Obama relieves McChrystal of command

N&P: Discussion of news headlines and politics.

Moderator: frigidmagi

Post Reply
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#1 Obama relieves McChrystal of command

Post by frigidmagi »

MSNBC
President Barack Obama sacked his loose-lipped Afghanistan commander Wednesday, a seismic shift for the U.S. military order in wartime, and chose the familiar, admired — and tightly disciplined — Gen. David Petraeus to replace him. Petraeus, architect of the Iraq war turnaround, was once again to take hands-on leadership of a troubled war effort.

Obama said bluntly that Gen. Stanley McChrystal's scornful remarks about administration officials represent conduct that "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

He ousted the commander after a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office and named Petraeus, the Central Command chief, who was McChrystal's direct boss, to step in.

In a statement expressing praise for McChrystal yet certainty he had to go, Obama said he did not make the decision over any disagreement in policy or "out of any sense of personal insult." Flanked by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Rose Garden, he said: "War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president."

He urged the Senate to confirm Petraeus swiftly and emphasized the Afghanistan strategy he announced in December was not shifting with McChrystal's departure.

'Not a change in policy'
"This is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy," Obama said.

Indeed, as Obama was speaking, McChrystal released a statement, saying: "I strongly support the President's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment — and a desire to see the mission succeed — that I tendered my resignation."

Obama hit several grace notes about McChrystal and his service after their Oval Office meeting, saying that he made the decision to sack him "with considerable regret." And yet, he said the job in Afghanistan cannot be done now under McChrystal's leadership, asserting that the critical remarks from the general and his inner circle in the Rolling Stone magazine article displayed conduct that doesn't live up to the standards for a command-level officer.

Obama seemed to suggest that McChrystal's military career is over, saying the nation should be grateful "for his remarkable career in uniform" as if that has drawn to a close.


Video


McChrystal out, Petraeus in
June 23: President Obama turned the page swiftly Wednesday on what could have become yet another lingering political problem. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
Nightly News

McChrystal left the White House after the meeting and returned to his military quarters at Washington's Fort McNair. A senior military official said there is no immediate decision about whether he would retire from the Army, which has been his entire career. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

Petraeus, who attended a formal Afghanistan war meeting at the White House on Wednesday, has had overarching responsibility for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq as head of Central Command. He was to vacate the Central Command post after his expected confirmation, giving Obama another key opening to fill. The Afghanistan job is actually a step down from his current post but one that filled Obama's pre-eminent need.

Petraeus: Reputation for discipline
Petraeus is the nation's best-known military man, having risen to prominence as the commander who turned around the Iraq war in 2007, applying a counterinsurgency strategy that has been adapted for Afghanistan.

He has a reputation for rigorous discipline. He keeps a punishing pace — spending more than 300 days on the road last year. He briefly collapsed during Senate testimony last week, apparently from dehydration. It was a rare glimpse of weakness for a man known as among the military's most driven.



Gen. Petraeus popularity to be tested on new front
June 23: The White House hopes to tap into the waning goodwill of the American public toward the war in Afghanistan. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski and Richard Engel report.
Nightly News

In the hearing last week, Petraeus told Congress he would recommend delaying the pullout of U.S. forces from Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 if need be, saying security and political conditions in Afghanistan must be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.

That does not mean Petraeus is opposed to bringing some troops home, and he said repeatedly that he supports Obama's revamped Afghanistan strategy. Petraeus' caution is rooted in the fact that the uniformed military — and counterinsurgency specialists in particular — have always been uncomfortable with rigid parameters.

With Washington abuzz, there had been a complete lockdown on information about the morning's developments until just before Obama spoke. By pairing the decision on McChrystal's departure with the name of his replacement, Obama is seeking to move on as quickly as possible from the firestorm.

In the magazine article, McChrystal called the period last fall when the president was deciding whether to approve more troops "painful" and said the president appeared ready to hand him an "unsellable" position. McChrystal also said he was "betrayed" by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, the man the White House chose to be his diplomatic partner in Afghanistan.

He accused Eikenberry of raising doubts about Karzai only to give himself cover in case the U.S. effort failed. "Now, if we fail, they can say 'I told you so,'" McChrystal told the magazine. And he was quoted mocking Vice President Joe Biden.

If not insubordination, the remarks — as well as even sharper commentary about Obama and his White House from several in McChrystal's inner circle — were at the least an extraordinary challenge from a military leader. The capital had not seen a similar public contretemps between a president and a top wartime commander since Harry Truman stripped Gen. Douglas MacArthur of his command more than a half-century ago after disagreements over Korean war strategy.

Notably, neither McChrystal nor his team questioned the accuracy of the story or the quotes in it. McChrystal issued an apology.

Despite McChrystal's military achievements, he has a history of making waves and this was not his first brush with Obama's anger. Last fall as Obama was weighing how to adjust Afghanistan policy, McChrystal spoke bluntly and publicly about his desire for more troops — earning a scolding from the president, who felt the general was trying to box him into a corner.

In Afghanistan, officials expressed relief at the choice of Petraeus, believing the U.S. strategy aimed at minimizing civilian casualties and bolstering the Afghan government would continue.

Waheed Omar, spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, said Petraeus "will also be a trusted partner." Karzai had been a lonely voice in speaking out in support of McChrystal. But Omar said of Petraeus: "He is the most informed person and the most obvious choice for this job."

The White House said late Wednesday that Obama had spoken with Karzai about McChrystal's replacement.

Until Petraeus is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, British Lt. Gen. Nick Parker, the deputy commander of the NATO-led forces, is assuming command of the troops, according to British Prime Minister David Cameron.

In a statement, the British prime minister's office said Cameron had spoken to Parker on Wednesday and the general had told him that the mission in Afghanistan "would not miss a beat" during this period.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said McChrystal should have resigned because his strategy had "clearly failed."

"The problems between American leaders over Afghan issues very clearly show that the policy and the strategy of America has failed," he said. "They cannot win this war because the Afghan nation is united and they are committed to defeating American forces in Afghanistan."
McChrystal was pretty much doomed the minute he started talking shit about officials in the Administration to the press. It's something you can't do as a even a Col or Lt. Col let alone a General (officers aren't suppose but lower ranks can get away with it, as usually the press will shield them or the polticos won't care enough).

I know some on the board don't care for General Petareous but he is the best pick, being the Army's best guy for COIN. If he pulls this off he'll be a fucking rock star in the Pentagon and the Republicans will practically be throwing hookers through his window to get him to run on their ticket. For that matter the Democrats may to, it's unlikely in the extreme that Biden will run for President in 2016.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
General Havoc
Mr. Party-Killbot
Posts: 5245
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:12 pm
19
Location: The City that is not Frisco
Contact:

#2

Post by General Havoc »

Well I do care for Petraeus. I think he's one of the best we've got in the upper echelons. I am fairly confident he will be able to sort this mess out to the satisfaction of those concerned.
Gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair...

Havoc: "So basically if you side against him, he summons Cthulu."
Hotfoot: "Yes, which is reasonable."
User avatar
Cynical Cat
Arch-Magician
Posts: 11930
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:53 pm
19
Location: Ice Sarcophagus outside a ruined Jedi Temple
Contact:

#3

Post by Cynical Cat »

My dislike of Petareous (such as it is) is based solely on the dog and pony show the Bush administration ran and he participated in. Keeping in mind that Bush was his commander and Shineseki had already been sacked by Bush for the high crime of truthfully answering a question put to him by a member of Congress, it's quite possible the general felt that he was duty bound to participate or that participation was the lesser of two evils (given that whoever took up the job after him would probably not be as good at counter-insurgency warfare). So while I despise the incident and understand why people dislike him because of it, I have no animus against the general.
It's not that I'm unforgiving, it's that most of the people who wrong me are unrepentant assholes.
User avatar
SirNitram
The All-Seeing Eye
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:13 pm
19
Location: Behind you, duh!
Contact:

#4

Post by SirNitram »

Picking Petraeus was a masterstroke of political movements by Obama, defusing the right-wing gibberings on daring to do what the rules required.

As for Petraeus as a general.. Well, we'll see. He's a COINite as well, so this should help.
Half-Damned, All Hero.

Tev: You're happy. You're Plotting. You're Evil.
Me: Evil is so inappropriate. I'm ruthless.
Tev: You're turning me on.

I Am Rage. You Will Know My Fury.
User avatar
The Minx
Pleasure Kitten
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:29 pm
17

#5

Post by The Minx »

After what McChrystal did it was almost inevitable that it would come to this, unless Obama wanted to become appear completely spineless, and lose his credibility as C-in-C. I'm more surprised at McChrystal's behavior, it was pretty bad judgement to pull something like that.

Petraeus would be a great choice for this, only problem is that this is a step down for him career wise. I hope it's only temporary.
Librium Arcana resident ⑨-ball
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#6

Post by frigidmagi »

Yes, technicality it is. It is a step down in responsibility.

However taking the job and becoming the guy "who saved Iraq and Afghanistan" isn't a step down. If he wins he turns into a rock star.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
SirNitram
The All-Seeing Eye
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:13 pm
19
Location: Behind you, duh!
Contact:

#7

Post by SirNitram »

frigidmagi wrote:Yes, technicality it is. It is a step down in responsibility.

However taking the job and becoming the guy "who saved Iraq and Afghanistan" isn't a step down. If he wins he turns into a rock star.
I'm a little uncomfortable with declaring that, given Iraq doesn't look so saved. But this will make him a rock-star.. Or a has-been. If Afghanistan breaks him, like it's broken every other general, the popular view of him will plummet. Nevermind he went against a nation that has centuries of practice repelling outsiders.
Half-Damned, All Hero.

Tev: You're happy. You're Plotting. You're Evil.
Me: Evil is so inappropriate. I'm ruthless.
Tev: You're turning me on.

I Am Rage. You Will Know My Fury.
User avatar
General Havoc
Mr. Party-Killbot
Posts: 5245
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:12 pm
19
Location: The City that is not Frisco
Contact:

#8

Post by General Havoc »

Compare Iraq to how it was doing three years ago. If you define "saved" as "peaceful as Norway", then every person who ever tried to rule Iraq was a dismal failure, including Saladin, Alexander, and Suleiman the Great.

And as to Afghanistan breaking generals, there's a first time for everything. I wouldn't say it broke Franks, after all.
Gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair...

Havoc: "So basically if you side against him, he summons Cthulu."
Hotfoot: "Yes, which is reasonable."
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#9

Post by frigidmagi »

Iraq has been preserved as a nation and avoided civil war. It will also continue as a republic. It is not a liberal, peaceful, western state, bluntly that was impossible to create without completely destroying Iraqi society first. Given how many people were convinced in 2006 and 07 that Iraq was heading for an utter meltdown and going to become a screaming caldron's of bloodshed and death...

I would call it a save.

But maybe I'm aiming low. I mean I don't even care if Iraq becomes a state opposed to the US, as long as it remains a more or less free republic... Well in that case I figure it for a matter of time before the rest of our system seeps in.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
SirNitram
The All-Seeing Eye
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:13 pm
19
Location: Behind you, duh!
Contact:

#10

Post by SirNitram »

General Havoc wrote:Compare Iraq to how it was doing three years ago. If you define "saved" as "peaceful as Norway", then every person who ever tried to rule Iraq was a dismal failure, including Saladin, Alexander, and Suleiman the Great.

And as to Afghanistan breaking generals, there's a first time for everything. I wouldn't say it broke Franks, after all.
I don't aim for as peaceful as Norway. I aim for a month without a bombing.
Half-Damned, All Hero.

Tev: You're happy. You're Plotting. You're Evil.
Me: Evil is so inappropriate. I'm ruthless.
Tev: You're turning me on.

I Am Rage. You Will Know My Fury.
User avatar
General Havoc
Mr. Party-Killbot
Posts: 5245
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:12 pm
19
Location: The City that is not Frisco
Contact:

#11

Post by General Havoc »

SirNitram wrote:I don't aim for as peaceful as Norway. I aim for a month without a bombing.
For that, we'd probably have to invade Iran.
Gaze upon my works, ye mighty, and despair...

Havoc: "So basically if you side against him, he summons Cthulu."
Hotfoot: "Yes, which is reasonable."
User avatar
Cynical Cat
Arch-Magician
Posts: 11930
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:53 pm
19
Location: Ice Sarcophagus outside a ruined Jedi Temple
Contact:

#12

Post by Cynical Cat »

frigidmagi wrote:Iraq has been preserved as a nation and avoided civil war. It will also continue as a republic. It is not a liberal, peaceful, western state, bluntly that was impossible to create without completely destroying Iraqi society first. Given how many people were convinced in 2006 and 07 that Iraq was heading for an utter meltdown and going to become a screaming caldron's of bloodshed and death...

I would call it a save.

But maybe I'm aiming low. I mean I don't even care if Iraq becomes a state opposed to the US, as long as it remains a more or less free republic... Well in that case I figure it for a matter of time before the rest of our system seeps in.
Iraq didn't avoid civil war. Remember Lancet? Six hundred thousand extra deaths just from the time under the study alone? The death toll dropping in Baghdad dropping after Sunnis started leaving the city en masse and the bribing of various armed faction with surge money? The civil war happened. The US backed majority Shia won and a good chunk of the Sunni threw in the towel.

I'm not holding that against Petraeous. That's pretty much the hand he was dealt and he managed to do a good job of making lemonade. It shouldn't be necessary to list all the ways the situation was fucked up.

As for Petraeous's position, I'm with frigid. Technically, on an organizational chart, it's a step down. The reality is that he's being handed a victor's crown while being given the single most important task the US military has at the moment.
It's not that I'm unforgiving, it's that most of the people who wrong me are unrepentant assholes.
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#13

Post by frigidmagi »

Iraq didn't avoid civil war. Remember Lancet? Six hundred thousand extra deaths just from the time under the study alone?
I read that study Cat, it say 100 to 600 deaths that Iraqi responders believed were caused by the occupation of the US. The variation alone makes it rather... iffy as a source to me.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
Cynical Cat
Arch-Magician
Posts: 11930
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:53 pm
19
Location: Ice Sarcophagus outside a ruined Jedi Temple
Contact:

#14

Post by Cynical Cat »

frigidmagi wrote:
Iraq didn't avoid civil war. Remember Lancet? Six hundred thousand extra deaths just from the time under the study alone?
I read that study Cat, it say 100 to 600 deaths that Iraqi responders believed were caused by the occupation of the US. The variation alone makes it rather... iffy as a source to me.
It doesn't. There were two studies. First was 100k, with Falluja left out, October 29, 2004. The second is the 600K, October 11, 2006. There is a wide range of error with both estimates and really, that shouldn't surprise anyone as estimating death tolls in civil war is going to be tricky. The methodology and the wide range of error was perfectly acceptable to everyone involved when it was dealing with Bosnia, Rowanda, and other horror shows.

Of course, even in the Lancet numbers are too high that doesn't mean there wasn't a civil war.
It's not that I'm unforgiving, it's that most of the people who wrong me are unrepentant assholes.
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#15

Post by frigidmagi »

I find the lancet's margin of error loose as hell. If you came up up to me and told me there were between 100,000 to 600,000 people over the ridge I would throw you out and tell you not to come back until you had a real number. A margin of error that may be in excess of 50% means bluntly it's not useful. Hell a margin of error in excess of 20% means you have to throw it out without question.

Also your definition of a civil war seems a bit loose to Cat. I'll admit there isn't a fast or hard definition. Alot of disagreements. Going over the requirements set in the Geneva Convention however:
The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."
Some of this was met, some of this wasn't. I mean the biggest threat to the central government in Iraq was Al Sadr's milita and they never held more then parts of various cities, much like our own urban gangs, only much better armed and with even worse aim. Hell the group that bests fits those requirements are the Kurds. Are they in a state of war with the central government?

Don't get me wrong, it got bad. There was alot of dying and Iraq came real close to a real civil war. But there wasn't one. The Government held and things calmed down.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
SirNitram
The All-Seeing Eye
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:13 pm
19
Location: Behind you, duh!
Contact:

#16

Post by SirNitram »

Hell a margin of error in excess of 20% means you have to throw it out without question.
I missed that lesson in statistics.

Maintaining a Confidence Level of 95% means, in situations like this, you need a wider margin of error. Of course, the distribution should follow the Normal, meaning the vast likelyhood was in the middle of the range. In short, the second second, from 426,396 to 942,636 in deaths at 95 percent confidence, should mean the real number is around 650,000. Which is around where their official estimate was.

What is the Normal? It's broadly mound-shaped, with the bottom bits being at either extreme. It was worked out to be useful to describe things which were also affected by many, many factors we could not compensate for. In short, everything.

The actual number, if you're insisting on something more specific than the range like every useful poll, is 13.3 per thousand(10.9 - 16.1). That was the Lancet's second study mortality rate. The pre-war mortality rate was 5.5 per thousand(4.3 - 7.1). Even taking the very edge of both, the least possible outcome while remaining in the confidence margin, the increase in mortality was 3.8 per thousand.

Of course, because the second study was so politically reviled, an official investigation began. John Hopkins then censured Burnham not for any statistical nonsense.. But he had collected names, a massive no-no. Ethic issue, yes, issue with study results, no.

This same method and setup has been used in many other places, and no one complained. The reason Lancet is complained about is because it's political to say alot of people died after the invasion due to violence(Coalition, rebel, etc).
Half-Damned, All Hero.

Tev: You're happy. You're Plotting. You're Evil.
Me: Evil is so inappropriate. I'm ruthless.
Tev: You're turning me on.

I Am Rage. You Will Know My Fury.
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#17

Post by frigidmagi »

Course that does nothing to address my objection. Again, I'm perfectly fine with admitting alot of people died after the invasion. It's the truth after all but giving me an estimate that varies in such an extreme number is rather useless for use. Not to mention Nitram you agreed with me that it was a useless survey back in 2007.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
SirNitram
The All-Seeing Eye
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:13 pm
19
Location: Behind you, duh!
Contact:

#18

Post by SirNitram »

frigidmagi wrote:Course that does nothing to address my objection. Again, I'm perfectly fine with admitting alot of people died after the invasion. It's the truth after all but giving me an estimate that varies in such an extreme number is rather useless for use. Not to mention Nitram you agreed with me that it was a useless survey back in 2007.
And three years later, I know more about everything used in it, and I can tell you it's far from useless. Your argument is, in these parts, if I can read it right.

1. It's too big a variable! The margin of error is 2.6 deaths per thousand. That's the real margin of error. The rest is simple math to move from 'per thousand' to 'whole of Iraq, whole of the post-war.'.

2. Margin of error over 20%, throw it out! As I mentioned.. There's no basis for this in any statistical course or book I've read. There is nothing to your 'twenty percent, throw out' claim, it's made up. There's only one useless margin of error, and that's 50%.

3. The range Lancet reported was 100k - 600k. Which is a flat out lie. Two surveys. One delivered a most-likely of 100k, the other a most-likely of 600k. The real distribution of the second? 426,396 - 942,636. The margin of error was 224k.

Did I get your objections? Any more?
Half-Damned, All Hero.

Tev: You're happy. You're Plotting. You're Evil.
Me: Evil is so inappropriate. I'm ruthless.
Tev: You're turning me on.

