CNN's Romans and McIntyre stated U.S. troop deaths are down this summer, ignoring that this is the deadliest June-August since the war began
SUMMARY: CNN's Christine Romans repeatedly claimed that American troop deaths in Iraq "are down this summer" and also reported that "[t]he Pentagon today is citing the surge in Iraq as a reason for a drop in troop deaths this summer." However, statistics compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count show that the 260 U.S. troop deaths in Iraq during June, July, and August 2007 make this the deadliest June-August of the Iraq war for U.S. troops.
On the August 30 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, guest host Christine Romans repeatedly claimed that American troop deaths in Iraq "are down this summer." Romans also reported that "[t]he Pentagon today is citing the surge in Iraq as a reason for a drop in troop deaths this summer," by comparing casualty figures in July and August to those in May and later asked if lower American casualty figures were a measure of the success of the "surge." However, as Media Matters for America documented, statistics compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count on its website iCasualties.org show that the 260 U.S. troop deaths in Iraq during June, July, and August 2007 make this the deadliest June through August of the Iraq war for U.S. troops.
From iCasualties.org:
June-July-August 2003: 113 American troops died
June-July-August 2004: 162 American troops died
June-July-August 2005: 217 American troops died
June-July-August 2006: 169 American troops died
June-July-August 2007: 260 American troops died
Despite these facts, on four occasions, Romans and CNN senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre asserted that troop deaths are down this "summer":
- Previewing a report from McIntyre, Romans said: "U.S. troop deaths in Iraq are down this summer; 77 of our troops have been killed so far this month. In July, 79 were killed. That's down from a high in May, when 126 of our troops were killed."
- Introducing McIntyre's report, Romans said: "The Pentagon today is citing the surge in Iraq as a reason for a drop in troop deaths this summer. In July, 79 of our troops were killed; this month, as we just reported, 77. That's down from the deadliest month this year, May, in which 126 of our troops were killed."
- McIntyre asserted: "[F]or the three months preceding those summer months, the U.S. casualties were well over 100, with that peak of 126 in May. The last two months, they've been down, but they are still fairly high, in the upper 70s." McIntyre added: "Is it a trend? U.S. military commanders say it's too soon to say that, even though the Pentagon said that it's evidence that the surge is working."
- Romans asked CNN military analyst retired Brig. Gen. David Grange, "My question to you: Is the surge working if U.S. casualties are down, but civilian deaths are not?"
On-screen text also claimed "Troop Deaths Down":
While both Romans and McIntyre noted as significant that U.S. troop deaths were down in each of the last two months based on a comparison to the 126 deaths in May, neither of them noted that May was the third-deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began, according to iCasualties.org.
From the August 30 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
ROMANS: Good evening, everybody.
Congressional auditors find the Iraqi government has failed to meet most of the benchmarks laid out by Congress to assess progress in Iraq. The Government Accountability Office reportedly will say 15 of 18 goals have not been met.
But U.S. troop deaths in Iraq are down this summer; 77 of our troops have been killed so far this month. In July, 79 were killed. That's down from a high in May, when 126 of our troops were killed.
[. . .]
ROMANS: Three more of our troops have been killed by insurgents in Iraq. The three soldiers were killed in separate actions in different parts of the country; 77 of our troops have been killed so far this month; 3,735 of our troops have been killed since the war began; 27,662 troops have been wounded, 12,429 of them seriously.
And in Afghanistan four more of our troops have been killed in hostile action. A total of 434 of our troops have been killed in Operation Enduring Freedom since October 2001.
The Pentagon today is citing the surge in Iraq as a reason for a drop in troop deaths this summer. In July, 79 of our troops were killed; this month, as we just reported, 77. That's down from the deadliest month this year, May, in which 126 of our troops were killed.
Jamie McIntyre has that report -- Jamie.
McINTYRE: That's right, Christine.
If you go back and look at U.S. troop casualties back in the late spring and early summer, you will see that, for the three months preceding those summer months, the U.S. casualties were well over 100, with that peak of 126 in May. The last two months, they've been down, but they are still fairly high, in the upper 70s.
Is it a trend? U.S. military commanders say it's too soon to say that, even though the Pentagon said that it's evidence that the surge is working. And, of course, the recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the security situation has improved in some places in Iraq, but that progress is uneven.
And, of course, U.S. troop deaths aren't the only measure of success. Al Qaeda has still been able to launch some spectacular attacks that have killed large numbers of civilians. But, as that National Intelligence Estimate also concluded, Al Qaeda's ability to operate has been seriously degraded, and U.S. commanders credit that, in part, for the lower troop numbers.
But the short answer, Christine, at this point is, nobody says this is a trend, and they're warning, there could be an uptick in violence again commensurate with that September report from General Petraeus.
ROMANS: All right, Jamie McIntyre in Washington -- thank you, Jamie.
[. . .]
ROMANS: OK, so The Washington Post reporting that this GAO report is going to show that 15 of these political and - and military benchmarks have not been met, including questions about whether the surge is even doing enough to stop civilian violence. While the Baghdad security plan, according to the draft, was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced.
My question to you: Is the surge working if U.S. casualties are down, but civilian deaths are not?
GRANGE: Well, I believe that the sectarian violence is down. Civilian deaths are - are not down. And if you're an Iraqi, you would probably say if it happened in your neighborhood, that it's not working.
But I think around the countryside, it is working so much because they're attacking civilians because they can. And they still want to this show that they have influence in the outcome of this conflict.
ROMANS: What's the significance of this GAO report?
"Is the surge working if U.S. casualties are down, but civilian deaths are not?"
Even if there were fewer deaths, would that mean the surge is working. Is the point of the surge to reduce the amount of Americans dying? Or is the purpopse of the surge to reduce sectarian violence and help the Iraqi governemnt get on it's feet and provide security for the people of Iraq?
If it's just to reduce the American deaths, GET THE HELL OUT NOW?
That would be a legitimate question to ask our commander-in-chief-in-hiding.
- If it's just to reduce the American deaths, GET THE HELL OUT NOW - worrierking
God o mighty king...you nailed that one...and showed the ineptness of the media.
Our military commanders strive every day to reduce casualties...while facing the fact that we cannot prevail in a casualty free war.
The goal is not new...and as you clearly stated it is to "reduce sectarian violence and help the Iraqi governemnt get on it's feet and provide security for the people of Iraq".
When Joe Frazier defeated Ali...his goal was not to avoid bruises and black eyes...it was to persevere and win the fight...accepting the necessary pain for his cause.
Gads...I never knew war reporting was so easy...when one can resort to using sports analogies and statistics to dumb down the deadly life and death struggle of war...for political gains.
Our military may be trying to reduce casualties, but they are failing, and that is why the surge should be deemed a failure. That is the point of the MMFA item. Can you possibly believe that the surge is working when violence is up in all areas?
And can you possibly not hold Bush accountable for the violence, which did not exist before the US invasion?
Yes...and yes.
So in other words, you won't let facts get in the way of your belief. The facts show the surge is not working. The facts show that Iraq has suffered way more deaths after Bush's invasion than before.
Is it a trend? U.S. military commanders say it's too soon to say that, even though the Pentagon said that it's evidence that the surge is working.
I thought they were going to listen to the commanders seems they are ignoring them as usual and making up their own reality. They want the surge to work therefore the surge is working. As they say they make their own reality.
Don't you get it? Down is the new up. Just like "bad" means good, war is peace, freedom is slavery etc...
President Bush and his minions are betting noone knows what the surge is supposed to accomplish and they can manipulate the words to suit any answer they cook up.. Exactly like " winning" means what ? I don't see 59 cents a gallon for gas.
With respect to MMFA citing this report I don't think this report was unreasonable. They clearly did not reach the same conclusion as the pentagon and in fact pointed out the other opinion of the commanders. The report also pointed out all the other factors that need to be looked at that it is not just about this number. I don't think if I am reading the stats correctly that what they said about the # of US casualties is misinformation...seems it was accurate. DOn't really think it signifies anything but apparently either did this report.
Here's what the Pentagon said:
[t]he Pentagon today is citing the surge in Iraq as a reason for a drop in troop deaths this summer,"
But that is a bald lie. The deaths are up from last summer from 169 to 260. The surge started in December. If the surge was working, the deaths of US soldiers should be under 169.
i've posted this link before, but it shows that the white house, as of july 2007, was trying to minimize this issue, scroll down to myth 4, which "myth" they see as: "the u.s. has an indefinite commitment in iraq and should shift to training iraqi troops." they answer that by saying the current strategy is a "temporary surge". but that just seems to be their latest rosy prediction, the same thing we have seen from the beginning of the war. and their predictions on iraqi troop readiness, as in doing it on their own, have always been wildly inflated.
there is also this whopper in "myth 13", which they see as the claim that we are only in iraq because of the october 2002 authorization of force vote. they claim we are there with the "unanimous approval of the united nations security council". that may be true now, because the invasion was an accomplished fact, but we did not invade with the approval of the u.n.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070710-3.html
Up is down, down is up, black is white.....
"[t]he Pentagon today is citing the surge in Iraq as a reason for a drop in troop deaths this summer."
American military deaths, 1/1/06 - 8/31/06: 462
American military deaths, 1/1/07 - 8/31/07: 732
For those in the MSM that like to play with numbers (when they're not chasing bell-filled balls), that's a sixty-fuggin'-eight per cent increase.
Gooooooood Puhhhh-peeees!
The Surge is about as successful as a Republican pervert's attempt to hold his Congressional seat.
Romans sure has that deer in the headlights look, doesn't she?
the Klieg lights must be too bright.
For anyone caring to pay attention, civilian deaths have risen since the beginning of the surge and US troop deaths are the highest ever, since the war began. Add to that the withdrawal of the largest Sunnis contingent from the government and not meeting 15 of 18 benchmarks.
Yes, it's obvious the surge is working. Working to ensure the Middle East is a powder keg sitting on a bed of coals.
Randy
Since the outset the media has done a lousy and lazy job of reporting the war in Iraq. They have produced their coverage like sports reporters on College Game Day or some fantasy league roundup...using casualty statistics like first downs or time of possession. to analyze success or failure.
The outcome of a football game is more complex than statistics...and the war in Iraq is even more complex than that...the outcome being the victory or defeat of deadly, murdering Islamic terrorists...not the standings in a fantasy football league.
Pro and anti war proponents in the media are without shame in using casualty statistics to spin a story on the war for political gains or to inflame their non-thinking followers...and mmfa is just as guilty.
I support and fully believe that a political and military victory is achievable and critically important to our way of life...yet I'm not going to condemn the rational anti-war folks.
For the kooks...on both sides...they're nothing more than cheerleaders waving their pompoms...more intent on organizing their next cheer...not the outcome of the struggle.
The media and mmfa could provide a huge service by getting in the game...or they can stay on the sidelines and promote their agendas with those deadly pompoms.
Victory is impossible. Victory requires wanting peace. The war's supporters are waging war for profits and personal desires, not for peace. They want even more war. Hence, they cannot win. This is straight from Sun Tzu.
>>They have produced their coverage like sports reporters on College Game Day or some fantasy league roundup...using casualty statistics like first downs or time of possession. to analyze success or failure.
And then you write:
>>The media and mmfa could provide a huge service by getting in the game
You do realize you totally contradicted yourself? If you are against the reporters acting like the war was a sport, why would you do the same thing?
On another note, I can see why you are against statistics, because they are factual and they completely undermine your argument that the surge is working or that the US is accomplishing anything in Iraq. But the statistics don't lie. They show that the violence is up in every area, despite the Bush rhetoric.
Let me offer my own analogy. You are for the Boston Red Sox, who are losing by 20 runs in game 4 of the world series, after having lost the first 3 games by 15 runs each game. You now say "Looking at the score doesn't prove anything. There is a much more complex picture to sports, such as the keeping the game going and drawing fans...the Sox will prevail in the end."
In short, you want to tell us that the facts (that the violence is up in Iraq) doesn't matter because it undermines your argument.
Question 1...sarcasm
Question 2...Didn't say that.
You contradicted yourself with not the least hint of sarcasm.
Yes, you did say "Pro and anti war proponents in the media are without shame in using casualty statistics to spin a story on the war for political gains or to inflame their non-thinking followers." You stated that anti war people are using the statistics to create the wrong impression, to "inflame their non-thinking followers." In other words, you stated that you don't want to use statistics, facts, to build their argument. You are arguing that the use of facts is unimportant, exactly as I said.
You further accuse MMFA of promoting "their agenda," though I didn't realize truth had an agenda.
yes...yes...no...no...yes
Just to be clear here, this is what you wrote in the above post:
>>Since the outset the media has done a lousy and lazy job of reporting the war in Iraq. They have produced their coverage like sports reporters on College Game Day or some fantasy league roundup...using casualty statistics like first downs or time of possession. to analyze success or failure.
You argue here that the media is using statistics in a bad way, as if war were a mere football game. In your mind, the media shouldn't use statistics. So yes, you did state that statistics don't matter, and the reason for that is they undermine your argument that the surge is working or that the war is winnable.
yes...no...no...no...no
watched meet the press. bob schrum was on. he can really argue against all the right wing talking points. when mary matalin started talking about the democrats being for "immediate withdrawal", he called that a "cheneyism". paul krugman and george will on stephenapolous. will was going on about how great the economy is, and krugman said yeah, if you're in the top 5%.
Sectarian violence has also risen significantly over the summer... so much for msm
The number of casualties is not really that relevant. Using the context of the war in Viet Nam, which Bush distanced himself from before he embraced, the casualty numbers were less important than the commitment to the conflict. The Tet offensive was a loss, based on casualty numbers, for the north. However, the conflict broke the will of the Americans that had been convinced victory was inevitable. The Viet Cong lost the battle, but one the broader war over the battle of wills. The use of numbers is problematic. The real question deals with who will blink last in a game of chicken. Toop sustainability sans a draft might be our blink. So, in some sense we should possibility focus on inputs rather than outputs, or at least focus on sustainability rather than specific time frames.