Surging

Kevin Drum arranges some Brookings Iraq Index data into tables to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison of the summer 2006 to the summer of 2007 and discovers that the surge is working if your definition of "working" doesn't require a decrease in violence or an increase in the viability of Iraq's basic infrastructure. Of course, even if you saw continued deterioration on those fronts, you might still take solace in good news from the political front except that there . . . isn't any good news on the political front.

Last, I would remind readers that the summer of 2006 was worse than the summer of 2005 which, in turn, was worse than the summer of 2004. Meanwhile, at the time the summer of 2004 was conventionally considered to be very bad situation. We've managed to fail to badly that less-intense forms of failure now look like progress if you squint hard enough.

Given that Kevin's data just comes straight from the Brookings Iraq Index project, one wonders how it is that Brookings fellows like Peter Rodman, Michael O'Hanlon, and Kenneth Pollack seem so unaware of it. Surely the Brookings communications staff should be capable of getting this information into the hands of the organization's own staff.

Comments

Whether the way of recording casualties in Iraq or the delivery of electricity, when the data show significant problems growing the data is simply changed.

So, after Linda Bilmes used Veterans Administration data to show physical casualties had passed well beyond 50,000 by January, the Defense Department formally complaine to the dean of Harvard's Kenney School and the data was changed to halve the casualty rate. Similarly the disaster that is electricity delivery in Baghdad was covered by stopping the recording of electricity delivery in Baghdad.

The deception does on from there.

Posted by anne | August 24, 2007 8:25 AM

Notice that I write of physical casualties which had passed 50,000 by January, however psychological casualties were by that time well above that level.

Make that "complained" and "Kennedy" School.

Posted by anne | August 24, 2007 8:29 AM

Meanwhile, we're supposed to assume that there are people who argue in favor of the war, the Surge, etc are arguing in "good faith".

What would bad faith involve? Secretly belonging to al Qaida?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 24, 2007 8:33 AM

Matt,

"getting this information into the hands of the organization's own staff."

It gets worse. O'Hanlon himself developed this index, and his name is on the first page of the item Kevin used. Remember those op-eds he wrote in NYT using it (Feb '04, March '04, then they mysteriously lapsed)?

He's just moved the goalposts, or something.

You read and write fast, and it's usually great. But sometimes you miss a beat -- as with the Peter Baker piece. Where's your vaunted staff?

Dan Tompkins

Posted by Dan Tompkins | August 24, 2007 8:42 AM

>Surely the Brookings communications staff should be capable of getting this information into the hands of the organization's own staff.

Why does this sound so much like "If Stalin only knew what was done in his name"?

Posted by bartkid | August 24, 2007 8:49 AM

Most bizarre was the sudden appearance in July of an editorial preface to the previously-entirely-factual Iraq Index. In blue type, it declares the surge's successes, despite the very data easily obtained by reading further.

None so blind as those who have seen the truth.

Posted by hquain | August 24, 2007 9:10 AM

It figures that you libtards wouldn't get it.

Increased death and violence and reduced infrastructure capacity IS PROOF THAT THE SURGE IS WORKING!!!

Get it?

Posted by Phredd | August 24, 2007 9:27 AM

apples-to-apples comparison of the summer 2006 to the summer of 2007

That's not an "apples to apples comparison". Obviously Kevin is cooking the books by including the deterioration between June 2006 and January 2007. The appropriate comparison would be between January, right before the surge began, and August.

Is this stuff so difficult to figure out? I think Kevin is smarter than that, so the only conclusion I can make is that he is being purposefully misleading.

Posted by Al | August 24, 2007 9:34 AM

Gotta say, Al is right, at least in part.

Actually, the proper comparison is between January 2007 and January 2008. Oh, January '08 hasn't happened yet? Guess we'll just have to wait another Friedman Unit to properly evaluate Da Suige!

Posted by Jeff S. | August 24, 2007 9:43 AM

Al, apparently it's difficult for some of us to figure out. Levels of violence in Iraq display a seasonal cycle. Higher in the cooler months. So comparing January to June is, well, stupid, unless you normalize the data.

Let's keep it simple ... levels of violence are rising. Service levels are declining. This is as true now as it was last year and the year before.

Welcome to the reality-based community.

