Stats avoided by mainstream media

[hops_scout]

Statistics avoided by mainstream media

 

 

By Kevin Hardin

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 1:37 PM CST

 

 

Statistics can be sliced and diced to validate many points of view. I was given some recent information I thought I would share.

 

Anyone familiar with my point of view know I've been a supporter of the war on terror and our presence in Iraq. I understand loss of life on both sides of a war is inevitable and appreciate those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending our country. But I also understand you cannot have the top military in the world without the sacrifice of many talented people, whether peacetime or during war.

 

Some interesting statistics have been gathered and published by the Congressional Research Service, ultimately sharing this data with different members of Congress and various congressional committees.The CRS Report For Congress titled "American War and Military Casualties Lists and Statistics" state facts that many may find surprising. Surprising if your only source of information came via the mainstream press.

 

Between the years of 1980, President Jimmy Carter's last year in office, and 2002 we suffered 35,227 deaths in our military. That's averaging 1,531 deaths per year in what was considered peace time in the military.

 

Included in these statistics are events such as the various embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack and other terrorist related events in that 23-year period. However, even in peace-loving President Carter's last year there were 2,392 deaths in the military. Keep in mind, we have not had more than 920 in any given year of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

 

The other notion presented by the mainstream press is that the military is sacrificing minorities and people not qualified to do much of anything else in their lives except be sent as George W. Bush's sacrificial lambs on "his" war.

 

In the period of 1980 through 2006 whites have made up nearly 70 percent of the deaths in the military. Hispanics were next at 12.5 percent with Blacks at 12.3 percent. Asian, Native Americans and others make up the rest. In Iraq alone, whites make up more than 74 percent of the fatalities.

 

more....

http://monroecountyclarion.stltoday.com/articles/2008/01/15/opinions/sj2tn20080108-0109cla_hardin.ii1.txt

[CalicoPenn]

Always check the sources offered by people claiming that the mainstream media is avoiding certain statistics, and that this is some great conspiracy that needs to be exposed.

 

The author of the article is quick to state that the average military deaths every year has been 1,531 and includes various terrorist attacks and military actions and then claim that this is indicative that the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't as bad as folks make it out to be when looking at the whole picture.

 

It's what he leaves out that weakens his argument - to the point where his argument teeters on nonsensical (if it hasn't fallen off that wall and is just plain nonsense).

 

What he's failing to mention is that the statistics he is using also include deaths by accident, homicide, illness, and suicide. The report has statistics just on war casualties which wouldn't back up his argument.

 

Had he been honestly reporting the statistics, he would have told us that in the period between 1980 and 2002, there were a total of 250 deaths in the military attributed to "hostile action" and in the period from 2003 to 2006, there was 2,575 deaths attributable to "hostile action".

 

Had he been honestly reporting the statistics, he would have told us that there were only 426 deaths in the military attributable to "terrorism" from 1980 to 2001, of which 263 occurred in 1983 (Beirut). Credit due - there were none from 2001 to 2006.

 

Had he been honestly reporting the statistics, he would have told us that there were 1,000 or more (in some years, quite a bit more) deaths by accident PER YEAR in the years 1980 to 1989, and that there have been less than 1,000 accidents resulting in death per year since 1990.

 

The most telling line in this whole article is "Statistics can be sliced and diced to validate many points of view". I suppose he was just telling us he was about to show just how someone can slice and dice statistics.

 

Caveat Emptor - especially when people slice and dice those statistics.

 

Calico

[funscout]

Thanks for the article, hops, that was quite an eye opener! To think that so many military people died during peace time is astounding!

 

Calico, you forgot to list the sources for your statistics.

[DanKroh]

"Calico, you forgot to list the sources for your statistics."

 

I believe he was using the same document as the author of the original opinion piece, the "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics", which can be found here:

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

[CalicoPenn]

Thanks Dan,

 

I was indeed using the same source as mentioned in the article (I should have been more clear - mea culpa)

 

Calico

[FScouter]

I don't usually pay much nevermind to these kinds of exposes about how the other side has been fooling us, because the "right" side is just trying to fool us the other way.

 

But it was interesting to note that the story makes a big point to tell us that in the final year of "peace-loving" Jimmy Carter's term, he caused 2,392 deaths, but after that (when the republicans took over) there have only been 1,531 deaths (per year average).

 

Those peace-lovers sure do manage to get a lot of military people killed, huh? Way more than the war-mongers.

[CalicoPenn]

"...in the final year of "peace-loving" Jimmy Carter's term, he caused 2,392 deaths"

 

Did you really mean to say "HE" (meaning Jimmy Carter) "CAUSED" those 2,392 deaths? Or perhaps that's just the impression you took away from the article because that was the impression the writer of the article hoped you would come away with.

