'How not to count bodies' -- An exchange of letters
-- By Ian Johnson
Dear Friends,
Yesterday we circulated an exchange of letters between journalist Neil Clark and Times columnist Stephen Pollard. Mr Pollard had suggested in his article 'How not to count bodies' published in The Times newspaper of 21st July 2005, that the announced figure of 24,685 civilian deaths in Iraq was an 'arbitary figure' being used for the purpose of political agitation. Mr Clark therefore asked Pollard if he thought the same about the figure of 500,000 Kosovan Albanians which the US State Department claimed had been killed by Yugoslav forces in the war of 1999? Namely that it was an arbitary figure used for the purpose of political agitation. A perfectly reasonable question one would assume. However Mr Pollard replied in the most abusive manner and claimed Clark was an 'apologist for mass murder'. So we have a situation whereby Mr Pollard, who supported the illegal wars of aggression against Yugoslavia and Iraq, calling Neil Clark, who was against these illegal wars, an 'apologist for mass murder.' An amazing feat of turning reality on its head! Today Zsuzsanna Clark, Neil's wife, has written to Stephen Pollard reiterating Neil's original question. Mr Pollard describes the aggression against Yugoslavia as the 'liberation of Kosovo'. However Pollard is clearly rattled and we should not let him off the hook. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for other people to email and ask the same question? For those inclined to do so the email address is : letters@thetimes.co.uk (For reference please find The Times original article at the end of this email) - ~Ian Johnson
Below is a copy of the letter from Zsuzsanna Clark. IJ. Letter to Stephen Pollard from Zsuzsanna Clark
Mr Pollard, Yesterday my husband Neil asked you a very simple and polite question in response to the claims you had made in your Times article 'How not to count dead bodies'. You replied in a very rude and dismissive way- calling my husband an 'apologist for mass murder'- which he most certainly is not. If you were to repeat that allegation in print, please be in no doubt that my husband would initiate libel proceedings against you. The suspicion is that you do not wish to answer the question because you know you are on extremely shaky ground. But you cannot expect to promote your opinions so forcefully in the media and not be challenged. You can ignore this email if you wish, and put me too in the 'junk mail', but I am sure that I will not be the last person attempting to receive an answer to this question. So here it is again:
You believe the figure of 24,865 civilian deaths from the war on Iraq to be 'an entirely arbitrary figure published by political agitators'. Do you think the same of the figure of 500,000 Kosovan Albanians, which the US State Department claimed had been killed by Yugoslav forces in the war of 1999? After one of the most extensive forensic searches in history, only 4000 bodies have been unearthed, a figure which includes Serbs, Roma, Kosovan Albanians killed by the KLA, and those killed in the NATO bombings. Yet despite the lack of evidence, supporters of the war against Yugoslavia- a conflict for which you were an enthusiastic cheerleader, continue to talk of 'genocide' and to compare Slobodan Milosevic with Adolf Hitler.
Zsuzsanna Clark
Original article of Stephen Pollard writing in The Times.
How not to count bodies (the Times)
» Posted on July 21, 2005 12.04AM » Category: Iraq
Splashed on the front page of The Independent yesterday, was the figure 24,865. "Revealed: Iraq’s Civilian Death Toll", read the headline.
It was not alone. The BBC’s bulletins ran with the same figure, as did the Daily Mirror and The Guardian — derived, said the latter, from "a detailed study of the human cost of the conflict".
There is only one problem with the figure — not that you would know it from the credulous reporting. It is an entirely arbitrary figure published by political agitators.
The figure was released yesterday by two organisations, Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group. According to the BBC, the former "is one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian death toll in Iraq". Indeed it is — because the BBC itself reports its propaganda as fact.
One of the leading lights of the IBC is Marc Herold, a professor of economics and women’s studies at the University of New Hampshire. Professor Herold has attempted this trick before, when he "revealed" in December 2001 that there were then 3,800 civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The now-accepted figure at the time was two thirds less — about 1,200.
The reason his figures were so wrong then, and are almost certainly wrong now, is that the IBC’s methodology is designed to come to as large a total as possible. The organisation simply adds up all reports of casualties, no matter what the source or how scant the evidence. Hardly surprising, since the IBC’s associates are a veritable who’s who of anti-war activism.
The co-founder of IBC, John Sloboda, is also the director of the Oxford Research Group, an organisation "which seeks to develop effective methods whereby people can bring about positive change on issues of national and international security by non-violent means". Translated, ORG is a lobbying group with a political agenda.
Professor Sloboda describes himself as having "worked with the Committee for Peace in the Balkans". What that admirable title obscures is that the committee was, as he himself has put it, "essentially a lobbying and campaigning group against the Kosovo war". Having opposed the liberation of Kosovo, he turned to Iraq.
The civilian costs of the war have been greater than its advocates expected. It does not help in getting to the truth, however, when parts of the media report partisan lobbying as fact.
------------------------------------
Journalist Neil Clark submitted a letter to The Times newspaper in response to
an article by Stephen Pollard, a staunch supporter of all Bush & Blair’s wars of
aggression.
Mr Clark’s letter is below, followed by Stephen Pollard’s reply and then my own comments. IJ
Neil Clark Letter to The Times:
From Neil Clark To: letters@thetimes.co.uk Subject: How not to count war bodies-Stephen Pollard’s Thunderer 21st July 2005 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:02:54 +0000
Dear Sir, Stephen Pollard believes the figure of 24,865 civilian deaths from the war on Iraq to be 'an entirely arbitrary figure published by political agitators'. I wonder if he thinks the same of the figure of 500,000 Kosovan Albanians, which the US State Department claimed had been killed by Yugoslav forces in the war of 1999? After one of the most extensive forensic searches in history, only 4000 bodies have been unearthed, a figure which includes Serbs, Roma, Kosovan Albanians killed by the KLA, and those killed in the NATO bombings. Yet despite the lack of evidence, supporters of the war against Yugoslavia- a conflict for which Pollard was an enthusiastic cheerleader, continue to talk of 'genocide' and to compare Slobodan Milosevic with Adolf Hitler. As Pollard concludes, it really doesn't help when attempting to discover true casualty figures, that parts of the media, in this case The Times, report 'partisan lobbying' as fact. Yours faithfully Neil Clark,
Stephen Pollard’s reply:
Mr Clark,
I do not intend to get into an argument with an apologist for mass murder such as yourself. Your email has been placed on my junk filter, appropriately.
Stephen Pollard
Comment.
Stephen Pollard, a fanatical supporter of all of Pax Americana's wars, apparently does not take too kindly to the inconsistencies inherent in his journalistic endeavours being pointed out.
Rather than trying to defend his position, or positions, (it really depends on the government policy of the day) with solid argument based on objective reality, he instead, like a bully challenged in the school playground, turns and runs for cover, muttering inane and childish insults.
We should say bravo to Mr Clark for exposing this ‘columnist’ scribe, whose sole reason for existing appears to be his intent to bring everlasting shame on the journalistic profession.
--