http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/10/one_of_petraeus.phpOne Of Petraeus' Own Advisers Says General's Testimony On Iraq Was Misleading
October 8, 2007 -- 11:46 AM EST //
New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt has now weighed in with a new column analyzing a key topic -- the constant conflicts between the different ways civilian casualties are counted in Iraq. Hoyt interviewed a number of experts about the topic, and towards the end of the piece he mentions in passing what appears to be a significant piece of news.
Specifically, Hoyt reports that he spoke to one of Petraeus' own advisers, and despite having advised Petraeus he still says that the General's recent testimony to Congress about Iraq may have been misleading in key ways:
Stephen Biddle, a scholar at the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, said Petraeus's December number was "very high" but was likely the result of "statistical noise" — the tendency of Iraq numbers to jump all over the place. Biddle was an adviser to Petraeus last spring but believes the general's testimony was "potentially misleading" because it didn't discuss all the reasons why the numbers might have improved.
He said the best way to analyze statistics from Iraq is to gather all the numbers from all sources and look for broad trends instead of picking isolated points, as Petraeus did. Biddle examined data from nine sources on Iraqi civilian deaths, including the U.S. military, independent organizations like Brookings and Iraq Body Count and four news organizations. Although the specific monthly numbers varied widely, he said they all showed declines since late 2006.
Did we know that even one of Petraeus' own advisers thinks the General's methodology was suspect? I didn't know it. Spencer Ackerman, TPM's resident casualty count guru, says he thinks this is significant, and if Ackerman says this is important, well, it is. Yet as best as I can determine Biddle's view of the matter hasn't received any real attention.
Seems like a subject that deserves some further inquiry. After all, a member of Petraeus' informal brain-trust has now said publicly that the General's testimony was "potentially misleading." And he suggested that it could have been misleading in not one, but two ways. First, because it didn't delve into all the reasons for the shifting security picture in Iraq, thus giving more credit to the surge than it might have deserved. And second, because Petraeus selected December 2006, when civilian casualties spiked, as the basis for comparison to this summer's numbers, thus inflating the alleged decline. Those seem like serious critiques.
Is it okay to question Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus' credibility yet?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
