This is an ugly story. The New York Times generates a blatantly slanted story attempting to paint war veterans as damaged, defective murderers just waiting to be unleashed on an unwitting America. They cherry pick the stories of some 121 "killings" committed by "combat veterans" – although they really do not explain the criteria they used for making those choices. They then spin this into a tale of damaged, traumatized people rampaging across the country. There is no context at all, just the stark telling of 121 killings – all blamed on military service. Armed Liberal tries to give some of the context that the Times is unable to manage.
And we're presented with a litany of tragedy.
But as usual, I keep asking the simple question – well, what does it mean? How do these 121 murderers compare with the base rate of murderers in the population?
And the answer appears to be damn well.
The only reference I could find for the number of troops who have served in combat areas was at GlobalSecurity.com, citing a Salon article:
Three and a half years have passed since U.S. bombs started falling in Afghanistan, and ever since then, the U.S. military has been engaged in combat overseas. What most Americans are probably unaware of, however, is just how many American soldiers have been deployed. Well over 1 million U.S. troops have fought in the wars since Sept. 11, 2001, according to Pentagon data released to Salon. As of Jan. 31, 2005, the exact figure was 1,048,884, approximately one-third the number of troops ever stationed in or around Vietnam during 15 years of that conflict.
From the October 1, 2001 start of the Afghanistan war, that's about 26,000 troops/month. To date (Jan 2008) that would give about 1.99 million.
That means that the NY Times 121 murders represent about a 7.08/100,000 rate.
Now the numbers on deployed troops are probably high – fewer troops from 2001 – 2003; I'd love a better number if someone has it.
But for initial purposes, let's call the rate 10/100,000, about 40% higher than the calculated one.
Now, how does that compare with the population as a whole?
Turning to the DoJ statistics, we see that the US offender rate for homicide in the 18 – 24 yo range is 26.5/100,000.For 25 – 34, it's 13.5/100,000.
I'll point out that there are some 1.4 million active duty military personnel and about 1.3 million more in the reserves and National Guard. There are also some 26.4 million veterans of the US armed forces in this country. Bruce Kesler, who has had to deal with the smearing media since Vietnam says this:
Yet, the New York Times could not find words to put the 121 cases of physical violence by vets in full perspective. For example, these 121 are a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of the hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. This post does some quick calculations to come up with a smaller rate of homicides than among the civilian population.
The NYT’s does offer this: “The Times used the same methods to research homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years before and after the present wartime period began with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.
This showed an 89 percent increase during the present wartime period, to 349 cases from 184, about three-quarters of which involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The increase occurred even though there have been fewer troops stationed in the United States in the last six years and the American homicide rate has been, on average, lower.”To which the Pentagon offers this:” Colonel Melnyk questioned the validity of comparing prewar and wartime numbers based on news media reports, saying that the current increase might be explained by “an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11.” He also questioned the value of “lumping together different crimes such as involuntary manslaughter with first-degree homicide.” I'm sure the Pentagon had more to say, much of it unpublishable for polite company.
In short, the NYT’s has no serious methodology but a serious agenda.
Amen. This is trying to tag returning veterans with a "defective" label, just as they did to returning Vietnam veterans. Yes, the killings are tragic, but it is just wrong to try and forward an agenda by exploiting those killings this way. And it is criminal to try to smear all service members and veterans in this way. (Oh, the NYT hatchet job is here, by the way.)
Pingback: justbarkingmad.com » Blog Archive » PTSD in the news
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The NYT’s Needlessly Slanders Our Troops
Keep diggin’, New York Times!
This number also included traffic accidents.
AP
-The 121 killings ranged from shootings and stabbings to bathtub drownings and fatal car crashes resulting from drunken driving, the newspaper said. All but one of those implicated was male.
The New York Times is a despicable trash rag that will soon be out of business. But I do hope they keep printing this crap it makes me money.
6 month range NYT 26 in June 07, 15.63 on Jan 9th
That is a drop of about 40%.
