TheAgitator.com
Iraq and Chicago
Friday, September 5th, 2008Conservative blogs are crowing over this absurd comparison from CBS News:
An estimated 125 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.
War proponents are using that line to draw the asinine implication that we’ve made Iraq as safe as Chicago.
I don’t mean to insult you by explaining this, but here goes: The CBS story is comparing homicides in the entire city of Chicago with the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq. There have been 125 citizen deaths in Chicago since Memorial Day. Depending on who’s doing the counting, there have been 1,000-2,500 citizen deaths in Iraq.
I can’t find a site that looks specifically at Baghdad deaths over that period, which would be the most appropriate comparison to Chicago, but it doesn’t take much effort to show how ridiculous the comparison really is:
- A car bomb killed 63 people on a single day in June.
- Another 32 were killed on a single day in July.
- Seventeen died in a bombing three weeks ago.
- Another 25 were killed in an attack at the end of August.
That’s a quick Google search of the first few stories about mass bombings in Baghdad this summer, and we’re already well over 125 fatalities.
If U.S. troops were gangbangers on the south side of Chicago maybe, maybe, they’d have a greater chance of violent death than they do on duty in Iraq. But to look at these figures and draw the broad conclusion that all of Chicago is as safe as all of Iraq–even in gest–is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s pretty insulting to the people who live in both places.
I’m suprised Cheney or some other Executive staffer hasn’t tried to sping this positively like, “Well, we didn’t send those gangbangers to Chicago” or “See, every city needs a surge”
Looking at the Google map with the clustering of shootings is fascinating, it seems like it would have been a no-brainer for Chicago’s Finest to step up patrols and presence in what seems like a relatively small, but violent place. Maybe Google Maps is better than ComStat.
How many cops were killed in Chicago over the summer? That would at least be closer to being a valid comparison.
Umm, shouldn’t we also compare population size? How many US Troops are in Iraq? How many people live in Chicago? My gut feeling is that the triumph of America in Iraq disappears somewhat if you’re not blatantly cheating with the numbers.
Further proof that the Republicrats are living in Imagination Land, “where you fart where you burp, and you burp where you fart.”
As a Chicagoan, I want a parade for my heroic efforts to stay alive.
as a libertarian, i want to know why nowhere in the above post or the comments to date is there even a single mention of this: chicago has the country’s possibly most draconian gun-control restrictions, and has had them for *decades*.
restrictions that crap on the constitution.
restrictions that obviously don’t work.
restrictions that the chicagoan running for president seems to like quite a bit.
restrictions that obviously don’t work.
The restrictions make life more dangerous for ordinary people who aren’t politically connected and can’t afford bodyguards. Whether or not that counts as “working” depends on the restrictions’ real objective.
I can’t believe you guys aren’t talking about the things xyz123 thinks you should be talking about! Shape up!
If you’re from CBS news, let me translate what Radley said:
I don’t mean to insult you by explaining this, but here goes: The CBS story is comparing homicides in the entire city of Chicago with the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq. If the citizen deaths in Chicago since Memorial Day were pennies, there’d be enough to buy a 20 oz. soda. Depending on who’s doing the counting, the civilian deaths in Iraq, if stacked end to end, would criss-cross a football field 20 times or would equal the total distance run by 3 4×400 relay teams.
This absurdity is a direct result of a sentiment shared by the media, the Repulicans, and the Democrats: that the only deaths in Iraq that matter are those of American troops.
Looking at the Google map with the clustering of shootings is fascinating, it seems like it would have been a no-brainer for Chicago’s Finest to step up patrols and presence in what seems like a relatively small, but violent place. Maybe Google Maps is better than ComStat.
There are places in some cities where the police dare not tread. If the police launched a serious attack against the gangs that control such places, police fatality rates would be a lot higher unless or until they managed to defeat the entrenched gangs.
I’m not sure what the proper Constitutional way to handle such places would be. I don’t think anything short of the military would actually be effective at attacking the gang strongholds, but I would be nervous about appointing the military for domestic affairs, lest its use become widespread. The Constitutional remedy would probably be to pass a declaration of war against the gang strongholds, but I doubt those in Congress would want to acknowledge that a declaration of war would be necessary for the types of raids they like to use against the citizenry.
I admire you Mr. Balko for pointing out these absurdities. If only your voice were larger. You seem to have such a level head on your shoulders, I expect if nominated, you would not run, and if elected, would not serve. I would not do either either.
If you compare the murders in Chicago with the death of American Military in Iraq it comes out to 4 murders per 100 thousand Chicago citizens versus 45 military deaths per 100 thousand American troops.
In other words, the rate of death of American troops is more than 11 times greater than the rate of murders of Chicago citizens.
I think I’d rather be in Chicago. But not during the winter – that place looks cold!
Same story, new name. A few years ago comparisons between deaths in some state–California, I think–and US soldiers in Iraq were rampant. I calmly tried to explain the idiocy inherent in such claims, but judging by the looks I was getting, they clearly thought me a terrorist.
There are places in some cities where the police dare not tread. If the police launched a serious attack against the gangs that control such places, police fatality rates would be a lot higher unless or until they managed to defeat the entrenched gangs.
Yea why should police go after violent gang members? It’s not like it’s their job or anything. Hey wait a minute….
In other words, the rate of death of American troops is more than 11 times greater than the rate of murders of Chicago citizens.
Which is expected in a war zone.
The more interesting slant on this is: what’s the situation in Chicago in which twice as many people in a “peaceful” city are murdered vs a country in which people at war were killed in battle?
Although, it seems to me this would be a perfect time to complain that the “War on Drugs” is costing too many lives as well. Chicago citizens should be rioting in the streets, protesting that this illegal war needs to end.
Yet, we march on, fueling the insanity. And not even Radley mentions the obvious correlation between these gang-land murders and the idiotic “War on (some) Drugs”.
Freddy,
Do you think Radley’s supporting the War On Drugs? Honestly?
Randy, why not name some names on who is spreading this nonsense? Namely, Mr. “I’ll instantly post anything that jibes with my ideology without thinking it through”-pundit
supercat You should read about the Posse Comitatus Act.
Here is a pretty good link for it because it talks about recent subversions of the act, and some myths.
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm
But really …you don’t “know” how many troops were killed in a certain period….you only “know” what the government said….