Pentagon and Petraeus’ casualty data ‘differ significantly.’
In a report today on the Pentagon’s methods for determining sectarian killings in Iraq, the Washington Post’s Karen DeYoung writes that “apparent contradictions are relatively easy to find in the flood of bar charts and trend lines the military produces.” For instance, the numbers in the Pentagon’s quarterly Iraq report released last week “differ significantly” from those presented to Congress by Gen. David Petraeus:
Civilian casualty numbers in the Pentagon’s latest quarterly report on Iraq last week, for example, differ significantly from those presented by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, in his recent congressional testimony. Petraeus’s chart was limited to numbers of dead, while the Pentagon combined the numbers of dead and wounded — a figure that should be greater. Yet Petraeus’s numbers were higher than the Pentagon’s for the months preceding this year’s increase of U.S. troops to Iraq, and lower since U.S. operations escalated this summer.
TPM’s Spencer Ackerman has more here. Ilan Goldenberg also has more.
UPDATE: Here’s a visual graphic in today’s Washington Post of the contrast between Petraeus and the the Pentagon:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
33 Responses to “Pentagon and Petraeus’ casualty data ‘differ significantly.’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Figures don’t lie but liars figure. Sounds like MoveOn had it right. A “willing suspension of disbelief”, indeed!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:22 amYou don’t say! Well, I never…
September 25th, 2007 at 11:24 amAnd how is lying to Congress to try to keep our country in a disastrous occupation not a betrayal?
Trolls?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:29 amEnron accounting, pure and simple. Those guys know the public (and Congress, especially) are suckers.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:32 amI’m shocked! SHOCKED!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:39 amThat is because General BETRAYUS is a bush lackie…. in other words a political HACK.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:39 amWell, the difference between Petraeus & the Pentagon is easy.
The Pentagon’s in the USA & Petraeus is in Iraq, right?
I mean, look at Bush’s numbers; $22 Billion is way too much for kids when we’re going to need $200 Billion for whining, er, winning, the war in Iraq.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:43 amnot surprising. he’s had problems with numbers in the past:
“Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions.â€
September 25th, 2007 at 11:45 am—David H. Petraeus
September 26, 2004
trolls? oh trolls?
this should be interesting…
September 25th, 2007 at 11:56 amThe numbers are meaningless. Everybody has a different way of tallying — and everybody’s way of tallying is designed to promote their particular agenda.
Could we just get a count of how many people in Iraq died violently? When we try to decide how and why they died, it will only result in useless data.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:57 amPerhaps Duncan Hunter should be casting his eyes on Petraeus and not MoveOn? Or attacking Columbia University? Or is he just thinking about making smoke pour over the AAA–>ADCS, Audre, and Abramoff?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:59 amIs Hunter actually drawing up plans to attack the University?
Hmmm, that should improve his poll #’s!
September 25th, 2007 at 12:03 pmFolks, you might try reading the WaPo article and TPM summary BEFORE posting….That way you would have seen this:
“While both Petraeus and the recent Pentagon report emphasized improved statistics over the past three months, the intelligence community generally declines to declare trends based on data measured in periods shorter than six months to a year. Several senior intelligence officials said last week that most numerical indicators appear to be moving in a uniformly positive direction in the nearly two months since the intelligence estimate’s data cutoff — although they said it is too early to determine definitive trends.” — Washington Post
“DeYoung [WaPo reporter] doesn’t report that the statistics are being manipulated. Indeed, MNF-I tells her that there’s a “current effort to consolidate multiple databases” in Baghdad underway right now.” — TPM
So, despite your hopes, TP posters (and your refusal to read the actual articles), today’s Post story does not contain any revelation that Gen. Petraeus was lying or that figures are being manipulated….It is simply an article describing the difficulty of categorizing casualties in a complex conflict in Iraq….
However, buried in this articel, is the fact that most trends, whether measured by Petraeus or the Pentagon, are positive.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:09 pmComment by Exley — September 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Exley, I doubt if there’s a single poster here other than yourself who gives a flying F- what you have to say anymore.
Even Freidman is saying it’s time to get out.
Any room on the short bus for Exley? Next stop, Clown Alley.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pmHow about this…rather than trying to define sectarian or non-sectarian deaths, rather than trying to parse out stats that beneift your argument, whether your argument is pro war or not. How about just looking at it froma violent death and injury standpoint? Are total violent deaths and injuries up or down?
