GingerV,

The statistics about terrorism, and by implication the results of the war upon it, are subjects of active debate. The link I have provided below provides three charts, and the supporting numbers, for three significant measurements: frequency (how many occurred during a year), and how many were killed and how many were injured. The red plot shows the statistics provided by the US State Department, the blue plot is that of numbers provided by the RAND organization, an organization independent of the US government. I hope that the source of the data will not be used to derail the discussion.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/ter...intlterror.html

I call upon any Pixie who is adept in statistical analysis to assist here. My familiarity with the discipline is more than 20 years old.

While this data set is modest, I believe that a positive trend line may be plotted on all three charts from the start of the recording in the late 60s through the late 80s. This would indicate that terrorism as an institution was growing.

All three charts show a dip in the 1989 – 1990 period.

The Frequency and Fatality charts also show a negative trend line for the period from the late 80s through the late 90s, a period of global economic growth. This would indicate that terrorism as an institution was decreasing. The Injury chart differs sharply beginning in 1993. I’m unsure of the cause, perhaps a change in weaponry, or perhaps tactics.

Following the decline of global economic growth at the end of the 1990s, the frequency and magnitude of terrorism incidents increase. The 2001 Fatality plot is anomalous, skewed by the 9/11 incident.

Focusing on the period 1998 – 2003 (the last year for which both data sets are complete), the numbers show a decrease in both injuries as well as fatalities. The RAND & DOS numbers for terrorism incidents during 2003 are at variance. We’d need to find out if there was a change in reporting criteria for either organization.

These numbers fail to support the suggestion made by some that the War on Terrorism is a failure. I think that now it is your opportunity to provide data sets from other reputable organizations, with a similar analysis. Perhaps the EU provides statistics on this subject. That, coupled with a RAND-like apples-to-apples comparison from some other respectable European institution unaffiliated with the official line would help dispel, or at least mitigate any American spin on the numbers.

Actually, my statistical analysis is pretty good. Has to be, both to do what I do for a living, and to keep up in conversations with my physicist bf. And I'd be glad to help with that side of things...but the first thing (and I'm sure you know this) is that lines are meaningless if you don't know what into them. What constitutes a terrorist incident here? Are they source specific, or are they collapsing across various terrorist organizations? Something as simple as whether Sept 11 (to use one that we're all too familiar with) count as 1, 3 or 4 attacks makes a difference.

Also, line graphs like this aren't terribly meaningful in this sort of complex system. Verbal analysis of what is and isn't relevant would be a big help in interpreting what are, effectively, raw numbers. More than that, though...IF you put any faith in these for purposes of prediction (and I'm not sure if they're useful for that), there are a couple of things that throw up some problems for the assertion that the Gulf War Redux has had any impact on the war on terror.

The US Dos number seem more relevant (don't fold domestic terror in...although if Palestinian attacks on Israel are counted as domestic I may be 100% off about that), and according to them...while the number of fatalities dropped (although given the range even in non-spike years I'm not sure it's statistically significant), the number of attacks stays the same between 2002 and 2003 (the closest we can come to before and after measures, I disagree that the 1998-2003 bin is telling...both cause I don't see the dip you talk about around the spike...and the Bush pre-emptive defense doctrine wasn't applied until 2002). Arguably, that means we're not making anything better. Data from 2004 would be particularly interesting, but isn't available until the end of the year apparently. So if you come back with "this doesn't show a long range effective decrease" I can't argue on the numbers. But I would want at least a logical argument to show why it should be expected apriori that the effect would be long range. Most folks seemed to think the effect would be instantaneous. Then again, most folks think Iraq was responsible for 9/11....so there you go.

You might say that we aren't making anything worse, to defend the invasion. But I think that's problematic...as the positive effect on the War on Terror is used to justify the damage we've done. So we have on ballance made something worse, without making Terror better.

Anyway....could you throw me a rope on the folks who put these numbers together in the first place so I can get a better idea about where the numbers come from? Thanks.

G

GingerV,

Bless you!

I was concerned that I was about to be castigated for another interminable dissertation. It has also been many moons since I was last tasked with statistical analysis. Your response has comforted me on both points.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics, yes’m. I’m sure we can tend to this. I shall try to secure the measuring criteria used by each organization. I do believe that terrorist incidents are here recorded independently, thus 9/11 = 4. Let us not let the Palestinian attacks on Israel slip between the cracks of the debate. Terrorism is not an American problem, it is a World problem.

