In a message dated 2/6/2006 3:50:14 A.M. Central Standard Time, eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution who compiles a statistical abstract of Iraq to track its progress, or lack of it, under the occupation, said the Iraq Body Count figures were within the realm of reason. "We've used their data before," he said. "It's probably not too far off, and it's certainly a more serious work than the Lancet report." HI, Eric, Thanks for your posts. Did you read where the IBC people only take numbers listed by the Western Press and not from any others? And how even they agree that because of that their numbers are not quite accurate as much of the Western Press is not 'there' and thus using Iraqis who are afraid to pass on accurate information? The information that you provide regarding the placement of schools, etc. near where Saddam had his military sites makes me wonder at the thinking that the air strikes could be hitting so few civilians. Is this why the those in charge of the 'shock and awe' tactics of the US gov't did not want to begin counting civilian deaths--they were afraid of what they would find and would not be able to figure out how else to fight this war (since they disregarded the initial advice of how to do it by those who had other alternatives...) Was this destruction of the infrastructure something that was taken into account at all? (I do recognize that there is a lot of rebuilding going on--though some of it has puzzled me--the reports, for example, from some that I know from various Nat'l Guard units who focused on rebuilding of the zoo versus homes/water/schools/etc that we destroyed. Though maybe the PETA people were instrumental in that...) The other piece I find intriguing is that the US gov't apparently takes no responsibility for the 'breakdown of civil order' by destroying infrastructure, etc. While I can (perhaps) technically see this as true, it seems that there *should* have been contingency plans for this as well--if the goal really was to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and not to simply destroy a nation. (which I am not at all convinced was not really a major goal...no judgment, just an evaluation. I can think of lots of [mostly selfish, but that is not necessarily 'bad' depending on who you are] reasons why to do that...) Best, Marlena