This reminds me of the great war on drugs in the 1980’s. They were continually coming out with stats showing that the drug problem was out of control and getting worse. After all the numbers don’t lie, do they? Arrests were up, convictions were up, yet the problem persisted, so it must have been really really bad. What they almost always left out of the debate was the fact that laws had been changed so there were more crimes out there to look for where arrests and convictions would support the notion that the problem was out of control. The same thing is going on with this debate. I am shocked that no committee member asked the general about simple raw violent death and injury figures.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pmCute play on names, the new treason. When I was a child I had longer hair than many of the other boys. I remember being called Roberta and it made me mad.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pmMy mom said sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.
So what if his name invites this. I thought this first time I heard his name. The issue is whether he has accomplished anything in Iraq.
Another saying I remember is that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. It seems he has adopted that in reporting his improvement analysis.
14 -thanks again, Ex for your remarkably Pyrrhic contribution.
I’ll bet teachers just loved explaining their grading systems to you over and over again when you were a student.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pm#18 “Pyyrhic” contribution?
To quote Inigo Montoya:
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
September 25th, 2007 at 12:54 pmso Betryus lies and exlax swears to it. what a surprise.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:55 pmExley: “It is simply an article describing the difficulty of categorizing casualties in a complex conflict in Iraq….”
Yes, it’s very difficult when you’re continually trying to fix the numbers by not counting car bomb deaths, sectarian executions and private contractor casulties. And, credibility tends to be questioned when you’re making the same rosy predictions you made 3 years ago which turned out horribly wrong.
Exley, just give up. I think the posters around here are very representative of the majority opinion in this country which is that we’re tired of listening to bullshite from warmongers like you.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:56 pmthe difference btween Betrayus and exlax is the letter “L”. Betrayus gets paid, exlax gets played.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pmgeez, Ex - I thought it had to do with a General who fought a brilliant battle, yet “won” nothing. Am I wrong, or do you actually “win” something through your hairsplitting pedantry? (if so, I’ve failed to apprehend the effect)
September 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#23, Ah yes, Pyrrhus (who you misidentified last night as “Pyrrho”)
‘Pyrrho strikes again. Congratulations, Exley.
Comment by tombaker — September 25, 2007 @ 12:39 am’
Putting aside that error on your part, that fact is that I have shown that many posters here either misread (or failed to read) the WaPo article and TPM analysis and missed what was actually written, including the fact that current analysis by all parties indicates the surge is indeed working.
And it is more than a “Pyyrhic victory” if my generous efforts get more of you folks to actually read articles before commenting on them….Not only would such efforts elevate the discussion, it would spare many of yoy future embarrassments.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:09 pmExley: “#18 “Pyyrhic†contribution?
To quote Inigo Montoya:
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.â€
Wow, and people like Exley like to call liberals “elitists.”
September 25th, 2007 at 1:25 pmWhy does the truth hate our troops so much?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pmWho really cares about these numbers?
911 happened…
Democrats were attacked with a biological American military weapon called Anthrax by someone in America…
Bushies produced fraudulent forged yellow cake documents along with many lies to scare the dumbed down Americans…
Once you start raping Iraq there is no amount of numbers that are going to prove that it was ok to start raping…
If you are the agressor you shall NEVER become the hero… stop trying to save face… it is too late for that now… get out and accept responsibility and focus on DEFENSE from a small group of attackers…
September 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pmso if we can’t call Petraeus a liar even though he is one, what do we call him “truth challenged”? Or is manipulative political hack OK?
September 25th, 2007 at 2:38 pm.
Thanks, Ex, for acknowledging that I was fundamentally correct in my charge.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:45 pmFor the record, I’m not a fan of the surge or the war or the bush administration.
As a statistician however it would be intellectually dishonest of me not to point out that statistics are much less finite than the general public would like to believe. They are generally estimates based on certain rules and depending on the organization those estimates might vary widely.
So, just because the pentagon and the general’s stats don’t match does not mean that one of them is making stuff up.
When it comes to statistics the important thing is not always “are these two numbers equal” the key is, would I draw the same conclusions from both sets of numbers purporting to measure the same thing? IF the answer is yes then the differences are mere semantics. If the answer is no then further investigation into why is required. (But that still doesn’t mean that one of them is lying.)
Personally I’d much rather say that Petraus is an lying murdering bastard, but, that would be a lie.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:05 pmYou’re correct Shinobi. Arguing about the validity of statistics while bodies and parts of bodies pile up is kind of sick, anyway.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pmThe pentagon is anti-military. I expect a bill condemning the pentagon to appear in the senate immedately.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pmEXLEY writes “It is simply an article describing the difficulty of categorizing casualties in a complex conflict in Iraq….”
Sounds like it’s so complex, we can’t even keep score. How, then, are we going to win?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:57 pmEXLEY writes “current analysis by all parties indicates the surge is indeed working.”
The whole point of the Surge was to promote political reconcilation. There has been almost NONE since the Surge began.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am