PerspectiveLies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: The Politics of the Afghanistan Papers

“Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible,” said one official. Another called the assessment shop, “more of a PR shop.” Carrie A. Lee writes in War on the Rocks that the revelations unearthed in the Washington Post’s release of 611 documents last week as part of “The Afghanistan Papers” are in many cases shocking.

He writes:

The trove — a combination of interview notes, memos, and emails — strongly suggests that the U.S. government systematically misled the American people about military, diplomatic, and economic progress in Afghanistan. The documents shine a spotlight on civilian and military leaders across two administrations who found themselves mired in a complex war without a viable strategy to win it. In a situation that harkens back to the outrage caused by the release of the Pentagon Papers, it appears that civilian and military leaders alike regularly manipulated measures of progress in order to maintain public support for a war they knew they could not win.

While some have challenged the Post’s assertion that the officials deliberately lied, it is apparent from the documents that many officials in power attempted to “spin” a spiraling Afghanistan conflict for the public in ways that many find ethically questionable. The reason why they did this, however, has little to do with malintent or morality. Instead, these senior officials simply responded to institutional pressures with the tools they had.

Lee notes that some have challenged the Post’s assertion that the officials deliberately lied, but “it is apparent from the documents that many officials in power attempted to ‘spin’ a spiraling Afghanistan conflict for the public in ways that many find ethically questionable. The reason why they did this, however, has little to do with malintent or morality. Instead, these senior officials simply responded to institutional pressures with the tools they had.”