The U.S. military’s claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.
Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration’s claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers — most of which are classified — are often confusing and contradictory. “Let’s just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree,” Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
Damned liberal media. Besides, as we all know, statistics have a left-wing bias. Plus, you know- John McCain said last night during the debate that the surge is working.
Once again, the Onion.
*** Update ***
Via the Washington Monthly, this summary:
Karen DeYoung does a great job of breaking down the various questions with the “sectarian violence” numbers that are being quoted by Petraeus and Bush. My favorite:
according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. “If a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian,” the official said. “If it went through the front, it’s criminal.”
So to recap. The violence numbers do not include: 1) Sunni on Sunni violence. 2) Shi’a on Shi’a violence 3) Car bombs 4) Getting shot in the front of the head.
But violence is down. Trust me.
Tim F.
bwahaha.
The Mechanical Eye
Well, reality itself has a well-known liberal bias — these statistics display a tremendous lack of resolve in the face of the Terrorists’ War on Us.
I don’t think its far off the mark to call these statistics traitorous.
DU
ThymeZone
Don’t worry, we have Fred “Homer Simpson” Thompson now on all the screens saying that we won’t run from Iraq with our tail between our legs.
Help is on the way.
Jake
Look, it’s simple. People laying around on the ground in Iraq are just taking naps. People laying around in pieces on the ground had accidents with their lawnmowers. People laying around with holes through their bodies were just engaging in extreme piercing.
Nothing to see here…
Bubblegum Tate
Damn you, Beauchamp!
Jack Roy
Ah, for the Onion’s contributions to the debate over the Iraq war, you can’t beat this one.
Tom Hilton
Q: When is a bullet in the head not a bullet in the head?
Tsulagi
Okay, and if it went through the side of the head, is that a confirmed suicide? Just toss those numbers, right?
myiq2xu
So Pat Tillman was murdered?
JWeidner
Cheezit man! Don’t you pay attention? That happened in Afghanistan. The rules are different there.
TenguPhule
Somebody stop the planet, there are some people I want off of it.