Pajamas Media

50 Comments

Jeb:

This was not the point of the story nor do you correctly portray the sympathetic (to the soldiers) tone of the story.
The article points out an 89% increase in these type of incidents over the years prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Increased violence amongst veterans after war is acknowledged by the military and all of the major veterans groups that I am aware of. It highlights cases where vets that were clearly in need of care did not receive that care. Some seem much more intent on creating controversy over the tone of the article rather than addressing the problem noted.

Jan 17, 2008 - 3:48 am Rubicon:

With this story, the New York Times once again provides ample reason why advertisers and the public should look elsewhere for their news & information.
It is ironic the NYT has failed to understand that those who abhor war more than anyone else, are soldiers.
However, those same soldiers know that the freedoms the NYT & other media enjoy, have been bought with the blood, sweat, & tears of those who fought those conflicts or stand by in the ready.
Peace has a price & all Americans should be thankful we have those willing to pay that price for all of us. Pacifism is a wonderful utopian dream. However, all dreamers must eventually wake up to the realities of life. Utopia is a dream state, & to reach it, all one needs to do is die. To try to practice the utopia pacifists want us all to embrace in real life, all everyone needs to do, is drink the kool aide of surrender & slavery to tyrants who pretend to be more intelligent & to know better than all others.
This story explains why the NYT is financially falling behind & will continue to do so. Hopefully her advertisers will realize that stories like this one, do not represent the majority of Americans, & such stories are an anathema to those who love freedom. So why should an advertiser be associated with such an organization? Or a reader for that matter?
Whatever problems soldiers have after returning from combat, it is our responsibility to help them overcome with proper medical treatment, not to demonize them or portray them as out of control fanatics by using conjured mathematics. In the end, the real choices are these. Fight & remain free, or give up & live under the subjugation of tyrants who make George Bush look like Casper the Friendly Ghost!

Jan 17, 2008 - 5:33 am anon:

Ah yes, the “sympathetic tone” of the NY York Times, pitying those poor, poor baby killers, and only months after cutting MoveOn.org a huge family discount to call our top general in Iraq “General Betray Us.”

Tell me another one.

No one is denying that veterans deserve far better treatment for the psychological wounds of war, but you’re being as dishonest as the Times if you think that this newspaper is, or even have been, sympathetic to the troops except for these rare occasions where that feigned sympathy, combined with bogus research, can be used towards a political end.

Jan 17, 2008 - 5:52 am Mike:

Has anyone checked to see whether these 121 are actually all veterans? In “Stolen Valor” B.G. Burkett found that many of the purported Vietnam Vets used as examples by the media, were not. But no one bothered to do background checks if it fit with their narrative. And to Jeb, there is a difference between sympathy and self-righteous pity. Save it for someone else. We don’t need your pity.

Jan 17, 2008 - 7:41 am Susan Katz Keating:

This is a replay of what we saw after Vietnam, when the media routinely headlined crime reports with phrases such as, “Vietnam Veteran Robs Bank,” etc. Only thing was, much of the time, the perp wasn’t even a veteran, let alone a combat vet. The difference between then and now is that during Vietnam, society was openly hostile toward soldiers and veterans. Today, MSS (mainstream society) has learned to couch its suspicions and hostility in pseudo-sympathetic terms. Nevertheless, we’re still getting the psycho-killer stories. Are we seeing an increase in violence among war vets? If so, let’s look more closely at our recruiting standards. The sad truth is, many veterans are indeed suffering PTSD. The real risk from that, though, is not that the sufferers will go postal, but that they will become personally waylayed by depression.

Jan 17, 2008 - 8:02 am Dave:

Imagine what would happen if the Times published an article that proved with statistics that black men were ten times more likely than white men to murder somebody.

AACK! It would be the end of civilisation.

And yet they do this, with easily dismissable pseudostatistics.

Think there’s an agenda at work here?

I can still hear Country Joe and the Fish singing “vietnam” in the background…. whoopee, we’re all gonna die…

Jan 17, 2008 - 8:14 am MattB:

Perhaps some enterprising young journalist at the Times will now endeavor to find stories about young men and women whose lives were on the wrong path, joined the military, and are now rightly considered among America’s finest. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts it’s many, many more than 121 just from Iraq/Afghanistan vets since 2003.

Jan 17, 2008 - 8:26 am tom scott:

I would like to the the NYTimes next report on the number of illegal aliens that have committed or been charged with similar crimes in the U.S. I think they’ll probably be able to come up with more than 121.

Jan 17, 2008 - 8:57 am Josh:

Has anyone done a study to find out how many journalists or former journalists have committed murder?

Jan 17, 2008 - 9:30 am Dadmanly:

Bob, thanks for taking after this story and giving some more air time.

The Times often proves itself and editorial practices reprehensible, but rarely so clearly.

I posted on this the beginning of the week here.

Jan 17, 2008 - 9:42 am Mary:

Why does the comparison civilian rate have anything to do with this article? Why does it matter what these men were doing prior to service, or the extenuating circumstances, surrounding their alleged crimes?

You’re reading in the tone that “All vets are killers.”

No, but “The article points out an 89% increase in these type of incidents over the years prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Increased violence amongst veterans after war is acknowledged by the military and all of the major veterans groups that I am aware of.”

You can spin all you like, but these facts remain true, unless somebody wants to claim these men were not veterans. What they might have done as civilians who never served, comparing them to civilian murder rates, or downplaying the alleged murders doesn’t change the fact.

