There is some controversy over the methods used in the latest study published in the Lancet of civilian deaths, particularly among conservatives that are worried that 500,000 civilian deaths will be considered "bad." On the other hand, 50,000 civilian deaths would be a pathetically inefficient use of funds.

The methods used in the Lancet study are standard epidemiological methods that are not questioned in less political events like famine, disease, and hurricanes. They are, in fact, the same basic methods used for estimating deaths from Katrina. The method is scientifically and statistically sound, a cross population sample extrapolated across the population sampled.

The contrary numbers come from news reports and morgue reports. The 10X disparity suggests:

1) That deaths are under reported in Iraq--given that the news media is effectively confined to the green zone, this is neither surprising nor unexpected.

2) That most bodies do not come to the morgue. While this would be unlikely in western countries, it is consistent with the Islamic requirements that the body be buried as quickly as possible and that postmortem examinations are sacrilege. It is therefore not surprising or unexpected that 9 of 10 or more Muslim dead would not be taken to morgues.

Given the sociological factors at work and the privations of an ongoing war, direct polling, as conducted by the study in the Lancet, is the only plausible way to get an accurate number.

Fiscal conservatives (if not evangelical conservatives) should applaud the higher number. According to the UN, as quoted by Danzig, under secretary of the Navy, it costs $2,000 (1969 dollars, $11,035 in 2006 dollars according to the FRB of Minneapolis) to pacify a square kilometer with conventional weapons ($5.52 in 2006 dollars per square kilometer for biologic weapons--what a bargain!). Iraq is 437,072 square kilometers, with a pre-war population of 26,074,906 or 60 people per square km. According to the DOD, about 10% of the $226 billion to fund the war thus far went to munitions and weapons, according to the CBO, 41% of that went to munitions themselves: roughly $9,000,000,000 worth. That should be enough to pacify 815,586 square kilometers or kill 49 million people at Iraq's average population density.

It would therefore have taken $18,000 worth of ammunition to kill each of 500,000 Iraqis, or $180,000 each if the number of dead is only 50,000. (The all-in cost is at least 20x higher than that per Iraqi killed, they should be honored we value their non-lives so highly!)

Compare that to the Vietnam war where we had no smart weapons and we were not taking advantage of out sourcing: estimates are that we killed 900,000 NVA/VC, and 200,000 North Vietnamese civilians. The Vietnam war cost $132.7 billion, assuming a blended 1970 dollar basis, or $692 billion on 2006 dollars, of which $28 billion or so went to munitions assuming the same ratio of expenditures, or $25,000 per Vietnamese killed in 2006 dollars.

Therefore, if the total Iraqi deaths are 500,000, our munitions have only become 38% more cost efficient since 1970, a plausible number. If the total Iraqi deaths is 50,000, then our munitions are only 14% as efficient as they were in 1970, which would be an utter fiasco, especially given the lack of ground cover and open terrain in Iraq.

These statistics cause a bit of a conundrum for right wingers: either the war has caused horrific carnage or our army can't shoot straight anymore.