Iraqi Deaths Spike Five Months Into Surge

Yahoo News ^ | August 1, 2007 | Joseph Krauss

[1035rep]

I know I’m sick of it. These liberal terrorist appeasing cowards will say anything to gain power. Looks like the average American is starting to see through this leftist BS.

[MinorityRepublican]

This is something President George H.W. Bush wouldn't had messed up. His objectives in Persian Gulf War were clear. We knew what we had to do and when to get out.

This time, we weren't clear in what we were doing after we took out Saddam and since then we had to improvise what we are doing in Iraq which is not what we planned for.

[stormer]

Given a normal distribution (bell curve), 67% of the sample will fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean, and 97% of the sample will fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean (if I recall). By comparing 2 sets of samples (e.g. 2 different locations, or two different date ranges), one can determine to what degree changes in the second can be explained by changes in the first, and the level of confidence that can be placed in that determination (you’re taking me back here). The Pearson Correlation (R-value) reflects that level. With 10 degrees of freedom (we have 11), the critical value of R needs to be < .576, assuming a P-value of .05 (very strong correlation); in comparing Aug 05 - Jul 06 with Aug 06 - Jul 07, the R-value is .218, indicating that variations between the two years in the number of deaths is statistically insignificant. In other words, there is no down trend other than the seasonally expected one. Whew - does that make sense?

[Enchante]

There are two aspects that are not accounted for in any comparision of year-to-year troop fatalities:

1) we have 20% more troops in theater

2) by all accounts many more of the units are doing more aggressive missions within the ‘surge’ which could easily yield more US casualties unless/until the terrorists are pretty well quashed.

Thus, what cannot be quantified (it seems to me) is that with substantially more troops performing a much larger number of dangerous missions now, US casualties could easily have gone up a lot. Even to stay in the same ballpark, statistically, may prove to have been a remarkable positive accomplishment given the missions the troops are currently performing.

The real test will be whether the new counter-insurgency tactics prove to work, as many reports indicate they will. IF in 6 months’ time the ‘insurgency’ turns out to be much diminished, then this summer’s efforts will have accomplished a great deal at less than the casualties that might have been expected.

[stormer]

Clearly this is a situation that does not readily lend itself to predictive analysis well. However, I believe what the numbers indicate is that while there is a down trend from May through July in the number of casualties, this same trend was seen last year at this same time (perhaps it’s getting too hot to fight). As you have pointed out, “with substantially more troops performing a much larger number of dangerous missions now, US casualties could easily have gone up a lot”, and it is my contention that, in fact, they have - almost doubling from the same period last year. Again, no downward trend except that already explained by a seasonal variation.

[stormer]

Make that 68% +/- 1 SD and 95% +/- 2 SD.

[stormer]

“The surge began in May...”

The figures I have are slightly different, no matter. 07 May - 126, June 101, July 80; 101/126 = .80, 80/126 = .63 (alternatively, 80/101 = .79). 06 May - 69, June - 61, July - 43; 61/69 = .88, 43/69 = .62 (alternatively, 43/61 = .70). Therefore, for 07: 1.00 - .80 - .63 (.79) vs. 06: 1.00 - .88 - .62 (.70); not much difference in the trends. Furthermore 126/69 = 1.8, 80/61 = 1.7, 80/43 = 1.9. The relative change in the numbers of casualties between surge vs. no surge is unchanged, yet the actual numbers of casualties are almost doubled.