I’d like to review what may prove to be a point of contention between us

Reading your posts has left me with the impression that you believe the “Old Guard’s” (of which I would be assumed to be a member) position is that the justification for the overthrow of the Hussein regime was a natural consequence of the War on Terrorism.

That line goes, I believe, roughly that “there was some covert association between Hussein and bin Laden, and so by removing Hussein, bin Laden would be damaged, and anyway we should have taken Hussein out in 1991, so getting rid of the sonofabitch does the world a power of good anyway”. No?

Actually, my recollection of the events leading up to the Iraq regime change of March-April last year is that the armed conflict was justified by Iraq’s non-compliance with several UN resolutions. These related to the inability of UN verification of Iraq pledges to eliminate its programs to develop NBC munitions. Subsequent, very, very thorough searches failed to find any WMDs, and indeed it turned out that the programs which Mr. Hussein thought were in place, actually were being manipulated for the financial gain of various senior Iraqis. A bit embarrassing to Messrs Bush and Blair.

The argument for the invasion of Iraq was not based on the previously announced WOT by Bush, but on of the “clear and present danger” that Iraq presented to the world. I’m sure you recall the famous “15 minute” comment, and Secretary Powell’s satellite photographs? There was also a bit of a bother with allegations of HM government “sexing up” the Iraq dossier to “enhance” the case for war.

Where I am going with this line of argument is that there is no useful purpose served in arguing that “the invasion of Iraq did no good in the WOT”, as that was not the basis for the invasion. The reason that I have spent the time reviewing this is because I hope to avoid a debate about the invasion of Iraq last year defining or limiting the discussion of the WOT.

War on Terror--continued
 

Sorry to have been away these few days to have missed the post "war on Terror" posted by Vigil--a great thread in that this is an important topic.

I see that Jseal had taken some issue with my posting to the previous thread--sorry you have and misunderstand my position. But as for Poland and Denmarks assistance in our involvement in Irqac amounts to next to nothing--barely enough troops contributed to guard a shopping mall and they are more dependant on US forces to keep them safe from terrorest--been there and seen it first hand.

Any person who is killed in war is one too many--loosing flower of our youth though shameless borrowed by me is a fact. It doesn't refer to just a body count--it also refers to the lost innocents, and bitter memories that will haunt the lives of many a serving soldier. Personally I would have perfered to exist ignorant of the ugly face of war and been happier for it. Sadly that is my lot and not the lot of others.

And yes the invasion of Afganistan was to end a terrorest safe havean--and as much as I hate to admit it--it was and should be to kill "verman". I would dearly wish with all my heart that these verman can be reasoned with to end the hate and violence. Yet they will not listen to reason and ignore the parts of their own beliefs that don't suit their views. Thus what else is there but to destroy them? Its reality as hard as it seems.

Now that is the fact of our times--that many young men and women will die and many an act and threat of violence will be ours for an unforseen score of years.

Yet to win at least a truce is to first recognize the evil we the US have done on the area, and accept the responsibility as well as apologize for it. Lastly where possible even atone for our mistakes.

Correct that we armed and trained "freedom fighters" during the Soviet invasion. But after the Soviets left--what did the US do after that? Nothing! We left Afganistan a mess. We crushed pro-democracy movements in Iran in the 1950s-60s, supported tyrants; oh yes Saddam was an ally at one time when he was at war with Iran. Many a shorted sided policy of ours is to blame for todays problems. It is time to address those past mistakes openly and honestly.

Then we need to encourage and foster a change for the better the lives of the people. In Saudi, far too many people suffer poverty despite that country's wealth. We support still the ruling family and ignore the people there. When live has no joy in it and despairation is the norm, people reach for things to find some hope. Or is the lesson of the rise of the Nazis lost to this current generation. Perhaps had not the Germans not been so disperate the sick person of Hitler would never have come to power.

Oh Hon, I don't deserve blessing. I may desperately need it, but I surely don't deserve it. I'm just a college brat who became an academic, and have no fear of numbers. There are loads of different ways to have the discussion, I've just been trained from Babyhood how to cope with this one ;).

