About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NBC, Wall Street Journal reported Petraeus claim of reduced violence without noting contrary evidence

September 11, 2007 8:45 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: Several media outlets covering Gen. David Petraeus' September 10 congressional testimony reported without challenge statistics Petraeus presented to support his claims that the U.S. troop escalation in Iraq has been successful in lowering violence in Iraq. But Petraeus' statistics regarding civilian casualties and sectarian violence differ from the findings in two recent congressionally mandated reports -- findings these media outlets did not report.

31 Comments

In their coverage of Gen. David H. Petraeus' September 10 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees, NBC's Nightly News and The Wall Street Journal reported without challenge statistics Petraeus presented to support his claim that the U.S. troop escalation in Iraq has been successful in lowering violence in Iraq. These media outlets did not note that Petraeus' statistics regarding civilian casualties and sectarian violence differ from the findings in two recent congressionally mandated reports. Further, when asked about Petraeus' statistics about a decrease in sectarian violence in Baghdad, Comptroller General David Walker, the top official at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), testified on September 4 that "there are several different sources within the administration on [sectarian] violence, and those sources do not agree." In addition, USA Today reported that the GAO report "mostly agree[s with Petraeus] that security has improved in Iraq" despite publishing a separate chart noting that the GAO report "could not determine whether sectarian violence was down."

Petraeus testified that "the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the number of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest level seen since June 2006." Petreaus also claimed that "[c]oalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period, although the numbers in each area are still at troubling levels."

However, the GAO, which was required to produce a report by September 1 by the same law that mandated Petraeus' September testimony, concluded, "The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months." The GAO also reported that although "[o]verall attacks declined in July compared to June," the decrease in July was "largely due to a decrease in attacks on coalition forces rather than civilians," and "[e]nemy initiated attacks have increased around major religious and political events." Similarly, the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq -- headed by retired Gen. James L. Jones and also mandated by statute -- reported: "While violence has recently declined sharply in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province -- the former stronghold of the insurgency -- attacks have risen in Diyala, Balad, Basra, and Amarah. Violence remains endemic in Baghdad, despite measurable gains made since the implementation of Fardh al-Qanoon (the Baghdad Security Plan) in February 2007 by Coalition and Iraqi forces."

The GAO also assessed that the benchmark calling for "[r]educing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security" had been "not met." The GAO reported:

While it is not clear if sectarian violence has been reduced, militia control over security forces has not been eliminated and remains a serious problem in Baghdad and other areas of Iraq.

[...]

GAO cannot determine whether sectarian violence in Iraq has been reduced because measuring such violence requires understanding the perpetrator's intent, which may not be known. The number of attacks targeting civilians and population displacement resulting from sectarian violence may serve as additional indicators. For example, as displayed in figure 5, the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months. The decrease in total average daily attacks in July is largely due to a decrease in attacks on coalition forces rather than civilians.

While overall attacks declined in July compared with June, levels of violence remain high. Enemy initiated attacks have increased around major religious and political events, including Ramadan and elections.5 For 2007, Ramadan is scheduled to begin in mid-September.

The GAO determined that the Iraqis had "not met" this benchmark because "there was no clear and reliable evidence that the level of sectarian violence was reduced and that militia control of local security was eliminated."

Additionally, during a September 4 hearing on the GAO report, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) stated that "the data in August would, I think, be very clear about a reduction in violence. General Petraeus has those charts that they show the hot spots in red -- in Baghdad area we're talking about now." Comptroller General Walker responded: "I don't know what General Petraeus is giving you. I don't know which source he's using. But part of the problem that we had in reaching a conclusion about sectarian violence is there are multiple sources showing different levels of violence with different trends."

The commission headed by Jones found:

Relatively homogenous areas such as Anbar and the Kurdish provinces seem to be moving rapidly toward establishing provincial security. However, ethnically and religiously mixed areas such as Baghdad and its ring cities continue to experience violence and intense sectarian activity. Even some of Iraq's most homogenous Shia areas in the southern part of the country are seeing rising levels of intra-Shia militia violence.

In contrast with those media outlets that did not challenge Petraeus' figures, The Washington Post reported that "experts within and outside the government contend that some of the statistics employed by Petraeus are based on questionable methodology. One senior intelligence official in Washington has noted that Iraqis fatally shot through the back of the head are considered victims of sectarian attacks, while those shot in the front are deemed victims of ordinary crime."

Also, McClatchy Newspapers reported that "[a] chart displayed by Army Gen. David Petraeus that purported to show the decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad between December and August made no effort to show that the ethnic character of many of the neighborhoods had changed in that same period from majority Sunni Muslim or mixed to majority Shiite Muslim." According to McClatchy, "since the troop surge began the pace by which Iraqis were abandoning their homes in search of safety had increased. They didn't mention that 86 percent of Iraqis who've fled their homes said they'd been targeted because of their sect, according to the International Organization for Migration." McClatchy also reported that Petraeus's claims about a reduction in sectarian violence appear to be cherry-picked. From the September 10 McClatchy article:

Petraeus also didn't highlight the fact that his charts showed that "ethno-sectarian" deaths in August, down from July, were still higher than in June, and he didn't explain why the greatest drop in such deaths, which peaked in December, occurred between January and February, before the surge began.

Yet the Nightly News and the Journal reported Petraeus' statistics about sectarian violence and civilian deaths, which he cited to back up his claims about the success of the troop escalation, without mentioning the GAO or Jones commission reports or other previous news reports on the same subject differ with or contradict Petraeus' claims:

  • In the September 10 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported only that "[u]sing a series of charts, Petraeus testified that the current troop escalation has brought down overall violence in Iraq to its lowest level in more than a year. Because of that, Petraeus predicted he could reduce the number of American forces in Iraq by at least one combat brigade by Christmas."
  • A September 11 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) uncritically reported that during his House testimony, Petraeus "documented his views with charts showing big drops in the number of roadside bombs, suicide car bombs and Iraqi civilian deaths."

Moreover, a September 11 USA Today article noted that Petraeus said that "[t]he increased troop levels have succeeded in reducing violence." The article added that "[o]ther recent studies, including a report last week by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), mostly agree that security has improved in Iraq," despite a separate chart USA Today published noting that the GAO report "said it could not determine whether sectarian violence was down. It noted that overall violence had declined from June to July but remained high."

From the September 10 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:

MIKLASZEWSKI: Using a series of charts, Petraeus testified that the current surge has brought down overall violence in Iraq to its lowest level in more than a year. Because of that, Petraeus predicted he could reduce the number of American forces in Iraq by at least one combat brigade by Christmas. And a total of five brigades, or about 30,000 troops, within a year.

PETRAEUS: I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve.

MIKLASZEWSKI: For Democrats, it's too little, too late.

REP. TOM LANTOS (D-CA): We need to send Maliki's government a strong message, loud and clear. Removing a brigade is nothing but a political whisper. It is time to go and to go now.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nativeofsf (September 11, 2007 9:10 pm ET)
         

      Seems the Federal Fix is on. With a child-like hypocrisy, the disseminators again spewed to those ever-gullible “news” organizations, who just lapped it up, again. Now who is that stupid not to realize the numbers merely represent the removal of that so-called “Surge”, oh…say within twelve months or so? Sounds like more constipation, impacted ounce again by Mr. “Mission Komplished!”

      Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (September 11, 2007 11:04 pm ET)
         

      Mediamatters released a report on syndicated columnists in which Richard Cohen is classified as a liberal.

      MMFA: Are you out of your *#@& mind? Since when is Richard Cohen a progressive?

      I invite each of you to read Cohen's past columns and tell me if he sounds like a progressive to you.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by MonkeyMan (September 11, 2007 11:20 pm ET)
         

      It's been really hard hearing the recaps of the coverage 6 years ago, and hearing the reporters say that US terrorism experts are saying that there was no hint that this could happen.

      It's really hard to hear this one version of reality from General Petraeus when we know that it's not the only version of reality, and that "reality" is that the surge hasn't done much good at all.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sams Computer (September 12, 2007 10:31 am ET)
           

        That's Correct Monkey....

        If you want the facts, don't listen to the hand picked Republican General and his boss.

        Reality is what We The People voted for last November. Get the hell out of the worst foreign policy blunder of all time.

        Reality is what is obvious to the people of both our country and Iraq.

        THE VOICES OF IRAQIS: The media circus that enveloped Petraeus's testimony distracted attention away from another important voice that emerged yesterday -- the Iraqi people. A national survey of Iraqi public opinion conducted by ABC News, BBC, and Japanese broadcaster NHK found that 70 percent of Iraqis report Bush's escalation has "worsened rather than improved security." Seventy-eight percent say "things are going badly," a jump of 13 points since the surge began. Almost eighty percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. forces, affirming the perspective of seven members of the 82nd Airborne who wrote in the New York Times that the military is viewed as "army of occupation" in Iraq. In June, outgoing Joint Chiefs chairman Peter Pace said the fundamental question the United States should use to measure success is whether "Iraqis feel better today than they did yesterday." The answer to that question is a resounding no.

        - From Center For American Progress -

        In addition to that it has been found that 70% of Iraqis believe it's OK to kill our troops occupying their country.

        The people of both countries know what the true reality is. We must vote for those who will have our interest at heart.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (September 12, 2007 10:51 am ET)
             

          Look for a concerted fear campaign in their desperate effort to keep this war going. Glenn Beck is doing a "special" series this week on the Beslan School siege. While this may seem unrelated, his thinly veiled message is "This is what will happen here" if we don't "defeat" Al Qaeda. He's raising the spectre of masked Muslim gunmen invading our schools. He's also playing up the Al Qaeda connection to the Chechen Seperatists, even though the extent of this relationship is not known.

          This is just an extention of the "They'll follow us home" boogeyman tactic.

          While such an attack is always a frightening possibility, staying in Iraq WILL NOT make it any less likely.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (September 12, 2007 11:08 am ET)
               

            On another front in the fear campaign, Secretary Rice today was warning about Iraq's "troublesome" neighbor, Iran, who she says will fill any vacuum left by an American withdrawal.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 12:03 pm ET)
               

            Their push about the Surge Progress has more behind it than simply wanting to stay in Iraq I believe. I think there are some at the top who see the righting on the wall that the public won't support this thing much longer. They are planning for the future. If they can just sow some doubt in people's minds that their 'plan' in Iraq is working, they will have an angle later to blame future bloodshed on the Democrats who get us out.

            Think about it, their base is seriously irony impaired. They criticized Kerry for not having a good enough solution to the mess Bush had created and concluded that we should vote for Bush. And this worked for them! So in the future, as the horror stories come out of Iraq's civil war, it won't be Bush's fault for starting it, it will be Democrat's fault for ending it. I think ultimately that's what is behind their current maneuvering.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 12:06 pm ET)
                 

              That's writing on the wall of course. Nice Freudian slip huh?

              Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (September 12, 2007 12:19 pm ET)
                 

              I share your assessment. I have always maintained that their ultimate plan is to hang Bush's f*ckup around the necks of Congressional Democrats. Their leading propagandist, Rush Limbaugh, has been saying that "Democrats own defeat" for months.

              What infuriates me is that they'll probably succeed, with the help of the MSM. Even now, the lies told to put us in this situation are apparently off the table. It's as if history has been erased between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 12:43 pm ET)
                   

                It drives me crazy that Democrats don't seem be aware of the many traps they walk into. Their main strategists/publicists seem to absolutely suck. Not that they shouldn't do what they can to save lives in Iraq but they should be more aware of how it will be used against them. They need to be on the offensive NOW about who is responsible for this mess. They weren't even willing to do that during the freakin elections for crying out loud.

                The only key Democratic strategist I've seen who knew how to do this was Carville in Clinton v Old Bush. He knew that every time they stuck their neck out with these ironic accusations it was a chance to lop off their heads. Too bad he decided to be a caricature on the TV adding his voice to the jabber instead of working behind the scenes giving the Democrats some teeth. I'd love to do it if they'd hire me. Because they're driving me NUTS. Maybe if I worked for some pasty, impotent consulting firm they would consider me?

                Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (September 12, 2007 10:30 am ET)
         

      Don't look to the MSM to do their job; they're clearly in the tank for the GOP. Is it possible that some of the corporations that own the media outlets are also raking in billions in defense contracts? Mmmmmmm.....could be. At the very least, these massive corporate behemoths are spending tons of money on pointless "image" ads with these networks. Who are those Boeing ads aimed at, anyway? How many people watching Larry King are in the market for a 747?

      War has been reduced to a profit/loss equation. Unfortunately, the lives of our troops don't seem to register on the scales. However, the ego of George Bush is worth dying for, according to some. Can somebody explain that?

      The most amazing thing, for me, is the deafening silence from those who routinely have screaming fits when anyone proposes spending their precious tax money on healthcare or education. These "fiscal conservatives" seem to have no problem with the money-shredding machine that this administration has erected in Iraq.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (September 12, 2007 10:53 am ET)
         

      "What say MMFA about the other major news networks and their coverage? " -Tommy

      "Well absolutly nothing of course ;-)"  -Jeter 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 12:09 pm ET)
           

        No way! Was Tommy bsing? He's usually such a straight shooter.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (September 12, 2007 12:29 pm ET)
             

          They were just quick to pounce on MMFA for criticizing Fox News first. 

          It took MMFA a whopping 4 additional hours to pounce on NBC and the WSJ over their Patraeus coverage.

