supercar on Oct 15 2008, 12:17 AM, said:
On Monday, the potentates of the press finally discovered a study completed last month by Harvard University researchers about what we have been saying for years: There is a direct connection between adverse U.S. news coverage about Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and intensified attacks on civilians and Coalition forces in Iraq. "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq," shows that negative media coverage — and adverse commentary by U.S. political luminaries — produce a statistically measurable increase in enemy activity. To produce the study, analysts researched the number of insurgent attacks and fatalities per week from the beginning of OIF in March 2003, to January 2008. They also examined the number of "anti-resolve statements" per week by U.S. politicians from November 2004 to January 2008 and American public opinion polls on the war from November 2004 to January 2008. The researchers found "a positive correlation" between spikes in war-critical statements in the media and the number of attacks and fatalities. They also showed that attacks increased between 7 to 10 percent following a spate of anti-resolve statements by leading political figures. The authors of the study, Radha Iyengar and Jonathan Monten, boldly state that, "We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases." Well, duh! This carefully researched study verifies what many of us who have spent months in the field concluded long ago: The drumbeat of negative "news" coverage about events in Iraq and the careless commentary from the political left in Washington have increased the jeopardy for U.S. troops and our allies.
Stirring the hornet's nest? It's a proven fact when we put more troops in violence goes down:
(charts prepared by General David Petraeus for testimony before Congress in April 2008)
Ahhh...fox news..gotta love it...parsing data to its limit. Do yourself a favor and widen your horizons a bit...
Your graph doesn't address my point. Unfortunately there is more to that picture than you'd care to admit. You are leaving out a point. My point was that made clear in earlier post and had to do with violence and death that occurs to civilians and how it spurs further aggression, not anything to do with the amount of troops in a region. Perhaps you'd like to pull out the graph of how many iraqi tribal leaders we are paying off right now in order to keep them quiet...keep them calm. Do you have that graph? Do you have a graph that addresses how things are going to melt down when we stop paying tribal leaders to keep them quiet and keep them from attacking each other?
Does your graph address the latest car bombs in the region of Camp Taji and how close those bombings were to firefights were with US troops in which apartment buildings had to be taken out to stop aggressors? Do you have graphs that address the relation of car bombings to US operations? Do a bit of searching between car bombings and see how close they are to major US operations.
You can parse data all day long to make it say what you want, but you are trying to apply the graphs you provided as some kind of response to my comment when it isnt even close, perhaps if you were to take the time to stop watching fox news(your first mistake) and get a hold of a copy of the latest US Army manual on counter insurgency operations( the folks that actually do it for a living) then you would know what the heck I am talking about.
For someone who claims to be such a supporter of the war, you seem to be so focused on the drivel fox news puts out that you dont even know what the US Army actually is saying...if fox news doesnt report it that is...