The Iraq War: When Bad Things Happen to Good Statistics
My brain nearly exploded when I did some number crunching and found that more U.S. soldiers died in the Iraq war in 2006 than Iraqi soldiers.
Some 870 U.S. soldiers died, compared to 627 Iraqi soldiers.
What the bleep gives?
What gives is that these statistics don’t tell the whole story. The whole story, according to people with whom I spoke who have spent considerable time on the ground in Iraq, is that the national police still do the brunt of the dirty work for the Iraqis.
Says Bill Roggio from The Fourth Rail, who is just back from a December embed with a Marine unit in Fallluja:
“Police are easier targets. They drive thin-skinned vehicles by and large, while the Iraqi army has Hummers, Cougars, etc. The Iraqi army units I embedded with weren’t on the roads much in vehicles, they mainly were doing foot patrols. Which are harder to target with IEDs, because dismounted soldiers can more easily ID the IED indicators and can hunt down the trigger man
“In Fallujah, the police suffered over 21 dead since the unit I embedded with got there four months ago. The police are better targets because they are a greater threat. Since they live in the communities, they are a better source of intel, know the lay of the land, and so on.”
Bill says that the moral of the story is to never just look at casualty numbers.
“They don’t tell the full story. I hate it when bloggers on the left use casualty numbers to show things are getting worse, and when those on the right use the numbers to show things are better than they seem. Its just a poor metric unless the goal is political points.”
Amen.
7 Responses to “The Iraq War: When Bad Things Happen to Good Statistics”
I disagree with Bill that casualty numbers are a poor metric. They are but one metric that should be used, but they are certainly a valid metric. I didn’t see a link to Bill’s post, but I’m curious as to whether he offers alternative metrics to be used in place of US casualties.
Davebo:
There is no link. I discussed the apparent disconnect between the number of Iraqi and U.S. military deaths with Bill and others more in the know than I. This is a concept called “reporting” that is all too regretably absent in the opinion-rich blogosphere.
I like to think of statistics as snapshots in time. People need to get beyond them if they want a fuller and more nuanced picture.
“The Iraqi army units I embedded with weren’t on the roads much in vehicles, they mainly were doing foot patrols. Which are harder to target with IEDs, because dismounted soldiers can more easily ID the IED indicators and can hunt down the trigger man”
Then why aren’t American soldiers doing more foot patrols?
Because everyone knows that Americans would rather ride than walk.
They do foot patrols. They just don’t only do foot patrols.
Ahh, is it that just a disproportionate ammount of deaths happen on car rides, which is why we hear about it more? Or do they make more mounted patrols than foot patrols? And why not do ALL foot patrols?
Also, random side note about the picture… Is the fact that the woman in the picture is wielding a weapon a good sign of women’s lib in Iraq? (half kidding)
This makes sense as bad as it is to say. More American soldiers died than Iraqi soldiers because Americans walk around in uniform. Iraqis walk around in civilian clothes most times and when they fear their lives or feel that they are in danger, they drop their weapons and melt into the civilian population, making it nearly impossible for U.S. soldiers to find them. Plus they use IEDs which they just plant then run and blow from a safe distance. Oour soldiers then have no enemy to engage. Also, due to the Geneva Convention, we can not shoot unarmed civilians/ peoples. So, if you look at it this way, it makes some sense.