Posted by zsa | August 24, 2007 9:52 AM

Al: No, Comparing January 2007 with August 2007 would not be an apples-to-apples comparison. There are seasonal variations in the levels of violence and the quality of the infrastructure which have been quite well established by all analysts, and which are very well understood. The levels of violence have dipped EVERY SUMMER since the beginning of the American occupation of Iraq. That's quite simple to understand: It's hard to fight when it's 120 degrees Fahrenheit outside. It's hard to move the thousands of gallons of water you need to survive in such heat for a guerilla force.

Also, Kevin Drum is NOT including the "deterioration" between June 2006 and January 2007: he's comparing June-July 2006 on its own, with June-July 2007.

So stop it with the fuzzy math.

Posted by DR | August 24, 2007 9:58 AM

The Reality-Based Community: "Let's keep it simple ... levels of violence are rising."

The latest NIE, released just yesterday: "There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks."

Chalk one up for the Reality-Based Community!

(As an aside, as I said yesterday, the difficulty in the Iraq debate is that the Reality-Based Community operates in a "reality" that doesn't correspond to the reality of the real world. This is just another piece of proof.)

Posted by Al | August 24, 2007 10:03 AM

Do these yahoos ever respond to such criticism?

Posted by AlphaLiberal | August 24, 2007 10:24 AM

Al, the NIE also said:

Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves.

And statistics from humanitarian groups show "sectarian separation", i.e. ethnic cleansing, has accelerated during the Bush Escalation. Meanwhile, U.S. casualty rates are up. Yep, it smells like victory to me.

Posted by Jeff S. | August 24, 2007 10:29 AM

"overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks."

Al's reality: it took that decline over the last nine weeks to get down to a level of violence X percent higher than the level prevalent last year at this time. Now who's cooking the books?

Posted by Ed Martin | August 24, 2007 10:29 AM

In June 2006 George W. Bush said:

"I do think we'll be able to measure progress. You can measure progress in capacity of Iraqi units, you can measure progress in megawatts of electricity delivered, you can measure progress in terms of oil sold on the market on behalf of the Iraqi people... There are ways to determine whether or not this Government's plans are succeeding."

I don't know what he means by the 'capacity' of Iraqi units, and without that definition that's not a measurable point. But as to megawatts of electricity and oil sold on the market they are and have been measured, as O'Hanlon's Iraq Index indicates:

Megawatts generated--
June 2006: 4,400
June 2007: 4,200
Net change: -200

Oil exported, in Millions of Barrels per Day--
June 2006: 1.67
June 2007: 1.47
Net change: -.2

No progress was made in the year since he established those measures, and in fact ground was lost. This Government's plans are demonstrably not succeeding.

.

Posted by MFA | August 24, 2007 10:31 AM

Relying on a Bush-released NIE.

That's a recipe for success.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 24, 2007 10:31 AM

drum is a retard. Can you imagine if the FDA attempted to determine the efficacy of cancer drugs by contrasting a patients current health to their health before they even contracted cancer? such an event would be entirely possible if they were to adopt drum's analytical methods.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | August 24, 2007 10:31 AM

So, "pimp hand", by your standards everything was wonderful in Iraq in June/July 2006(the patient didn't have cancer yet)? You might want to look at those numbers again and rethink your argument.

Posted by MikeJ | August 24, 2007 11:46 AM

Wow, how many time do I have to say it, Al? Comparing rates of violence between winter and summer is not a meaningful comparison.

Take a look at the charts:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/daily_attacks_chart.php

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_sigacts.htm

And tell me that a statement like "The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks" gives you any real assurance. We could have accurately said that for the month of June in 2004, 2005, and 2006.

The American wingnut has an endless capacity for self-delusion.

Posted by zsa | August 24, 2007 12:08 PM

My favorite stat in the Brookings Iraq Index is the poll data where Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki has a higher favorability rating (43%) than Bush.

Bush wants to know how he does it.

Posted by Enslaved | August 24, 2007 12:33 PM

Wow, how many time do I have to say it, Al? Comparing rates of violence between winter and summer is not a meaningful comparison.

Wow, how many times do I have to say it, zsa? Comparing rates of violence between June 2006 and June 2007 is not a meaningful way of evaluating the surge, as the troop buildup didn't even begin until January 2007 and the surge proper (i.e., the operations they were planning to do with the additional troops) didn't begin until July 2007.

Drum's asinine comparison is akin to evaluating a new baseball manager, where the previous manager went 100-62 in 2005, 81-81 in 2006 and 30-51 in the beginning of 2007, got fired, and the new manager came in and went 51-30 for the rest of 2007. Kevin Drum comes along and says "hey, that new manager isn't doing a good job, we went 81-81 in 2007, just like we did in 2006". Which completely ignores that half of his evaluation of the new manager has to do with what occurred during the old manager's tenure.

