Quote:
Originally Posted by texgal
I checked out your link but didn't really feel the need to read the whole .pdf file. I will, however, say this about the statistic you offered.
1. Statistics can be manipulated. You really do need to consider the source.
|
I have considered the source - and to be frank, the source does gloss over or miss numbers that could actually help their arguement - however it's also important to keep in mind that this was written as a quick issue summary for politicians :P
But the numbers they do use are good.
Quote:
2. The following statement is pretty out there:
• A Canadian soldier in Kandahar is still nearly six times more likely to die in hostilities than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq.
Comparing Canadian troops in Afghanistan to US troops in Iraq is nonsensical. Apples to oranges. Also, stating that Canadian soldiers are more likely to die is a little iffy - saying that they've had a greater percentage (or numbers, but I think they're talking percentages) of fatalities would be a better statement.
|
How is the comparison nonsensical, or the statment out there?
First most people (and even most politicians) are aware of the dangerous level of violence and insurgency in Iraq - it presents a useful mirror to compare combat operations against an insurgency.
Now to break down the numbers - I'd suggest just looking at page 11 of the report. For example if there are aprox. 20000 US troops and 2000 Canadian troops - if during combat operations the US suffers 40 casualties and Canada suffers 20 - what do those numbers say? Yes the US suffered more loses, but Canada suffered more proportionally... of course the report gets a little more detailed than this. Anyways if say statistically Canada can is experiencing (the military works out loss percentages ahead of any operation estimating a percentage killed and wounded) a loss rate of 18/1000 troops deployed - and the US is experiencing a loss rate of 3/1000 troops deployed... then statistically a Canadian soldier is six times more likely to be a casualty.
However what the report misses is the fact that two "deployment rotations" from now, or early 2008, at least 33% of Infantry and Armour soldiers will be doing their second full tour of Afghanistan (unless there is a sudden influx of soldiers due to recruitment) simply because there is no-one else to send. For example there are more Toronto Police officers than there are Regular Force Infantry soldiers... or Gen. Mackenzies favourite example: if the whole of the Canadian Armed Forces gathered in the Skydome (Toronto Blue Jays field) there would still be thousands of empty seats. Anyways, back to what this means risk-wise for the troops: some are going to be playing the numbers game a second time - something the report could have made a lot of
Threaded Mode