It’s the critics jumping to conclusions here…

Jan 17, 2008 - 10:01 am debk:

Jeb, any sympathy shown towards the vets is designed to lay the blame for these “killings” on the “military” for sending these poor innocent guys into battle which made monsters out of them, and then not taking adequate measures to treat their mental difficulties. No one here is downplaying the existence of PTSD or the possibility that it might be a contributing factor in violence that a few vets commit. But the complete omission of any statistics that could provide a comparison with an equivalent portion of the general population is a flashing red light telling us that the NYT is pushing an agenda. Any cursory look at the real numbers tells the story that the worst case scenario for the military vets is still better than that of the equivalent civilian population. The only statistics they cite are the alleged increase in “killings” before and after 2001 — but they brush off the Pentagon’s criticism of their lumping manslaughter and murder statistics together, as well as the Pentagon spokesman’s valid point that it is quite likely that murders committed prior to 2001 would have been less likely to have been identified as having been committed by a “veteran” in news reports (in the same way as most military deaths due to training accidents etc. were completely ignored by the press until there was a war on). The Times admits it got its 121 number from reviewing press reports - therefore it is open to criticism on its methodology for coming up with the number 121 and the alleged 89% increase. If they wanted to do a fair report also, they would have included more specific information on the killings (note the one about the drag-racing car crash) or not included at all things like “alleged” killings in their stats. They are trying to win a Pulitzer on the back of our soldiers by pretending to be sympathetic to them while lambasting the military for placing these guys in the position to become murderers. It is disgusting, but par for the course for the Times.

Jan 17, 2008 - 10:09 am TomB:

You can spin all you like, but these facts remain true, unless somebody wants to claim these men were not veterans. What they might have done as civilians who never served, comparing them to civilian murder rates, or downplaying the alleged murders doesn’t change the fact.

The problem with that is the method they used to “research” the killings is not even remotely comparable for pre and post war situations. They only searched news stories for “war veterans” involved in killings. But prior to the war, the likelihood of someone having their military service mentioned in an article about murder is slim. After the invasion, of course, any person who served has their service mentioned.

There is no way the two situations are comparable.

Jan 17, 2008 - 10:41 am Peter:

I don’t know much about today but when I served most everybody in uniform were not fighting. When we had a half million troops in Viet Nam, my war, less than fifty thousand were carring a ruck and rifle in the bush. In my three tours only part of one involved the bush. Most of us drove trucks or turned wrenches. We might as well have been poorly paid, oddly dressed civilians, but we are all veterans.

Jan 17, 2008 - 11:02 am Jeb:

Again, attack the messenger. I am guessing that most of you who have commented here did not bother to follow the link and read the entire article.

debk,

Some attempt was made but the Pentagon told the Times that they did not keep any such statistics on members of the military and vets. Without those statistics a statistical comparison with the civilian population (for which they are kept) is not possible.

121 is not likely the complete number of such incidents as the only method they had of tracking down the incidents were news reports. If the news report did not mention the perpetrator was a vet then the times did not pick up on it. This is actually the strongest criticism of their method and it is included in the article. This would be further evidence of none of you bothering to read it before laying out your criticism. Go back and read the article and you will find two other criticisms that are stronger than any of the commenters have presented.

Jan 17, 2008 - 12:05 pm Jim:

Who are the NYTimes? Same people who read The National Enquirer and think Democrats walk on water.

Jan 17, 2008 - 12:20 pm TomB:

Jeb, do you understand why looking at news reports both before and after the invasion is a bad thing? Prior to the invasion there was usually no reason to mention whether or not a person served. However after the invasion, every person who served overseas saw their service become a big thing.

And after rereading the article, I saw very little that was sympathetic. I think a better term would be “ominous”.

Jan 17, 2008 - 12:21 pm Bubarooni:

i’ve heard at least three or four stories on npr over the last six months that go kinda like this:

war is driving our overstretched troops to the breaking point; military doesn’t care and won’t provide them with decent mental health services.

i’d wager the msm has met and decided this is the new meme on the war.

i’ve noticed several also on the general topic of ‘the boys raped me in the barracks and the male dominated brass won’t do anything about it’.

Jan 17, 2008 - 1:34 pm Ennis:

The NYT is just illustrating once again that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Jan 17, 2008 - 1:38 pm nodakboy:

The statistical question isn’t whether returning vets have a higher homicide rate than the general population, other things being equal.
It’s whether returning combat vets have a higher homicide - and other violent crime - rate than military members or vets without combat experience.
The military is an elite slice of the population and without a doubt has a much lower crime rate than the general population. Therefore, just because returning vets have a lower homicide rate than the general population doesn’t prove that waging war didn’t factor into the criminal behavior of some dozens of returning vets.
Whether such stats are available, or not, the story still stands on the far-flung reporting. There’s no doubt, based on the well-sourced accounts, that many (dozens is many, right; and too many, can we agree?) combat veterans are affected by waging war to the point that it contributes to criminal actions on their part back home.
That’s always been the case, it’s nearly an irrefutable fact, and it in no way is a slur against soldiers in general. It’s just part of the horror of war.
And acknowledging it as such isn’t an anti-war position, per se.
We better take care of our soldiers and we can do so better if we have the best information about what they need.

Jan 17, 2008 - 1:55 pm Gene McConnell:

I have polled the remaining 7 people who still find the NY Times to be a credible news source and they are becoming doubtful.

Jan 17, 2008 - 2:16 pm tom scott:

San Francisco’s skies are safe for the Blue Angels. A Board of Supervisors committee Monday rejected a measure that would have called for a permanent end to the high-flying, aerobatic show that happens yearly during Fleet Week.

And now look what happens. The killing was the sixth recorded in San Francisco already in 2008 - a pace of one homicide every 52 hours through Sunday.