 

Let's look at the statistics behind those 2,392 deaths. The breakdown is 1,556 deaths by accident, 174 deaths by homicide, 419 deaths by illness, 231 deaths by suicide (aka "self inflicted"), 11 undetermined and 1 by terrorist attack. Not one by hostile action. So tell me exactly how Jimmy Carter "caused" all those deaths? What policy of Jimmy Carter's can be pointed to that would have caused 174 people to be murdered, 419 people to die of some illness, 213 people to kill themselves, 1,556 people to die in an accident?

 

Interesting thing about what the article writer does that twists the statistics around to bring out his point of view. He states that there were 2,392 deaths during Carter's last year but that we havn't had more than 920 in any given year of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan. Total deaths per year since 2002 have been: 2002 = 999; 2003 = 1,228; 2004 = 1,874; 2005 = 1,942; 2006 = 1,858. Either he's comparing just death by hostile action in a given war year to total deaths in 1980, or he's just out and out lying. Come to think of it, if he's comparing just deaths by hostile action in a given war year to total deaths in 1980, he's out and out lying anyway.

 

As I've said before, always check the source material for the statistics one reads - its the only way to truly understand how someone is slicing and dicing the numbers to make them appear to support a position they've taken.

 

Calico

 

 

 

[FScouter]

"So tell me exactly how Jimmy Carter "caused" all those deaths?"

I dunno. The author brought the man into story. He could have just said that in 1980 there were 2,392 deaths. But instead he chose to attribute the higher death rate to Carter: "in peace-loving President Carter's last year there were 2,392 deaths in the military." For me, that comment invalidates everything he says.

[John-in-KC]

Jimmy Carter didn't cause all those deaths. IMO, the deaths in the Desert One fiasco he legitimately should accept responsibility for (and as I recall, he did, on TV). If you want a good top summary of Desert One as seen in DC, read General Powell's autobiography.

 

I entered on Active Duty in the fall of 1978. My first memorial service was the following summer: One of the sergeants in my battalion got drunk at the NCO club one evening, and walked back along the railroad to get to his off-post home. A freight train got him.

 

I was at a CPX a few years later, when the Corps Artillery commander gathered us and told us he'd relieved a battalion commander, his XO, a Battery Commander, HIS XO, his First Sergeant, and the Chief of Firing Battery. It seems the battery had shot 8 rounds out of the impact area at Grafenwoehr.

 

I was on a REFORGER exercise. A FDC team in a sister battalion didn't use two ground guides when backing up their track (front and back). The track rolled over a trooper.

 

I cannot tell you about the Sister Services; the Army constantly works to drill safe operation into its commanders, staffs, and Soldiers. Enough will die or be wounded in action. Many deaths and injuries in training come from not doing the right thing.

 

Gold Winger, can you talk about aviation safety accidents?(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[hops_scout]

Could he be blaming some of those deaths on lack of funding which caused a lack of proper equipment, lack of healthcare ability, lack of support?

 

Because Clinton was real good about that. That's why we're still flying 25 year old fighter jets! Clinton cut the military nearly in half during his time in office. Sure, he balanced the budget, but he also threw us in far into debt when the next president decided we needed to defend our country. For this, money had to be spent on research and development as well as expanding the size of the armed forces.

[John-in-KC]

hops,

 

There is actually a documented historic model of military readiness. Colonel (retired) Charles Heller, one of the co-authors of America's First Battles wrote it as a US Army War College Stragegic Studies Institute monograph. I won't defend what Mr Clinton did, I will say his actions were within the parameters of the historic model:

 

- Period 1: Deep peacetime (Long serving professionals, virtually no force modernization production, limited research, lots of theoretical training).

- Period 2: Mobilization (force expansion, emergency production of existing equipment, training against what we think is the enemy)

- Period 3: Operations (force management against ceilings and missions, lots of short-cycle research and production, training derived from results of actual combat lessons learned)

- Period 4: Demobilization (force contractions, equipment stockpiling as production lines close, training based on lessons of the war just past).

 

Mr Clinton's tenure coincided with the end of Period 4 for the Cold War and Period 1 (now that we're in it) for the Global War on Terror.

 

Again, I do not condone Mr Clinton's actions (remember the Cruise Missile against the cave? Remember COL Greg Fontenot's comments in the WSJ (his career hit the wall for his integrity)? I simply report they fit the parameters of the model.

 

[hops_scout]

John, that's good to know. Thanks for sharing.

 

Now the question is whether that is good or bad for the country? That's a tough call..

[BadenP]

Hops

It sounds to me that you let one article with dubious stats support an argument that pretty much has already been decided by current history as basically false. Stats can be made and skewed to support any position whether that position is sound or not. I am surprised that someone as young as yourself is already so jaded that you take the side of a very very small minority in this country and in the world.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[hops_scout]

Hearing Tim Allen's voice as he says "Huuuuuuh?"

[GernBlansten]

 

Statistics can be sliced and diced to validate many points of view.