If you say that summer and winter aren't comparable, fine, then don't do the comparison. But evaluating the surge by ignoring the deterioriation of Iraq prior to the surge is just plain misleading.

Posted by Al | August 24, 2007 12:42 PM

If you say that summer and winter aren't comparable, fine, then don't do the comparison. But evaluating the surge by ignoring the deterioriation of Iraq prior to the surge is just plain misleading.

>*boom*<

My head exploded!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 24, 2007 2:15 PM

If I'm getting you, Al, you're essentially saying that if not for the surge (the new manager), the situation would be worse (62-100) than it is now (81-81). Yes?

Posted by Matt S | August 24, 2007 3:50 PM

Al there wasn't much difference in US military deployments in June 2006 and January 2007. The variable that IS different is the troop escalation
finished in June 2007. The summer weather conditions for operations 2006 and 2007 are much the same.

More US soldiers beget more resistance and US response hence more violence.

Posted by markg8 | August 24, 2007 5:28 PM

"Surely the Brookings communications staff should be capable of getting this information into the hands of the organization's own staff."

Won't make any difference because O'Hanlon, Pollack & Co. were big supporters of the surge. Invited Kagan to speak at Brookings about the surge and drooled all over him.

So they take a trip to Iraq for a dog and pony show just before the Petraeus "report" is due and wouldn't you know; they report that it's working. Promote it then report it's wonderful.

Amazing how that works.

Can't be bothered by actual data, that'd spoil all the fun.

Posted by cal1942 | August 24, 2007 7:48 PM

"The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks."

That statement is meaningless.

The escalation of 'RATES' of violence

Fallen during seven of the last nine weeks - think maybe climatic conditions were a part of that decline.

Posted by cal1942 | August 24, 2007 8:14 PM

Al, and other neos and dittoheads, use your brain before you mindlessly quote your Frank Dunce I mean Frank Luntz talking points concerning the 'success' of "The Surge."

The fact that attacks have gone down in the last seven to nine weeks, and thus our casualties, is irrelevant. It's called SUMMER. During 2005 and 2006, and from the way it's going, 2007, our July casualties are ALWAYS lower than June or August. Thus the true but irrelevant statistic that even NPR was quoting yesterday, to support the incorrect assertion that "things are going well militarily, just not politically."

Another moronic tidbit being used yesterday was the usual about Anbar doing well. Well, it's physically about a fourth of the nation, but only about 5% of the population since it's one large desert. Anbar ain't Baghdad. WHO CARES if we're doing well in Anbar?

The much more relevant stat that probably not only explained Sen. Lugar's reversal on The Surbe at the end of June but its timing is that April, May, and June were all triple digit casualty months. Before The Surge was voted on in February, the probability of a triple digit month was about 10%. The Surge troops didn't go in country until April (you know how slow government is - in the private sector, they'd have been sent the next week). Thus, the probability of three triple digit months in a row, randomly occurring, is one tenth of one percent. Not surprisingly, when you throw more bodies into a meat grinder, you get more, not less, casualties. So much for more boots on the ground. If we had a MILLION soldiers then yes, our casualties would go to zero, and so would theirs because the war would be over and the insurgents would be conquered. BUT WE DON'T HAVE a million soldiers.

Thus, things are 'going well' militarily if you only look at Summer months when there's little fighting anyway. Otherwise, we're having record casualties even though our new troops in The Surge are disproportionately assigned to a place where things AREN'T happening. Imagine how bad it would be if all the Surge troops were in Baghdad!

The way to END the insurgency is to GET OUR TROOPS OUT. Right now, our presence is the biggest single recruiting opportunity for the insurgency - "drive the infidels out!" If we'd leave, we pull the rug out from under the "imperialism" assertion, most of the insurgents would say, "Mission Accomplished" and go back to their neighborhoods in Baghdad. Since we're also holding the Shia List Party back by being there ("AHH - you can't torture that guy who just blew up your family with an IED because the ACLU told us YOU DIDN'T SAY 'mother may I?'"), a smaller insurgency (which ironically can ONLY occur if we LEAVE) will be easily handled using Old School Iraqi methods.

GET IT STRAIGHT Al - 'neocon foreign policy' is destined to be placed in the Dictionary of Failed Ideologies along with Communism, Keynesianism, and Naziism.

Posted by Robert Edward Johnson | August 25, 2007 10:10 AM