"why has the professional media done such a miserable job of reporting the staggering losses of children in Iraq, which would seem to dwarf most total estimates of combat-related deaths?"

Because the primary interest of the corporate media is entrenching its own power and that of the class of its overlords. The corporate overlords want to suppress knowledge of the third world suffering caused by western corporations. The secondary interest is in maintaining their audience. But racist Americans don't really care if brown children die.

Am I the only one who wonders if the CIA World Factbook--published by the United States Government--might be just a bit biased when discussing civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan?

That the source has a vested interest in making life in these two countries look as good as possible does not make these statistics wrong. Still, in the recent posts here and at Say Anything on this subject, the source material is giving only estimates for 2003-2006, and it makes me wonder what criteria they use for their estimates.

The UN, for example, has a very different number: 94 per 1000 for both 2000 and 2005 (http://unstats.un(dot)org/unsd/cdb/cdb_years_on_top.asp?srID=13620&Ct1ID=&crID=368&yrID=2000%2C2005). This may not be any more accurate, but it is certainly different, and it shows that there is value in looking at more than one source.

I am not saying that the CIA is lying--only suggesting the possibility that they may be using estimation or counting criteria that paint a rosier picture than the facts on the ground. Indeed, the UN numbers, though they don't suggest that the war has improved infant mortality in Iraq, at least indicate that it hasn't made it worse.

Main point: don't blindly accept data just because it conforms to your political preferences. Look for bias (which the UN certainly has plenty of). And look for other sources--if they differ wildly, something is wrong.

Here is another set of numbers on Iraqi infant mortality: http://www.unicef(dot)org/ infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html. (clear the space after the "org"). Still from the UN, and still suspect. But it may help see why Buncombe and the CIA book have different numbers: one is using under-5 mortality, and the other neonatal (under-1) mortality.

Sorry to harp on this, but it seems pretty counter-intuitive to think that infant mortality could drop in the middle of a war and subsequent insurgency. So I am automatically suspicious of any stats showing that this is what is happening.

Of course, I hope this is all true. Just doesn't really pass the smell test, in my opinion--even though I haven't been able to find anything definitive to rebut the claim.

That the source has a vested interest in making life in these two countries look as good as possible

So how is providing inaccurate data to US administrations somehow a vested interest and something the CIA would desire to do? Can you explain the precise mechanism of how this?

RSS, you miss the obvious point. We have medical units all over Iraq. How about considering access to more and improved medical help?

Of course, there is the additional problem of taking any facts from Saddamite Iraq at face value. Are those figures true? Were the books cooked to make Iraq seem better than it was? Even if an outside agency was reporting, where did they get their figures from?

Keeping in mind CNN's post-invasion revelation that they let the Iraqi government censor their reports from Iraq. With tyranny's like Saddamite Iraq few figures and pronouncements have any value.

BTW, this is just a cautionary note to be careful with certain sources.

PA: I can think of at least three reasons to think that the data in the CIA World Fact Book might be inaccurate:

1. The publicly released data differs materially from that provided to US Administrations. We are not seeing what they are seeing.
2. The CIA is giving Administrations the same data it gives the public, but that data is flawed because collection or estimation methods miss crucial counts or inputs.
3. The CIA gives both the public and the Administrations incorrect data because individuals in the organization have some reason to want to do so. This could be low-level analysts trying to hide their incompetence or higher-level officers with a political agenda of some sort.

I am, again, not accusing them of deception. I think the most likely scenario is poor collection and estimation methods--driven not by incompetence or intent to fudge data, but by the difficulty of collecting information in the situation they face.

The data on Soviet economic and military power given to Administrations by the CIA during the Cold War was notoriously and demonstrably false (See, for example, Tom Gervasi's book "The Myth of Soviet Military Supremacy"). This false data lead to serious miscalculations about Soviet capabilities that made their eventual collapse a huge surprise to almost everyone. So I believe that a sceptical look at CIA data is warranted.

CoRev: I agree that if this data is true, access to improved health care from US military medical units would help to explain it. I have, however, seen no evidence that military units are treating Iraqi children on anything like a large scale, and would be surprised to find that our military hospitals there provide significant prenatal and obstetric care (this is not typically the type of doctor deployed to war zones--when our own female soldiers become pregnant, they are shipped out for care). If this order of battle is correct (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_toe.htm) I would estimate no more than about 8-10000 medical personnel deployed there, most of them tied up taking care of US casualties, as they should. I doubt this is enough to have the effect the data seem to show (likewise our much less robust presence in Afghanistan). Of course, others are working this as well, including contractors, but US efforts are probably not compensating for the generally deteriorating civilian health care system there.

Also, see here for an article suggesting that while US military hospitals are indeed treating Iraqi children, they are not properly equipped to handle pediatric care--Air Force officers lobbying for such capability: http://www.medicalnewstoday(dot)com/medicalnews.php?newsid=51183

Here is an article that details more generally the deteriorating health care situation in Iraq, including still another infant mortality rate number (125 per 1000, under 5 rate): http://www.globalresearch(dot)ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DE%2020070406&articleId=5289.

And one more here: http://www.latimes(dot)com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-health11nov11,0,3477207.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Again, I would love to think that our presence there is doing some good. But I am not convinced by CIA data. And while treatment from US military facilities would indeed explain improvement if it is true, it looks like this is not enough to have the powerful effect shown by the data.

Remember Occam's Razor. I think the simplest explanation here is bad data.

There is much reason to doubt the alleged increase in infant mortality in later years. Unicef previouls stated that in excess of 500,000 died during the sanctions. Presumably the chidren would be dying an even greater rate if we had left the Sadaamists in power.

Dear Confederate Yankee, That's exactly what it means - in 2005 alone, 122,000 Iraqi children died before reaching their fifth birthday. Please look at this link.
http://www.savethechildren.org/newsroom/2007/reducing-child-deaths-iraq-egypt.html

Save the Children took their figures from Unicef, which I reckon is probably a reasonable source. You say I shd "check" the sources but what genuine suggestions do you have to go about checking such figures?

As to Benj's claim that the main interest of the MSM is "entrenching its own power and that of the class of its overlords", if this was true why did MSM outlets such as The Independent report this story.

Best wishes,

Andrew