Lying with Statistics

[rowyn]

I was looking at this article, which blames the focus on the war on terror for the lack of attention to abuse of women. This doesn't strike me as an unfair accusation -- nor is it one that's hard to understand. The "plight of tens of thousands of abused Pakistani women" doesn't exactly compare to the millions displaced or killed by Darfur's genocide in Sudan, either. OTOH, the plight of these women is endemic, not catastrophic: it may not seem as bad when comparing a year's worth of casualties, but it's going to keep happening forever unless attitudes are changed.

But the part in the article that really annoyed me was this:

U.S. government money to Pakistan has shifted from predominantly humanitarian aid before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to military and counterterrorism funding since, further complicating the efforts to aid and educate women. The majority of the $11 billion in post-September 11 U.S. aid to Pakistan has gone to the country's military, leaving less than 10 percent of the funding for humanitarian needs, such as shelters, education and burn centers for those woman frequently scalded by acid as a punishment.

Waitaminute, I thought. Aid "shifted"? We hardly cared about Pakistan at all before 9/11. Are you trying to tell me the amount of total aid given to Pakistan post- and pre- 9/11 is even in the same ballpark?

So I looked it up. Comparing the last 4 years of data to the 4 years prior to 2001:

Total military and economic aid 1997-2000: $173.7 million
Total military and economic aid 2003-2006: $2,745.9 million

Aid to Pakistan in just about every category has stayed the same or risen (with the exception of food aid, which has dropped off somewhat). There's no "shift" that I can see of money that used to go to Pakistani women's shelters now funneled to build bombs. Be real: if the war on terror ended tomorrow, America wouldn't start using the military assistance funds for Pakistan to stop domestic violence there instead.

I'm not saying the article doesn't have a point: I find it entirely plausible that the US is unwilling to bring up humanitarian issues with its strategic allies. But complaining that "less than 10%" is being allocated to humanitarian causes when that "less than 10%" is still more than the total level of foreign aid was before the war -- well, that's not exactly filling me with confidence in the rest of their assertions.

Comments

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Wow. Reading it myself, I can't see anything technically wrong: It's true that the amount spent on those issues is a "fraction" of what's being spent on the military, and doubtless their point is that it's just NOT FAIR that we spend so much money on war vs. all things humanitarian. But all the same, it makes it sound as if we're spending less on those concerns than before, without explicitly saying so, and I'm sure that insinuation is not accidental.

Very slippery.

[rowyn]

Yeah, it's technically true, but no less deceptive in intent. And it really made me distrust the rest of what the article had to say. :/

[pyat.livejournal.com]

An excellent synopsis. Before the "War on Terror," Pakistan was an international pariah, and not getting much of anything from anyone!

[rowyn]

I was struck by how little aid they got before the war. I didn't realize just how far off our radar they'd been -- and I'd forgotten how unpopular, too.

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

Oh, and now Afghani girls get to GO TO SCHOOL. No way would humanitarian funding have made THAT happen -- not without some old-fashioned, (expensive!) shoot-em-up, regime-toppling WAR.

But it's not PC to talk about the good social changes that happen because of killing tens of thousands of warlords, militants, terrorists, and their unwilling human shields.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Would those be the same warlords that the West equipped with weapons and training to run an old-fashioned, (expensive!) shoot-em-up, regime-toppling WAR against the Soviets...?

Well, guerrilla war anyway. And not that the Soviets were very nice, though they at least let the girls go to school.

Also - Hey! I love your comic!

[rowyn]

I love his comic too, but he knows that. :)

I remember back when Iraq was the "good guy", insofar as there was one, back in the Iran vs Iraq mess. *sigh* Politics suck.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Not PC, maybe. Dangerously naive, though.

I worry about a world where people truly believe that everything can be accomplished solely by talking other people into seeing their point of view. You can't even do that with your own friends on the most minor of issues, most of the time... and people expect it to work with foreign cultures with different mores?

*shaking head*

[rowyn]

You can't even do that with your own friends on the most minor of issues, most of the time...

That is so depressingly true. :( No wonder human beings fight so many wars.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Well, it's the opposite side of something good: if people didn't think differently and have different opinions, how would anything ever change, evolve? The IDIC ideal, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, creates dissent and progress. :)

[rowyn]

I couldn't tell from a cursory web search, but I was rather wondering if foreign aid to Pakistan domestic problems had risen, too. In the "rising tide lifts all boats" sense -- or maybe trickle-down is the better metaphor.

It seems like all the foreign attention might have an indirectly positive effect (hey, the article did say they'd passed legislation to protect women, and that's a start even if it is underfunded) but I don't know if that's the case or not in Pakistan.

I'm pretty sure it is in Afghanistan, but that country was so pitiful before the war that it was practically impossible to make things worse.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

There's another subtlety: We do not control the budget of these countries. Pakistan can reroute aid to its choosing -- in fact, African countries do this to such a large extent that little of it ever gets to the giver's intended destination.

So if we give a dozen times as much, and the country decides that women's issues are a big deal, money will be applied to it. (Even without our aid, by the way.)

And if they don't care about it, they'll take our money, smile, hold meetings and put on a show, and go about their business.

But if you were concerned about how much of the money we give goes to the intended cause overseas, you'd be appalled at the percentage that our own government takes before getting money to our own needy.

===|==============/ Level Head