Who would’ve thought that the mere presence of the Blue Angels would affect the huge military population so dramatically. It’s almost a Manchurian Candidate type episode. Has anyone notified the lackadaisical statisticians of the NYTimes?

Jan 17, 2008 - 3:37 pm Jeb:

TomB,
Yes, in fact I pointed out that strongest criticism of the article was their reliance on news reports for identifying perpetrators. I also pointed out that stronger criticisms of the methodology were included in the article than were present in the comments. I see that after reading the article you picked up on one of them (Colonel Melnyk made that point in the article in question). Regarding the tone, I think your vew is colored by your preconceived notions.

Jan 17, 2008 - 3:47 pm Sweetie:

“the story still stands on the far-flung reporting. There’s no doubt, based on the well-sourced accounts, that many (dozens is many, right; and too many, can we agree?) combat veterans are affected by waging war to the point that it contributes to criminal actions on their part back home”

The left wouldn’t know a fact if it hit them in the head. So if I find two dozen combat vets that are CEOs then we know that combat helps set the stage for civilian leadership? The NY Times deomnstrates over and voer that they don’t know port from starboard but they do know that murder lies in our hearts. Screw’em.

Jan 17, 2008 - 4:13 pm robert verdi:

Here is what I told them on the subject, they were decent enough to print my letter. It was in their paper and on their website yesterday.

To the Editor:

There have been more than 90,000 murders and nonnegligent homicides in this country since 9/11 and the onset of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You found “121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one” during that period-just a small fraction of 1 percent of those 90,000 homicides.

It is contemptible to pander to the worldview that American troops are drunken, debt-ridden psycho killers. Articles like yours feed into and perpetuate a negative stereotype of our soldiers, who have in truth shown a level of courage and civic duty far beyond what is asked of the hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens.

As an Iraq war veteran, I can tell you that soldiers need respect, not pity, contempt, hatred or fear.

Robert C. Verdi
Central Islip, N.Y., Jan. 13, 2008

Jan 17, 2008 - 4:17 pm TomB:

Jeb, it isn’t a “criticism”, it is a disqualifying shortcoming that should have caused the authors, if the weren’t already operating on their own “preconceived notions”, to abandon that line of inquiry.

You cannot knowingly base a study on bad data merely by acknowledging that bad data. You must either find better data, or abandon the study.

I see that after reading the article you picked up on one of them

How in God’s name do you know that? Tell me what telepathic ability you have that allows you to know what I’m thinking.

You aren’t doing your argument any good by making silly assertions like that one.

Jan 17, 2008 - 4:49 pm Debk:

Jeb — with all due respect, perhaps you should write for the Times with your condescending tone. I read every word of the article before I made my comment, and my comment remains the same. If the Times couldn’t get the statistics (and I hope you don’t think it is now the Pentagon’s responsibility to maintain statistics on every crime that every veteran commits until they die) then the Times SHOULDN’T HAVE WRITTEN THE STORY!!!! They are basing an entire story on patched together, guessed upon numbers that even they admit are likely not right! Yet they still threw together a story, AND they omitted the statistics that ARE available, the DoJ statistics on homicide and the general population. They did not report those numbers, they did not make an attempt to adjust those numbers for a majority male population, they did not CARE about those numbers, and you have to ask yourself why. You keep believing that the Times really has the best interests of these veterans at heart. You are deluding yourself. They see a Pulitzer in “exposing” this wave of murders and they are going to pad their stats however they can (keep in people who are acquitted, add people who are only now accused, throw in the vehicular manslaughter whether it has anything to do with this issue or not) and they are going to ignore any stats that might soften the story. The truth is they have no more idea how many homicides were committed before 2001 by veterans than you or I do. Their research is shoddy and superficial — and THEY DON’T CARE. Because once they put this story out, the damage is done — it will be spread all over and become the latest meme against the war, the vets, the military, the Bush administration. All I ask is that they either do complete research and come armed with genuine statistics, or else the forego writing the article at all. They did not, and they are wrong.

Jan 17, 2008 - 7:42 pm Alexander:

Study shows NY Times journalists more likely to lie than the rest of the U.S. population.

Across America, Dangerous Lies From a New York Newsroom

Alexander
The Scrooge Report
Orange County, Calif.

Jan 17, 2008 - 7:56 pm Debk:

Jeb — with all due respect, perhaps you should write for the Times with your condescending tone. I read every word of the article before I made my comment, and my comment remains the same. If the Times couldn’t get the statistics (and I hope you don’t think it is now the Pentagon’s responsibility to maintain statistics on every crime that every veteran commits until they die) then the Times SHOULDN’T HAVE WRITTEN THE STORY!!!! They are basing an entire story on patched together, guessed upon numbers that even they admit are likely not right! Yet they still threw together a story, AND they omitted the statistics that ARE available, the DoJ statistics on homicide and the general population. They did not report those numbers, they did not make an attempt to adjust those numbers for a majority male population, they did not CARE about those numbers, and you have to ask yourself why. You keep believing that the Times really has the best interests of these veterans at heart. You are deluding yourself. They see a Pulitzer in “exposing” this wave of murders and they are going to pad their stats however they can (keep in people who are acquitted, add people who are only now accused, throw in the vehicular manslaughter whether it has anything to do with this issue or not) and they are going to ignore any stats that might soften the story. The truth is they have no more idea how many homicides were committed before 2001 by veterans than you or I do. Their research is shoddy and superficial — and THEY DON’T CARE. Because once they put this story out, the damage is done — it will be spread all over and become the latest meme against the war, the vets, the military, the Bush administration. All I ask is that they either do complete research and come armed with genuine statistics, or else the forego writing the article at all. They did not, and they are wrong.

