Have 600,000 Iraqis died violently since 2003?

Reading through the methodology my mind boggles at the difficulties in coming to an accurate figure.Did the sampling happen to favour areas of large scale action? I didn't see that mentioned on cursory reading of methodologyMain streets and residential streets off main streets seem to have be the target for sampling. Could we expect these to involve higher casualities than less central areas? Were the figures simply extrapolated nationally?The biggest problem seems to be in the attitude of those surveyed. If hearts and minds lost then then then exaggeration is to be expected. If hearts and minds won then we might expect things to be worse. If the figure is actually 600,000 then hearts and minds won is a very unlikely scenario.It was stated that a reported death resulted in a request for inspection of the death cert but I saw no table detailing the ratio of reported deaths without/reported death with death cert. It would help the estimate (the above issues notwithstanding) were there a high level of supporting documentation.Whatever. Imagine a mortar shell / car bomb going off in the middle of a crowd containing her. Then multiply by whatever figure you believe is trueFile:Iraqi girl smiles.jpg - Wikipedia

This strikes me as ususual. To arrive at 100 warstruck households in which a death had occurred and amongst which young childrens deaths might not be recorded and in area for which no recordings at all might take place and still hit a 92% documentary record of death would be remarkable.Surveying a cluster in non-warzone Dublin where 100 deaths had occurred and hitting a 92% documental confirmation of death would strike me as significant. No losses, no grannies who wouldn't know where to look, no persons who pocketed the documentation but who were not at home - yet someone else in the household knew where to find said documentaton?