Why No Numbers?

The Washington Post has a decent rundown of controversies of casualty statistics in Iraq, that includes this nugget:

The charts are difficult to compare: Petraeus used monthly figures on a line graph, while the Pentagon computed "Average Daily Casualties" on a bar chart, and neither included actual numbers. But the numerical differences are still stark, and the reasons offered can be hard to parse. The Pentagon, in a written clarification, said that "Gen. Petraeus reported civilian deaths based on incidents reported by Coalition forces plus Iraqi government data. The [Pentagon] report only includes incidents reported by Coalition forces for civilian causality data."

I noticed this absence of actual numbers, too, and all I can say is . . . what's the deal? When I saw Petraeus not including the numbers, I suspected something nefarious. But the Pentagon numbers that contradict Petraeus don't show them either, so it probably isn't nefarious. But it is damned odd.

Comments

Matt, what about this war ISN"T nefarious? Anything? You're being awfully damned charitable this morning with your judgements of the war and this administration. IT'S ALL NEFARIOUS! It's a genocidal, undeclared, preemptive FUBAR war created by an audacious web of lies and deceit. Everything that comes out of any mouth of anyone involved in planning it or fighting it is a calculated lie. Got it? OK? All lies.

Posted by steve duncan | September 25, 2007 8:35 AM

OT

Sorry for this but a dumb joke just jumped into my head. This post reminded me of "cant" and all the sententious, phony religiosity on the Right. And all the damn look-alive hair do's and media handlers and crap. And last night's PBS Ken Burns semi-gelatinous "War" documentary. What ever happened, I thought, to America's "Can Do!" spirit? It's been waxed by all the "Cant Doo" guys.

Well, that's off my chest. I can get to work.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 25, 2007 8:40 AM

Civilian causalities are very important, I'm sure, but I do wish the Pentagon would tell us more about civilian casualties.

Posted by BruceR | September 25, 2007 9:33 AM

I'd imagine that if the numbers were in line with what the Administration would like them to be, they'd be very clearly noted on any and all graphs.

Posted by terraformer | September 25, 2007 9:58 AM

So, if we, or our friends, didn't see civs die or receive an injury they aren't a causality? So, a bomb dropped from 10,000 feet in a place troops never go didn't draw blood? Evil will always justify it actions even if its messenger is a handsome trustworthy fellow.

Posted by chuckchuck | September 25, 2007 11:35 AM

To actually answer Matt's question, I'd say that the most likely explanation for this is twofold: the numbers aren't, in fact, very good for the preferred version of the story; more importantly, the specific numbers aren't important to the debate. The issue, if we're discussing Surge efficacy, is trendlines. Just as the dollar figures for appropriation bills are distractions from the debate (far better if the S-CHIP story were about spending 0.1% [or whatever] of GDP on children's health care than $50 BILLION, which is a big, scary, and ultimately meaningless number), the specific casualty counts would be distractions from the Surge debate.

Especialy since the methodology is so problematic - the problem in this case is not that the US tends to undercount. The problem is that Petraeus has undercounted in a very specific and, yes, nefarious way. The Pentagon doesn't need to play GOTCHA with a different, but actually dubious, number: they need to show that Patraeus' chart goes down when it should have gone up.

Posted by JRoth | September 26, 2007 11:57 AM