Denialism

Is the surge working? (or why I need more metrics)

—

by

MarkH
in

Here’s an excellent opportunity to use the hive mind to look for classic techniques of deception for political benefit on the question of the “surge”.

Reading the news stories about the progress in Iraq, I can’t help but notice a certain partisan nature to interpretation of events. You have the conservative Washington Times saying The Surge is Working, meanwhile, the liberal Washington Post (although as supporters of the Iraq war I feel this designation is non-descriptive for WaPo) indicates the results are at best mixed. We have a GAO report indicating poor performance with only a bare minority of benchmarks being achieved that is regarded as “strikingly negative”. And on top of all that the last three months in Iraq civilian deaths have been increasing. The proponents of the “surge is working” side seem to indicate that military victories and insurgents killed should be a measure of success. However, this is reminiscent of the death ratios in Vietnam which were ultimately meaningless in terms of “success”.

So, what metrics do people feel are more informative? I am of the opinion that military victories are largely meaningless – we can win every battle and lose the war as long as no political solution is reached – consistent with the failings described in the GAO report. The pro-war types seem to think that as long as we’re killing the enemy we’re successful, however against an insurgency I don’t think this is a meaningful result. It’s just whackamole, and insurgencies are historically resistant to suppression by force.

I would like to see the data from the pro-war side that demonstrates that progress is actually happening. I don’t want to hear about new hope in the streets, or markets safe enough for senators to walk through with a brigade of soldiers with them. I want to hear metrics that indicate Iraq is moving towards a peaceful stable state. Are there any?

I guess what I’m saying is, I’m seeing all the signs of a belief forming that is due to wishful thinking, and no real hard data. All the pro-surge people seem to be using three of the tactics, cherry-picking data, getting positive reviews of the surge published in friendly publications, and moving the goalposts. Ad hominems and other fallacies are a given. All they need is a conspiracy and we’ll have a full-fledged denialist campaign to suggest that the Iraq war is being won, when all the data I see suggest the opposite. Increasing deaths, increasing magnitude of violent attacks indicate continued worsening of the situation. Last month a single attack killed 250 – possibly more – the deadliest attack since the beginning of the war. Suicide bombings for this August were almost twice what they were last August. If you look at our casualties there is no indication of a decrease – if anything this looks like the deadliest year yet.

So we have a report indicating no political solutions emerging – the most critical factor for a lasting peace. We have increasing numbers and magnitude of suicide bombings. We have more civilian deaths. We have more soldiers dying. We have millions of refugees who have left the country. We have decreasing provision of public utilities and fuel. I simply can not find any data suggesting things are getting better. Instead, all the usual suspects, including Bill Kristol (or Krissandra – the mythical figure who is never right but is still listened to) are arguing it is working with no clear information to back it up.

How is it working? Tell me. I’m asking in good faith because I want to know, where are the positives? Please, something more than whackamole with insurgents. Give me data. Prove to me this isn’t just a classic denialist disinformation campaign.

Comments

  1. LanceR

    Conspiracy theory? It’s the librul media that’s to blame! “They” won’t tell you about all the good news! They just hate ‘murrica and Dubya. It’s all about the librul media and hatin’ on Bush. There’s yer conspiracy theory!

    Okay, I’m better now. I agree… classic denialism from the Right-wing noise machine and the corporate media.

    Reply
  2. Bob O’H

    So we have a report indicating no political solutions emerging …

    And another one that the different sides are talking to each other, so one can be optimistic, if one wants.

    On the surge, there is always the problem that one might expect an increase in deaths and violence in the short-term. But I would imagine the generals who planned the surge have pre-set benchmarks they can use to judge its progress. Of course, we will have to wait for them to report without the politicians getting in the way.

    Bob

    Reply
  3. Vagueofgodalming

    It can be done, but I don’t know if it is, and I think the Iraqi case presents some pretty nearly insurmountable obstacles.

    Work was done by the UK on metrics for success in peace operations (‘normality indicators’) in Bosnia in the 90s – I have had a look around but can’t find anything online, though I found a report title that might mean more is being done in Afghanistan. The only thing I can find (which I think reflects UK experience despite coming from Northrop Grumman) is this.

