Spencer Ackerman September 13, 2007, 3:31 PM

I don’t have half the brainpower necessary for economics reporting, but luckily, the Media Consortium’s Brian Beutler does. Beutler examines the statistics cited by Amb. Ryan Crocker during his testimony this week, and finds that — somehow! — they don’t really add up to the success story that Crocker related:

Perhaps Crocker’s single biggest claim during his two days on Capitol Hill was this: “The IMF estimates that economic growth will exceed 6 percent for 2007.” It’s a true statement as far as it goes, but the International Monetary Fund’s Executive Board reported the figure with less enthusiasm. “Economic growth has been slower than expected,” the IMF fretted, “mainly because the expected expansion of oil production has not materialized.”

Indeed, it’s typical for a country as damaged as Iraq to see its economy fluctuate wildly, resulting in spurts of growth much more substantial than 6 percent.

He continues:

In fact, Iraq’s GDP has varied greatly since the 2003 invasion. It climbed 46.5 percent in 2004, after having fallen 41.4 percent in 2003, according to the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index (PDF). In other words, though 6 percent would constitute significant growth for a developed nation like the United States, it is nearly meaningless for a country that’s experienced as much turmoil as has Iraq.

And even if the figure had been more impressive—two or three times its reported value—it might still be irrelevant to the great majority of Iraqis, who don’t benefit from government salaries or oil industry profits.

“The IMF likes to use macroeconomic aggregates, but these are pretty irrelevant for today’s Iraq,” says Robert E. Looney, a professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School who has written widely on developing economies. He cautions against putting too much stock in Crocker’s numbers. “The figures are all over the place.”

Iraq