Army's Methodology for Calculating Sectarian Violence Finally Revealed

The good people over at TPM filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out exactly what counting system General Petraeus was using when he went before Congress and said that sectarian violence is down in Iraq. A number of independent assessments and outside experts either contradicted his claims or threw serious doubt on them.

Here are some answers. First, any violence perpetrated by Sunnis on other Sunnis or by Shiites or other Shiites doesn't count. While that seems like a natural enough thing to exclude from a definition of "sectarian violence," it means that the general level of crime/lawlessness in Iraq is scrubbed out of Petraeus' numbers. It also means that when the sect of a perpetrator of a violent crime isn't immediately obvious, the authorities have the ability to do some investigating and deducing, and then to label the attack as either sectarian or non-sectarian. And those authorities, be they Iraqi or American, absolutely have an agenda.

Second, attacks on U.S. forces don't count. Again, a reasonable thing to exclude from a tabulation of sectarian attacks. But Petraeus should have presented statistics on the number of attacks on U.S. forces with the same frequency and prominence that he presented stats on sectarian violence.

Third, attacks on the Iraqi government or Iraqi security forces are not included. This is just preposterous. The Shiites control the government and have infiltrated the security forces. The Sunnis insurgents had control of the country for decades and are now on the outs. This can't be stressed enough: when insurgents attack the government, their intentions are sectarian. Whatever other motivations there might be, they cannot be teased out from sect-based hatred and jockeying for power.

When Sunni insurgents attack the government or the government's corrupt goons in uniform, they do so because their targets are Shiites. That's reality. When the Army believes otherwise it is an act of willful ignorance meant to deceive the American people.

Comments

The “new left” will try anything to keep whiping the mud off of MoveOn that they dumped all over themselves in the first place. Mug that I might add now sticks to the wall of Congress.

What stands out most in this opinion pieces is the sheer ugly audacity of self righteousness that its writer holds in his "I know better then the General" flippant attitude.

Hears a heads up for ya whining boy!

The General is more than A1 at the highest levels of or military and whether you like it or not (1) he can do what ever he believes is rights to carry out his mission in the face of the enemy, (2) We are more then lucky to have him one our side. (3) I, along with the greater majority of Americans here at home, and especially American over in Iraq, and the Iraqi Military believe in him, in his concept, and in his leadership concerning the known realties over there. Of which you can speak nothing of having any first had knowledge of.

Move on Mother Joke.

Brought to you by: SMART, FEARLESS COMMENTS

Posted by: Franco on 09/24/07 at 12:10 PM Respond

Franco, get the straight dope on your General. Forget whether he was honest or not this time around; try on these facts instead:

1) Until his deployment to Iraq, Petreaus had no combat experience. He was known as a politician's general, and has his sights set on political office, not military engagement.

2) Petreaus was charged with building the Iraqi security forces, and has testified incorrectly three times, since 2003, about the number of ready Iraqi troops, twice exaggerating by a factor of 30x. 4 years later, he's still claiming progress, but admits the forces are not self-sustainable.

3) It was Petreaus who reported the discovery of "bio-weapons labs" in Iraq several months after the invasion, even though the administration already had hard intelligence reports declaring the trailors contained nothing more than weather-balloon (or may spy balloon) inflating systems.

4) Military officers, NCO's and grunts are all on record as having used the term General Betrayus years ago.

The conservatives never used to worship generals with no combat experience, who failed in their assigned duties, were disrespected by their own troops, and who were on record as repeatedly pitching false data. But that was then, and this is now. Failures worshipping failures is the order of the day, it seems.

Posted by: PunkyAmerica on 09/24/07 at 12:32 PM Respond

I am a fan of the phrase "SMART, FEARLESS COMMENTS."

Posted by: Jonathan Stein on 09/24/07 at 1:02 PM Respond

Franco...sounds like you're right. Once you enlist and get over there, send me a postcard. We need less fearless commenters and more fearless soldiers. I commend you for standing up for your ideals.

Posted by: Justin on 09/25/07 at 5:36 AM Respond