I Am Rage. You Will Know My Fury.
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#19

Post by frigidmagi »

2. Margin of error over 20%, throw it out! As I mentioned.. There's no basis for this in any statistical course or book I've read. There is nothing to your 'twenty percent, throw out' claim, it's made up. There's only one useless margin of error, and that's 50%.
Bluntly, whether or not it was covered in any course you took, if you have a margin of error of over 20% in anything I've used these for, it becomes worthless. On the flip side, when I was using them it was for things like average mine per meter or bullets fired or how many males in an average village. I'll concede maybe the requirements are tighter.
3. The range Lancet reported was 100k - 600k. Which is a flat out lie. Two surveys. One delivered a most-likely of 100k, the other a most-likely of 600k. The real distribution of the second? 426,396 - 942,636. The margin of error was 224k.
This I did not know, when I read the report it was 100k to 600k, can I get a source? The distribution is still around 500k though, which doesn't help. Best it gives me is "Alot of people died violent deaths in Iraq" Which I already knew. Granted, again maybe I'm approaching this differently but if I had to estimate causalities, this study wouldn't cut it and would get me disciplined pretty fast.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
The Minx
Pleasure Kitten
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:29 pm
17

#20

Post by The Minx »

It's about the order of magnitude, frigid. The Lancet studies tell us that it was under a million people who died, but still hundreds of thousands. As opposed to, say, tens of thousands (like Iraq Body Count claimed) or several millions. It's not precise, but it does help us get a handle on the overall scale of the situation.
Librium Arcana resident ⑨-ball
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#21

Post by frigidmagi »

I suppose that's fair enough. Although for my own part I would say what the Iraqi Body Count Project does is give an absolute minimum of deaths. Given their method their count is gonna be low, my experience is that confirmed deaths are always lower then the actual death count in a combat situation.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
The Minx
Pleasure Kitten
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:29 pm
17

#22

Post by The Minx »

frigidmagi wrote:I suppose that's fair enough. Although for my own part I would say what the Iraqi Body Count Project does is give an absolute minimum of deaths. Given their method their count is gonna be low, my experience is that confirmed deaths are always lower then the actual death count in a combat situation.
Sure, that's true. :smile: I just mentioned it because I've heard some people elsewhere speak of the Iraqi Body Count figures as though they were an accurate estimate rather than a lower limit.
Librium Arcana resident ⑨-ball
User avatar
SirNitram
The All-Seeing Eye
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:13 pm
19
Location: Behind you, duh!
Contact:

#23

Post by SirNitram »

frigidmagi wrote:
2. Margin of error over 20%, throw it out! As I mentioned.. There's no basis for this in any statistical course or book I've read. There is nothing to your 'twenty percent, throw out' claim, it's made up. There's only one useless margin of error, and that's 50%.
Bluntly, whether or not it was covered in any course you took, if you have a margin of error of over 20% in anything I've used these for, it becomes worthless. On the flip side, when I was using them it was for things like average mine per meter or bullets fired or how many males in an average village. I'll concede maybe the requirements are tighter.
Yea, when dealing with those things, 20% either way is not acceptable. 'There's a landmine between 20 and 60 feet forward.. You'll know it when you find it..'

However, population change within an entire nation, 20% is actually rather low. Consider estimations of undocumented in this country. They don't know exactly 12 million undocumented; it's derived from the census, which has issues with response bias, and time between censuses.
3. The range Lancet reported was 100k - 600k. Which is a flat out lie. Two surveys. One delivered a most-likely of 100k, the other a most-likely of 600k. The real distribution of the second? 426,396 - 942,636. The margin of error was 224k.
This I did not know, when I read the report it was 100k to 600k, can I get a source? The distribution is still around 500k though, which doesn't help. Best it gives me is "Alot of people died violent deaths in Iraq" Which I already knew. Granted, again maybe I'm approaching this differently but if I had to estimate causalities, this study wouldn't cut it and would get me disciplined pretty fast.
PDF warning.

The first study Link. It was released in 2004, and had a number of clusters, excluding Fallujah(I beleive due to security concerns during the study period).

The second study Link. It was released in 2006. More households were interviewed, but this was also considerably later in the war.
Half-Damned, All Hero.

Tev: You're happy. You're Plotting. You're Evil.
Me: Evil is so inappropriate. I'm ruthless.
Tev: You're turning me on.

I Am Rage. You Will Know My Fury.
Post Reply