OK. You're right...step one is to sort out the tangle or we're gonna keep talking at cross purposes.

If I follow your breakdown, we've got three.

1) Is the WOT (yet another freaking TLA) working? You're chasing the numbers on this one...so I'm gonna leave it on your desk for the time being. Well, not entirely, I'm coming back here in a minute...put a pin in it. ;)


I love the Twain quote, by the way. The way my grand-mother always put it was that "figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Numbers are useful beasts, but they're only as good as the garbage that goes into them. Important to know what it was.

2) Did/does the invasion of Iraq have f-all to do with the WOT? You're right, I just presumed that folks tend to associate the War on Terror with the invasion of Iraq. I am surprised we agree that the invasion had nothing to do with the War on Terror, but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I disagree strongly, however, that no-one ever tried to associate the two. I will go wading back through I don't know how many speeches for the relevant quotes from all sorts of folks, including the White House up to and including the President if you want. But I'll start here with the "are you kidding me?" defense. Of course they tried to tie the two together. The meme that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 started there! I agree with you that there is no connection, but I think it's naive to think that they're not trying to sell the two as a package deal.

2.5) I think there's a subquestion here regarding whether we were justified to invade Iraq absent the WOT argument. Living in England I can all but read you the dossier (and the 45 minute comment...God knows how much sooner we'd have invaded if it'd been a 15 minute comment ;) ). I also remember Blix's reinterpretation of Powell's satellite photographs ("they're likely to just be trucks" not likely to slip my mind), and his assertion that the inspections were getting it done...just not quickly enough to suit Bush's time line. But in the interests of keeping the playing ground clean, I understand leaving the argument about whether the danger was either clear or present or even real for another time and place.

3) Was a flat out invasion of Afghanistan an effective way to promulgate the WOT? I presume that all the discussion of 2.5 doesn't apply here. However, my initial assertion that it hasn't done a blind bit of good and, in fact, was a invasion of a country that didn't attack us hasn't really been dealt with. Totally cool, nobody can do everything at once. God knows I can't.

AND looping us back around to the first point (I did warn you it was coming), if invading small countries with tanks was a useful thing to do in this new age of pre-emptive defense (I figure the best way to embarrass the administration is to never let them forget that assinine phrase)...wouldn't we have expected the invasion of Afghanistan to have impacted the numbers?

I still have to think that we're doing it wrong. That, in fact, there's no evidence that we're accomplishing anything. And that by the arguments of the Right or the Old Guard or whatever they're called this week, failing to do this right is a very very bad thing.

G

WOw I didn't even know I was quoting Mr. Bertrand Russell I thought I had came up with that on my own. Not to say I didn't hear it from him or someone who was quoting him I just did know it.

How far do you let this go do we say 50/50 or with it stacked the other way 45/55 or more is alright to just as long as it get done what we want done. As far a questioning the CIA you are damn right I want to question them it's one of those things that make this such a great country. With out the right and ability to question them and hold then accountable for what they do they become just a secert police force that can be used as wanted.

Hi Booger

The problem with the 50/50 methodology is who is to decide the weight given to the issues. I may appear to lose a view if its 90/10, but the 10 might be so improtant for whatever reason that I decide to override the 90.

We both have systems that allow people in a position of trust to make these decisions on our collective behalf and they run the risk of losing their positions if we find out that their overriding for the 10 is wrong.

I don't know how much access we have to MI6 and 5, but I can see why so much of what they do has to be covered by our "official secrets act" which becomes (mostly) a matter of public record after a suitable period of time.

Whilst as I say I agree to the need for this type of system, I do think that you get a feel for whther your government is displaying the required integrity. Generaly we throw out our politicians when they are seen to have lost this or to have screwed up the economy for the majority of voters.

Re Jseal and Ginger - I think it is too soon to judge the effects of the so called WOT. I see a general tactic of reducing their opportunities both financially and where they can safely operate whether in our own countries or theirs.

I imagine that there are a few rogueish states left but there appears to be a shift to their coming on board. All this takes time and I would expect a short term increase as the effectiveness of this policy bites.

Bad luck about the physicist Ginger - I'm with a linguist - much more use!!

*laughing* A wierdly high number of my friends in college and grad school were linguists, Vigil....I just don't know where I went wrong. Next time, I swear I'll look you up ;).

I think the whole 50/50 thing is too simple a way to measure the greyness of an area. I've never liked arguments where the ends are allowed to justify the means, and I get the sticky feeling this lends itself to exactly such usages. But mostly, I've never known anything to be grey in just one dimension. In this particular case, I see ways that we could've achieved the 50% good without earning the 50% bad, so I'm just kinda confused about the logic.

Vigil, I get that you see the logic of their tactics. But their money is Saudi, and we're not doing anything about that. They safely opperate without OUR country, they don't need a willing government. They had training bases in North Africa, we've done nothing about that. They've got cells (STILL) in London and one can only presume New York, we haven't solved that. I get the logic, but I don't see the effectiveness.

Will you also grant me the logic that by using conventional warfare and a willingness to acrue civilian injuries and casualties (I WILL hit the first person to use that rediculous euphamism, you know the one) with a soggy sponge), we also give individual angry young men more of a reason to joint the organisation, and older men to fund it? Grant me simply the logic of it, and I promise I'll leave Chompsky out of it ;).

I keep trying to pull other examples into the discussion of this War on Terror, because ours is hardly the first. I admit that any analogy is faulty. But if you don't like England/IRA troubles (and their use of precisely our tactics took decades and eventual recognition of and negotiation with to show results, arguably the last part is inevitable if you use this approach), how about Germany/France? I'm not calling Bush a nazi, but the harder the Germans squeezed, the more people joined the French resistance. They weren't overly impressed with the "French" government Gernmany gave them despite the nominal "independence" it offered. They wanted the Germans out. Period, end of story. Their mere presence was a recruiting tool. I'll say it again, you can't win a War on Terror with the 82nd airborn. I see no evidence that the current administration's approach is working, I think they've chosen only to accept part of the logical implications of their actions.

G

Interesting you should mention linguists and Chomsky, as he is one.

Booger,

You are, of course, quite right about the CIA. Of course you can criticize it. Of course you should criticize it. Doing so is what distinguishes what WE are from what THEY were. Freedom is being able to speak your mind, democracy is when the government listens. I forget where I heard that, but I like it.

Remember that the CIA does what the Congress and the Administration fund it to do. During the Cold War, the use of surrogates was a common technique, employed by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Quite effective, actually. Look at what the Soviet surrogate did to the US in Vietnam, and what the Afghan one did for the US to the Soviets.

While some may find this technique distasteful, it is a standard operating procedure in great power politics which goes back many, many years. The French employed it effectively against the British in North America a few years back.

GingerV,

If you’re unwilling to fork over the $$, as I am, they don’t make it easy…

US Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/

Select 2000, (A)Introduction, scroll to the bottom for Definitions, and in the note on non-combatant you’ll read that each terrorist attack is measured separately, each with the possibility of multiple casualties (ref two servicemen killed in the Labelle discotheque bombing, and the four off-duty US Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador).

I’m still working on the RAND criteria.

Point 2 of post 82: let take as given that the Hussein/bin Laden story was a transparent fall back position once the WMD position became untenable. I’m confident that you’ll be able to trace its birthday back to the funeral pyre of the WMD. Bush and Blair felt confident that the WMDs would be found. They weren’t.

Point 2.5: Sorry about those 30 minutes, I can’t proofread either. The verification of Iraqi compliance with their commitments was the responsibility of the Iraqi government. Iraqi obstruction and duplicity is well documented, and occurred over an extended period. The Iraqi government could have ensured that they were completed promptly and did not do so. A straightforward miscalculation.

Point 3: The Taliban Afghan government was overthrown by the Afghans of the Northern Alliance. The United States and Great Britain provided crucial air power. Between The end of October and the end of November 2001 the Northern Alliance had captured 60% of the country. Kandahar, in the south of the country fell to the NA on December 6, 2001. The American bombing campaign then focused on the Al-Qaeda training camps and headquarters in the Tora Bora area in the east of Afghanistan. The ground war was fought and won by Afghans.

Hey that is the only thing I know to be true!!!!! He is a naturist! I just had an exam on him :p Well not physically on top of him. My neo-skinnerian ass had a hard time :p

Pardon my interuption...play through :p

MMmmmm...... :slurp: