Seems like just yesterday that the L.A. Times and the AP were putting out civilian casualty figures from anonymous Iraqi government sources that did not gibe with prior reports from the LAT or the AP.

The New York Times sees those numbers and raises them, again based on “unofficial” reports from Iraqi Interior Ministry officials:

American and Iraqi government officials here are extremely reluctant to provide regular, comprehensive figures for civilian deaths, making it difficult to compile accurate data. But figures provided to The New York Times by an Interior Ministry official who asked to remain anonymous indicated that 2,318 civilians died violently in the country in August, compared with 1,980 in July.

Those numbers are higher than either the L.A. Times or the AP reports from yesterday, even though the L.A. Times numbers were ostensibly based on data from “officials in the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior.”  Which tends to suggest that the numbers from the other agencies were lower and the the L.A. Times numbers are a “guesstimate” at best… and that the NYT numbers simply represent the worst possible spin that could be put on the story.

Incidentally, the “official” number from the Iraqi Interior Ministry is 1,011… not that I buy that any more than I do the “unofficial” numbers.  The relatively transparently calculated numbers from iCasualties currently show a slight decline from 1,690 in July to 1,674 in August.  Coincidentally, that’s very close to the average of the “official” and “unofficial” Iraqi numbers.

Also, please note that the NYT’s brand new 2,318 number would still be 22% fewer than the 2,966 civilian casualties reported by the AP in August 2006.  I guess fixating on year-over-year data was just so last month.

Update 0.5:  Kevin Drum notes that the NYT numbers “differ somewhat” from the LAT and AP numbers.  Yes, 30% higher is “somewhat” different.  To be fair, I note that Drum is also is disappointed that the NYT did not supply numbers for last year.  He could get transparent numbers from iCasualties, but I guess he wants anonymous Iraqi numbers for last year.

Update:  Just for fun, compare the lede from the NYT’s new story with the lede for its story after the first month after “surge” troops started arriving in Baghdad.  Here’s today:

Newly released statistics for Iraqi civilian deaths in August reflect the strikingly mixed security picture that has emerged from a gradual six-month increase in American troop strength here: the number of deaths across the country rose by about 20 percent since July, but in the capital itself, the number dropped sharply.

And here’s the NYT lede from March 15, 2007:

With the first full month of the Baghdad security plan completed, the Iraqi military announced Wednesday that the level of violence in the capital had decreased substantially. But the degree of improvement was unclear, partly because of the continued confusion over casualty counts here, and an American general cautioned against reading too much into optimistic reports, given that January and February were two of the worst months for car bombings since the invasion.

The “confusion” over casualty counts is right there in the lede in March; today, it was in paragraph eight… and then as an implied indictment of US and Iraqi officials being “reluctant” to provide numbers.  Nor is there any warning in the lede cautioning against reading too much into these pessimistic reports; that’s in paragraph four today.

Update 2:  Apparently, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer blindsided Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) on Sunday with the strange L.A. Times numbers.  And this is touted at ThinkProgress, an affiliate of the Center for American Progress, which is busy calling for transparency in the US military’s civilian casualty counts.  Guesstimates of the the L.A. Times, cobbled together from anonymous Iraqi officials, however, are completely acceptable to ThinkProgress… and CNN.