Jan 17, 2008 - 8:08 pm John Dunshee:

I have it on good authority that the rate of homicides by veterans between 1945-1973 was far higher than it is today.

Why? Because just about every able bodied male between 18-25 served in the Armed Forces during that period.

Now there’s hardly any that have.

But these days you also have to pass a fairly rigorous screening before you are accepted in the military. In those days, and this is first hand experience, all you had to do was to breath to gain admission.

The one statistic they left out is that there is no screening to be a civilian, which means that there are far more twisted people in civilian life than there are in the military.

The civilians shouldn’t be scared of us, we should be scared of them!

Jan 17, 2008 - 9:27 pm John Dunshee:

One other thing. If you know of someone who was between the ages of 18-25 between 1945-1973 who DIDN’T serve in the military, they are much more likely to be a psychopath than someone who did.

There must be some reason they were exempted.

Jan 17, 2008 - 9:30 pm bill:

I have read of many men who in the danger of combat that have become very religious and have come home to be monks. What is this irrefutable evidence that battle makes you a killer, when you are home. It made me a loving family man that appreciates life.
It is like claiming sex education makes a person a rapist

Jan 17, 2008 - 10:32 pm Jeb:

But these days you also have to pass a fairly rigorous screening before you are accepted in the military.

Which is exactly why comparisons between the full civilian population are less useful than comparisons with a like group (service members and vets prior to our current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq).
Statistics on the veteran status of criminals are not kept by the DoJ or the Pentagon. There is no record of the full data set necessary to make a valid statistical comparison. Apparently many here seem to think that means no comparison should be made (at least not if it points to a potential problem with veterans or veteran’s services).

Article ≠ study. There are far different standards as well there should be.

Jan 18, 2008 - 4:46 am Debk:

Jeb, If the NYT is going to write an article that states, as this one does, that there has been a massive increase in murders by vets before and after 2001, then it darn well better have good statistics to back up that claim. You admit it doesn’t have the stats to back up that claim, but you still think they should write the article! No one here has any problem with reporting on problems with veteran’s services, but you don’t get there by making spurious claims based on non-existent statistics. That is not just a shoddy study, it is SHODDY JOURNALISM. Would you accept the same level of journalistic integrity on conclusions about people you support, your causes? I don’t know your politics, but just take this article and replace the military with a a group you support and see if such generalizations based on non-existent statistics would be acceptable to you in that case. The NYT went looking for a story that fits a theme they believe and they were going to print that study with whatever stats they could conjure up to support it — while ignoring any stats that might mitigate or go against that theme. Finally, there should NOT be different standards between journalists and study authors when it comes to drawing scientific conclusions (in this case social science) which is exactly what this article does– one of the huge problems we have with journalism today is that most journalists do what you suggest — write articles that do not have the proper checks on their validity.

Jan 18, 2008 - 7:27 am Mike:

Nodakboy - “its a nearly irrefutable fact” - says who? Are you an expert on the subject, do you even know any combat vets? I always know I’m getting a load of BS when someone peppers their argument with phrases like “its a nearly irrefutable fact” or “everybody knows that.” This NYT article is a slander. Go read Stolen Valor by B.G. Burkett for a much more articulate debunking of the crazy vet libel. If you even care to know the truth.

Jan 18, 2008 - 7:30 am Jeb:

Debk,

In the absence of records that allow for statistical analysis, should we ignore anecdotal evidence?

When anecdotal evidence is all that exists, that is all we can look at. It should of course be taken with a grain of salt, but it should still be considered.

For reasons previously stated, comparisons between well kept general population stats do not make for good comparison with the anecdotal evidence collected by the Times.

This article is not getting any play in the Left wing blogs I have checked. It is however being used by several Right wing blogs to stir up outrage. Looking through the comments, none of the Left wing commenters see this article as attacking soldiers, nor do they attack the soldiers in the way some on the right have characterized this article as doing (falsely IMO).

It seems to me this is just another excuse to stir up righteous indignation in this already contentious political season.

Would you accept the same level of journalistic integrity on conclusions about people you support, your causes?

It happens regularly, particularly on talk radio. Generally I ignore it.

Jan 18, 2008 - 9:04 am Debk:

Jeb, If the NYT is going to write an article that states, as this one does, that there has been a massive increase in murders by vets before and after 2001, then it darn well better have good statistics to back up that claim. You admit it doesn’t have the stats to back up that claim, but you still think they should write the article! No one here has any problem with reporting on problems with veteran’s services, but you don’t get there by making spurious claims based on non-existent statistics. That is not just a shoddy study, it is SHODDY JOURNALISM. Would you accept the same level of journalistic integrity on conclusions about people you support, your causes? I don’t know your politics, but just take this article and replace the military with a a group you support and see if such generalizations based on non-existent statistics would be acceptable to you in that case. The NYT went looking for a story that fits a theme they believe and they were going to print that study with whatever stats they could conjure up to support it — while ignoring any stats that might mitigate or go against that theme. Finally, there should NOT be different standards between journalists and study authors when it comes to drawing scientific conclusions (in this case social science) which is exactly what this article does– one of the huge problems we have with journalism today is that most journalists do what you suggest — write articles that do not have the proper checks on their validity.