Full Disclosure: I have shorted this stock for over two years. I bought my wife diamond studs this Christmas with some of the profits. I do not hold a short position for very long. Do your own diligence don’t listen to me.
Nice goin’, Pete!
It is to bad for the small investors in NY Times stock that the paper is run by a Trust Fund Trotsky and staffed by narcissistic useful idiots.
Pingback: Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » The NYT’s Needlessly Slanders Our Troops
Citing statistics out of context is the bred and butter of liberal propaganda. Look at how they scream and holler about the number of American Soldiers killed in Iraq and how terrible that number is. Now, don’t get me wrong, I truly hate the necessity of ANY American Soldier having to die in a war. As a veteran myself I mourn the loss of every single one of them. Having said that, let’s put the number of miltary fatalities in Iraq into historical context – the number of fatalities is the second lowest (second only to the first gulf war) in any major military event in history. This is the type of context the left loves to ignore.
The NYTimes is written by the left for the left. Where’s the surprise here?
Pingback: The Baltimore Reporter
This P.O.S. was picked up in the Sac Bee (also Left leaning) and I was pretty disgusted.
Skewed statistics aside, the example character- Sepi should be commended for taking out an armed Gang-banger. This, in my opinion was self defense. I suspect, the only reason he was charged was because he was carrying an unlicensed weapon (the charge was not in the article). Granted, an AK47 is overkill, but what if it were some non vet defending him/herself with a pistol? Would it be seen as an act of violence or self defense?
I see nothing wrong with what Sepi did. Aware of his surroundings, he armed and defended himself with what was probably the only weapon he had available.
Perhaps gang members will think twice before threatening someone.
I’ve never been in combat and I’ve never killed anybody, but I have watched some war movies and right now I am irritated at the weather, so WATCH OUT!
NYT stock down another 1.38% with the Dow up 1.36%.
Ha ha ha ha hahahhahahaha
I wrote to both authors of the story and here’s a response from one of them- Lizette,
————————
Thanks for your comments.
After months of research and consultation, it became clear we were going to be unable to compare the rate to the civilian population for many reasons. But one thing to keep in mind is that everyone who enters the military is screened and must undergo a battery of tests. The military allows in only a tiny fraction of felons. Civilians are not screened, and most murder are committed by felons with prior criminal histories.
Your comments on Sepi are interesting, and I think you are right as to why prosecutors and police were sympathetic to him. We chose to let the story of Mr. Sepi and his crime speak for itself. Many of these men who come back and kill are, in fact, very different from civilians who kill and that is a factor in the thinking of many people who deal with the aftermath.
Sincerely,
Lizette
—————————–
My letter to Lizette-
Regarding- Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles First off can you pls put the numbers in perspective? How does the MURDER RATE for Vets (I’m not a Vet) compare with non-Vets? Can you pls follow up with this info because it appears to me that the stats you present are skewed to make it appear as though Veterans are committing violent crimes at a higher rate than the general populace, which I doubt. Skewed statistics aside, the example character- Sepi should be commended for taking out an armed Gang-banger. This, in my opinion was self defense. I suspect, the only reason he was charged was because he was carrying an unlicensed weapon (the charge was not mentioned in the article). Granted, an AK47 is overkill, but what if it were some non vet defending him/herself with a pistol? Would it be seen as an act of violence or self defense? I see nothing wrong with what Sepi did. Aware of his surroundings, he armed and defended himself with what was probably the only weapon he had available. Perhaps gang members will think twice before threatening someone.
——————-
I’m disappointed in her response regarding the Civilian statistics. With respect to the testing folks in the military are subjected to, Peace officers also go through a stringent battery of tests and those tests aren’t 100% accurate at finding deviants char traits. With respect to her point about murder committed by felons, this is a straw man. Many murders are committed by civilians with no criminal history and I’ll bet with some research those stats are available.
Regarding Sepi- In the context of the article, he’s presented as an example of a vet out of control- A “Rambo” unable to adjust and fit into society after taking part in a war.
Sad.
That is just plain lame.