From Bad to Worse
____________________
If fatality and casualty rates were going down instead of up, would it be a major media talking point right now?
by Thomas F. Schaller, Executive Editor
9.15.04
gadflyer.com
Because I'm one of those progressive college professors who presents a far greater threat to the safety and prosperity of our country than, say, Defense Department spy Larry Franklin or Enron CEO Ken Lay, allow me to continue my unholy reign of terror on America with a professor-like, one-question pop quiz.
Which of the following statements is true?
The average daily fatality rate for American service personnel in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was captured is 17 percent higher than the daily fatality rate before his capture.
The average daily casualty rate for Coalition personnel serving in Iraq in 2004 is more than twice what it was in 2003.
The percentage of Coalition fatalities attributed to hostile actions in Iraq has increased by almost 20 percent between 2003 and 2004.
The American share of Coalition fatalities rose from 84 percent last year to 93 percent this year.
All of the above.
The answer, of course, is "all of the above."
Before continuing, following are the underlying data – courtesy of official Defense Department reports and statistics, as compiled and aggregated by the incomparable Lunaville.org site – and my computations to support the first four statements. In order:
There were 459 American fatalities in the 269 days of war and occupation phase from March 19 to December 13, 2003, an average of 1.71 per day; as of yesterday, there were 275 days of occupation or "sovereignty" since Hussein was captured, during which a total of 550 Americans have been killed, exactly 2.00 per day. Taking the difference (2.00 – 1.71 = .29) and dividing it by the pre-capture rate (1.71) yields a daily increase from the pre- to post-capture periods of 17.2 percent.
There were an average of 8.39 coalition casualties per day during 2003 (2,408 casualties in 287 days); through the end of August, the 2004 average daily casualty rate is 18.73 (4,570 in 244 days), or more than twice what it was last year.
The number of the 575 total coalition fatalities in 2003 attributed to hostile action was 396, or 68.9 percent; the number of the 569 coalition fatalities in 2004, through yesterday, attributed to hostile action is 470, or 82.6 percent. Again subtracting the difference (82.6 – 68.9 = 13.7) and dividing it by the base percent of 68.9 for 2003, yields a 19.9 percent increase in the ratio of coalition casualties attributed to hostile action this year compared to last.
In 2003, 482 of the 575 Coalition fatalities (83.8 percent) were Americans; thus far in 2004, 527 of the 569 Coalition fatalities (92.6 percent) have been Americans.
Now, as somebody who understands how statistics can be used to make a point, I will do something that conservatives rarely do: I'll confess up front that, although every figure here is computed correctly based on Defense Department reports, I crafted some of these statements – especially (1) and (3) – in a way that adds dramatic effect.
Specifically, rates of change are often higher than absolute percentage changes. (For example, a budget program that increases from .001 percent of all federal spending one year to 002 percent the next has doubled – an increase of 100 percent!) And thus, the change from 1.7 American daily fatalities to 2.0 per day sounds far less dramatic – serious as it is, of course – than saying the rate has increased 17 percent, even though both statements are true.
But I make this confession – and without apology, by the way – in order to make two crucial, and related, points:
First, you may have noticed that the Bush Administration and the Bush-Cheney campaign do not like to discuss actual, hard statistics pertaining to what's happening on the ground in Iraq. They'd rather speak in generalities, if they mention Iraq at all. Indeed, as the New York Times tabulated and reported during RNC convention week, most of the convention speakers avoided the word Iraq like it was a tofu sandwich made by Barbra Streisand.
Second, you may also have noticed that the Bush Administration and the Bush-Cheney campaign like to use statistics creatively for dramatic effect – such as in the "number of times" John Kerry voted this way or that, the number of active stem cell lines that exist, or how the "average" tax cut for you and 98 other working-class people in a room with Joseph Coors is $1,000 even though Coors enjoyed all $100,000 of the tax breaks. Often, the underlying data is bogus or disputed; but even when the numbers are legit, the statistics are calculated and presented with the intent of magnifying the rhetorical effect.
Indeed, putting these two points together with the real Iraq fatality and casualty rates, ask yourself – or the closest pundit without shouting range – this multi-part question: If the fatalities were lower since Saddam's capture rather than higher, if the casualty rates were half this year rather than double what they were last year, and if the share of fatalities suffered by Americans was declining rather than increasing, do you think we just might be seeing such facts in campaign ads and hearing them repeated endlessly by the President's surrogates?
You bet your missing body armor we would, soldier. |