Jan 18, 2008 - 10:05 am Debk:

Jeb, First -talk radio is not the same as the NYT news pages which claim to be impartial and are taken as gospel truth all around the world. If you are now claiming that the NYT should be held to the same standard as talk radio, then I agree with you, because that is about the level of integrity and impartiality they are demonstrating in this article. Second, the point about looking at the general populace statistics is this: The NYT article says that military murders have gone up over 80% comparing six years before and six years after the start of wars in Afghan/Iraq. This is a shocking statistic designed to raise concerns/fears in the reader. The implication in the article is not just that there has been an increase but that scores of veterans are returning from these wars on some sort of mental edge that will lead them to murder. It is useful and illustrative then, to look at the percentage of such vets (assuming the NYT initial assertion is true, which I do not believe) that commit murders post 2001 and how it compares to the general population — should you be any more worried about the Iraq war vet who moves in next door than ordinary Joe who moves in? This article implies heavily - Yes - but a cursory look at the general population statistics says - No WAY, not even close! You should feel far SAFER if the military vet moves in than ordinary Joe because the fact is that the war vet is, by an order of 10 at least, LESS likely to commit murder. To say that this is irrelevant to the story they are trying to tell is to bury your head in the sand. Finally, once again, — YES we SHOULD ignore anecdotal evidence because it is, well, ANECDOTAL. By its very nature it tells us NOTHING — we can draw no conclusions from it. If someone named Jeb moves in next to me and turns out to be a serial rapist should I conclude that the reason he was a rapist is that his name is Jeb and that other people named Jeb will likely also be serial rapists??? There is no real evidence to support the NYT conclusions, and the outrage from people like me, a veteran whose husband is active duty is appropriate because we are the people being slandered. If you don’t care about evidence, than your opinions are being ruled by feelings and supposition. My guess is that there has been a slight increase in violent crime by vets who have been to war and those who haven’t, and I fully support every effort we can make to upgrade veteran’s outreach, screening procedures etc to try to catch and help those vets who have been mentally effected by some of the death and brutality they have witnessed. But, by far the real story is that, despite having been to war and seeing that brutality, an astonishing number of vets not only are not violent, but also are some of the most productive and positive members of American society. THAT is the conclusion the NYT should have drawn — I’ll be waiting for that article.

Jan 18, 2008 - 10:30 am Debk:

Jeb, First -talk radio is not the same as the NYT news pages which claim to be impartial and are taken as gospel truth all around the world. If you are now claiming that the NYT should be held to the same standard as talk radio, then I agree with you, because that is about the level of integrity and impartiality they are demonstrating in this article. Second, the point about looking at the general populace statistics is this: The NYT article says that military murders have gone up over 80% comparing six years before and six years after the start of wars in Afghan/Iraq. This is a shocking statistic designed to raise concerns/fears in the reader. The implication in the article is not just that there has been an increase but that scores of veterans are returning from these wars on some sort of mental edge that will lead them to murder. It is useful and illustrative then, to look at the percentage of such vets (assuming the NYT initial assertion is true, which I do not believe) that commit murders post 2001 and how it compares to the general population — should you be any more worried about the Iraq war vet who moves in next door than ordinary Joe who moves in? This article implies heavily - Yes - but a cursory look at the general population statistics says - No WAY, not even close! You should feel far SAFER if the military vet moves in than ordinary Joe because the fact is that the war vet is, by an order of 10 at least, LESS likely to commit murder. To say that this is irrelevant to the story they are trying to tell is to bury your head in the sand. Finally, once again, — YES we SHOULD ignore anecdotal evidence because it is, well, ANECDOTAL. By its very nature it tells us NOTHING — we can draw no conclusions from it. If someone named Jeb moves in next to me and turns out to be a serial rapist should I conclude that the reason he was a rapist is that his name is Jeb and that other people named Jeb will likely also be serial rapists??? There is no real evidence to support the NYT conclusions, and the outrage from people like me, a veteran whose husband is active duty is appropriate because we are the people being slandered. If you don’t care about evidence, than your opinions are being ruled by feelings and supposition. My guess is that there has been a slight increase in violent crime by vets who have been to war and those who haven’t, and I fully support every effort we can make to upgrade veteran’s outreach, screening procedures etc to try to catch and help those vets who have been mentally effected by some of the death and brutality they have witnessed. But, by far the real story is that, despite having been to war and seeing that brutality, an astonishing number of vets not only are not violent, but also are some of the most productive and positive members of American society. THAT is the conclusion the NYT should have drawn — I’ll be waiting for that article.

Jan 18, 2008 - 10:59 am Gene:

I would like to ask Jeb if he knows what an Internet ‘TROLL’ is?? Jeb is saying things that even he cannot really believe are true. His points are mostly nonsense words similar to what a lawyer would say in court case.

The NYT article as written does not state the facts correctly and IMHO was written using flawed underpinning. That is the truth and no amount of ‘words’ will change that truth.

Jan 18, 2008 - 1:58 pm Jeb:

Deb,

No talk radio and the NYT are not the same. Far from it in fact. News orgs also get stories close to me wrong (mostly science related).

The NYT article says that military murders have gone up over 80% comparing six years before and six years after the start of wars in Afghan/Iraq.

Not exactly. The NYT is clear about their methodology. They state that local news reports of these incidents by veterans are up by nearly 90% over the past 6 years since the hostilities relative to the 6 years prior.

This is a shocking statistic designed to raise concerns/fears in the reader. The implication in the article is not just that there has been an increase but that scores of veterans are returning from these wars on some sort of mental edge that will lead them to murder.

They include the actual number they found (~14.5 score over 6 years) along with the criticism of the methodology by the pentagon immediately following. If they were trying to inflame they would have left out the rather small raw number in favor of saying only “nearly 90% increase in homicides by vets.” That without the raw numbers would have been misleading and inflammatory. Anyone reading the article can see that the raw number is rather small (it is after included in the same sentence). As it is they made clear their methodology, made clear the raw numbers, made no claim of statistical significance, and included criticism of their methodology by the pentagon and veterans groups.

No WAY, not even close! You should feel far SAFER if the military vet moves in than ordinary Joe because the fact is that the war vet is, by an order of 10 at least, LESS likely to commit murder.

Do you have any valid stats to back that up? No, you don’t. You know how I know that? The data is not kept on the veteran status of criminals (or at least non is made public) so there can be no valid stats.

Finally, once again, — YES we SHOULD ignore anecdotal evidence because it is, well, ANECDOTAL.

If no one will keep the records to have more than anecdotal evidence that is all we have. To ignore the only evidence in our possession is folly. The strength of that evidence should be considered and the methods used in collecting it should be transparent. The Times was clear about their methodology and its weaknesses. What it indicated to me was that further study was needed. At the very least I am sure the Pentagon has records of the criminal records of active duty servicemen and women. These should be made available (minus names) for study. My sense is that violent activity would see a spike during and post conflict but would remain comfortably below general populace levels for various reasons. I can’t support this with hard data because that data is either not kept or not made available.

If someone named Jeb moves in next to me and turns out to be a serial rapist should I conclude that the reason he was a rapist is that his name is Jeb and that other people named Jeb will likely also be serial rapists???

1) Yours is a poor analogy and 2) thank goodness Jeb is not my real name, I don’t want anyone thinking I am a rapist.

Most news stories in the NYT and elsewhere about vets are about health care or difficulties faced on their return home. Johnny came how and got on with his life doesn’t make for a very interesting story. It’s not a bias against vets, it’s a bias for the exciting or the tragic. That is and has been the state of our news for some time now. This has been exacerbated by folding news into entertainment divisions and expectation of similar profit margins coupled with the shortened attention span that is seemingly a requirement of the modern world.

The result of these stories has been largely positive. Moves to clean up Walter Reed and increased donations of time and money to veterans support groups.

Finally, if the characterization of this article and the characterization of the Left portrayed on this site and other more hyper partisan sites (red state, powerline, etc) were accurate this story would be all over the Left wing blogs. As it is they pretty much gave it a pass and the limited responses on these sites by Left leaning commenters has not in any way demonized the military.

Gene,

The NYT article states the facts correctly. You may not like the conclusions you feel they draw, but the facts are not seriously in dispute. That is the truth.

Jan 18, 2008 - 4:31 pm debk:

Jeb,
As I suspected, you just don’t get it. It is useless to argue with people who think facts don’t matter, anecdotes should be used to form news stories, and who believe that just because the NYT gives two paragraphs to let the Pentagon state their problems with their methodology (in a huge and lengthy piece) that is actually a sign of fairness and lack of bias. And by the way, I DO have the facts to back up my assessment that it would be safer to have an Iraq and Afghanistan vet move in than ordinary Joe. The NYT article says 121 “killings” over the 6 years since vets started returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. The vast majority of those vets are males between the ages of 19 and 34. To be fair, the NYT says it may have missed a few, so let’s say that they missed a lot — let’s say for fun that twice as many “killings” were actually committed by Afghan/Iraq war vets in that period, 242 killings over six years. That’s 40.3 killings per year. But how many vets are there? Well, those numbers are always changing, but Salon reported this “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″. Now these number might include repeat tours, so to be safe, let’s assume that half a million individuals have been deployed by the military to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq- a very conservative estimate. So we have the stat of 40.3 killings per year by 500,000 vets of the wars. That means we have an average of 8.06 killings per 100,000 vets. Let’s compare that to the DoJ general public statistics which can be viewed here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oagetab.htm
For the age group 18-24 the average varies from a low of 22.2 to a high of 42.8, so to be extra safe we’ll say 22.2. For the age group 25-34 it varies from a low of 10.9 to a high of 22.6, again to be extra conservative, we’ll go with 10.9. Looking at the two numbers 22.2 and 10.9 we could say that 15 would be a very conservative average for the entire age group from 18-34 which is the age group that these war vets would come from. Already that 8.06 rate looks a lot better than the 15 rate for the general population — but that is not even correcting for the gender difference. The general population numbers include women in their stats. Women are approximately 50% of the general population, but they commit far, far less murders. So if we looked at that murder average compared just to the male population it would be significantly higher. (At least 1/3 again, about 20 (though likely in reality more like 2x as much)) And since the majority of Iraq/Afghan war vets are men (again by around a 10:1 margin) that is the more appropriate group to compare. You can crunch the numbers, but any way you look at it, by the NYT own stats, putting in a ton of correction for potential murders missed, low averages, etc, it is absolutely clear that a male member of the populace in that age group is far more likely than a war vet to commit murder. This is hit piece, and the fact that liberal blogs aren’t picking up on it is utterly and completely inconsequential. This has nothing to do with partisanship or politics on my part, it has to do with truth, and the NYT’s inability to get past its own partisanship to face that truth. I had no problem with the Washington Post’s expose on the problems at Walter Reed — because it was based on verifiable facts, not anecdotes pieced together in the hope of creating a story like the NYT has done here.

Jan 18, 2008 - 9:19 pm MarsVsHollywood:

Article ≠ study. There are far different standards as well there should be.

But this isn’t a regular article - it’s an “investigative report”, which rather than simply reporting straight facts, seeks to draw a conclusion from them. Seriously, look at the title of the article and series, and lines like:

“Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.”

…and tell me they’re not trying to create a conclusion.

When anecdotal evidence is all that exists, that is all we can look at.