    As I recall, one of the key points was that the only credible data collection organisation was the military, because foreign civilian organisations (NGOs, etc.) couldn’t resource it or have the command structure to do it consistently, and local oganisations were dysfunctional (which was why we were there). That means you have to get data collection, according to reasonably consistent processes, into the military’s mission, right down to the soldiers patrolling the streets. Making it consistent yet applicable by the average squaddie (who after all is trained to do something very different) means only the simplest data can be gathered and it has to be treated with considerable caution.

    Given that the force is multi-national and that provinces have been handed back to Iraqi control I think a coordinated nationwide ongoing survey is prety well impossible.

    In the case of Iraq, there is a functioning government (though quite how far its writ runs is a pertinent question here) so they should be trying to do the kind of statistics that most governments do routinely. The fact that there doesn’t seem to be any kind of serious independent check of the Lancet studies on death rates based on government statistics is not encouraging for this.

    So, my best guess is:

    – the UK forces in Basra may well have been at least trying, but I doubt they are making the data available;

    – I must admit to being sceptical that the US forces will have tried very hard to do this, as there’s a definite cultural difference in the perception of what armies are for – when Rumsfeld said ‘We don’t do nation-building’ he was only reflecting a common view in the US military;

    – I’m doubtful that official Iraqi statistics are sufficient to tell us much.

    Reply
  4. markH

    Bob, I can’t say a meeting of a delegate with other groups inFinland is a real sign of progress. It might be a sign of intent, but no real goal accomplished.

    I want to see some real data from the “surge is working” people that something has changed that is meaningful. I don’t believe they’ve got the goods. I want to see their evidence.

    Reply
  5. bigTom

    The surge is a smashing success in the only metric that counts. Will he be granted another Friedman Unit? There are just enough claims of
    “we are starting to see progress” that any politician proposing withdrawl knows we will be tarred with the defeatocratic, “traitor who made us quit just when we were about to win” brush. So due to the fear of successful propaganda, the surge has succeeded (i.e. bought yet another Friedman Unit).

    Reply
  6. Bronze Dog

    I could really use some metrics when I listen to the news. It’s largely ‘he said, she said’ in regards to what’s working or not.

    Without metrics to measure success, I feel kind of like this.

    Reply
  7. Torbj�rn Larsson, OM

    As I just recently learned about the “troop surge” I’m uncertain what its context and goal is. But from the Wikipedia page it seems to be a localized effort. So we would have to separate out metrics for this from metrics describing the Iraqi war effort, no small task.

    Seems the surge intends to mix political (help “campaign to put down sectarian violence”) and military (“bring security to the people of Baghdad”) goals, which right there tells us it will likely fail on some points. Very few political goals can be achieved by military actions. But as Bob O’H I assume the military commanders have benchmarks for the later.

    Reply
  8. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    I should also add that military metrics would include things like “moved personnel and material to the place of action” so baring catastrophes it will be “working” and “succeeding its goals”. 🙁

    Reply
  9. Bobby

    So, what metrics do people feel are more informative?

    We could mention a lot of metrics that are ‘informative’, but arguably the only ones that are relevant are those that measure what the ‘surge’ was intended to acheive. What was its (official) rationale? How far has it gone toward satisfying that?

    Beyond that, the ‘surge’ still leaves us with fewer boots on the ground than the experts said we should have gone in with before everything went pear-shaped, so for my money the whole idea of the ‘surge’ was asinine before it even started. GWB is just expending lives to avoid having to admit he screwed up, and he will do everything in his power to keep the game going until the clock runs out. Then he and his cronies can write their memoirs and tell the True Believers that everything would have turned out fine if the next President hadn’t cut and run.

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    Statistics don’t reveal the most important factors – will, strategy, allies, enemy errors – but here’s the best compendium;
    http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

    – The chart on page 7 is useful, but it conflates the shrinking Sunni insurgency with the expanding Iranian-funded offensive.
    – The chart on page 10 display data on bombings, although it conflates tactical militry bombings against targets in Iraq with spectacular bombings aimed at TV-audiences in the United States.
    – The civilian death-charts on page 13 are useful, but do remember that AlQ tries to edit those charts by killing civilians, such as the 400-500 neutral, undefended, and politically inconsequential Yezidi people that were destroyed in August.

