Iraqi Death Toll Exceeded 34,000 in 2006, U.N. Says

January 17, 2007
Iraqi Death Toll Exceeded 34,000 in 2006, U.N. Says
By SABRINA TAVERNISE

BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 — The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths and a vivid measure of the failure of the Iraqi government and American military to provide security.

The report was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year. It was compiled using reports from morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq, and was nearly three times higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The Associated Press earlier this month.

Numbers of civilian deaths have become the central indicator for the trajectory of the war, and are extremely delicate for both Iraqi and American officials. Both follow the tallies, but neither will release them.

An Iraqi government spokesman called the count exaggerated, and said that it had been obtained using “incorrect sources.” Though the government closely tracks deaths through the Interior and Health Ministries, he said it did not have a system in place for compiling a comprehensive figure.

Despite the criticism from the Iraqi government, the United Nations said it used only official sources, most of which relied on counts of death certificates. A vast majority of Iraqi deaths are registered, at least to local authorities, so that Iraqis can prove inheritance and receive government compensation. Some deaths still go unreported, however, and the United Nations tally may in fact be lower than the true number of deaths nationwide.

As death tolls have risen, the lack of security has become the single most important barrier to success of the American enterprise here. The numbers of dead, at least at the Baghdad morgue, are running at double their number in 2005.

Underscoring the challenge, even as the United Nations released its figure — 34,452 deaths, a number that does not yet include the December totals from all provinces — at least 70 more Iraqis were killed on Tuesday when a series of bomb blasts struck a largely Shiite university in northeast Baghdad.

After almost four years of war, in which Americans have focused largely on fighting an elusive enemy — Sunni militants and, more recently, Shiite death squads — military commanders say keeping Iraqis alive has now moved to the center of the new strategy proposed by President Bush.

For many Iraqis, the pledge comes too late. The numbers reported by the United Nations were more than tenfold the number of American deaths for the entire war. As previous attempts to secure Baghdad have failed, tens of thousands of middle-class Iraqis have given up and fled the country. Those who remain are becoming increasingly radicalized as the violence draws them into a cycle of revenge.

The United Nations report said an average of 94 Iraqis died every day in 2006, with about half the deaths occurring in the capital. A majority died from gunshot wounds, in execution-style killings that are a common method for death squads, both Sunni and Shiite. The report registered the most lethal month as October, with deaths declining slightly in November and December.

Violence between Sunnis and Shiites, virtually unheard of in the early years of the war, has become the main driver of the tallies.

Military commanders have acknowledged that they underestimated the seriousness of the sectarian killings, which took off after the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra last year drew Shiites into the war. Before that, Sunni militants did most of the killing. Now, the capital is mired in violence, as the two groups fight bitterly over territory.

In the shootings, bodies surface days later in sewers and garbage dumps. The report said that most unidentified bodies were found in six neighborhoods of Baghdad, three Sunni — Dora, Rashidiya and Adhamiya — and three Shiite — Sadr City, New Baghdad and the hardscrabble slum of Shuala.

“It’s important to identify the root cause of the violence,” said Gianni Magazzeni, chief of the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq’s Human Rights Office, which compiled the report. “Lack of accountability for crimes generates the urge for justice through armed groups.”

One result, described by the report, is a society in collapse. At least 470,094 Iraqis have fled their homes since February. The number of displaced Iraqis was the highest in the embattled Sunni province of Anbar, where 10,105 families fled, followed by Karbala in the south, Baghdad, and Dohuk in the north.

Iraqi government forces also suffered painful losses. The report cited an Interior Ministry figure of 12,000 Iraqi security forces killed, both the Army and the police, since 2003.

The general breakdown in order has led to a wave of crime, and many of the killings were part of that.

“This law and order vacuum has an encouraging effect on criminal groups of various affiliations, many of whom use the Internet, mobile phone messaging systems, videos and pamphlets to promote their criminal activities,” the report said.

The Iraqis most tormented by the violence are those least able to protect themselves against it: the poor. Um Qasim, a Baghdad cleaning lady, has lost three brothers, a sister-in-law, a nephew, a stepson and a son, all in the past three years. Two of her other sons are in jail in the northern city of Mosul for playing minor roles in a kidnapping arranged by her brother.