The plural of anecdote is not data. And you draw conclusions, as the Times does here, from anecdotal data at your peril. For example, there’s “anecdotal evidence” aplenty that women are bad drivers, right? It’s not true, but stories exist, and we’ve all heard them. Think the Times would run a probing series on it? Doubtful. Also, as pointed out above, there is anecdotal evidence that war veterans can be strengthened by their experiences, but the Times doesn’t do a series on that.

This thing stinks on so many levels. The sample size (121 cases) is so small that the inclusion of marginal cases (drag racing, self-defense, drug raids, etc.) skews the “data set” to beyond inconclusive.

Sure, it’s nice that the Times acknowledges the shakiness of their own study, and even gives a whole single paragraph to the Pentagon’s substantive critique of it. That doesn’t change the fact that the basis for this “investigative report” is so thin that it doesn’t support the conclusions it tries to draw.

Finally, I don’t give a damn whether the story is getting play in lefty blogs. It’s getting play in the NEW YORK TIMES, and the fact is that people reading this article are likely to take away two things: the wrenching stories and the phrase “89% increase”, and the poisonous stereotype of the ticking-bomb vet will get a boost.

Jan 19, 2008 - 1:13 am Jeb:

Deb,
First,

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.

so if you are going to play your numbers game you should start with 349 rather than 121.
Second, you are not comparing like data sets (they were not collected in the same way) and you are not comparing like groups (one is vetted, the other is not), you also failed to correct for criminal history. In short your analysis is much poorer than that of the NYT. There is a general data set that is well recorded and there is the military subset that has not been systematically recorded. What is becoming increasingly evident is that such a data set needs to be gathered and analyzed. It should be possible, though time consuming and expensive. There public records of all felons and there are records of all those who have served. It is well outside the scope of a newspaper article to do this but maybe this will motivate some sociology dept or think tank to put out the money and effort. Then we can talk about statistical comparisons. Until then we cannot.
Again my guess (and the guesses of my Left leaning friends) is that the evidence would show an increase in violence but would still be below that of the general populace, particularly when corrected for sex and socioeconomic factors.
Keep in mind that all of us here are responding to the same article, several of us read it, all of us had the opportunity to see the raw numbers in the article, and none of us after reading the article thought that veterans were more likely than the general population to be murderers.

Mars,
The NYT evidence is actually in a grey area between anecdotal and valid systematically collected data set. They did use a repeated and systematic approach. It had flaws, but it was systematic and repeatable. I have been using anecdotal as a short hand.

The big difference in your example is that full data sets are available. If there were not a real data set on women drivers and there was a similar study with similar results, I would say that a real study should be done and likely many on both sides of this current debate would shift sides. Consistency in standards is almost completely lacking in the current partisan political atmosphere. If an article with similar methodology were to show a decrease in violent activity among vets or an increase in say charitable donations, or increased small business ownership then the right wing opinion pages would be trumpeting the results rather than condemning the article.

Re: what people walk away with after reading the article.
I have plenty of Left leaning friends and not one of them came away from the article with that impression. The only people I have interacted with that either walk away with the impression you outline or feel that the intent of the article is to walk away with that impression have been Right leaning.

Jan 19, 2008 - 4:04 am RE:

Jeb,

There are better causes to defend than the malicious intent of the New York Times.

There’s a much more rewarding life to be had on the side of those trying to build up rather than with those trying to tear down. Yes, It’s more difficult - much, much more difficult - but it’s worth it. It really is.

Jan 19, 2008 - 5:37 am Debk:

Jeb, I am starting think you are not even reading what I wrote. First you are wrong that you start with the number 349 because they said “about 3/4 of which are Iraq and Afghanistan war vets” The 349 number refers to homicides by ALL vets- the 121 number by the NYT own admission is the actual number of “killings” by Iraq and Afghanistan war vets (which also brings into question their use of the phrase “about 3/4″ it doesn’t really make sense)— which is after all the point of the article - to say that the Wars and alleged poor care after have led these vets to kill. You don’t even understand the basic numbers in the article !! Second, I realize that the DoJ stats are specific and the NYT ones not so — that’s why I made MASSIVE corrections in my calculations (actually using the number 242 for the killings instead of 121, assuming the lowest possible number of individual war vets, 500,000 although the real number is certainly 100’s of thousands larger, using the lowest averages of the DoJ statistics)…it is called estimation, and it is a very valid mathematical exercise, not poor methodology as you state. And what it shows is that the average male in the U.S between the age of 18-34 is far more likely to commit a murder than the average war vet. If I had made more precise calculations it would only have moved that number far more in favor of the vets. And once again, you are missing the point. Most people who object to this article like myself, wouldn’t object to the basic premise that veterans who have served in wars are more likely to have PTSD and also a bit more likely to commit violent acts. But the question is, how much? And is it really a huge problem? This article tries to say that it is a huge problem. The calculations I point to above say just the opposite. It is a credit to you and your friends that you didn’t come away from the article thinking vets would be more likely to be murderers, but it is not thanks to the Times that you did so, because, again, the Times intentionally omitted any data that would help the reader along to that conclusion. That shows an agenda. And, again, the reason this gets people like me upset is not because I am right-wing — it is because I am a vet and my husband who has served in Iraq will someday be a vet and I am tired of the NYT slandering vets. They participated in it after the Vietnam war, writing stories over-hyping the number of vets with mental problems. Earlier this year papers across the country carried stories about the numbers of homeless vets that again did not make proper statistical corrections to be accurate. They consistently ignore the fact that the veteran population is a much higher percentage of men than women (in the overall vet population the number is as high as 13:1) and since men commit more crimes by a large measure, men are more likely to be homeless by a large measure, those statistical corrections are necessary to really understand if the underlying assumptions of these articles are true. I am not sure if it is because these journalists are mathematically illiterate or on an agenda or both, but regardless, they are wrong. I majored in math and I can assure you that if a study on one of my pet subjects were done the way the NYT did this I would completely reject it. And even after you get statistics, there is also the question of how you portray those stats. One could, as I said in a comment above, look at the same stats the NYT comes up with and say — Wow — this is pretty amazing how many vets have served in the ultra-violent environment of Iraq and Afghanistan and yet very few have become violent at home. That, of course, is not he tack the NYT took. Have you read any front page NYT reports profiling the heroes in this war? The Medal of Honor winner? The other winners of high awards? Just the other day I read in the USAToday about an action where Al Qaeda were using an 11 year old boy to protect themselves and the Marines managed to get the Al Qaeda guys and save the boy — was that on the front page of the NYT? Unlikely. The Times carried the Abu Ghraib story on its front page for over 30 days in a row long after there was any real news to report on the subject. Please don’t try to tell vets that the NYT is neutral about the military — you are deluding yourself. There are a couple excellent reporters at the Times, but the editors who set the agenda of what to write, what stories to ignore, and where to put stories in the paper are so clearly biased against vets it is laughable. And maybe the reason the people you know don’t come away with the impression I stated is because they are not the ones being slandered. Finally, I have seen first hand the efforts the military is making to try to catch those with PTSD and get them treatment. It is a huge bureaucracy and it is not perfect - some people do slip through the cracks. But the military is making a herculean effort with screenings and debriefings etc. Of course there is nothing one can do if a returning vet lies on his screening so that he can get home sooner or because he is trying not to look weak to his comrades. There will always be cases of injustice - where someone with a mental illness is not taking seriously, etc. and the goal of the military is to reduce those cases to a minimum - but to imply that the military and the vet’s bureau is not making a huge effort in this regard would also be misleading.
I’m done discussing this with you - it’s not worth any more effort. I urge you to look at the NYT reporting on the war and vets with a much more skeptical eye. It is well justified.

