07-22-2005, 10:19 AM | #1 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
DoD Report to Congress on Iraq
The report in its entirety can be obtained here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2...721secstab.pdf
Summary: Quote:
I haven't read the whole thing yet and I'll hold off on comments until after I do so. Last edited by Raiders Army : 07-22-2005 at 08:31 PM. |
|||
07-22-2005, 11:37 AM | #2 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
Quote:
Boy did they get that right... |
|
07-22-2005, 01:20 PM | #3 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Does it mention how Iraq's power generation has gone down in the past year and most people are without electricity for most of the day? Or does it mention the number of attacks per day?Those are major points that I would think would be somewhere on the summary, but it looks like a whitewash.
|
07-22-2005, 01:36 PM | #4 | ||
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, do you even read stuff, or just spout off your Administration attacks whenever given anything close to an opportunity?
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
||
07-22-2005, 01:44 PM | #5 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2005, 01:49 PM | #6 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
Pages 6 & 7 of the report, then. Several graphs for you. Shows that attacks peaked right before the elections, are slowly going down, and remain limited to select parts of the country (several areas of the country are seeing almost no attack activity). And yes, it even includes a graph of electricity supplied. The summary seems to match that fairly well. I see the summary lines quoted as saying "we've beat them back some, but they are still active" which matches the graphs showing the attacks reducing but still at significant levels. The goal of the summary is not to present detailed numbers, that's what the report is for (and does). It's to give a quick overview.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
07-22-2005, 02:08 PM | #7 | ||||
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Quote:
It does. Daily Electricity Supplied. June 17th, 2004 - 80k MWH were produced December 30th, 2005 - Dipped down to 70k MWH June 17th, 2005 - 110k MWH were produced It also mentions that the daily load requirements are no longer 110k MWH per day which they achieved for Iraq but are now closer to 150k MWH. Quote:
It does give you attacks per week averages. Peaked in Jun 04 - Nov 04 (Achieved Sovereignty timeframe) and almost achieved same levels in Nov 04 - Feb 05 (Election Timeframe) at over 500 attacks per week. It shows that the numbers in this stage (Pre-constitution phase) the attacks are just over 400 attacks a week. It also shows that 80% of the attacks happen in 4 provinces (Baghdad, Al Anbar, Ninawa, and Salahad Din). Quote:
Last edited by Dutch : 07-22-2005 at 02:11 PM. |
||||
07-22-2005, 02:13 PM | #8 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Interesting that the requirements for electricity have increased by nearly 50%! That is definitely a good sign.
|
07-22-2005, 02:27 PM | #9 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2005, 02:35 PM | #10 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
#1: I cut and pasted the summary.
#2: There is a space between Raiders and Army. Thank you. |
07-22-2005, 02:35 PM | #11 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
What is misleading about the graphs? The report shows lots of attacks before the elections, clearly shows the dips in electricity production at certain times, the summary points out that there are still issues, ... It seems like a pretty balanced report to me, especially as I believe (and according to other reports today, more Iraqis believe) that things ARE getting better over there. Doesn't mean they are good yet, but they are definitely heading down that road. But since the media only focuses on the negatives, no one gets to see the positives, and when the DoD releases a report showing some of the positives, no one believes them because all they see are the negative media reports day after day after day. This despite the fact that the DoD report backs up its conclusion with numbers, while the media just throws around some pictures and opinion pieces.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
07-22-2005, 02:40 PM | #12 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2005, 02:44 PM | #13 |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
I believe this is called attacking the messenger.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
07-22-2005, 02:48 PM | #14 | ||||||
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Some good things to note:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Overall, I'd say it's a fair assessment. While focusing on positives, it also brings out negatives as well. |
||||||
07-22-2005, 02:50 PM | #15 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2005, 02:54 PM | #16 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2005, 04:12 PM | #17 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: East Anglia
|
Quote:
I love the presumption that attacks are up, I assume based upon "The media told me so". And I suppose if the military report said things were going bad you would be all over it saying, "See we told you so." It's pretty much a no win situation in certain circles. They must be whitewashing it if things are going well, and things must really be bad if you admit there are problems. As for folks jumping on the power production as an anomoly of summer, granted demand is up in summer, but look at the numbers June 05 compare with June 04. They are way up.
__________________
Molon labe |
|
07-22-2005, 07:02 PM | #18 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
As you can see, compared to where they were after the election, US deaths in Iraq have doubled. Note the trendline as well. This is what I mean about how the DoD massaged the data. It looks like attacks are down, but that is only because of they way they bunched the data up. Spreading it out, you see that just as 25% more Americans died in May/June of this year as May/June of '04. Deaths over the past two months are also more than over the previous three months. Now, deaths don't equate to attacks, but since we are hearing that Iraqi's are taking over the security load, it could mean that attacks are up even more than American deaths are up. All in all, the graph doesn't exactly inspire confidence as far as the insurgency being in its 'last throes', nor does it even suggest attacks are on the decline in the short or long terms. EDIT: Another point: more Americans died over May/June than died during the actual war, that is, prior to 'Mission Accomplished'. Last edited by MrBigglesworth : 07-22-2005 at 07:04 PM. |
|
07-22-2005, 07:17 PM | #19 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Um, the DOD report doesn't mention casualties. The title clearly states that it's measuring Stability and Security in Iraq.
Last edited by Dutch : 07-22-2005 at 07:17 PM. |
07-22-2005, 07:23 PM | #20 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
07-22-2005, 07:36 PM | #21 |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
It's a fair and noteworthy discussion on it's own terms, but I think it's logical and fair to come to the conclusion that US Death rates do not need to be included in this particular report that focuses instead on Iraq's security and stability.
|
07-22-2005, 07:36 PM | #22 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
And this data isn't massaged? If you look at the first year of the war, the trend is downwards. Also, when you say 25% more Americans died in May/June of this year compared to May/June of 2004, you neglect to point out that in March/April of this year there were 53% less deaths than in March/April of 2004. Anyone can massage numbers, and you're doing it as well. |
|
07-22-2005, 07:39 PM | #23 | |||
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Muskogee, OK USA
|
Quote:
You shouldn't have done it. Now, he will attack your ability to read graphs.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-22-2005, 07:40 PM | #24 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
And this data doesn't mention anything about the situation regarding Iraq's security or stability. I'd say it's more than massaged, it's whitewashed to only show the anti-Bush agenda. |
|
07-22-2005, 07:41 PM | #25 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2005, 07:45 PM | #26 |
Captain Obvious
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
If you add up the yearly totals however, you see that there were definately more deaths last year, then in the year before that. 644 vs 845
I think you need to look at other factors as well. How many of these deaths were caused by Iraq citizens? We know that terrorists have poured into Iraq over the last two years. It would seem to reason that the more terrorists in Iraq, the more americans they are going to kill...
__________________
Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again! |
07-22-2005, 07:46 PM | #27 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
The "trend line" is the thing I'm not sure about. Looking at the data and that line....the relatively stark upward trajectory of that line doesn't seem to fit. That said...I know nothing about statistics and plotting data vectors...so I could be completely off base in my assessment. |
|
07-22-2005, 08:24 PM | #28 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2005, 08:31 PM | #29 | |||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
07-22-2005, 08:40 PM | #30 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
STEWART: ...I'm sorry...I'm sorry, Rob -- did you say the facts are biased? CORDDRY: That's right, John...From the names of our fallen soldiers, to the gradual withdrawl of our allies, to the growing insurgency -- it's become all too clear that the facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda. |
|
07-22-2005, 09:09 PM | #31 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
You mean the facts you choose to present. You're ignoring the economic improvements, for example. And the decreasing attack count. And the political improvements. You're presenting American troop casualty figures and doing your best to dig bad news out of the electricity graph (which clearly shows slow but steady improvements to the grid) and deciding that everything is bad. Stop ignoring the good news like the media has trained you to do and open your eyes just one tiny little bit.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
07-23-2005, 12:59 AM | #32 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
|
Quote:
Considering that the new Iraqi constitution guarantees its citizens the right to an education, social security, and health care; and restricts its citizens from bearing arms--I'd say that they have some good ideas and wouldn't mind it all if we adopted a few of those provisions! |
|
07-23-2005, 01:07 AM | #33 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
Then again, there are over 10,000 Iraqi's who've been killed in this act of American "goodwill" - so its very hard to tell them all what a great favor you've done them. That being said, things do appear to be looking up - which throwing $150 billion at it tends to do. Last edited by Crapshoot : 07-23-2005 at 01:09 AM. |
|
07-23-2005, 01:08 AM | #34 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
|
Quote:
As for the graph, from a naked eye, Bigglesworth's line looks reasonable- however, an r-square of 0.22 indicates its a pretty weak fit, if at all. As such, it doesn't really help his point much. However, deaths have been up in this year- that much is true - graph or no graph. |
|
07-23-2005, 01:15 AM | #35 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-23-2005, 01:28 AM | #36 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
And I think the facts are that this report points out that daisies are blooming and the challenge is that in order for them to survive, there are still weeds left to be pulled. It says it all right there. But because it has positive news in the report, you immediately discount it. Not because you are the epitome of sound reason and logic, but because you are an oppositionist to our government. Plain and simple. |
|
07-23-2005, 01:33 AM | #37 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
|
The r2 is actually pretty low, but the exercise is essentially meaningless since the data is not equivalized. A better data source would be deaths/x # of soldiers serving. If the troop levels are going down, then you can be more confident that you have an upwards trend, but you really can't tell unless you have equivalized numbers...
|
07-23-2005, 01:53 AM | #38 | |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Recent statistics say about 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died... and that the U.S. was responsible for 4x more civilian deaths than the insurgents/terrorists (although a large portion of those were during the early invasion phase). For more info: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php |
|
07-23-2005, 02:38 AM | #39 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Yes, the definitive source for unbiased information. Check out the webmasters other sites such as www.peaceuk.net and www.humanshields.org ! (EDIT: Seriously.) Last edited by Dutch : 07-23-2005 at 02:39 AM. |
|
07-23-2005, 07:22 AM | #40 | ||
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: East Anglia
|
Quote:
You overlooked this snippet, which BTW it's pretty hard at times to distinguish between insurgent activities and criminal activities. Quote:
And 30% of all the civilian fatalities took place before the occupation. So if US forces are responsible for 37% of all deaths, and 30 of that 37% occured before occupation, that means since the occupation insurgents lead 9-7. See, I can manipulate numbers too.
__________________
Molon labe |
||
07-23-2005, 08:43 AM | #41 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
|
Quote:
The report itself is quite interesting in that the key takeaway for me is that criminality overshadows all other violence in Iraq. You are right that most of the civilians killed by the US happened during the initial invasion. Looking at the numbers in the report, aside from brief spikes that probably coincide with US anti-insurgency offensives, the insurgency are killing civilians at a slightly higher rate than the occupation forces post-invasion. But that is all small potatoes compared to death from criminal activity. I do agree with you that it can be difficult to distinguish between politically motivated actions and mere criminality, but I don't think confounding is that big of an issue with this report: the report itself does a decent job of separating the political from the criminal--even if the percentage of misattributed criminal acts were high, the overall numbers are still so breathtakingly high enough to suggest that there is a serious crime problem in Iraq independent of the occupation and insurgency (though I wouldn't also doubt that both of these contributed to the climate of crime in the country). Hindsight is 20-20, of course. But considering the authority vacuum post-Invasion, it appears that it wasn't the best policy to allow the civilians to keep their personal firearms. Since rule of law and adequate policing were not restored in a timely manner, this created an environment where elements of the civilian population were emboldened to resort to violence in settling their disputes or when commiting larcenies and other crimes--there appears to be very little consequence to doing so (except for the threat from other armed civilians). Last edited by Klinglerware : 07-23-2005 at 08:57 AM. |
|
07-23-2005, 09:30 AM | #42 | |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Everybody's out to get you, Dutch. It's all a big conspiracy. |
|
07-23-2005, 09:34 AM | #43 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
hehe. I'm not the one freaking out because of a very logical, well-thought out and realistic report from the DOD. |
|
07-23-2005, 12:10 PM | #44 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cary, NC
|
Quote:
I'm having a hard time fathoming how you don't see the bad news the report talks about. It clearly talks about all the attacks, shows we're having a hard time getting electricity up to where we'd like it to be (that graph you keep talking about shows us barely nudging up to the goal finally), and even the summary says the insurgents are still a factor. Nowhere does that report say "Hooray! Iraq is free! Our work is done!". All it says is "things are getting better, but there is still a lot of work to do". It strikes me as a fairly balanced report, showing both the warts (still an active insurgency) and the accomplishments (more business). NO ONE ELSE talks about those accomplishments, ANYWHERE that I've seen. And it's not because they aren't happening, it's because they don't sell papers or TV ad space.
__________________
-- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities |
|
07-23-2005, 02:36 PM | #45 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
|
|
07-23-2005, 02:59 PM | #46 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Well said. |
|
07-28-2005, 05:26 PM | #47 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Here's something more that adds to my point. The report talks about how there are something like 170k trained Iraqis. From everything I have been hearing, that is complete bull manure. Now, look at the changing statements of the DoD:
Quote:
cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/07/goalposts_27.html (all citations there) It seems to me that in October of last year we were 6 months away from drawing down our troops. Today, 9 months later, we are about a year away. Given that, do we really have 170k trained Iraqis ready to take over for us right now? Are things really going as planned? Does there deserve to be a rosy outlook? |
|
07-28-2005, 05:28 PM | #48 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Early, TX
|
Hey Mr.Bigglesworth - Do you ever post anything on this board that isn't political? Just curious, and not meant to flame.
__________________
Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross |
07-28-2005, 05:40 PM | #49 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Look at what you bolded, biggle.
Could. Set a target date. hopes. I don't think this equates to a rosy outlook. It looks like planning. |
07-28-2005, 05:40 PM | #50 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Black Hole
|
Quote:
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=41097 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|