Her life improved in a brief but joyous spurt immediately after the invasion. During the looting that followed, her family stole pieces of metal and bricks to build a solid roof and second story on their modest house.

But her life quickly unraveled as two of her sons, looking for money, got involved in a kidnapping and got caught. Another son, just 16 years old, was killed by Sunni extremists not far from their house near Haifa Street, a poor, mostly Sunni area that has been the scene of intense fighting in recent weeks.

Ms. Qasim works several jobs cleaning affluent homes; she takes minivans around the city to get to work. Under Saddam Hussein, her main worry was how to feed her family. Now it is how to keep them alive.

“I never thought that one day I would have to think about how to keep them alive,” she said. “Now, when I go out of my house in the morning, I pray to God that when I return, I will see all of them there alive.”

The violence has expanded to the point of leaving hospitals and morgues overflowing with bodies. The report described the discovery of several recent mass graves. In the southern city of Najaf, one grave was shallow, with bodies partly visible, and local people asked authorities to dig it up to protect children in the area. In Baquba, north of Baghdad, 28 bodies were found of members of the Shimari tribe, who had been kidnapped and killed.

In Baghdad, where dozens of broken bodies turn up daily, the most feared site is on the edge of Sadr City, the largest Shiite enclave in northeastern Baghdad. Bodies are dumped in pre-prepared holes in the area, called al-Sadda, the report said.

“The area is considered very dangerous and controlled by the militias,” it said. “No one, including Iraqi security forces, can visit the area without authorization of the militias.”

The report also provided details on the outcomes of a number of mass kidnappings that tormented Iraqis throughout the fall. The attacks seem to be a signature of Shiite militias.

Around 70 Iraqis, almost all Sunnis, are still missing after being kidnapped in November from the Ministry of Higher Education in downtown Baghdad. The attack took place on a day when teachers from the Sunni areas of Anbar, Salahuddin and Mosul were visiting.

The kidnappings have completely redrawn the composition of neighborhoods. Sinek, a wholesale market in the heart of Baghdad, once thoroughly mixed, is slowly emptying of Sunnis. Men in uniforms seized around 50 merchants on Dec. 2. About 29 were later released. All were Shiite.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

only 34,000?
We'll have to pick up the pace

Seriously, that number is only speculation, and a lot of where the number falls depends on what they are trying to claim.

By what standard can we measure success in Iraq, or Aghanistan? While things have gotten better, we haven't "won" in either place. We're not losing, but we're not winning. Isn't that what Gates said?

You can't just say you won after such short time. The question is also what were your goals in those conflicts? If it was to oust Saddam and to disband the Taliban then mission accomplished. If it was to bring long lasting stability and to create to two friendly powers with a bright economic and social futures..... then there's still a lot to be done....

Personally, I think the goal should be the end of the death cult of islam.

"Casualties many; Percentage of dead not known; Combat efficiency; we are winning."
Colonel David M. Shoup - (Tarawa) - 21st November 1943

This number is SO LOW compared to past wars!!!
Hell, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder??!!
The problem with this war, is that we are no longer allowed to FIGHT A WAR like we always did in the past. We've gone soft. (societal trend)

In the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln was under scrutiny by many. Things were not going well for the Union Army, and he was NOT popular for it. He made the decision to step it up, and his philosophy was total anihilation. Defeat was NOT an option. He did what he knew was right for his country and those he swore to defend. Thank God he did not back down.
Personally, I am thankful that President Bush is not backing down. As for most American not being supportive of the war, that is largely because the average American has no CLUE what is going on with anything outside of "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars."
Disagree? Go out on the street and ask a few people who Nancy Pelosi is, and what she stands for. Ask them what they know about Barak Obama, and what he stands for. They'll probably recognize him, but it will be for his "rock star" qualities that the fact that "He speaks so well." Like it is surprising that a black man can!


"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." -Roosevelt, Theodore

I just don't understand the constant whining about death tolls. I hate even one American life being lost over there, however, the cause is just, and in war people die. How did we get to be in an age where the deaths are overblown like this? I think it's video games, where you just hit reset and you are alive again, that is distorting all the perceptions.

