What is the NORMAL death rate of deaths/fatalities in Middle East?

Question

Much media reports of late are about the number of fatalities of civilians being over 650,000, and being attributed, (or assumed upon reading media reports) down to the war on terrorism conflict....

Can someone tell me what is the NORMAL death rate PRIOR to the invasion of U.S and NATO troops?

Can someone offer me a "pie-chart" or a graph detailing - Natural causes ie age, or infant mortality, traffic accidents; death at the hands of thier own people (ie suicide bombers and insurgents); death due to "enemy fire".?

Many thanks

I ask the specific question because of the ambiguous media reporting of the constant shock headlines !!

A specific question requires a specific answer.

By Middle East, I don't mean JUST Iraq. I am including Afghanistan in my question, plus, I do not ask my question based on US troops alone.

As I understand it, NATO troops also play a big part in current events in these 2 specific areas.

Answer 1

By Middle East, I assume you mean Iraq because the U.S has not recently been involved in any real time wars again other countries in the middle east. In addition, their is no research that has been done to answer the question of the total death rate in the middle east. Statistical research (such as death rate) on the middle east has only been done country by country.

Therefore, I will answer your question with specific details (and you can refer to my sources for more detailed and comprehensive information), specifically about Iraq.

A study published by the Lancet, a respected British medical journal, determined that over 650,000 Iraqis have died because of war in Iraq. The study also determined that the death rate has risen from 5.5 thousand Iarqis per year before the war to 13.2 thousand Iraqis per year after the war. Researchers from J.Hopkins (Baltimore) and Al Mustansiriya University (Baghdad) estimated that the invasion (plus it's effects) led to the death of 426,000 to 794,000 Iraqis (supporting the research done by the Lancet).

Other surveys (carried out by the U.S and Iraqi governments), which use ONLY the body counting method as opposed to the clustering method (see sources for more information on methodology used for research: methodology is very important), have put the rates in the tens of thousand. Iraqi citizens, however, support the figures by the Lancet, and feel that their leaders have been concealing the truth. According to research by the Lancet, there may have been under-reporting in their own study!

I know you are looking for more than what I mentioned, but trying to find exact cause of deaths and their exact percentages is very unrealistic. If such research was done (it has been done- but is highly inaccurate so there is no use posting it here), it would very likely lack STRONG AND SUFFICIENT evidence and likely be unaccurate in a great margin.

If you're asking for my opinion (I know it may not matter to you), I believe that the research done by the Lancet and their methodology is credible. It is definitely more representative of the people (refer to clustering methodology) and more accurate than body counting. I also believe with great amount of certainty that the government is doing some serious under-reporting (it is impossible to count all dead bodies). Just take a look at the CIA factbook of 2002. The government claims that the death rate in Iraq that year was 6.2 deaths per 1,000. Then, in 2003 (when the war began) 5.82/1000 death rate. In 2004, 5.66/1000 DR and in 2005, 5.49/1000. Their (CIA World Factbook) most recent 2006 estimate shows 5.37/1000 DR. This is not just hilarious, but it shows the length which the government will go to support a war. Anyone- me or you- would obviously not agree with these facts because in any war anywhere in the world- the war would cause some rise in death rates (even if it had to be a little or for the first year- this is logical). But, in this case, the government is claiming that the death rate is decreasing during war time! This is completely ludicrous.


Even though, I mentioned that the World Factbook (statistics provided by the U.S Government) has been misleading, they provide their (I say "their" because it "their" opinion) answer to your question on the infant death rate. However, I have no idea if I can trust those estimates. I would also like to state that between the year 1990, when the U.S initiated sanctions that were carried out by the U.N against the people of Iraq, and the year 2001, well over 1 million Iraqis died due to the sanctions imposed on the country. This means that the U.S had played it's role in the death rates of Iraqi civilians even before the Gulf War in 1991. This is also important because your question is "What is the NORMAL death rate/ fatalaties in the Middle East?". One can't seriously consider the toll of the sanctions against Iraq (The former coordinator of the U.N oil-for-food deal, Dennis Hallaway, once talked about this toll- 4 thousand to 5 thousand children dying every month) to produce a "normal" death rate. We would have to look at the eighties to determine the normal death rate if I am correct that you mean by normal death rate, the death rate of Iraqis before U.S action.








*******************************************************
ADDITIONAL DETAILS--------ADDITIONAL DETAILS
*******************************************************


1. Afghanistan is not at all part of the middle East. It is in Asia.

2. NATO plays a large role in Afghanistan, but that is not in the Middle East.

3. NATO plays a very limited role in Iraq. It is more or less providing defensive support for Turkey (by maintaing defensive mechanisms in the case where Turkish territory is attacked) and supports Poland whose soldiers are in southern Iraq (For Poland, it provides support in a variety of ways). It is also involved in "training, equipping, and technical assistance - not combat". Please see NATO's website for more information. I have included the new sources below in section E.

Answer 2

not fast enough i tell you that

Answer 3

no more deaths
here or there