These are interesting, but carefully parsing how they are phrased shows they don’t tell you as much as they seem to tell you.
And for some, I’m not certain of the point?
I don’t know if this was widely reported in the US (probably not I’d wager, why would Fox ruin the Christmas spirit? Thats not infotainment!) but yesterday was the 1000th day of war in Iraq.
Now I know the Commander in Chimp, sorry Chief, stated quite early that war was over because the Iraqi army folded, but on 30th November this year he stated America was on course to ‘total victory’, surely an admission by default of a continued war. So to mark this pretty crap occasion I thought I’d stick up the statistics the Independant printed yesterday:
8%- Iraqi children who still suffer malnutrition. [/quote]
Note the word “still.” This doesn’t mean anything unless you have the delta, i.e. you see the difference compared to immediately prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
$35,819 million- World Bank estimated cost of reconstruction.[/quote]
Rebuilding might be a better characterization. The infrastructure in Iraq was in much worse shape than was estimated before OIF - that’s one of the reasons why “reconstruction” has been so difficult.
53,470- Iraqi insurgants killed.[/quote]
This would be a more useful number if we had an estimate of the total number of insurgents. I’m guessing the percentage would be quite high, especially as compared with U.S. and coalition casualties.
$343- Average monthly salary for Iraqi soldier.[/quote]
What’s the median monthly income for Iraqis generally? And what was it prior to OIF?
$4,160.75- Average monthly salary for American soldier in Iraq.[/quote]
I don’t see the significance here, unless the implication is that the U.S. pays its soldiers more than Iraq pays its soldiers? If so, what’s the point?
66- journalists killed in Iraq.
63- journalists killed in Vietnam.[/quote]
Again, the point? That the terrorists are targeting journalists while the VC did not?
20- monthly casualties from mines.[/quote]
Terrorists? Coalition troops? Civilians? Some combination thereof? Obviously, the break down is important.
20%- 2005 Iraqi inflation rate.
25-40%- Iraq unemployment rate.[/quote]
Again, these need numbers against which to compare them - preferably from immediately prior to OIF.
90- attacks by insurgants in November 2005.
8- attacks by insurgants in June 2003.[/quote]
A better comparison would be to 2004, after the insurgents had time to organize. Those, I believe, would show an improvement. Comparing to right after the fall of the Ba’athist government wouldn’t seem to be a good comparison.
251- Foreigners kidnapped.[/quote]
Yes, terrorists are targeting foreigners in Iraq.
183,000- Number of coalition troops in action in Iraq.[/quote]
OK. That’s the estimate of the current force on the ground, correct?
70%- Iraqis with poor or intermitant sewerage systems.
47%- Iraqis who never have enough electricity.[/quote]
Again, comparison numbers are needed. And, from what I understand, regional numbers for comparison would be particularly telling.
15,955- US troops wounded in action.
2,339- Allied troops killed.[/quote]
OK - but giving a summation for these numbers, and a current force on the ground number above, implies a greater percentage than is accurate.
To impute a proper percentage, they should list the number of troops in total that have rotated through since the start of OIF.
BTW, the “in action” part for the wounded number is misleading. They were injured while on active duty, but that includes sickness, accidents, and all sorts of other non-combat-related injuries. To get a meaningful number, one should compare that to the number of troops “wounded” - essentially injured and taken off of active duty for whatever time period - during peace time.
More properly, the cost of the war and of the rebuilding of Iraq.
0- Number of WMDs found.[/quote]
Number of WMDs accounted for that he was documented as possessing: 0