In a followup to “What You Won’t Find in the Petraeus Report” by Chirol is this chart of statistics. Attacks on Iraq forces are dropping and attacks on civilians peaked this time last year, yet attacks on US forces are on the rise.
What does this trend mean? The big question that comes up here, but which really can’t be answered, is whether US forces are the cause of further violence, or a shield protecting the population. Also, the mere number of attack incidents does nothing to imply the actual numbers of casualties—far more civilians have been killed by insurgents in Iraq this year than US and other international soldiers.
How this can be read is anyone’s guess, but it’s another statistic shaping the debate in Washington.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Kaplan re: Petraeus
- » Decentralized Security in Phili
COMMENTS / 2 COMMENTS
Alfred Russel Wallace added these pithy words on 16 Sep 07 at 1:26 amA real question with these types of data is that of reporting bias. My guess is that the coalition forces report 100% of attacks, but that the others report less. A 60% under-reporting would make incidences about the same, and higher under-reporting, which would not be unreasonable, would make the picture look rather different. [I recognize that if based on a population basis, the graphs would be far more disparate] Fortunately the coalition forces are relatively well armored and so protected. I fear the civilians likely die…
Rixtex added these pithy words on 16 Sep 07 at 11:15 pmIt probably means that US forces have been more active since the surge began are are more in harms way. More direct combat means more casualties.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
