Nathan Sharansky - Lying with Statistics

(x-posted at Moon of Alabama)

In a Washington Post OpEd arch-zionist, likudnik, human rights promoter and GWB favorite Natan Sharansky is urging against a U.S. pullout:  Leave Iraq and Brace for a Bigger Bloodbath.

In doing so, Sharansky manipulates results to some questions asked in a poll he cites, while ignoring other questions and answers that do not support his opinion.

His central line of argument is that life in Iraq was bad under Saddam, is not so bad now and would be much worse if the U.S. occupiers leave.

A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison.

To furthers his arguments he cites some poll numbers:

In a face-to-face national poll of 5,019 people conducted this spring by Opinion Research Business, a British market-research firm, only 27 percent of Iraqis said they believed that "that their country is actually in a state of civil war," and by nearly 2 to 1 (49 percent to 26 percent), the Iraqis surveyed said they preferred life under their new government to life under the old tyranny.

Let's set aside that veteran British journalist Simon Jenkins called it a Halliburton Poll and let's use the poll's actual final numbers (pdf).

Sharansky's first "only 27 percent" number on "civil war" is obviously taken from question 4 of the poll:

Q4: Which of the following comes closest to your own opinion about the state of Iraq at the moment?

Unlike what Sharanksy tries to make his readers assume: "only 27 percent", poll participents could select not between two, but between four possible answers to that question or abstain. This is what they said (page 10 table 4):

27% - Iraq is in a state of civil war
22% - Iraq is close to a state of civil war but not in one yet
18% - Iraq is still some way from civil war
21% - I don't think Iraq will ever get as far as civil war
rest - Don't know/Refused/No answer

Technically Sharansky is correct to say:

only 27 percent of Iraqis said they believed that "that their country is actually in a state of civil war"

But does that reflect the actual answers?

If one culminates the answers by modifying the question into a yes/no-one like, for example: "Is Iraq currently more likely in a civil war than not?" 56% of all who did answer the question would have tended to the "more likely" side and 44% to the "than not". That is a tiny bit different from Sharansky's "only 27 percent".

The second data point Sharansky cites is about preference of the "new government" versus the old one. This reflects question 8 of the poll:

Q8: Taking everything into account, do you feel that things are better for you now under the present political system or do you think thinks were better for you before under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein?

First note that the question is different form what Sharansky implies:

by nearly 2 to 1 (49 percent to 26 percent), the Iraqis surveyed said they preferred life under their new government to life under the old tyranny

Some people who feel "things are better" under system A still may prefer system B and vice versa. In that, Sharansky is obfuscating. Now look at the actual answers. Again, unlike what Sharansky implies, this was not a yes or no question:

49% - Better under the current system
26% - Better under the previous regime
16% - Neither, they are just as bad as each other
rest  - Don't know/Refused/No answer

Of those who gave a definite answer 53% think things are better while 46% think things are equal or worse. That is a significant difference but is that a "nearly 2 to 1" margin? And if the survey had also covered the 2 million Iraqis who fled from their country, (it did not,) would that result not be more likely 50-50 than "2 to 1"?

While manipulating some answers to the survey's questions, Sharansky selects to totally ignore  questions/answers that oppose his opinion. In defense of his argumentation and in a sidekick to Amnesty International he says:

By consistently ignoring the fundamental moral divide that separates societies in which people are slaves from societies in which people are free, some human rights groups undermine the very cause they claim to champion.

As you will see that statement is very fitting for the human rights activist Nathan Sharansky himself (btw: if you wonder about those italics look here or here)

The Iraqis, which Sharansky wants to save from being slaves, do not agree at all with the theme of his column, the prediction of a "bloodbath" without an occupation. In the very poll he uses to argument his case question 2 asks:

Q2: [T]hinking ahead, do you believe that the security situation in Iraq will get better or worse in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of Multi National Forces?

The answers (page 4 table 2):

29% - A great deal better
24% - A little better
15% - A little worse
11% - A great deal worse
6% - Stay the same
rest - Don't know/Refused/No answer

More than 2 to 1 (59 percent to 26 percent) of the Iraqis surveyed say that the security situation will be better or the same without the occupation troops. Only 11% think it will be a great deal worse.

If Sharansky really wants the Iraqis to be free, instead of occupation slaves, why does he ignore their opinion and argues the opposite of what they say?

Well, as he, in lack of any self conscience, explains:

some human rights groups undermine the very cause they claim to champion.

(x-posted at Moon of Alabama)
Nathan Sharansky - Lying with Statistics

•  Thanks for posting this!

  The likudniks are primary sponsors of the invasion of Iraq, as you know, and they never give up.

  by Jacob Freeze on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:29:37 PM PDT

•  The withdrawal question is the kicker

  If you believe the poll - then Sharansky's whole argument falls flat on its face.

  by Pinecone on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:30:15 PM PDT

•  Sharansky's false analogy to Vietnam

  He says that tens of thousands of Vietnamese were executed in the aftermath of the American withdrawal - a considerable lessening of the death rate in Vietnam.  I know, conditions were harsh.  I make no excuse for the Communists.  But, in fact, after a certain time, the executions ceased.  

  The boat people - most (not all, by any means) eventually made it to America, and have become an invaluable asset to our society.  

  The slaughter in Cambodia had nothing to do with American withdrawal from Vietnam.  The Vietnamese hated the Khmer Rouge, and warned the U.S. that their (totally illegal) campaign to wipe out the Viets in Cambodia was allowing the Khmer Roughe to prosper.  Eventually, the Vietnamese took it upon themselves to liberate Cambodia, with no help from the U.S.

  If the U.S. hadn't "bugged out" of Cambodia and allowed the Lon Nol junta to be overrun, things might have been different.  That, however, is a completely different issue than our exit from Vietnam.  Our complicity in installing the junta in the first place allowed the Khmer Rouge to be viable.  Prince Sihanouk was very popular, but the Lon Nol junta was detested by the common people.

  by willb48 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 03:50:00 PM PDT