Jan 19, 2008 - 5:57 am MarsVsHollywood:

The NYT evidence is actually in a grey area between anecdotal and valid systematically collected data set. They did use a repeated and systematic approach. It had flaws, but it was systematic and repeatable.

They’re essentially comparing anecdotal data with other anecdotal data. It is “systematic and repeatable” from the standpoint that they had a describable method for finding their numbers, and presumably someone else could use the same method (though apparently the Pentagon said it “could not duplicate the newspaper’s research.”) That doesn’t mean their method is any good, because their source, media reports, have too many built-in variables. Nor can they say with anything like authority that these killings were necessarily tied to vets’ service. In some cases they no doubt were, but in others they were not - a fact ignored by the Times on the way to their “89% increase”. I can’t really improve on the Wall Street Journal’s critique:

“The Times is purporting to test a media stereotype by measuring its prevalence in the media. As a Pentagon spokesman put it, that 89% spike could have resulted from “an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11.” Or, to put it more bluntly, the Times hasn’t necessarily proved that the stereotype is true — only that it is a stereotype.”

You can call us all hypocrites and assert that we’d all change sides if the results were different if you like, but crap data is crap data. You’ve said that the research has “flaws”. My point is merely that it is SO flawed, and so extrapolated from a small data set, that it’s too thin a shingle on which to hang a multi-part investigative report in the “newspaper of record,” especially when it tends to impugn returning service men and women.

I’m glad that your Left-leaning friends didn’t get that impression. But I don’t see how anyone can argue that the central thrust of this article is not, “vets are coming home damaged/crazy and killing people 89% more often”. If they’re going to make a charge like that they had better have some convincing evidence to show us. This Lexis/Nexis nonsense they’ve come up with wouldn’t pass muster in a high school term paper.

And yes, frankly, it is true that this whole thing wouldn’t grate so much if it didn’t feed into a popular and unfair stereotype that has done real damage to real people over the years.

Jan 19, 2008 - 6:24 am MrsB:

Relax everyone! Iowahawk has turned the tables on the media. One of his best satires, and that’s saying a lot.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/01/notepads-of-sha.html

BYLINES OF BRUTALITY

As Casualties Mount, Some Question The Emotional Stability of Media Vets

An Iowahawk Special Investigative Report

With STATISTICAL GUIDANCE from the New York Times

A Denver newspaper columnist is arrested for stalking a story subject. In Cincinnati, a television reporter is arrested on charges of child molestation. A North Carolina newspaper reporter is arrested for harassing a local woman. A drunken Chicago Sun-Times columnist and editorial board member is arrested for wife beating. A Baltimore newspaper editor is arrested for threatening neighbors with a shotgun. In Florida, one TV reporter is arrested for DUI, while another is charged with carrying a gun into a high school. A Philadelphia news anchorwoman goes on a violent drunken rampage, assaulting a police officer. In England, a newspaper columnist is arrested for killing her elderly aunt.

read it all (and note the graph - LOLOL). Language caution……………

Jan 19, 2008 - 7:28 am Kevin:

Is this the same anecdotal style used to claim that thiomersal/thimerosal was the cause of autism? How about the anecdotal study linking silicon implants with rare blood diseases? Relying on spotty information and speculation does not a story make.

Jan 22, 2008 - 8:24 am MC:

V.A. is using vets as lab rats; many of the drugs they give vets in conjunction w/their PTSD will cause violence and suicide. The way they treat women will cause women to suicide. Women are abused by males in the PDX VA system, and many are raped when they go under anesthesia.

May 9, 2008 - 7:09 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: