Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lee martell
Any "Study" published by the New York Times has to have a very low accuracy rating. 20%?

Studies of US Military Personnel serving under this CINC and other presidents would be interesting.

4 posted on 04/01/2015 8:48:49 PM PDT by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: TYVets

“Studies of US Military Personnel serving under this CINC and other presidents would be interesting.”

A closer look at the article reveals that such a study really is warranted. The study was “prompted by a military suicide rate that has nearly doubled since 2005” but then only “analyzed records of 3.9 million military personnel who served from 2001 to 2007....”

The statistics cited in the article don’t show the rate increase during that time frame, only a comparison between those who served in the war zone and those who served elsewhere (”18.86 deaths versus 17.78 deaths per 100,000” - a 6% difference but above the national average of 13 per 100k). It also pointed to a 25% difference between the services that were more directly in combat (Army and Marines) versus more remote (Navy and Air Force - don’t know how they account for SEALs and such).

The aim of the article appears at the end, citing a doubling of the rate for those who left before serving a complete 4 year enlistment, and a tripling for those who left with less than honorable discharge - those for whom health and mental care are not provided. The aim appears to be justifying extension of services, and perhaps mental health services would be justified (though of course Obama would just find this a way to extend everything).

Back to the real news from the article - doubling of the overall military suicide rate since 2005 (while the study only went to 2007). This suggests there may have been some increase as the war went on under Bush, but really took off under Obama. Any wonder - changes in ROE, lack of respect from the CIC with all that has gone on under him. The article was prompted by a doubling since 2005 but focused on the Bush years, apparently in an attempt to, as others have suggested, find those who were exposed to combat are “damaged goods” - which could then be blamed on Bush. The real story is what prompted the initial study - why has the rate doubled since 2005 (which also is into Bush’s second term, when Democrat support had not only waned but become opposition).


20 posted on 04/02/2015 2:11:22 AM PDT by LibertyOh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson