The NYT’s continues in their long storied tradition of complete and utter bias by running a front page story that portrays our war veterans as a bunch of psychotic murderers:
Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories. Lakewood, Wash.: “Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife.” Pierre, S.D.: “Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress.” Colorado Springs: “Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring.”
Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.
The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment – along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems – appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
Armed Liberal takes the Times to the woodshed in their basic statistic analysis, based on this Salon article that lists over a million war veterans in 2005:
From the October 1, 2001 start of the Afghanistan war, that’s about 26,000 troops/month. To date (Jan 2008) that would give about 1.99 million.
That means that the NY Times 121 murders represent about a 7.08/100,000 rate.
Now the numbers on deployed troops are probably high – fewer troops from 2001 – 2003; I’d love a better number if someone has it.
But for initial purposes, let’s call the rate 10/100,000, about 40% higher than the calculated one.
Now, how does that compare with the population as a whole?
Turning to the DoJ statistics, we see that the US offender rate for homicide in the 18 – 24 yo range is 26.5/100,000.For 25 – 34, it’s 13.5/100,000.
See the problem?
And a commenter to Armed Liberals post:
Even without the data, we can do some sensitivity analysis.
Let N be the number of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans.
The murder rates would be identical if
121/N = 26.5/100,000
That is, if N is approximately 457,000. If N is greater than 457,000, then the murder rate among I/A veterans is less than the general population (age 18-24), and if it is less, the murder rate is greater.
If all veterans were in the 25-34 age range, then the break-even point becomes about 896,000. We can be pretty confident that the actual break-even point is somewhere in between.
Bottom line: If we can be reasonably confident that the number of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans currently in civilian life is more than about 500,000, then AL is right.
Since we know there was well over 500,000 war veterans we now also know the Times narrative is false. The murder rate for Iraq/Afghanistan war veterans is UNDER the rate of the general population.
Does the Times report on that fact? Nope. Instead they do their very best to propagate another false narrative, as they falsely did to our Vietnam veterans, that they are nothing but psycho’s looking to kill.
Anything to show the world that Iraq = bad, Bush = wrong. Neither is true, but the narrative must be spread. Who cares if they slander our troops, who cares if they ignore stat’s that go against the narrative.
Is it any wonder their paper is going down the tubes?
Other’s Blogging:
- Tigerhawk
- Blue Crab Boulevard
- JammieWearingFool
- Media Mythbusters
- Prairie Pundit
- Intel Dump
- Outside The Beltway
- Riehl World View

See author page
murder rate for Iraq/Afghanistan war veterans is UNDER the rate of the general population
We actually don’t know this for sure either, because we have no idea what fraction of the murders the 121 that the NYT identified represent; I think it’s pretty unlikely that they found all of them or even close to all. Given that those who serve in the armed forces are more intelligent than average while murderers tend in the opposite direction, we would expect all other things being equal that our ex-servicemen would commit murders at a lower rate than the population. But obviously the main point here is that the NYT went to a lot of trouble to put together something that plays up negative stereotypes, for no reason except that they seem to have it in for the military. The bias is clear.
There is nothing that the American left will not do or say to make American military members look bad.
The only possible reason anyone with a brain buys a NYSlimes is to line a bird cage or house train a puppy. That way the outside and inside of the paper have equal content.
According to one website, as of April 2005, 1,048,884 people had served in the Iraq/Afgan war.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050412-gone-to-war.htm
Mind you it’s from an anti war site trying to show the HUGE number of Americans sent off to the horrors of war, So they MAY be biased. But they are siteing their sources, and it does appear to be a numbers oriented article. I don’t have time to research further as I need to be off to work, but I hope this provides data for you folks to help dispel the myth of our KILLER vets.
Random
Thanks Random. Actually, Global Security’s piece used the Salon article I cited above.
Curt
There is a major point here that was missed.
The civilian figure is an ANNUAL rate.
The military count is for the duration of the entire Iraq/Afghanistan war so lets for argument say its 6 years to pick a number.
That means the military rate is 1/6 per year of what ArmedLiberal calculated making the comparison even more telling.
Another consideration that throws the whole calculation into issue is the civilian rate is not as it by that name would appear to reflect.
If a military person committed a murder it would be included in the national statistics (the “civilian” murder count) which does not exclude military personnel related killings.
Thus the data is even more nebulous as to what the true ratios are.
But no matter how you cut it with the 6 year example I proposed that would move the military related murders to 20 per year annual rate for the entire age span of the military as a whole.
Leaving out any sort of scale of comparison by the NYT in their story is a sin of omission that relegates the determination of the severity of the issue to the reader and does little to inform and in fact leads to a potential conclusion that mis informs the reader.
Yet another example of how the NYT is supporting the troops, and how opposition to the war in Iraq is not at all unpatriotic (Iraq war; the war Hillary and Barack both vow to continue until 2013 until the Bush Admin objectives are met).
[/sarcasm off]
I just went back for a second read of the article and another question occurs. With the exception of one veteran who had signed on as a private contractor to return to Iraq, the article does not clearly state if they only include Army/Marine personnel or is this a military service wide ie Army/Navy/Marine/AirForce/Coast Guard total.
Plus it does not indicate in any way that I could detect if National Guard / Air Guard and such were included in the data set.
Unless the Times lays out the breakdowns for what they included in their calculations or inclusions in their data base the story is worthless for comparison.
The NYTimes is written by the left for the left. Where’s the surprise here?
Unfortunatley this trash has been picked up by my local paper and was run on the front page.
While we can all gather here and complain, I would suggest we will have more effect on the world if some of you who are skilled at writing (And make fewer spelling mstakes then I) write to the editorial column of any paper you see running this garbage.
Hopefully that will awaken a few people outside of this blog to the truth of this article.
Random
While I am upset and outraged by the continued multiple knives in the back “support” we get from the MSM and left in general, I am not surprised. Disgusted, but not surprised.
Nor am I surprised that, yet again, the media in their arrogance (or stupidity) has written a biased, distorted hit piece so easily torn down by simple investigation and reason. Actually, this piece took even less work to debunk than “Green Helmet Guy”, “Muslim Rage Boy”, “Fatwa with her hands raised”, “Israelis are shooting missiles at Red Cross Vehicles”, and Marines “executed” terrorists in Fallujah (because they all had head wounds….from 200m+ shots).
Curt, I received the following from CJ, from Move America Forward:
Fox News has been taking the story down all morning, doubtless relying on questions first raised by bloggers..
Ralph Peters in the NY Post: