Posts Tagged ‘data’

Americans Not Invading After All

Saturday, February 12th, 2011

Grave of the Visa ConspiracyIt was said by Hermann Goering during the Nuremberg Trials,

“The people don’t want war, but” they “can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

The Germans told that Jews were invading, the American right-wing tells the story about Muslims, and the British even used to tell their children that Napoleon Bonaparte was stalking the streets. Here, certain elements here have been telling the story that the Embassy in Washington has been granting countless visas to Americans with no security checks. It’s all part of the same strategy to create fear and suspicion in the minds of the masses which makes them easier to control. The actual evidence, however, tells a different story. It turns out that the Americans are not invading after all. As for the rotting corpse of the Visa Conspiracy, let us finally bury it once and for all.

The Visa Conspiracy states that the Embassy in Washington has been giving out visas like sweetmeats to every American Rambo who comes calling. Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani who has been at the center of these conspiracies held a press conference providing Embassy data on issuance of visas to journalists so that they will be armed with the facts and not the talking points of political operatives.

An APP report in Daily Times on Friday quoted the Ambassador as directly challenging claims in the media that the Embassy in Washington had issued visas without following proper authorisation.

“The embassy has not issued any visa without proper authorisation,” he stated, rebutting media accounts. The critics, he added, have not been able to bring to light even a single instance in which a visa was issued without following authorisation.

But the Ambassador did not stop with simply making denials which of course the conspiracy wallahs would simply ignore. Rather he opened the books and provided the data which proves beyond any doubt that the scare tactics being used are simply ghost stories and nothing more.

The following charts have been made available which show the data of visa issuance since 2007.

Comparative analysis of visas issued to US nationals between 2007-2010 (diplomatic, army and allied agencies)Month-by-month comparative analysis of visas issued to US nationalsAnnual comparative analysis of visas issued to US nationals since 2007-2010If this is an invasion, it’s going to take a thousand years. Actually according to the US Embassy in Islamabad, there are 700,000 Pakistanis in the US. And let’s not forget the terror that was struck into the hearts of our media when it was threatened to take away their own visas to the US!

This data finally puts to rest the Conspiracy Theory that has been beaten to death by Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat, Shireen Mazari, Ansar Abbasi, and Ahmed Quaishi. These so-called journalists should be quite relieved as they can finally rest their arms which must be exhausted from beating this dead horse for so long. Obviously they never had any actual data to back up their claims, but simply relied on ‘reports’ from unnamed sources, if these sources even actually exist. Real reporting is not inventing stories to scare people, it’s doing careful research to identify facts and then presenting those facts to the reader so that he can understand the world around him. Now that we have buried this conspiracy, let’s have more real reporting, please.

Drone Statistics

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Show Your WorkIn school my maths teacher used to always require that we write out each step in an equation so that he knew how we arrived at the answer. If a student simply wrote the answer to a complex equation without showing how he arrived at that answer, he was not given credit for the equation because there was no way to know if he truly knew the answer, if he simply guessed, or if he had memorized some answer to give. A similar problem faces the media today on how to solve the equation of civilian deaths caused by drone strikes in the tribal areas.

Today’s edition of The News includes two articles which add to the confusion. One by Amir Mir claims that the majority of deaths were those of innocent civilians:

Of the 1,184 persons killed by the American drones in 124 attacks in 2010, around 59 percent were innocent civilians while the remaining 41 percent were terrorists belonging to numerous militant groups based in the Pak-Afghan tribal belt.

According to his article, Amir Mir’s analysis is based on “data gathered by The News primarily from local and international news sources”. He does not reveal what these news sources are – and important point considering the prevalence of questionable and planted information.

An editorial on the same day in the same newspaper claims that “Nobody, be it nation or agency, is questioning the analysis of the figures for drone strikes in Pakistan is 2010 which have been printed in this newspaper”. If nobody is questioning these figures (which is not true), they should be.

Katherine Tiedmann, of the blog AfPak Channel, posted on Twitter today asking Amir Mir to provide his sources so that they can be verified, noting that his figures are not what she sees.

Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation tells a different story:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2011

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)

2011* 15 18
2010 591 985
2009 413 709
2008 263 296
2004-2007 86 109
Total 1,372 2,125

*Through January 1, 2011

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2011

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2011* 15 18
2010 569 927
2009 293 405
2008 106 134
2004-2007 78 100
Total 1,061 1,584

*Through January 1, 2011

As you can see, these figures provide a much different answer than the one arrived at by Amir Mir – 985 total deaths (on the high end) with 927 of those being militants. That means there were 58 innocent civilians killed, or 6 percent of the total. As you can see, this is a far different result than what Amir Mir found. Unlike Amir Mir, Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedmann do provide news sources to back their figures.

Inaccurate figures for deaths resulting from drone attacks is an ongoing problem in news media. This has been a controversy raised within the media itself by researchers such as Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood. Differences in methodology and the difficulties of obtaining accurate counts make it difficult to know for certain the number of deaths and whether the victims are associated with militant groups. All death counts should be considered with this understanding, and the idea that nobody should question one group of figures is ridiculous.

Dr Zeeshan Usmani’s “Pakistan Body Count” data site has been taken offline after it was shown by Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood to be unreliable. If Amir Mir and The News have sources to back their figures, they should reveal them so that they can be fact-checked. Despite their claims to being unquestionable, they are, indeed, being questioned.

If Amir Mir’s numbers are correct, The News will be doing the nation a service to reveal the source of his data. As it remains, however, his figures are in doubt because there is another data set which does reveal its sources and methodology and contradicts Amir Mir’s claims. We look forward to seeing the data set from Amir Mir so that we may judge for ourselves.

The Nation Repeats Incorrect Data on Drone Attacks

Monday, November 22nd, 2010

The Nation (logo)The Nation today includes an editorial, “Say firm NO to drones” that repeats incorrect data on the number of deaths of innocents due to drones attacks. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that such incorrect data has been published by The Nation which raises the question of whether the newspaper is intentionally misleading the people.

According to the editorial,

The drones have already wrought havoc in the country, killing nearly 2000 innocent men, women and children, and spreading insecurity nationwide, while managing to take out only 30-odd suspected Al-Qaeda operatives.

The authors of this editorial do not reveal what source of information they have taken these numbers, and based on the publicly available data it appears that they have simply made it up from thin air. Possibly, though, they have taken their data from the website Pakistan Body Count by Dr. Zeeshan Usmani. However, this Pakistan Body Count data was recently debunked by independent researchers.

Research by Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood was published by Daily Times in October and is also available at the website http://dronedata.wordpress.com.

The first problem is that Dr Usmani has only two entities in his data, i.e. al Qaeda and civilians. Where do the Taliban fit in, precisely the Afghan Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Islam (LI)? Where does targeting monsters like Baitullah Mehsud and Qari Hussain Mehsud fit in this scenario? There is no justification for including the TTP, LI or any other militant groups in the same category as civilians. Such gimmicks are only being used to mislead the whole world and any such defence of the flawed data is misleading and unacceptable. We cannot claim whether the data is manipulated and purposely flawed for ideological reasons. What we can assert is that this alone leaves a serious flaw in his data collection and since the government of Pakistan officially declares the TTP, LI and associated groups as terrorists and has been pursuing an active military campaign against them, including their deaths amongst civilians is a serious distortion of the truth, erroneous and contrary to acceptable logic. Their deaths are and should be included as a part of the accuracy of drone strikes.

Mr Saeed and Mr Masood go on to reveal several inaccuracies in Dr Usmani’s data which makes his entire project unreliable. And these are not the only independent researchers that have debunked these statistics. Researchers at the New America Foundation have compiled data based on news reports and other verifiable research. The following is data from Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2010* 514 841
2009 413 709
2008 263 296
2004-2007 86 109
Total 1,276 1,955

*Through November 21, 2010

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2010

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2010* 488 781
2009 293 405
2008 106 134
2004-2007 78 100
Total 965 1,420

*Through November 21, 2010

The Nation also recited in their editorial the idea that drone attacks are responsible for suicide bombings. This defies common sense. Actually, Saeed and Masood eloquently explain why such ideas are nonsense on their website:

There lies no factuality in the rhetoric that strives to create a cause and effect relationship between drone attacks and suicide bombing. These are shallow assertions with hollow foundations and no proof to back them up. They can, they are and will be used as a motivating factor, but they are just one amongst the hundreds of motivating factors used by militants. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any suicide bomber has been linked to or a potential bomber that has been apprehended had any acquaintance that died in a drone attack. We challenge the other side to bring forward any news report, intelligence report or a case report that states that the person caught or who carried out the bombing had any relative that died in a drone attack and he was avenging his family members. Most of the times, this assertion is made without any evidence. One of the cited examples is of Faisal Shahzad but that it is unbelievable since his life story as is tells how he was led to the TTP. Baituallah Mehsud once claimed that a suicide attack was in revenge for a particular drone strike but it is unbelievable that he and the group of his monsters wouldn’t have carried it anyway.