    Here’s one set of measures from a prominent advocate of democracy for Iraq;
    http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/059muaol.asp

    Here’s something on U.S. casualties;
    http://formerspook.blogspot.com/

    Here’s something on Al-Qaeda productivity;
    http://talismangate.blogspot.com/

    Here’s a boots-on-the-ground assessment by a soldier & writer;
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/09042007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/iraq_inspection.htm?page=0

    Here’s something from Iraq’s elected prime miniser, Maliki
    http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/21368

    The victory-advocates also include Iran in their analysis. Here’s one prominent analyst’s overview of Iranian attacks, and by implication, of how to measure Iran’s succcess; http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/030aryoy.asp

    FWIW, here’s the webpage operated by the Baathist-type Sunnis who want to shoot and bomb their way back into power.
    http://www.heyetnet.org/en/

    Ther’s lots more realist/optimist analysis, but you have to actually look for this stuff. You won’t find it in the NYT.

    Reply
  11. Anonymous

    Statistics don’t reveal the most important factors – will, strategy, allies, enemy errors – but here’s the best compendium;
    http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

    – The chart on page 7 is useful, but it conflates the shrinking Sunni insurgency with the expanding Iranian-funded offensive.
    – The chart on page 10 display data on bombings, although it conflates tactical militry bombings against targets in Iraq with spectacular bombings aimed at TV-audiences in the United States.
    – The civilian death-charts on page 13 are useful, but do remember that AlQ tries to edit those charts by killing civilians, such as the 200-500 neutral, undefended, and political inconsequential Yezidi people that were destroyed in August.

    Here’s one set of measures from a prominent advocate of democracy for Iraq;
    http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/059muaol.asp

    Here’s something on U.S. casualties;
    http://formerspook.blogspot.com/

    Here’s something on Al-Qaeda productivity;
    http://talismangate.blogspot.com/

    Here’s a boots-on-the-ground assessment by a soldier & writer;
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/09042007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/iraq_inspection.htm?page=0

    Here’s something from Iraq’s elected prime miniser, Maliki
    http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/21368

    The victory-advocates also include Iran in their analysis. Here’s one prominent analyst’s overview of Iranian attacks, and by implication, of how to measure Iran’s succcess; http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/030aryoy.asp

    FWIW, here’s the webpage operated by the Baathist-type Sunnis who want to shoot and bomb their way back into power.
    http://www.heyetnet.org/en/

    Ther’s lots more realist/optimist analysis, but you have to actually look for this stuff. You won’t find it in the NYT.

    Reply
  12. Andrew Dodds

    Anonymous –

    So the new Official Conspiricy is that it’s all Iran’s fault.. Is there any actual evidence on this or should we just take it as a given?

    Yes, the terrorists, death squads, fundamentalists et al are responsable for a lot of deaths. This is a direct result of the invasion allowing Iraq to descend into anarchy.

    Reply
  13. bill ravenwood

    Mark, I understand your desire to equate the pro-war faction with the science denialists, and it’s a good point (in fact, it’s basically the same group of people).

    But by seriously posing the question “Is the surge working?” you are playing into their hands in the same way that seriously posing the question “Is global warming a hoax?” would. No scientifically informed person would say “I’m asking in good faith because I want to know” regarding the question of whether global warming is a hoax.

    Similarly, no informed person would ask “Is the surge working?” at least as a serious question, rather than a rhetorical question.

    There was never any doubt that the surge was a purely political exercise. The overwhelming military consensus at the time of the surge was that there is no military solution in Iraq. Therefore, whether the surge is “working” or not is a red herring. Sure adding 20K soldiers will accomplish “something,” and I’m sure there will be data demonstrating that “something” whatever it is. But the overwhelming military consensus was and is that there is no military solution to the current Iraq problem. Doesn’t matter how many soldiers we send over there, there is no military solution. No matter what they will “accomplish” there is no military solution. That’s the fact, and every informed person knows it, just like every informed scientist knows global warming is a fact and not a hoax.

    So to answer your question: there is no data, and we already knew months ago that there would be no data.

