Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts
now as to intent i notice they're careful not to accuse editorially, but by highlighting the army's factor of 12 "error" they force the reader to draw his own conclusions so in this the study group has it both ways.
|
Well if their report is ambiguous on that account then I'm sure it's by mistake. The study group wouldn't be doing its job if it believed but failed to report that the military had suspicious intentions. Clearly, not all the crime that occurs in Baghdad directly relates to the insurgency, hence the apparently shallow reporting done by the military. I gather that the study group wants the filtering process to be refined so it makes better use of available data, but would that necessarily result in a 12 fold increase in the number of reports they add to their database? Probably not, 90% of everything is crap after all.