          I'm sure the WITH Patrol won't let us down.  They'll find a way to twist this 4-hour gap into a Soros-Olbermann conspiracy. ;-)

          Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (September 12, 2007 12:33 pm ET)
           

        So Pete, are you nominating me for a "tipster" award, or just congratulating me for steering MMFA solely away from Fox News?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (September 12, 2007 1:03 pm ET)
             

          Don't flatter yourself.  MMFA always credits contributors at the end of each item when they receive a tip, and I don't see you mentioned.

          Anyone who saw your original post knows darn well what the intent of asking that question was.  In addition, your question did not make any specific mention of the Patraeus coverage by NBC or the WSJ, making you even less of a "tipster" than you may think you are.

          As far as you or any individual forum contributor influencing or "steering" MMFA, who really knows?  But I would find it difficult to believe that you had any effect on whether or not MMFA is monitoring and analyzing media beyond Fox News as it relates to Patraeus' testimony.

          I can just see the MMFA staffers ringing alarm bells.  "Oh no, Tommy's got us on our toes again!  We better change the channel and see what other networks are saying!" 

           

          Report Abuse
    • Author by achrispage6992 (September 12, 2007 11:05 am ET)
         

      Is it a coincidence that Petreaus testified on 9-11? I would like to see who scheduled his testimony and if the White House was responsible they are nothing but RATs, dirty, stinking, cheese eating, disease carrying, RATS.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (September 12, 2007 11:37 am ET)
           

        Pure coincidence...I'm sure! How could you ever suspect that this administration would exploit 9/11 so shamelessly? I mean...really!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (September 12, 2007 12:01 pm ET)
             

          Pure coincidence...I'm sure! How could you ever suspect that this administration would exploit 9/11 so shamelessly? I mean...really!

          Funny - I was listening to part of Mark Levin's radio pukefest yesterday and the imbecile who was filling in for him (Mark Simone - a one-time radio great who sold out the the right) was blaming the DEMOCRATS for "forcing the general to testify on 9/11"....

          Report Abuse
          • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 12:14 pm ET)
               

            Basic Rovian tactic WZ, accuse the other side of what you're doing first so that when they point out what you're doing it just becomes a case of 'partisan bickering' in the eyes of the Fair and Balanced media.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (September 12, 2007 12:40 pm ET)
               

            The Democrats are partly responsible.  They wanted the hearings prior to Patraeus' report on the 15th, which is Saturday - considering they couldn't happen on the Jewish holidays, they had to be held on 9/10 and 9/11.  Perhaps if they'd checked their calendar, they'd know that.

            Nobody to blame but themselves.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 1:31 pm ET)
                 

              And who set the date for the report Tommy?

              Would you care to make the case

              Report Abuse
              • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 1:33 pm ET)
                   

                infernal machine! Sorry.

                Would you care to make the case that the GOP in general and the Bush Administration to a huge degree has NOT blatantly manipulated the emotions from 9-11 for political gain?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (September 12, 2007 1:54 pm ET)
                     

                  It is not uncommon for both political parties to exploit pretty much anything at their disposal for political gain, tragedies or otherwise.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 2:15 pm ET)
                       

                    Yeah Tommy, I guess it's all Fair and Balanced huh? Problem with conventional wisdom is that it's often completely false and used by people who want to appear even-handed while they actually have a very specific agenda. Like excusing what was atrocious manipulation and exploitation by the Bush team. But gosh, who's to say huh?

                    Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (September 12, 2007 12:11 pm ET)
           

        Well of course it's just a coincidence.

        By the same token, only by sheer chance did Petreaus' 2004 newspaper op-ed --touting all the great Iraq "progress"-- get published just one month before the presidential election.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave_chicago (September 12, 2007 12:55 pm ET)
             

          To add that actually having it on 9/11 I think if anything had a negative effect on the Bush/Petreaus two-headed transplant report, as it turns out. It did more to remind people of the still-at-large Bin Laden, and how much went wrong since that day, and just how much of a sad diversion Bush's botched, senseless Iraq fiasco is.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by sundog (September 12, 2007 12:12 pm ET)
           

        Having their 'squeeky clean' general testify on 9-11 was as blatant and sleazy as anything else they've done. I've wondered if people like Rove and Limbaugh actually took some satisfaction from the fact that Bush got to stand on the bodies of so many 'New York liberal elites' and be declared a hero.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (September 12, 2007 12:14 pm ET)
           

        I'm amazed that everything they don't plan turns out pretty good for them.

        Yet everything they do plan (The War) has a devastating effect on those involved.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.