Fuzzy Math and the Definition of Murder

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Fuzzy Math and the Definition of Murder

Author's Note: I had already typed this up once and was very happy with the resulting piece, but, just as I was about to copy it in case I somehow lost it, my browser froze and I did lose it. So, forgive me if this isn't all it could be, but I quite upset at the moment and just want to get this done.

There are some things in life that can be argued at length, but, at their core, remain very much non-debatable. I believe that murder is one of these such topics. Murder is murder.

According to the always convenient Dictionary.com, murder is defined as follows:
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
2. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

I only mention this because it appears that the Department of Defense seems to be a little hazy on the subject of what constitutes murder and violence. Last week, while speaking to me online, my aunt mentioned that she was glad to see the news reporting that violence and murders in Baghdad were down by 50%. This caught me be surprise as I hear the intel report every morning and was under the impression that violence in our area of operation was, if not up, certainly not cut in half. I wondered how I could feel so out of the loop when I work here and had not seen any of this progress. It is a very unsettling feeling, and I thought about it to myself for the past week wondering if perhaps I was wrong, but the reality of the intel briefings and the gun shots and explosions I heard outside the wire told me otherwise. It all made sense to me today when I read this report by the Associated Press:

September 12, 2006BAGHDAD - The American military did not count people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks - including suicide bombings - when it reported a dramatic drop in the number of murders in the Baghdad area last month, the U.S. command said yesterday.The decision to include only victims of drive-by shootings and those killed by torture and execution, usually at the hands of death squads, allowed U.S. officials to argue that a security crackdown that began in the capital Aug. 7 had more than halved the city's murder rate.But the types of slayings, including suicide bombings, that the United States excluded from the category of "murder" were not made explicit at the time. That led to confusion after Iraqi Health Ministry figures showed that 1,536 people died violently in and around Baghdad in August, nearly the same number as in July.
The figures raise serious questions about the success of the security operation launched by the U.S.-led coalition. When they released the murder rate figures, U.S. officials and their Iraqi counterparts were eager to show progress in restoring security in Baghdad at a time when Iraq appeared on the verge of civil war.
At the end of last month, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, said violence had dropped significantly because of the operation. He did not, however, make the key distinction that the rate he was referring to excluded a significant part of the daily violence in and around the capital.
Yesterday, for example, at least 24 of the 29 people slain in the capital were killed in bombings.

What is happening here is patently obvious. After all the optimism they exuded about their plan to "take back Baghdad" and after extending the Alaska based 172nd Stryker Brigade's tour by up to four months to operate it, it would be a PR nightmare to admit that, one month into the operation, there was no measurable success. So, what did they do? They created a "new math" but didn't apply it retroactively all the way back to the previous month. In essence, they lied. Whether it is a lie of omission or a lie of commission, a lie is a lie, and murder is murder. I certainly believe that killing someone by bomb, mortar, or rocket fits the second definition of murder I cited, as it is without a doubt an inhumane and barbaric way to kill someone. Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City and was charged and convicted of 168 counts of murder; so why is something murder in one country and not murder in another? It is simple, when a conclusion of no murder makes the government look better, or merely not as bad, however you wish to perceive it.

What really concerns me is that they may have gotten away with this had some authorities in Baghdad not called their bluff. Someone thought they had found an ingenius way to get around that pesky "is it working" question by redefining murder without first consulting Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, or of most importance, the American people. I am not a general, and I don't have a better plan. I have strategic ideas, but not many tactical ones and I trust that our generals' years of experience are more of an asset in this fight than are mine. I have plenty of ideas, observations, and concerns with what I have seen in this occupation, but I understand that the opinion of an E-4 is not generally sought. I do, however, expect certain things from my leaders, and one of those is truth. I understand that there are some things concerning OPSEC that cannot be discussed or discussed truthfully, but something like the number of murders in a single month appears to be something that our leaders should be truthful about. I'm not asking for much here.

I have said before in this very blog that I have never been more cynical about our government than I am right now. I was not always like this, but the events of the past eighteen months have made me question everything that comes out of the government's mouth. What genuinely upsets me, though, is that there are still people who not only accept everything the administration says as Gospel, but also attack anyone who questions the war as someone with their head in the sand. To those who look at this article and do not ask serious questions (like, "What else are they lying about?"), I emphatically point my finger at them as the true ostriches.

For an administration that is constantly deflecting claims that it brought us to war based on lies, it would appear to be beneficial to be transparent and honest in assessments regarding this war. Each new accusation of lying only strengthens the case of past lies being perpetrated on the American public. In counterinsurgency warfare, the biggest challenge and the biggest prize is winning the confidence of the population, the people. How can we do that here when we don't have the confidence and trust of the population at home? The DOD's fuzzy math has done much to erode the confidence I have in our leaders, and I imagine I am not alone. Does this anger anyone else?