How to Lie About Iraq With Statistics

Remember the old 'DC (or California) is more dangerous than Iraq' meme that went around back in the day (and is apparently still around in some circles)?

Well, there's a new twist, from a commenter at LGF (via BradtheDad at TPM Cafe): mortality rates per 100,000 are lower among the troops than in the US as a whole. Here's the pitch:

In the year 2000, per a report by the CDC, the mortality in the US hit a record low rate of 876.3 deaths per population of 100,000 people for the year. In 1999, the mortality rate was 877 per 100,000 people. Of course, we all know, and grieve, what happened in 2001 when over 3000 Americans lost their lives in a matter of an hour [9/11 was a tiny blip in overall mortality rates for 2001, so I have no idea what this guy is trying to say here].

At any given time from the beginning of the Iraq war back in 2003, we have had over 100,000 troops dedicated to Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the lowest, we had 110K, and in fact now are at 135-160K.

As of this date, March 19, 2006, exactly three years after the war in Iraq began - we have had about 2,323 US military fatalities from both hostile and non-hostile actions.

Using the LOWEST possible rate that was observed in the United States - in the year 2000, at a rate of 876.3 deaths per 100K population, that would come out to a mortality rate of 2629 per 100K population in three years (should that rate have been maintained).

You can clearly see that the rate of US soldiers lost in the Iraq war is MUCH lower than the lowest fatality rate observed in the US in the year 2000. The average fatality rate of OIF soldiers per year is about 774 soldiers per year.

This is a little more sophisticated than the last one, but it's equally bogus. To see the problem, take a look at 2002 mortality statistics broken down by age. Among those 20-24 years old, the mortality rate was 95.2 per 100,000. In the 25-29 bracket, it was 94.7 per 100,000. In the oldest bracket currently serving in Iraq (and these soldiers are older on average than in previous wars), 45-49, it's 357.1 per 100,000. In other words, mortality rates for those serving in Iraq are between 2 and 8 times higher than for comparably aged people back home.

BradtheDad says, "The right is getting increasingly desperate in making the case that the war is going well." I call that understatement.

[That's all, folks]