    I think a more interesting question is “What is it about the current U.S. psychology that allows so many people to be fooled about the Iraq war, including much of the media”

    Reply
  14. Dunc

    But I would imagine the generals who planned the surge have pre-set benchmarks they can use to judge its progress.

    That may not be a valid assumption. For example, it’s frequently been said that (a) coalition forces take all reasonable steps to minimise civilian casualties, and (b) coalition forces do not keep any metrics for civilian casualties. There is an obvious conflict there…

    Reply
  15. Andrew Dodds

    Dunc –

    Slight correction:

    (a) coalition forces take all reasonable steps to minimise reports of civilian casualties

    Reply
  16. jefff

    “But I would imagine the generals who planned the surge have pre-set benchmarks they can use to judge its progress.”

    I believe the GAO report and a whitehouse report from a month or so ago used predefined benchmarks specified in the surge funding bill several months ago, however the law specified that they were to be pass fail, and they were instead reported with partial credit. The results of both reports were rather poor though the whitehouse scored itself quite a bit better.

    Pretty much every other analysis you read was designed after the data was in, and is completely open to manipulation.

    Anonymous, I don’t find your argument that civilian deaths should be ignored because insurgent groups are trying to kill people very compelling.

    Reply
  17. MarkH

    @Bill,
    I think you’re correct, but as there were multiple assertions of “proof” I thought I’d let someone try.

    So far only Anon ponied up, and the links are unimpressive and failed to address the fact that military victories are somewhat irrelevant. The Brookings report, for instance, says the political measures are stagnant.

    On balance, Iraq at the end of July is showing significant signs of battlefield momentum in favor of U.S./coalition
    military forces, but there is nonetheless little good to report on the political front and only modest progress on the economic side of things.

    Further, the assertion that the data can be ignored because some civilians are “politically inconsequential” strikes me as positively reptilian.

    The former spook site cherry picks the “combat” fatalities to suggest a 50% drop, but the data from the site I linked just shows that’s taking a single high peak month as the point to drop 50% from (and for only one type of death).

    All the other opinion pieces are irrelevant. I don’t care what people think I care what they can show.

    The fact is that there are no positive metrics. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing anything, but now I’m fairly sure I’m not. All I can see is misrepresentation or cherry-picking of reports and data. Between the mainstream media conspiracies and the persecution complexes of some of these people, I think we’re just going to have to consider this “everything is fine” mantra of the pro-war types to just be crankery.

    Reply
  18. Anonymous

    OK, so all the stuff I cited yesterday is valueless, in part, because one source you prefer says “there is nonetheless little good to report on the political front and only modest progress on the economic side of things.” ISO of unreachable proof, you dismiss one set of experts for failing to offer impossible proof by relying on the authority of another expert source that also fails to offer impossible proof. That’s lame.

    You also say “military victories are somewhat irrelevant.” By that logic, the insurgency itself been “somewhat irrelevant” to the war in Iraq, and D-Day would be “somewhat irrelevant” to WW2. Of course, that perspective would explain why you did not comment at all on the interesting (and inconclusive) data from Al Qaeda.

    Is it not obvious that war combines combat and politics? Is it not obvious that the Sunni military switch is itself a political advance that permits the Shia to let down their guard somewhat? Is it not obvious that a political victory cannot be achieved without military victory? Or do you somehow prefer to believe that war and politics are entirely different planes of being? Why did you choose to assume something that is so silly?

    FWIW, the notion that some people ever sought a purely military solution to the Sunni opposition to democracy is a straw man. Every soldier and administration official that I have ever noticed says they want a political solution built on military success. After all, they want a democracy in Iraq, not a graveyard.

    As for the reptillian charge, is that aimed at me? I was not ignoring the death of the Yazidis. Rather, I was noting that Al Qaeda selected the most vulnerable target they could find in the expectation that some would interpret the resulting murders as a failure of U.S. policy, rather than yet another 500 reasons to fight back. You know that you would regard a large detonation killing 500 in the protected Green Zone to be an important AlQ political success (as it would be), so why would you dismiss my point that we should partially discount the political impact of Al Qaeda’s Yazidi attack by recognizing it as a TV-spectacular aimed at an unprotected target in the hope of spurring claims that U.S. policy is a failure? That does look like a self-serving double-standard on your part.

    OK, I’ll offer more positive claims, even though they inevitably fall shart of hard-science proof because they deal with willful humanity, not inanimate material;

    An insider’s description of US strategy & progress;
    http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/#c000546

    A useful journal; http://smallwarsjournal.com/index.php

    A useful advance against Iran; http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/05/iraq.iran/

    A collection of unsorted data from the U.S. military;
    http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=4&Itemid=21

    Anbar-like political progress in a Sunni area south of Baghdad;
    http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13797&Itemid=128
    and
    http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13778&Itemid=128

    Data about the numerical expansion of the Iraqi military, and shrinkage of the Iraqi national police;
    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/09/iraqi_security_force_2.php

    Evidence of progress in dealing with extremist Shia politicians;
    http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=September2007&file=World_News2007090523556.xml

    Evidence that Maliki is moving against Sadr etc.
    http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/21439

    I don’t know who is winning. But I’m trying to track fairly many complicated factors, amid much uncertainty. Neither you nor I should simply deny data as unwanted.

    I await your detailed response. No unsupported denials, no straw men, no appeals to authority, and no self-serving double-standards, please.

    Reply
  19. SJ

    I’d say the key performance indicator would definitely have to be whether Iraqis are safer in the streets. If Al-Queda in Iraq are succeeding in driving up the numbers despite the surge, then we’re failing to provide one of the basic fundamental freedoms — freedom from constant mortal danger — that is required for the strong, the smart, the industrious to gain a foothold and rebuild the country such that the west doesn’t need to be there anymore.

    Reply
  20. bill ravenwood

    Mark,
    >I think you’re correct, but as there were multiple assertions >of “proof” I thought I’d let someone try.

    and it is indeed a revealing exercise.

    I think it should also be pointed out that there are really two questions here: (1) What are the appropriate metrics for positive change, and (2) Was that change caused by the surge, specifically. The second question, what caused the change, is not answerable statistically, even in theory, because there is no replication. You could calculate some sort of mean before and after the surge, and show a “significant” difference, but that would be meaningless as it does not distinguish from all sorts of other processes of change.

    Any attempt to attribute, by statistics, any positive change to the surge is classic pseudoreplication.

    Not that that will make any difference whatsoever in the Petraeus/White House political showmanship that we are about to witness.

    Reply
  21. Ted

    Metrics?

    Does having palatable metrics make something right(er)?

    Reply
  22. MarkH

    OK, so all the stuff I cited yesterday is valueless, in part, because one source you prefer says “there is nonetheless little good to report on the political front and only modest progress on the economic side of things.” ISO of unreachable proof, you dismiss one set of experts for failing to offer impossible proof by relying on the authority of another expert source that also fails to offer impossible proof. That’s lame.

    What are you talking about? The Brookings report includes actual data, charts, figures, death rates, numbers of suicide bombs, car bombs etc. Looking through it, it is clear there still are no positives even after the surge. Even some things that look like they’re trending down – like troop deaths, are higher than they’ve been in three years, and there are clearly regular peaks and troughs in the data. It’s thoroughly unconvincing that the surge has done anything to reduce troop mortality, unless like your cited source did, you arbitrarily chose a peak as one of your high points to make it appear as if there’s been a “50% drop” in troop deaths. however, run a 3- month average on the data and if anything things would appear to trend upwards.

    You also say “military victories are somewhat irrelevant.” By that logic, the insurgency itself been “somewhat irrelevant” to the war in Iraq, and D-Day would be “somewhat irrelevant” to WW2. Of course, that perspective would explain why you did not comment at all on the interesting (and inconclusive) data from Al Qaeda.

    Military victories are somewhat irrelevant – as I explained – because knocking down insurgencies with force has historically been an ineffective strategy. We’re not talking about WW2, we’re talking about an insurgency and guerilla warfare. Wrong war to compare this too. As far as data from Al Qaeda? So what? They’ve may have had fewer operations but civilian deaths are still incredibly high each month. If anything, all it suggests are they are doing fewer, more deadly attacks – after all the single deadliest attack in 3 years happened this summer, consistent with this interpretation.

