« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Pentagon officials are angry with the Government Accountability Office, whose recent report disputes that the surge has reduced sectarian violence in Iraq. And with good reason: over the weekend, General David Petraeus boasted to The Australian that sectarian violence was down a staggering 75 percent in Baghdad, a "hugely important" figure he surely wants to trumpet before Congress next week. An anonymous DOD official insisted to the Washington Post that the GAO is "factually incorrect" on this important metric, but provided no evidence for the claim. And that fits a pattern for the Pentagon's gripes with the GAO.
Repeatedly throughout the document (pdf), the GAO takes a note of caution on sectarian violence, which is the thirteenth benchmark. It says it's "not clear" whether the violence is in fact down, since "measuring such violence requires understanding the perpetrator's intent, which may not be known." Recall that in its July report, the White House plainly stated that "trends supplied over time by [the U.S. military command in Iraq] demonstrate a decrease in sectarian violence, particularly in Baghdad, since the beginning of [the Baghdad security plan, known in Arabic as] Operation Fardh al-Qunun."
The GAO instead suggests substituting a measurement of total civilian casualties. And there the news isn't so good: the GAO reports that the "average number of daily attacks remained about the same over the last six months." A graph, based on data from the U.S. military command in Iraq, shows that from February to July -- the lifetime of the surge so far -- average daily attacks on civilians hover at a bit higher than 20 per day (click to enlarge):
Now, Petraeus can make a case that the GAO isn't being fair to him. The GAO is measuring civilian casualties, and by extension sectarian violence all throughout Iraq, while he's talking about a reduction in sectarian violence in Baghdad alone. Similarly, there are proxy measurements available to tally sectarian violence: binding bodies together are hallmarks of sectarian death-squad killings, as are close-in murders with implements like drills (a favorite of Shiite militias). Often militias or insurgents will leave a victim's ID in plain view as a way of indicating the victim was killed for his or her background. Certainly attacks on mosques count as sectarian violence.
It's true that none of these measurements are exact, but the GAO suggests that measuring sectarian violence is a matter of mind-reading. Petraeus will have an opportunity next week to explain how his command tallies sectarianism, and Congress will have an opportunity to inquire how sound his measurements are.
But that's not the only instance when the Pentagon foisted dubious data on the GAO. According to a critique written by General Mark Kimmitt, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, DOD wanted the GAO not to attribute a decline in readiness for Iraqi Army battalions to "sectarian and militia influences." GAO refused, citing the Pentagon's last quarterly report to Congress, which itself attributed the readiness decline to sectarianism and militia infiltration. (We highlighted the Pentagon's proclivity for quietly revising its quarterly assessments last week.) Indeed, retired Marine General Jim Jones, who led an independent inquiry into the Iraqi police, will report to Congress tomorrow about pervasive sectarianism in the force.
Kimmitt wasn't done. GAO reported that only 65 percent of Iraqi security forces actually report for duty at any given time. The Pentagon wanted that number raised to 71 percent, citing "accuracy." Again the GAO refused to change the number, on the grounds that "we do not have documentation for the new figure."
When I inquired last week about the basis for measuring given security trends -- in particular sectarian violence -- I was bounced from offices between Baghdad and Washington, and ultimately got no reply. If Kimmitt's reply to the GAO is any indication, the Pentagon is banking on the prospect that investigators will take its data on face value, no matter how poorly supported or dubious it appears.
More on the guts of the GAO report soon.
Comments (14)
moondancer wrote on September 5, 2007 10:12 AM:Well lets see who has the louder bullhorn, the truth speakers or the professional liars of bushco. A preview might be the congressional panel last night on PBS Newshour.
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 10:13 AM:OK, let me get this straight. If sectarian killings are down 75% but the total number of killings is constant, that would mean that non-sectarian killing (whatever that is) is up 300%. Hooray!!!
Jolly Ranchero wrote on September 5, 2007 10:23 AM:The Penty is really fighting over 6 freakin' percent? I'm surprise Kimmit didn't go all, "99.98%, and prove me wrong, bitches!"
Really, at this point, GenPat just makes up whatever he wants. Everything that comes out of his mouth is considered Gospel by the media. Nobody DARES question what The Big Bad Baghdad General says; it must be true, cuz, ya know, he's THERE and we're not.
dwd wrote on September 5, 2007 10:48 AM:Good article. But you might want to correct the "there" you used for "their." (Sorry, I am a teacher - professional jerk)
thepeoplechoose wrote on September 5, 2007 11:18 AM:You really do have to wonder what the DOD and WH are thinking. Their reputations for getting stuff right is in the tank. They can't really expect a pass on things that aren't fully supported by verifiable documentation. They have created this credibility gap all on their own and have no where to turn. This is largely due to the fact they have decided to go it alone on so many things that they now find themselves in a political wasteland without an oasis closer than a zillion light years away.
This is actually bad for the country because if they happened across something very important to national security the burden would be on them to substantiate any claim with probably higher than typical confirmation. If Bush/Cheney and Rumsfeld hadn't jerked everybody around so we wouldn't have this problem. Too much of what has gone on is now viewed as contrived so nobody will belive them anymore. This is a terrible and potentially dangerous predicament. Petraeus is under the gun to aid in restoring the trust of the DOD but probably isn't used to being on the short end of the stick. He can thank the WH and Rumsfeld for that. Squabbling with the GAO isn't helping his case any. Petraeus is going to have a hard sell next week. Friggin' mission impossible.
jerri wrote on September 5, 2007 11:26 AM:Its time to drop the GOP talking point that the violence is down in Baghdad because the shia have taken over sunni neighborhoods. A more plausible explanation for the reduction in violence in Baghdad is depopulation of the city. Imagine what NY city would be like if you reduced the population by 4 million. Closed all but one bridges spanning the East River and one bridge going over the Hudson. Electricity and water available for maybe 1 hour a day. Erect 15ft cement barriers or dig ditches around selected neighborhoods. The surge has reduced violence because no one lives in Baghdad any more.
Mark Dongu wrote on September 5, 2007 11:56 AM:We should never forget that the 'Great Building' has been totally politicized since the surge began. Only vetted Bush people are getting anywhere near a camera, a microphone or numbers. That area is totally controlled by the Pentagon. We also need to remember that the years of the military can do no wrong mentality must be left at the door when reviewing the upcoming report, and supporting data. Witness the attacks from surge designers and supporters about the GAO report numbers. What we're getting here is a Pentagon song & dance routine not seen since the Tet Offensive. Maybe this process will make America wake up that the Pentagon is now officially part of the Bush Political Arm.
donviti wrote on September 5, 2007 12:04 PM:so let me get this straight, you mean that they set benchmarks that were intentionally easily to disagree on how the definition of progess was defined?
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 12:09 PM:"Will all who died by sectarian violence please raise your hands. Nobody... I didn't think so..."
I was talking to someone the other day and somehow, the Iraq War came up. This person was adamant that it was good to attack Iraq because Hussein was a dictator. He, however left out "Hussein" because he did not know the dictator's name... or what he had done... or the conflict between the various regions or sects... or the fact that we supported him against Iran...or...
In fact, the only information in his possession (which I was able to discern) was that Iraq had a dictator who was going to attack us because he was evil and had weapons of mass destruction and helped the guys who attacked us on 9/11 so we had to attack him... and, of course, that Bush is a good president.
This guy is also 30 years old, married with four children, has a huge DVD collection and is supposed to be a top notch video game player.
The visit was a good lesson for me. I now have a much better understanding of why we are in Iraq... and how Bush is able to relate to the common folk... and why any attempts to save our democracy is probably a lost cause...
Oh... did I say he had never heard of anyone named Petraeus?
theswan wrote on September 5, 2007 1:41 PM:Your watching the undoing of American Democracy. When Generals are put front and center to make the decisions that Congress has failed to do.
seamus wrote on September 5, 2007 2:12 PM:Osama Bin Laden has truely dismantled our system of goverment and the credibility that it used to have. And Bush just hides behind the military, who will apparently set the policy for the coming while.
America may become the likes of a Pakistan, or an Israel before we even know what happened.
America's complacency and Osama are a bad combination.
GWB must be rewarded with a set of handcuffs.
I thought the Americans didn't keep a count of civilian deaths, why hasn't anyone asked Petraeus how he can count civilian dead now but couldn't 2 years ago? One has to wonder about the mind of the American elite at this point. The Vietnam war lasted years beyond the point when the outcome was obvious, yet decision makers became school boys arguing over baseball numbers as a means of evading the implications of what was obvious. This article indicates that we are repeating this same phenomenon here.
Anonymous wrote on September 5, 2007 6:44 PM:"The Vietnam war lasted years beyond the point when the outcome was obvious, yet decision makers became school boys arguing over baseball numbers as a means of evading the implications of what was obvious."
If I'm not mistaken, the Vietnam "Conflict" lasted longer because, according to FOIA documents, it was necessary for both sides to not lose face... much more important than the deaths of a few hundred thousand unimportant people...
bjobotts wrote on September 5, 2007 7:37 PM:It's amazing congress is giving any weight to Petraeus or his report since his obvious PR surge recently. You could predict 6mos ago what the General would report and now we find him doing power point presentations and arguing with non-biased GAO reports to push the Bush agenda. He, like Bush is no longer credible when it comes to Iraq and pretending his report is valid reason to continue Bush's policy is ignoring reality just to avoid conflict. I hope somebody stops with all the "professional courtesy" crap and tells the General he has a hidden political agenda that is deceitful and lacks integrity.
Roberta wrote on September 5, 2007 9:30 PM:Boy, Rove sure dropped the ball on replacing higher-ups in the GAO with bushies (is this why he had to leave?). That's all it would have taken to get a report that the Admin and Pentagon would find more salubrious.
I guess he didn't realize the problems honest accountants and actuaries could cause them. Yay to the GAO for holding firm to what, by all reports, is a careful, well-documented report. Boo hoo to those who don't like it.