Armed with a Ph.D., J.D., and no operational experience, John Giduck is finally coming full circle by reinventing himself as an academician, scholar, and author. This means that John Giduck can and should be held to the same standards and norms that one would expect from the academic community. John Giduck doesn’t meet those norms especially with citing source data for published claims.
We’ve already posted several examples of Terror at Beslan research inaccuracies for POW Network listed author, John Giduck (there will be more inaccuracies posted related to Terror At Beslan in future blog posts here and elsewhere). I’ve also recently posted about John Giduck’s false claims that “50 years ago, there were zero” school shootings.
Now, we’ll look at a John Giduck claim that there were 204 school attacks in Afghanistan in the first half of 2006. John Giduck uses this apparently fabricated statistic frequently as proof that school attacks are inevitable in the US.
Here is the specific written claim taken from an Oct 2008 article written by John Giduck
In the first six months of 2006 alone, 204 schools were attacked in Afghanistan, at a time when U.S. and NATO troops held their peak control of that country.
This isn’t the only time that John Giduck makes the same claim. Here is the same claim taken from a Aug 2008 podcast interview with John Giduck:
In the first six months of 2006 alone, when we were at our peak of control of the entire country of Afghanistan…the US and NATO…204 schools were attacked
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lawenforcement/2008/08/07/schools-as-terror-targets (27:07 of the John Giduck podcast interview)
Sounds convincing….but is it true? It’s odd that scholar John Giduck never cites a source in any of the claims and the claim is very specific. Not “around 200” or “several hundred” or even “just over 200”. It’s 204 so the number had to have come from someplace….or appear to have.
Let’s look at what other reputable organizations say about the number of school attacks in Afghanistan in 2006. Remember that John Giduck is saying 204 in just the first 6 months of 2006
CARE International had the highest number of all school attack data for Afghanistan for all of 2006 (not just the first 6 months). CARE’s number? 241 schools attacked. This data was taken from UNICEF data for 2006 which includes this interesting tidbit apparently not included in John Giduck’d research into the subject
The UNICEF database reveals that across all provinces, attacks on physical structures, not people, are the most common.
[The report goes on to say that 79% of the school attacks occur at night when presumably few, if any, students are present]
The Afghan Ministry of Education comes in next at 220 school attacks for all of 2006.
Another independent research org says that 198 schools were attacked during 2006. This is less than John Giduck’s number for 6 months.
The United Nations comes in with a number for the entire year that is less than John Giduck’s total for 6 months: at least 172 school attacks
Now there clearly is some variance in the total numbers for the entire year. That said, John Giduck’s total for 6 months rivals or exceeds the complete year totals for all of the organizations listed.
John Giduck also fails to put the number of 2006 school attacks in context. The statistic was used to try to link worldwide increases in school attacks to an increased likelihood of school attacks in the US. That said, John Giduck doesn’t mention that these increases being related to factors that have no relevance in the US such the escalating level of overall violence with the greater Afghanistan conflict or other causal factors such as tribal disagreements. I guess it is just easier to flippantly throw a number out without any context to prove one’s point about possible events in the United States.
Making it worse, John Giduck cites no sources for the “204 Afghan schools attacked in the first 6 months of 2006” claim. I am unable to find any such data supporting the 204 number for 6 months. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but as a scholar John Giduck knows that he should documenting his research if only to avoid troubling questions about the integrity of his research and analysis.
Why are we having to ask a person with multiple advanced degrees about references without citations and apparently made up statistics? Doesn’t John Giduck know better? Not documenting claims only makes it appear that John Giduck is inventing or pulling the numbers out of his hind quarters to make his point…much like John Giduck’s been caught doing before.
At least, John Giduck can’t blame someone else for this…or have his supporters say that people pointing out such inaccuracies are simply jealous (of what? Poor research skills?)