    Is it not obvious that war combines combat and politics? Is it not obvious that the Sunni military switch is itself a political advance that permits the Shia to let down their guard somewhat? Is it not obvious that a political victory cannot be achieved without military victory? Or do you somehow prefer to believe that war and politics are entirely different planes of being? Why did you choose to assume something that is so silly?

    I assumed no such thing. These statements hurt your arguments. With the surge we have performed more operations and killed more insurgents than we have in past months. However, no political gains seem to get achieved. This seems like an example of failed tactics and failure of the surge. Further, what is a military victory against an insurgency? You cut off one head of the hydra – so what? I think this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what kind of war this is.

    As for the reptillian charge, is that aimed at me? I was not ignoring the death of the Yazidis. Rather, I was noting that Al Qaeda selected the most vulnerable target they could find in the expectation that some would interpret the resulting murders as a failure of U.S. policy, rather than yet another 500 reasons to fight back. You know that you would regard a large detonation killing 500 in the protected Green Zone to be an important AlQ political success (as it would be), so why would you dismiss my point that we should partially discount the political impact of Al Qaeda’s Yazidi attack by recognizing it as a TV-spectacular aimed at an unprotected target in the hope of spurring claims that U.S. policy is a failure? That does look like a self-serving double-standard on your part.

    I think that as long as civilian deaths are high it’s a sign of failure. Sorry. I don’t believe that the green zone honey pot is really the target of al Qaeda in Iraq (not that they haven’t tried or wouldn’t mind doing damage there). As long as they’re killing civilians they are successful. Given their history of choosing soft targets over hard ones, I don’t see why this comes as a surprise. Waiting for al Qaeda to attack hard targets and dismissing their successes at soft ones as irrelevant does seem somewhat reptilian, yes.

    As far as the link dump, I’m willing to cull data from such a thing once. Many of those links, however, don’t have the data organized into an easy to read fashion. If there is something specific from these sources you think is relevant cite, but I’m not going to do the work for you. Further, a brief glance, I think, shows they contain largely negative news. For instance, as far as the Sadr Militia being quiet for a few months, the article includes this statement:

    In the past few months, the US military said many militia leaders had broken away from the main faction and had indulged in “rogue” activities, especially the killing of Sunni Arabs.

    So, the Sadr militia has given up on attacking US soldiers directly, and instead has changed tactics to “rogue” activities, and this is a good thing? This sounds like an intelligent adjustment in tactics. It is frankly stupid for an insurgency to commit to battle with our forces – our military will eat them alive if they come out in the open. It’s much better for their goals to destabilize things through covert action, bombings, killings, and spreading terror. How is this an improvement?

    Maliki visits Sistani, great. Why did he do this? Because half his cabinet quit. That’s great news. Political victory! he’s gone begging to a religious leader to help him find the right theocrats for the job. Great. Through a glass darkly maybe this seems to be good stuff, but still, no real data that shows significant success in the areas we need to see it – fewer murders, more electricity being provided, safer streets, fewer bombs, more clean water, more access to fuel, people returning to their homes/fewer people fleeing to become refugees, return of the middle class, doctors etc.

    Military victory would be making the place safe enough for these things to happen, which might actually result in political viability of the government.

    Reply
  23. Ted

    Metrics. Found the definition for one:

    The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, 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.”

    Makes me wonder if the drill torture indicates sectarian or criminal activity. I’m going with, if it’s to the balls, it’s sectarian, while to the forehead is clearly criminal.

    The military stopped releasing statistics on civilian deaths in late 2005, saying the news media were taking them out of context. In an e-mailed response to questions last weekend, an MNF-I spokesman said that while trends were favorable, “exact monthly figures cannot be provided” for attacks against civilians or other categories of violence in 2006 or 2007, either in Baghdad or for the country overall. “MNF-I makes every attempt to ensure it captures the most comprehensive, accurate, and valid data on civilian and sectarian deaths,” the spokesman wrote. “However, there is not one central place for data or information. . . . This means there can be variations when different organizations examine this information.”

    Whaddaya expect for 600,000 million dollars anyway?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *