State Department Report on Global Terrorism: Oops, we got it wrong.

[mhendo]

In April, the US State Department released a report, Patterns of Global Terrorism," for the year 2003. It noted a considerable decrease in acts of terrorism over the previous years, and dramatic reducations in the numbers of people killed and injured in such attacks.

There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.

There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.

Of course, the State Department’s Co-ordinator for Counterterrorism, Cofer Black, was quick to attribute this success to the US-led war or terror, announcing in a press conference that:

Last year, we saw unprecedented collaboration between the United States and foreign partners to defeat terrorism. We also saw the lowest number of international terrorist attacks since 1969, and that’s a 34-year low.

<snip>

It is vital that nations sustain the political will to wage this war as effectively as possible for as long as is necessary. Many nations have greatly improved their capabilities to fight terror and the United States will help wherever possible to build and further expand international counterterrorism capacities.

With the international counterterrorism coalition’s enhanced intelligence sharing and law enforcement cooperation, we’re seeing more terrorist plots thwarted, more terrorists identified, tracked and arrested, and more perpetrators brought to justice for their crimes.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was also bullish on the terrorism issue, claiming that the report demonstrated that the battle was being won:

Terrorism continues to destroy the lives of people all over the world; and this report we are releasing today, “Patterns of Global Terrorism: 2003,” documents the sad toll that such attacks took last year. This report also details the steps the United States and some 92 other nations took in 19 – or 2003 to fight back and to protect our peoples. Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.

But it appears that Cofer and Armitage spoke too soon. Yesterday (6/22) the State Department released a revised report, announcing that the previous figures were incorrect, and presenting what it now says are the real numbers, which actually show increases rather than decreases from 2002 to 2003 in most of the relevant statistics:

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.

A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on “soft targets,” such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

Of course, when in political hot water, blame the technology first. From an article in the New York Times today:

For example, Mr. Brennan said that in preparing tables for the original report, titled “Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003,” a computer failed to generate statistics for the period after mid-November, leaving out several incidents. Officials vetting the information at the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department then failed to recognize what happened. But Mr. Brennan and Mr. Black insisted that there were no political motivations or efforts to gloss over the trends.

Yeah, ok.

But i wonder if the esteemed administration spokespeople would now like to retract their statements suggesting that the “lower” figures provide evidence that the Bush administration’s strategies are working.

[mhendo]

@mhendo

Yesterday (6/22) the State Department released a revised report, announcing that the previous figures were incorrect, and presenting what it now says are the real numbers, which actually show increases rather than decreases from 2002 to 2003 in most of the relevant statistics.

And, more importantly, show significant increases over the 2003 numbers released on April 29.

[LordVor]

Personally, when I saw the “lower numbers” report originally, I just assumed that they had changed the definition of “terrorist attack” to be more exclusive. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that they’d actually admit to mucking up the records.

-lv

[mhendo]

@LordVor

Never in my wildest dreams did I think that they’d actually admit to mucking up the records.

One thing about government agencies like the State Department is that, no matter which political partyy is in charge, those departments generally contain a bunch of good, professional employees who actually believe that their first task is to get the numbers right, and to leave the political spin to other people. That means that, once an error like this is discovered, it would be very hard to keep it covered up, even if the administration wanted to.

Note also that i’m not saying that Cofer Black or Richard Armitage or anyone else wanted to cover up the new figures, only that, even if they did, it might have been difficult because there’s always the chance of a leak or a whistleblower. Better to get out in front of it now.

All i’m wondering is, if the original figures were touted as a showcase for Bush’s anti-terrorism strategy, what can we learn from the new, accurate figures?

[tagos]

@mhendo

All i’m wondering is, if the original figures were touted as a showcase for Bush’s anti-terrorism strategy, what can we learn from the new, accurate figures?

Well, if the Bush regime and their supporters here are honest they will draw the opposite conclusion, the rising figures show the strategy has failed, just as loudly as they used the figures to prove success.

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict they’ll do nothing of the sort.

Beginning holding my breath … Now!

[OneYogini]

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict they’ll do nothing of the sort.

Maybe, Tagos, but could “they” just say “it’s not working YET” and then recommend more money/troops/time/whatever to fight the war on terrorism?

[elucidator]

Perhaps. My money is on “They are becoming desperate, as we roll up their networks and crush their resistance, and are flinging such terrorists act at us in a last gasp of despair!”

[lieu]

I hope that if any revised statement is forthcoming that it’ll be posted for us here and that, given an appropriate interval, if none develops that that’ll be noted as well. Thanks mehendo for a decidedly non-partisan assessment of the snafu.

Having commented on the significance of the numbers once, we’re certainly due the same after the revision.

[lieu]

egads mhendo, sorry!

[World_Eater]

I blame the Spanish.

[mhendo]

@lieu

I hope that if any revised statement is forthcoming that it’ll be posted for us here and that, given an appropriate interval, if none develops that that’ll be noted as well. Thanks mehendo for a decidedly non-partisan assessment of the snafu.

Having commented on the significance of the numbers once, we’re certainly due the same after the revision.

Well, when the new figures were released yesterday, they trotted out poor old Colin Powell to present the bad news. Here’s an excerpt from the press conference, in which he becomes involved in an exchange over how Richard Armitage interpreted the original report (see my OP), and how this interpretation might change in light of the new numbers:

Q: Sir, a question about your characterization of the report on terrorism. Last time, Secretary – Mr. Armitage did it and I wonder if you could –

POWELL: I’m aware of what Mr. Armitage said, and what Mr. Armitage said reflected the report as he received it on the 29th of April, and he honestly presented the information that was in here. And if I had been given the report, as he was and as Cofer was, I would have said what the report said at that time. We have subsequently found errors in the report, and I’m sure that if all of us had been aware of these errors and had the corrected copy of the report at that time, the statements that were made at that time would have reflected the corrected report. It was –

Q: Would you amend how he characterized this report?

POWELL: His characterization, obviously, was based on a report that had errors in it. I don’t know how I can go beyond that. He characterized the report, the data in the report, gave it a trend interpretation that is not accurate because the report at that time was not accurate.

Now, the narrative – we’re not changing the narrative with respect to the different countr[ies]. We will change the narrative wherever the narrative relates to the data. The corrected data will be in the report and that portion of the report that describes that data will also be corrected.

Q: But how –

Q: Is the U.S. still prevailing in the war on terrorism?

Q: Are we winning the war on terrorism?

POWELL: Why don’t you listen to it and then you can have a better understanding. It is still a war on terror. I don’t think even Mr. Armitage said that it is won. It is not won. It continues.

Q: He said you’re prevailing.

POWELL: Yeah. It continues. He said something at a time when he had incorrect information in front of him. And now we have correct information.

Q: And you’re not prevailing?

Q: Mr. Secretary –

POWELL: I didn’t say that. Why don’t you listen to the briefing and then we can – they will have more than enough time for questions.

After Powell left for the White House, Cofer Black and John Brennan came out to provide a more detailed account of why the original report was incorrect. Reporters asked them similar questions to the ones they asked Powell, regarding what this meant for the success or otherwise of the war on terror.

(Note: this is a rather long excerpt, but government press conferences like this are in the public domain, and i don’t believe they are subject to copyright or fair use restrictions.)

QUESTION: Mr. Black, the Kerry Campaign is critical of you today, I mean of the report process, and at least a couple of members of the House Democrats are critical. They see a pattern, not just here but elsewhere. The Terrorism Office has been looked at pretty much as a politically neutral, you know, people who are serious about analysis.

Wasn’t it a mistake as you look back just a couple of months for administration officials – wasn’t it poor form for administration officials to be using analytical material as examples of the President’s success in a political – in a politically charged campaign to say that this shows that he’s doing a great job? Was that right? Didn’t you sort of bring this on yourself – not you necessarily, but by being a little exuberant? The man who was most exuberant [Armitage] is on vacation now so we can’t ask him.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, the numbers are developed. TTIC provided those numbers to us and we analyzed those and we have tried to figure out what this meant, what the trends were.

QUESTION: Right.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: And I think as we’ve gone over this today, I guess one of the themes I’m trying to describe to you is the constancy: what was true then, what is true now. And there are a lot of ways to tell a story and I think the bottom line of the story remains constant: There is a global war; the terrorists need to be engaged and they are effectively being engaged; lives are being saved in this process; there has been unacceptably high loss of life and injury.

And as I pointed out, I think it is very important to look at the significant numbers of events, 175. That’s a high. That’s where most of your casualties are. And that is essentially in the realm – if you look down the chart, we have the numbers here – to 168. It’s kind of in that range. Yet if you look at the total events, you know, you can choose and you may have to decide what to weigh.

We, historically, with the patterns, the State Department has put forward, you know, the patterns of terrorism, the overall number, the composite of the Significant and the Non-Significant. I think what we need to do is take this as an opportunity to figure out, you know, what the thrust is. And I think a good argument that can be made is that we should essentially go back to an emphasis of the narrative, and to develop what is a trend that is of use to our customer, to the Secretary of State and to all of you. And if it were me, whereas, you know, we are going to work very hard to get new technology and put enough people on this problem, I think it is the trend that is important, and perhaps get a little bit away from the minutiae of the, you know, determination between a Non-Significant event and something that’s not even counted and stick with the fundamental charts.

<snip>

QUESTION: Going back to your storyline, one of the reasons that this has attracted so much interest, of course, is the trend that was drawn from those earlier remarks. And you had Deputy Secretary Armitage saying, “Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.” And what we’re wondering is whether you would make the same statement today, based on numbers that show that the number of dead has increased from 307 to 625, more than doubled; the injured have gone up from 1,500 to 3,600, almost 150 percent. Secretary Powell said that, well, Rich Armitage was saying something based on a report that was, in fact, wrong.

Now that we know these numbers, would you say that the Bush Administration, in fact, and the report shows and that there is clear evidence that you’re prevailing in the war on terrorism?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, I mean, I think we have to look at the numbers and consider them. I think it is important to emphasize, as you pointed out, the general thrust of the pattern of global terrorism. I mean, just as an aside, you know, the figure that you’re pointing out in terms of injured, too, if you look in 1998, there were 5,952, and that’s larger than the ones up above.

I think the way I would characterize it is that, and as the President has stated, this is a war of uncertain duration. It is global. You have Islamic extremist terrorists, primarily, that are focusing on the United States and leading nations in the global war on terrorism, and that the significant loss of life so far has been non-American. I think the fight is underway and it is the international relationships that we have with foreign countries that will allow us to prevail. We are determined to prevail. And I think as time goes by, we increasingly make improved progress in counterterrorism efficiency.

<snip>

QUESTION: Yes. Ambassador Black, aren’t you even now, with the corrected numbers, understating the problem? You said that terrorism – terrorist incidents are down from where they were in 2001. In fact, if you look at Significant events, which are the ones, by definition, that we care about – this is where there are casualties –

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Have gone up.

QUESTION: – have gone up and are at a 20-year high. Is it not right – they’re at a 20-year high with these new numbers?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: That is correct, in terms of the 175 figure.

QUESTION: A 20-year high. Why didn’t you mention that? I mean, it’s not in the report. You have this – the spin seems to be here that we’re in a situation where, yeah, it’s up a little bit from last year but it’s not as high as it was in 2001. But what matters, the Significant events, a 20-year high. That’s a different story.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I think you need – well, what I’m trying to get to is, you know, one can emphasize various things. I think in my statement I’ve repeatedly said Significant events, and I pointed out 175, I said it is a high, that is true. You know, it is a high statistically. There are other, you know, there are other – 168 is a reasonably close figure. You know, you can look at this and I guess it’s like a Rorschach test. You know, you can see what you want.

What I’m trying to do is stick with the aspects of counterterrorism. I think this gives an opportunity to make a product, a publication, that is increasingly useful to people. You are – if you’re looking for me to say it – which I have said repeatedly, 175 is a high –

QUESTION: A 20-year high.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: The significance of that, I think, is right there, 175. It is close to 168. And, you know, I think that the significant change is in terms of the casualties in a very small number of attacks. You know, you’ve got basically last year almost 50 percent. You know, it depends. What we’re trying to do is count in a meaningful way, and if you look at last year, 2003, almost 50 percent of the casualties, the killed and wounded, come from 11 attacks. And included – I should get –

QUESTION: This was last year?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah, this was last year. But over – I mean, it is significant. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not arguing. I’m just trying to give some perspective of that. What would be considered as a major attack – and I have to find a piece of paper here just to jog my memory – as an example. This was determined by the interagency panel, but terrorism, whether it’s Significant or Insignificant, is a function of this interagency panel of experts that come together and validate. And as an example of a low-end, what I would consider a low-end incident, would be: In Spain, on 8 September of 2003, Madrid, Spain, authorities safely diffused a partial bomb hidden in a book that was sent to the Greek consulate. According to press reports, authorities suspected an anarchist group is responsible.

Okay. Now that would be carried as an incident. Okay? And what is the – when you weigh these things, what is the value of that incident in terms of the 11 incidents that produce 50 percent of the casualties?

I’m not trying to argue. I’m just trying to say that there is, I think, a better way of looking at this, a lot better way to present it, perhaps, than we have with these kinds of numbers.

QUESTION: But, if I could, let me follow up on that point. Your first report said that the number of terrorist incidents, it didn’t give us Significant or “Insignificant” terrorists incidents, was at a 34-year low.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Correct.

QUESTION: Now this report says “Significant events,” those that we care about, those that cause death, serious injury, and more than $10,000 in damage, are at a 20-year high. Doesn’t that not only mean a difference in the charts here, but also in the first sentence of your conclusion that we have made significant progress in the two and a half years in the global war?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: We have made significant progress. We have presented, historically, the overall total of Significant and Non-Significant combined. And this is what we originally published, the 190, This is what’s been updated and adjudicated, 208. And if you see that, that statistically is true. The 175 is high. You can choose that statistic. You can choose another one, you know. It’s what we’re trying to do is to present, I think, the essence of it.

I think it has significance that the numbers of incidents, you know, the Significant and “Insignificant” were, I think, it was like at a 34-year low. I do think it is also very important, as I have pointed out, the 175 figure, it’s just previously, historically, that’s not what we presented. And, in fact, you know, the presentation of a chronology is also an option that we put in. We, historically, also have not published the Non-Significant events which we have presented to you today.

Sounds like just about the usual amount of weaseling going on.

[World_Eater]

Wow, makes me want to lob a brick at my computer.

[lieu]

First impressions would suggest the numbers were used when they presented a compelling story but questioned (significant vs. non-significant) when they didn’t. This rambling early and singular assessment doesn’t represent the official version though. I’m still anticipating that particular read.

[elucidator]

“Ooops, we did it again!
We lied through our teeth…”

[Homebrew]

Channeling Brutus and his ilk

“But imagine how much higher those numbers would have been without Bush on the job.”

[Brutus]

Channeling Homebrew and Co.

“Uh, huhuhuhuh, uh, like, um, well, hahahahuh, Bushco! Cheney is a cyborg!, and uh, well, uhm…”

[Denis]

Channeling one of my cats
Miaaow?

[Otto]

Damn, Brutus is even less coherent when he’s pretending to be someone else, and I didn’t think Brutus could get any less coherent!

[rjung]

Much like the Bush Administration itself – just when you think things couldn’t get any worse…

[elucidator]

Nonsense! Friend Brutus is clearly referencing the geo-political standing of the US in terms of our balance of payments trade status, and how this affects our capacity to induce Third World compliance with our strategic goals.

Either that, or its “Leftys are all poo-poo heads! Praise the Leader!”