America will it ever have its own Chilcot report

[History fan]

In the UK the Chilcot report has finally been published on Britains participation in the Iraq War and its damning. Blair himself has openly apologised at the huge loss of life (Literally Hundred's of Thousands of people) and for going to war on a lie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36712735

I wondered if America will ever have its own version of Chilcot and will Bush ever apologise for his own role in it all.

[Daemon of Decay]

If you don't mind, I'll repost what I put in the UK thread about this:

Doubtful.

Remember that the Bush and Conservative argument was that the invasion was justified based on the information available (with further support in terms about how the world was better off without Saddam, that he was committing mass murder with chemical weapons, etc.).

At best you're looking at "tragic mistake"-style guilt.

Oh, and don't forget that they'll also point to the fact that the Islamists, extremists, terrorists, sectarian militias, etc. had a pretty heavy hand in all the death and destruction, so it's hardly just Bush and Co's fault alone.

It takes two to tango, after all.

[History fan]

The point is that all wouldn't have occurred before the Invasion and Allowing the Looting and Disbanding the Iraqi Army played huge roles in the above insurgency.

Bush and co were also warned that it would happen and chose to ignore it.

[T. A. Gardner]

What were the sources used to determine this?

◾The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced

I know the British medical journal Lancet ran articles on that and that those have little credibility because of the shoddy field work used and have been widely criticized as a result. If this was the source, and in particular a primary or sole one, I'd say the conclusion is bull.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet...War_casualties

[History fan]

What were the sources used to determine this?



I know the British medical journal Lancet ran articles on that and that those have little credibility because of the shoddy field work used and have been widely criticized as a result. If this was the source, and in particular a primary or sole one, I'd say the conclusion is bull.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet...War_casualties

They went through everything and took 7 years so you can't doubt the sources or time taken to make sure it was authentic .
Paul Bremer backs it too
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...th-paul-bremer

[Daemon of Decay]

What were the sources used to determine this?



I know the British medical journal Lancet ran articles on that and that those have little credibility because of the shoddy field work used and have been widely criticized as a result. If this was the source, and in particular a primary or sole one, I'd say the conclusion is bull.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet...War_casualties

You were just on Wikipedia and they themselves listed different sources for casualty estimates, such as the Iraq Family Health Survey

Or you could just go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...f_the_Iraq_War

[T. A. Gardner]

They went through everything and took 7 years so you can't doubt the sources or time taken to make sure it was authentic .
Paul Bremer backs it too
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...th-paul-bremer

Sure I can. I doubt this report is different from stuff Washington often produces that is supposedly "non-partisan."

[T. A. Gardner]

You were just on Wikipedia and they themselves listed different sources for casualty estimates, such as the Iraq Family Health Survey

Or you could just go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...f_the_Iraq_War

Even that shows that:

The numbers vary considerably by source.

They don't differentiate between "violence" and caused directly by the war. That is, inter-religious, racial, ethnic, tribal violence that has been on-going isn't separated from directly caused by the war.

In my view that makes the numbers very suspect. I'm not trying to say there weren't civilian casualties, there were. But, how many is anybody's guess at this point, not something that should be claimed as gospel.

[Mountain Man]

We will not have a comparable report anytime within the next few decades or so, until those responsible are either dead or have faded into total obscurity.

Sounds like Britain is bowing to their new Muslim masters. Think any ME Muslim nation will ever release a report even remotely close to the Chilcot and acknowledge their role in all of this?

No.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Sure I can. I doubt this report is different from stuff Washington often produces that is supposedly "non-partisan."

I agree.

Even with a non-partisan viewpoint trying to get an accurate count of the losses is unlikely. The place was a mess, there was a multi-faction fighting going on plus general criminal violence...any who claims a count is already suspect.

[Daemon of Decay]

Even that shows that:

The numbers vary considerably by source.

They don't differentiate between "violence" and caused directly by the war. That is, inter-religious, racial, ethnic, tribal violence that has been on-going isn't separated from directly caused by the war.

That is very arbitrary distinction to make.

In my view that makes the numbers very suspect. I'm not trying to say there weren't civilian casualties, there were. But, how many is anybody's guess at this point, not something that should be claimed as gospel.

That seems like a bit of a continuum fallacy by saying they're wrong because they're not exact. Or maybe it's more a argumentum ad lapidem, since it seems you're just dismissing them as inherently wrong without showing why.

The documented cases of casualties say over 100,000 dead (with the US military itself saying 60,000 of them were civilians).

One of the surveys conducted by the Iraqi government is fairly close, at just above 150k total deaths.

Those offer some pretty good ballpark figures that one can hang their hat on. You can go for the gut-check option of saying you don't believe those numbers, but from a strictly objective and rational standing that isn't compelling.

[T. A. Gardner]

No, I'm not dismissing the finding entirely. I'm saying it should be taken with a grain of salt. If the report said something like "...between x and y civilian casualties..." it'd be more believable rather than it give a single number well up into the range from various sources.

It does that at a number of points too, not just one. That makes it a problem to buy the findings wholesale.

[Daemon of Decay]

No, I'm not dismissing the finding entirely. I'm saying it should be taken with a grain of salt. If the report said something like "...between x and y civilian casualties..." it'd be more believable rather than it give a single number well up into the range from various sources.

It does that at a number of points too, not just one. That makes it a problem to buy the findings wholesale.

Generally when you see a figure like that it's meant to be a mean within their confidence interval, and not a "this is exactly it and there is no room for doubt" statement. Indeed, the 95% confidence interval can be fairly big on such topics, so they have that inherent X to Y numbers you were looking for.

And the figure for 150,000 is hardly a fantasy figure considering that documented deaths alone from multiple sources number above 100,000, while the Iraq Family Health Survey posits 151,000, with a 95% confidence interval between 104 and 223,000.

There's a reason not all data is dismissed by statisticians.

The irony is that the Lancet and OBS people criticize the under 200k figures as being "too low" and claim that because it involved the government, people were under-reporting casualties.

If you have some numbers of your own or a critique in their methodology, that would work better than just saying "I don't trust these numbers". Right now, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt since they have something substantial to offer.

[ljadw]

Generally when you see a figure like that it's meant to be a mean within their confidence interval, and not a "this is exactly it and there is no room for doubt" statement. Indeed, the 95% confidence interval can be fairly big on such topics, so they have that inherent X to Y numbers you were looking for.

And the figure for 150,000 is hardly a fantasy figure considering that documented deaths alone from multiple sources number above 100,000, while the Iraq Family Health Survey posits 151,000, with a 95% confidence interval between 104 and 223,000.

There's a reason not all data is dismissed by statisticians.

The irony is that the Lancet and OBS people criticize the under 200k figures as being "too low" and claim that because it involved the government, people were under-reporting casualties.

If you have some numbers of your own or a critique in their methodology, that would work better than just saying "I don't trust these numbers". Right now, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt since they have something substantial to offer.

The number of Iraqi casualties should not be our concern : it was THEIR choice to start a civil war .

No one said : now you can exterminate each other, you have our blessings .

They were the enemy and Bush neither Blair were the president of Iraq .

[ljadw]

They went through everything and took 7 years so you can't doubt the sources or time taken to make sure it was authentic .
Paul Bremer backs it too
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...th-paul-bremer

Something that was published in the Guardian authentic ?