Jul 07 2009
Do Not Believe the Statistics
IÂ watched a documentary the other day, War Made Easy. The basic underlying focus of the film was how the government uses propaganda to create support for war efforts, and basically co-opts the mainstream media to do so as well. I didn’t find anything earthshattering in what was presented, though the discussion on how the media loses objectivity was interesting. I’d say it’s worth watching.
One of the things that was presented in the film, however, was a bit annoying. There was a set of statistics presented to highlight how the proportion of non-combatant casualties has risen from war to war. It was something like 10% for World War I, then like 50% for WWII. It was higher still for Vietnam, and something like 90% for the Gulf War. That sounds horrible, but its an example of how people either missuse statistics.
Now, it makes total sense that there would be a big increase in civilian casualties between the first and second World Wars. After all, carpet bombing was introduced for the latter and the figures probably also include concentration and other prison camp figures as well. There was also considerable bombing done in Vietnam.
Here’s where we start running into trouble with the numbers, though. The total number of casualties for the Gulf War were a fraction of those those from earlier conflicts. At the same time there was less actual combat and I believe a higher proportion of combatant surrendors and desertions. This makes the comparisson of civilian casualty rates misleading.
I’m in no way trying to justify war or to discredit what the producers of the film were trying to say. My point is instead that statistics used out of context and without proper understanding can lead to incorrect conclusions. This happens all the time, especially when it comes to economics and politics – often intentionally so, which really pisses me off.
Here are some other posts which might interest you:
- Site Traffic for the Month of April
- Broke Documentary: Watch it for the trading content
- Please, Please, Learn from History – Diversify Yourself
- Some interesting stuff in the media
- Another Trap for the Small Stock Market Traders
John,
Just to highlight your post:
“There was a set of statistics presented to highlight how the proportion of non-combatant casualties has risen from war to war.”
If you are talking about a proportion: Civilian casualties/Military casualities then the program is correct, due to, as you say, falling combatant deaths.
The point the program “might” be making is due to technological progress, the manpower element of warfare is being reduced. This would lead to smaller military personnel deaths.
Due to this technological progress, standing armies in the battlefield are obsolete. The guerilla style of warfare, using human shields is now tactically [from Vietnam] the way to go. This will inevitably raise non-combatant deaths.
Another example recently was in Palestine with civilian populations serving as a human shield against superior Israeli weaponary.
It is possibly this trend the program was seeking to highlight. [I haven't seen the program, so only guessing]
jog on
duc
Duc – The program didn’t address at all any of the things you brought up. It was basically an anti-war piece that focused on how the gov’t manipulates public opinion. The figures were presented in a manner to suggest that increased civilian casualties are a result of what the gov’t is doing with it’s war policy. It didn’t speak at all to the kind of tactics you’ve pointed out or the changes in the manner of war. Kind of ironic that the producers used the same sort of trick with those stats (knowingly or otherwise) that they were railing against the gov’t using.