Gil can't count, now he can't calculate, either

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/18383

From this, Gil is claiming that if the Iraq War continued for a decade, that we would have 10,000 "dead Americans" that were lost in "carnage" and "bloodletting".

First of all, this is another attempted mislead in that the number is derived from the 2,000 figure over two years and mathematically reaching 10,000 over 10 years.

It's an erroneous assumption that assumes no rate of change in the number of fatalities.

The same type of erroneous assumption appears to have been made in estimating the costs of the extended war.

Some things have already been paid in the first two years. For example, it might have cost money to bring resources to Iraq - resources that are already now there. Also, prices can change. What if some resources are no longer needed? It's possible that the rates of cost could change, as well.

This type of mathematics is highly erroneous and are not good "guesstimates" as to potential costs of lives or money for a decade-long Iraq War (if it were to last that long).

Secondly, there is a problem with the phrase "carnage and bloodletting", because about 1,600 American troops have been killed in Iraq by "hostile acts" in the two years of the war. The remainder were killed in something called "non-combat situations".

That also throws off these numbers, even though they are erred already.

Mathematically speaking, I can say that Gil is way off base. Take this from a Penn State graduate emphasizing in mathematics.