Linda Bilmes

Pentagon criticism is a badge of honor for Linda Bilmes.

Sossity, at 6:10 pm EDT on March 16, 2008

Shoot The Messenger

If the enemy fires upon the messenger, the messenger avoids the gunfire, her car runs off the road, she suffers serious injuries including a broken back, do her injuries not count?

Massaging the numbers, is not unusual for this administration. Consider how they have massaged facts and figures related to funding higher education costs. Statements have actually been made that increasing interest rates on student loans was a good thing?

Jack Girvan, at 7:35 am EST on January 30, 2007

Postmodernism

So now that the Pentagon has gone postmodern (along with much of academia) and has defined its terms in the way it desires based upon its reality, it is criticized — yet, academia is praised for doing the very same thing as “cutting edge,” “pushing the envelope,” and “redefining reality.”

Rather, it is foolhardy. Even in a “postmodern” world, people are wanting to define their own reality, but continue to subject others to standards of absolute truth. Reality is objective and what it is. Either people are lying, deceived themselves, or telling the truth. Let’s strip our agendas, discover the facts (not opinions and further agendas), and tell the truth... this world would be a much better (and easier) place to live.

EV, at 9:30 am EST on January 30, 2007

Let’s be clear

I have no problem with Bilmes’ report, but I do find it irresponsible at best to relegate the definition of a controversial term to a footnote. Was a similar “footnote” included in the op-ed piece?

Why is Obama asking for a better accounting of casualties? Based on this article, the government is able to account for the number of injuries due directly to the enemy, the number due to accidents, and the number due to illness. Seems like pretty good accounting to me. Lumping them all together is another story.

Again, I have no problem with Bilmes’ work that calculates the total cost of health care for all our vets. That’s interesting and useful information. But using terms that popularly mean, or will cause people to infer, one thing when the author intends another, requires clear, explicit definitions. Sounds like that’s missing.

sjz, at 10:00 am EST on January 30, 2007

You To Can do Magic!

The Bush adminstration’s handling of the facts reminds me of an incident of Charles T. Russell right before the beginning of World War I. Obsessed with predicting the very month and day of the return of Christ, he prognosticated that the event would occur on a certain day in 1914 and calculated this by measuring the chambers of the great pyramid and relating these measurements to Biblical texts by his own private methodology. When Christ did not return on that date in 1914, he recalculated his conclusions to have him return in 1916, by simply changing the size of the Great Pyramid! The Bush administration does this every day after every failure. Why am I not surprised with their reaction to a scholarly and factual article. You know, one gets tired fo this nonsense! Will they ever tell the truth anytime about anything?????

Diogenes, King of at Nothing, at 10:41 am EST on January 30, 2007

Ask 20, get 20

With West Point friends in Iraq — I’ve got no brief for GWB or Jane Fonda surrender crowd.

This I do know — ask a randomly-selected group of 20 social scientists a question, you generally get 20 different approaches. As opposed to, say, asking the Harvard FAS faculty about Larry Summers, and getting an easily-predictable majority vote.

When a researcher can ask cold, hard objective questions about themselves and the foundation of their work — that’s when reasonable people will listen.

C. Bigsby, at 11:05 am EST on January 30, 2007

Journalistic standard

The comment by JBM, “The devolution of American higher education continues apace. The lady should simply defend herself and her ideas. If they withstand reasoned scrutiny, she’s made her point. If they don’t, her ideas are properly discounted.” JBM.

Are not workds such as “devolution of American higher education,” “withstand reasoned scrutiny,” “properly discounted,” etc., highly opinionated, and thus contradictory to the message that JBM is trying to convey? MK

Mathew, at 12:05 pm EST on January 30, 2007

“Are not workds such as “devolution of American higher education,” “withstand reasoned scrutiny,” “properly discounted,” etc., highly opinionated, and thus contradictory to the message that JBM is trying to convey?”

I’m not a journalist, and I have never represented myself as one to the public. There’s no reason why stating my personal opinion on a comment forum is improper. There is every reason why personal opinion has no proper place in journalistic communication, as opposed to opinion editorialism.

JBM, at 1:45 pm EST on January 30, 2007

Dr. Bilmes and her research

Whatever her critics might think and/or write, I thank Dr. Bilmes and her group for providing us with easy-to-use numbers and details as to the cost of this ill-conceived war. Good people do great works; jerks try to cover up those great works. It is time for the blacklisting and coverups to come to an end. Afterall, Tricky Dick Nixon and many of his burglars no longer rule this country. I have read a good part of both of her reports and no amount of complaining by the Pentagon’s anti-freedom cabal can ever change the results therein or the opinions of the people who are able to understand the contents.

HermannMunster, at 4:01 pm EST on January 30, 2007

National Guard Casualty Percentages?

With the claims an counterclaims of the accuracy of the numbers, and diversionary questions of whether “non-combat” numbers really count as war injuries, I would like to ask the following: What percentage of the killed and wounded were activated Guard or IFF soldiers? These soldiers would never have been injured, and therefore even listed among average army and marine “non-combat” injuries without the hostilities in Iraq. They would have been stateside, living their civilian lives, where you do not see numbers like 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 serious injuries per citizen over a 5 year period. (With numbers like 140000 soldiers serving, and ~25000 wounded in “non-combat” situations, the math is pretty clear.)

Dan Moynihan, at 6:20 pm EST on January 30, 2007

JBM has a valid point. The words “attach” and “trash” are loaded and are not backed up by the one quote from Smith. It is also silly to call “William Winkenwender Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs” “a top Pentagon official”. It leads to reader to think of a big bad Pentagon going after a poor little researcher. It is bad writing regardless of whether or nor the author had a political motive.

BTW: Both Blimes and her co-author Joseph E. Stiglitz are form Clinton Adminstration officials. [http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/bio.cfm] The LA Time did not identify them as such.

Blimes and Stiglitz have every right to use their research for political ends. This is a legitimate part of the battle of ideas. I happen to agree with them. I think invading Iraq was about as smart as Hilter ’s invasion of Russia. But, let’s be clear, all of the players here in the big leagues and know what the how the game in played.

Mike, at 10:06 pm EST on January 30, 2007

Scott — helpful suggestion on Clintonites

Scott — a thousand respects. But this ..

” .. While she worked in the Clinton administration (rising to the level of assistant secretary of commerce), she said she viewed this project and her interest in these issues as “nonpartisan.”

.. should have been in one of the first three paragraphs — not at the bottom.

The reader should not have to read 400 words to find out someone’s political loyalty.

That only reinforces the Limbaugh theory of media bias.

L.L. Berry, at 10:06 pm EST on January 30, 2007

The pentagons ability to fudge data has become almost limitless. Time and time again they produce data that perposely underestimates the true costs of war. Jimsecor brigns up an espescially valid and important question. Does the pentagon or the lecturer take into account the psychological injuries that result from wartime environments? Is not shellshock or post traumatic stress syndrome considered an injury? Or what about medical costs that vets are required to pay for themselves. Im sure the actual dollar value is mind boggling.

Zachary Ligertwood, at 2:30 pm EST on January 31, 2007

The Bilmes Factor

It is interesting that so many voices can be heard upset at Bilmes’s conclusions and suggestions. Clearly, she has hit a nerve among the PR managers with ties to the Pentagon and perhaps the Health Industry. They always reveal themselves by their recourse to ad hominem’s.

Sterling Bennett, at 5:45 am EST on February 1, 2007

Trollism?

I share the same suspicions as “Fac Brat", I was very surprised to catch that right-wing stench on a few of those posts... you know, devoid of logical arguments, re-inforcing negative stereotypes of academics... did someone say “she worked for Clinton"? As if that automatically disqualifies her from performing a non-partisan study. They were numbers she was studying, afterall. And those numbers relate to the men and woman of the Armed Forces- injured in or out of combat, they’re injured nonetheless. These soldiers deserve every bit of care they need, so to attack a study that is intended to help the VA do just that is reprehensible. To try and discredit it, alter public info, and actually complain to Harvard about it is anathema to what these men and women are serving for in the first place. Remember what our country stands for trolls? Truth, justice, liberty? Wake up people! Smokescreens are what these posts appear to be, to throw us off the REAL story here- which is the fact that the Pentagon actually changed public information so it would better fit the rosier-than-it-really-is picture of Iraq they’d all like us to believe. I’ll even make the concession that the categories of wounded soldiers should be clearly explained up front. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s just one more disturbing scenario created by this nightmare of a president.

colinjames, Legislative Intern at WA State Senate/ The Evergreen State College, at 5:46 am EST on February 1, 2007

Attacking the messenger versus addressing the message

It never ceases to amaze me how commentary will focus on partisanship and/or find excuses for an administration out of control. Absent dialogue about an administration willing to mislead the public by omitting vital information — in this case regarding the true costs of war — puts their credibility in question while destroying public trust. Yet, posts contained accusations of partisanship without considering what it means; whether it is a pattern; and moreover whether we should we be concerned, worries me.

Further it is astounding many simply ignored Bilme’s source of information came directly from the Veteran’s Affairs Department’s and the DoD’s web sites. Never mind out of the blue on the 10 january 2007, and without explanation, the 50,500 plus injuries plummeted to 22,000. Doesn’t that send a red flag?

So which number is correct?

It depends on the definition of “wounded.” If injuries were inflicted by the enemy during combat in a hostile environment the smaller number applies. Otherwise including injuries from accidents, vehicle crashes (helicopters, cars, tanks), mental illness, dis_ease and other health related problems the larger number applies. Hence the smaller number reflects a different story — albeit a distorted one for the public.

Rummy was known to do similar while Secretary of Defense concerning an actual count of US war-related deaths. As i understand it, unless a soldier died on the field engaged in combat is his/her death counted. Once air-lifted out of the war zone, should death occur as a result from injuries during or after or even while being flown to other locations is not recorded as part of the war. I imagine Gates follows suit.

Apparently neither the Pentagon nor the DoD believe the public ought to be privy to accurate information. Although having maintained this practice since day one it becomes more apparent — as support dwindled to the 20% range — hiding numbers, costs and other vital information from the public became that much more important. They can little afford to pursue an unpopular agenda so anything that might further erode support must be hidden from public view. Whatever it takes, they mistakenly believe, necessitates intentional skewing numbers, omitting facts, hiding vital information to prevent further public scrutiny whose support is currently in free-fall.

Looking thru the same lens as the administration, an economic issue — or any issue for that matter — threatening their agenda is a political issue.

The public is better served with full disclosure and accurate information. Otherwise drawing from partial information false and misleading impressions are made. Over budgets costs might result in short-changing vets health care. An economic analysis specifically designed for planning a budget requires reporting real-costs. What happens when money designated for health care cannot meet the needs for tens of thousands of vets?

Prioritizing political agendas put our soldiers at risk while doing little to inspire public confidence or trust in what they say or do. As a result it makes Americans vulnerable regardless whether republican or democrat or liberal or conservative. We are first and foremost, human beings. We need an open transparent government and dialogue rooted in truth. Let’s find common ground to do so otherwise we all lose.

serena1313, at 6:51 am EST on February 1, 2007

Exceptional analysis

IMHO, analysis should be about cold, hard objectivity. The Republican MD who gives out needles to prevent AIDS. The Democrat who admits the overwhelming influence of certain interest groups on her party.

These traits of cold, hard objectivity are so totally lacking in soft-side academia, it is roll-on-the-floor laughable.

Such as ” .. did someone say “she worked for Clinton” .. as if that automatically disqualifies her from performing a non-partisan study” from ” .. Legislative Intern at WA State Senate/ The Evergreen State College.”

Anyone want to wager a year’s pay, what party that brilliant analysis came from? Of course not — who wants to lose a year’s pay?

Intern would like everyone to roll over and ape his political party’s speechifying. Right — and Rosie O’Donnell will be getting Xmas cards from Donald Trump.

Keep dreamin’ — doing a good job at that.

B.D., at 6:05 pm EST on February 1, 2007

Sad state of news reportign in the US

I agree with many of the comments here.

One of the best books covering the sad reality of the US media is the book “No Questions Asked : News Coverage since 9/11″ by Lisa Finnegan

http://www.noquestionasked.org

With the foreword of Norman Solomon. She explains, page after page, how US media became a mouth piece of the George Bush’s administration, and instead of reporting and questioning the what was said by the officials, they blow up the lies and miss-information. It has 100s of quotes from NYT, WP, CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox and all other news media in the US.

I really enjoyed reading it (I ordered it to my local library so that other people will also have access to it).

/Karl

KarlK, at 4:35 am EST on February 2, 2007

Maintaining Truthiness at All Costs

It would appear that the administration, when claims ("we support the troops") are negated by data (the total cost of caring for injured veterans), the answer is to change the data, and to change the subject. Whether the vets were injured in battle or otherwise, the cost of operating the system remains the same, and re-defining the data to include only battle injuries doesn’t reduce the costs of treating those who were injured in training accidents, friendly fire, etc. I’d grade that kind of thinking with an F.

Some of your correspondents seem to want to change the subject to 9/11, the Clinton administration, Hurricane Katrina, and San Francisco, but that is reminscent of the Soviets responding to revelations of their nastiness with “But what about the lynchings in the South?”

etaoin shrdlu, at 4:10 pm EST on February 20, 2007