Maybe. They even admit the Iraqi casualty figures are just what they garner from press accounts, but I bet the trends are fairly accurate and the Military Casualties are numerically accurate coming directly from military sources.
True, but to make a comparison with statistics, numbers are numbers and words are words.
But Shakespeare used words one way, and the New York Times uses them another.
As another poster said, casualty counts are not always the best indicator of the success or failure of a mission.
Unless, of course, that is how you define sucess or failure. Then, then any mission that keeps the troops safely on the base is by definition a successful one.