It doesn't matter how many people Saddam slaughtered.

He's not as evil as Dubya in the eyes of the moonbats.

I think it's much more just frustration over ongoing violence death etc than the numbers themselves. If Iraqis and those involved and/or following the conflict are unsatisfied with the nature of the thing, it's because you're constantly reaching new levels of violence, new death tolls, etc. Your presence is supposed to reduce violence, and if there's so much frustration it's because you still haven't managed to pacify Iraq, even though Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech was almost 3 years ago. It's definitely not all your fault, Iraq was a mess long before you came there, it was a mess since the European powers made it into a country without taking ethnicities and whatnot into account, but the ongoing violence is why people are unsatisfied, and it's perfectly understandable seeing as the job isn't being done properly.

Frankly, I don't see how much more we can accomplish in Iraq.
We should take the oil fields and fire bomb the sunni triangle then let them have at each other.

That would be fine by me. I think we should take the oil fields, that way they can pay for the services we did for them.

old goat wrote:that way they can pay for the services we did for them.

Wait a minute. Didn't the Bush administration say that was to be the case way back in 2003?

That may have been the case back then, but the libs were on the war for oil kick and Dubya whimped... go figure.

I never had a problem with a war for oil.
It's an irreplacable commodoty for civilized nations. And for us to remain on top we need oil and we need to deny the oil to the Chicoms.

I agree there is some validity for it, but that wasn't the reason for going in. It IS a reason to stay. It probably was a reason for looking to do something to stablize the ME.

old goat wrote:That would be fine by me. I think we should take the oil fields, that way they can pay for the services we did for them.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day:
"Nuke their ass and take their gas."

iluvfreebeer wrote:Frankly, I don't see how much more we can accomplish in Iraq.
We should take the oil fields and fire bomb the sunni triangle then let them have at each other.

I think the US should pull out and let Saudi Arabia and Iran battle to the death in Mesopotamia. Once they've annihilated each other we could move in and suck up the last of the oil wealth. But by then will probably have cheaper alternative fuels.

Joahob wrote:

iluvfreebeer wrote:Frankly, I don't see how much more we can accomplish in Iraq.
We should take the oil fields and fire bomb the sunni triangle then let them have at each other.

I think the US should pull out and let Saudi Arabia and Iran battle to the death in Mesopotamia. Once they've annihilated each other we could move in and suck up the last of the oil wealth. But by then will probably have cheaper alternative fuels.

I don't think we would have the luxury of time to allow for that. A few nukes would go a long way.

Joahob wrote:

iluvfreebeer wrote:Frankly, I don't see how much more we can accomplish in Iraq.
We should take the oil fields and fire bomb the sunni triangle then let them have at each other.

I think the US should pull out and let Saudi Arabia and Iran battle to the death in Mesopotamia. Once they've annihilated each other we could move in and suck up the last of the oil wealth. But by then will probably have cheaper alternative fuels.

But during that war we'd be denied oil.

you can't nuke your problems, well, actually you can, but you'll never do it, again, unless you're between a rock and a hard place, or maybe not even, maybe to save a couple thousand troops.... yeah conclusion - still a possibility but it's prob better to negotiate your way to success to avoid contaminating the oil fields.... unless you get robots to do the mining... hmmm

no seriously i gotta stop, im having too much fun with this, it ain't PC

I think nukes are weapons of last resort, but what is the use of having them if everyone knows you will never use them? It is the threat that they will be used that makes them powerful, if you neuter that threat then you might as well not have them.

iluvfreebeer wrote:

Joahob wrote:

iluvfreebeer wrote:Frankly, I don't see how much more we can accomplish in Iraq.
We should take the oil fields and fire bomb the sunni triangle then let them have at each other.

I think the US should pull out and let Saudi Arabia and Iran battle to the death in Mesopotamia. Once they've annihilated each other we could move in and suck up the last of the oil wealth. But by then will probably have cheaper alternative fuels.

But during that war we'd be denied oil.

Which is perfect, because it would save the government the trouble of subsidizing unprofitable alternative fuels (at current oil prices). With the MidEast oil tap turned off, prices would go through the roof and private enterprise would begin producing cheaper alternative fuels for consumption. It’s a win win.