Doubting Petraeus

General Petraeus is testifying to Congress this week, and liberals who disagree with what he has to say are doing what they always do, namely, accusing him of being a liar (usually using slightly softer language than that). You should have heard them on Air America yesterday convicting him of lying before he uttered a single word. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: why must liberals accuse people of lying at the drop of a hat? The answer, I assume, is that they lack the intellectual firepower to deal with the arguments themselves, so they take aim at the messenger (which is always much easier and puts much less of a burden on one's higher brain centers). Perhaps there is a better explanation, but that's the one that leaps to my mind.

Here is Dick Durbin and someone named David Walker weighing in:

Meanwhile, the methodology the military is using to gauge violence in Baghdad has already come under fire.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, has accused the White House of twisting data to suit its needs.

"By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working," said the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, addressing a Washington think tank last week.


Durbin's criticism was echoed by David Walker, head of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, who also raised questions about how the statistics were compiled.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday, Walker said he is not comfortable with the methodology used to track the death toll driven by sectarian violence.

For instance, he said, a body found with a gunshot to the front of the head is classified as an ordinary crime, while a body with a gunshot to the back of the head is attributed to sectarian violence.

Walker said he would expect such a methodology to reflect a reduction in sectarian violence.

This is ludicrous. If Durbin or Walker have a problem with the statistics, they should verify those statistics for themselves. Reflexively doubting Petraeus and the U.S. military without backing up your skepticism is just indulging yourself in egocentric grandstanding. It might feel good, but it's not a useful endeavor.

Glenn Reynolds links to an opinion piece by John McCain and Joseph Lieberman (hey, there's a president/vice-president combination that would get my vote) in which they suggest Listening to Petraeus instead of calling him a liar. They say:

Consider how the situation has changed. A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory. Today it is being driven out of its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces by the surge in U.S. forces and those of our Iraqi allies. A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%.

This assertion squares with some statistics that appeared in the CNN article about Durbin and Walker:

"A U.S. military chart indicates monthly casualties in Baghdad, which spiked in November at 2,200, dropped to 980 last month. The chart does not break the casualties down into deaths and injuries."

If you are on the left, you are no doubt deeply suspicious of this claim, and you are not going to let these neocons and the military fool you (no siree, Bob). But, as I said, instead of wallowing in your deep suspicions, why don't you verify the numbers for yourself? It's easy. All you have to do is to check media reports of deaths in Baghdad! Media reports are independent, so they can provide a check on what the military claims. Don't you want to know the truth? Or do you just want to revel in your own internal skepticism about what the military reports? Personally, I want to know the truth, but that's just me. And that's why I check the media reports at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (ICCC).

What do those reports have to say about casualties in Baghdad these days compared to peak levels? You have do some work to add up casualty figures for Baghdad, but when you do, you find that they were high in fall -- much higher than they are now. Their data suggest that the peak occurred in January, with 1221 killed (the November figure was also high and came in at 976). In August, the number was 597, which is 49% of its peak level. Gee, that number is pretty close to what the military reports. Violence in Baghdad is less than half of what it was at its peak. Here's a chart:


It's fine to doubt the military, but your mind set should be such that when their claims are independently validated, you adjust your position accordingly. If you don't, well, it says something about you.

UPDATE: Here's Moveon.org presenting their position:



Is that where liberal America is today? I hope not, but it sometimes seems that way. Now read this article by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. He tracks statistics about Iraq more carefully than anyone (including me!). Here is some of what he says:

Petraeus Doesn’t Cook the Books
Just the facts.

By Michael O'Hanlon

For those reading this after watching General David Petraeus’s Monday testimony, I strongly suspect that my main argument will have become apparent to many: General Petraeus is a straight shooter who does not and will not cook the books.
...
On the violence, in keeping with a Saturday New York Times article by Michael Gordon that reflects current DoD data on the country, Petraeus will argue that the overall situation has improved substantially this year. He will be right to do so, based on virtually any primary-source data I have seen (in my capacity as co-author of Brookings’s “Iraq Index”). Depending on which category of violence one emphasizes, and which starting and end points one uses for the comparison, most categories of killings are down 20 to 50-percent since the surge began. This is true for overall civilian fatalities from all causes, including victims of extrajudicial killings (basically reprisal assassinations), murders, and for the most part, car- and truck-bombing victims.

But those are facts. Moveon.org and Air America are not interested in those pesky things. Just go read through Moveon.org's attempt to substantiate their attempted character assassination if you don't believe me.