, it's a nice, consistent, straightforward system of measurement units.

[Tim Harford]

Matt Parker. Apology accepted. Thank you. Did I ever tell you about the time I met the kilogram?

[Matt Parker]

Don't start.

[Tim Harford]

And you can watch NumberHub with Matt Parker on YouTube. If there are any numbers you'd like us to check or explain, do please email us at more or lessbc.co.uk and you can download this program and many others for free at our website, bbcworldservice.com More or less

[BBC Announcer]

there are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sport. For details of them all, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts.