US military underreporting Iraq violence to suit Bush admin

[Dionysos]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/...olence_figures

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer1 hour, 48 minutes ago

U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.


In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.


The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.
"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.


"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said.
A request for Pentagon comment on the report's assertions was not immediately answered.


Some U.S. analysts have complained for months that the Pentagon's reports to Congress on conditions in Iraq have undercounted the violent episodes. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq watcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a November report that the Pentagon omits many low-level incidents and types of civil violence.

[emphatic_apparatek]

What else would you expect from Bush and Co.?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by emphatic_apparatek

What else would you expect from Bush and Co.?

Leaving aside the administration's mishandling of the war, you presume GW told intelligence and military personel what to tell him. What is more likely is that they are reporting either 1) what they want to tell or 2) what they think he wants to hear. In neither case however should that be read to hold GW blameless. It is his job to determine if he's being bullshitted or not - and if that is what is going on he should have dealt with it.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by xian

Leaving aside the administration's mishandling of the war, you presume GW told intelligence and military personel what to tell him. What is more likely is that they are reporting either 1) what they want to tell or 2) what they think he wants to hear. In neither case however should that be read to hold GW blameless. It is his job to determine if he's being bullshitted or not - and if that is what is going on he should have dealt with it.

I don't think it's completely unreasonable to believe that the administration set out the guidelines on what should qualify as a violent act and what does not.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Adam D

I don't think it's completely unreasonable to believe that the administration set out the guidelines on what should qualify as a violent act and what does not.

They spend enough time trying to shape 'torture' and 'enemy combatant' to fit their needs, I don't see how this is a stretch either.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

I don't think it's completely unreasonable to believe that the administration set out the guidelines on what should qualify as a violent act and what does not.

I didn't say it was completely unreasonable. It may in fact be the case. However, I think it more likely to be one of the alternatives I noted. There's a third I should have included... flat out incompetent statistical recording and collection....

Originally Posted by Dionysos

They spend enough time trying to shape 'torture' and 'enemy combatant' to fit their needs, I don't see how this is a stretch either.

I think you meant "unlawful combatant" and that would be those not decribed in Geneva as a lawful combatant. There's little debate on the topic excepting those who'd elevate terrorists to the level of regular soldiers - - which - - as I've noted here many many times was something that Geneva specifically chose not to do which is clear in the method they used to define lawful combatant.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

I didn't say it was completely unreasonable. It may in fact be the case. However, I think it more likely to be one of the alternatives I noted. There's a third I should have included... flat out incompetent statistical recording and collection....

It *is* the case. Have you heard anyone from the administration rebut the claim? I sure haven't.

Originally Posted by xian

I think you meant "unlawful combatant" and that would be those not decribed in Geneva as a lawful combatant. There's little debate on the topic excepting those who'd elevate terrorists to the level of regular soldiers - - which - - as I've noted here many many times was something that Geneva specifically chose not to do which is clear in the method they used to define lawful combatant.

Unlawful/Enemy, they were using both interchangeably when trying to avoid the POW tag. The end result is that they were trying to skirt Geneva.

[GodlessSodomite]

Originally Posted by xian

Leaving aside the administration's mishandling of the war, you presume GW told intelligence and military personel what to tell him. What is more likely is that they are reporting either 1) what they want to tell or 2) what they think he wants to hear. In neither case however should that be read to hold GW blameless. It is his job to determine if he's being bullshitted or not - and if that is what is going on he should have dealt with it.

so basically status quo.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

It *is* the case. Have you heard anyone from the administration rebut the claim? I sure haven't.

I haven't heard anything about it one way or the other except for your article -

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Unlawful/Enemy, they were using both interchangeably when trying to avoid the POW tag. The end result is that they were trying to skirt Geneva.

An enemy combatant may be lawful or unlawful. There is no confusion as to that. The question was status as lawful or unlawful... not enemy v unlawful. The detainees were all designated enemy combatants. Unlawful enemy combatants, the administration argued, did not qualify for POW status under Geneva. Because Geneva defined "lawful" but not "unlawful" there was conflict in interpretation-. The Military Commissions Act is the resulting compromise between the three branches.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

An enemy combatant may be lawful or unlawful. There is no confusion as to that. The question was status as lawful or unlawful... not enemy v unlawful. The detainees were all designated enemy combatants. Unlawful enemy combatants, the administration argued, did not qualify for POW status under Geneva. Because Geneva defined "lawful" but not "unlawful" there was conflict in interpretation-. The Military Commissions Act is the resulting compromise between the three branches.

And the end result still being my original point, that this administration has been shaping the terms to avoid having to comply with the Geneva convention.

[GodlessSodomite]

I'm gonna file this news under my "things the smart people already knew" category.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

And the end result still being my original point, that this administration has been shaping the terms to avoid having to comply with the Geneva convention.

It is the job of the Executive to form policy - as such the Exec defines terms in effecting that policy. Geneva provided minimal protections at best for unlawful combatants. The administration chose a policy for dealing with them. Objections were raised, court battles fought and we got the Military Commissions Act. There was compliance and the checks and balances put into effect - no skirting. The net result was greater protection for unlawful combatants than had heretofore been required at law.


My point is that by saying "skirting" you're suggesting GW was intentionally and knowingly doing something impermissible at law. That isn't the case. The Exec gets its interpretation - there was disagreement and the issue went to the courts and was tossed back to Congress. That's exactly how the system was designed to work when conflict occurs.


and another thing... the administration is generally too incompetant to effect a deliberate violation even if it wanted to

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

My point is that by saying "skirting" you're suggesting GW was intentionally and knowingly doing something impermissible at law. That isn't the case.

I want proof of that statement.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I want proof of that statement.

I'll bring it to the same table you bring your proof that he was violating the law intentionally and knowingly

If a person is intending to work a violation of law one generally conceals it. The acts in question were not concealed. The prisoners were in Gitmo guarded by lots of guards all capable of being subpoened etc etc etc.

I understand you think he was acting beyond the scope permissible at law - and the courts in part agreed - but that doesn't mean he believed he was acting without sound legal basis nor that the basis was unreasonable. If there was evidence of intentional violation of law don;t you think all those Dems in Congress would be calling for impeachment hearings? The anecdotal evidence is pretty persuasive even if pleases many to think GW really is the antichrist

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

I'll bring it to the same table you bring your proof that he was violating the law intentionally and knowingly

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...e/11901380.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...e/12995512.htm

Your turn.

Originally Posted by xian

If a person is intending to work a violation of law one generally conceals it. The acts in question were not concealed. The prisoners were in Gitmo guarded by lots of guards all capable of being subpoened etc etc etc.

I understand you think he was acting beyond the scope permissible at law - and the courts in part agreed - but that doesn't mean he believed he was acting without sound legal basis nor that the basis was unreasonable. If there was evidence of intentional violation of law don;t you think all those Dems in Congress would be calling for impeachment hearings? The anecdotal evidence is pretty persuasive even if pleases many to think GW really is the antichrist

1) There have been Dems screaming for impeachment, but it was a useless demand as the minority party.
2) We have 2 years before the next election. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 'I' word start showing up in a few months when Dubya starts bristling at a Congress he no longer agrees with. In short, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't later.