The prime reason militants fight and suicide bombers exist is the world view of clash of civilizations, an ideological assertion of one’s one faith over the other’s and the view all military operations conducted by our forces are being conducted on the “behest of the US”, where they view death for their “greater cause” as the ultimate achievement and where life itself remains just a step towards a better eternal life they imagine. They view the state’s involvement in the war on terror, including the Operations in Wana, Tirah, Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, South Warizistan, Operation Silence and Swat as only for “pleasing the US”, as guided by infidels. The drone attacks are an additional factor but in no way the prime motivating factor. The toxic religious dogmas of declaring everybody not cooperating with you as Kafir and liable to death is a major factor, not drones.

Obviously, none of this justifies the use of drone attacks in Pakistan or anywhere else. The debate about whether or not drone attacks are a good policy for Pakistan should be discussed openly and transparently, and each individual is entitled to his own opinion. But nobody, including The Nation, is entitled to his own facts. Using misleading and inaccurate data only undermines an argument. In a debate as serious as the issue of drone attacks, only honest facts should be considered. For a newspaper to knowingly continue using inaccurate data is dishonest and unprofessional.

Disaster Relief, Then and Now

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Ahmad Noorani, journalist or political operative?Ahmad Noorani writes for The News today a curious article about flood donations received from the international community. The thesis of Mr Noorani’s column appears to be that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime in 2005. Despite the author’s intentions, though, his presentation of facts to back his claim are questionable at best. Often they are simply incorrect.

According to Noorani, “the total present pledges so far stand at only $777 million and the actual money received so far is only $82 million”. This is false.

According to data compiled by The Guardian, committed funding (funds that have been received) stood at $687,228,789 on 26 August. And additional $324,309,146 in uncommitted pledges (funds that have been promised, but not yet delivered) is outstanding. That means that the total present pledges can be no less than $1 Billion.

The largest donor is the United States, which has given $155,930,000 and pledged an additional $50,000,000. The next two largest donors are Saudi Arabia ($74,448,904) and United Kingdom ($64,765,001). In addition to monetary donations, many countries have provided “in kind” donations of foods and transportation, such as over 30 helicopters that are being provided by the US.

According to Noorani,

“A spokesman for the Economic Affairs Division confirmed to The News that by the weekend the total aid received in cash stood at $82 million while relief goods worth $60 million had also arrived, making the total foreign aid received at $142 million.”

It is not clear from Mr Noorani’s column what account the representative from EAD confirmed, but the claim that “the total foreign aid received” was not more than $142 million is not possibly correct.

It is also of concern that Mr Noorani compares international response to the 2005 earthquake to the response to the 2010 floods without considering the very different contexts of these two disasters. In fact, there are several important differences between the two events that analysts believe to be responsible for the difference in international aid.

The death toll in the 2005 earthquake was over 73,000. The latest reports put the number of deaths from flooding at around 1,600. While the number of deaths attributed to the floods is expected to grow, it is a slower killer than the earthquake, potentially making it seem less urgent to many international donors. According to one NGO, disasters that are more quickly destructive raise more relief money.

World Vision typically raises 10 to 15 times more from donors responding to a hurricane or earthquake as opposed to a flood, said Randy Strash, World Vision’s strategy director for emergency response.

There are other obvious reasons as well: The economy in 2005 was much stronger than the economy in 2007, making many donors feel that they can give more of their personal funds to help others. And, while the worst crisis in recent history, the flooding comes only a few months after the earthquakes in Haiti resulting in what many are calling “donor fatigue”.

None of these points are addressed in Mr Noorani’s column.

It is also curious that, when describing donations, Mr Noorani switches between currencies without providing any constant by which to compare. After some basic conversions using the website XE.com, it appears that some of Mr Noorani’s data points may be misleading.

For example, according to Mr Noorani, the total demands of provincial governments amount to over Rs.1 Trillion, or $11.8 Billions in US dollars. While no one suggests that the amounts currently raised for relief and reconstruction are anywhere near adequate, none of the recent crises saw such a large amount of donations.

The most recent crisis before the floods, the earthquake in Haiti, has received a pledge from the international community for $5.3 Billions over the next two years. This is less than the $7.5 Billion pledged by the USA alone last fall even before the floods devastated the country. Furthermore, the pledge did not come until April, four months after the disaster. While everyone will hopefully do more to help the flood victims, saying that fundraising is a failure if it does not achieve such levels as Mr Noorani suggests does not provide a realistic metric for evaluation.

Given the introduction and conclusion so the column, the author’s intent seems to be to suggest that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime. What the author actually does, however, is make false comparisons and ignore important qualitative and quantitative data that explain differences in the response to the 2005 and 2010 disasters. While we hope that Mr Musharraf is able to raise some funds to help the country, it is important that media reports of donations be accurate and impartial so as to encourage everyone to give generously. Misleading reports such as the one filed by Mr Noorani do not help.