The index, brainchild of the Economist Intelligence Unit, is described further
in this press
release, which also lists the countries in order of their ranking. It is
a very silly exercise:After compiling the Index, the researchers examined it for patterns in order
to identify the "drivers" that make for peaceful societies. They found that
peaceful countries often shared high levels of democracy and transparency
of government, education and material well-being. While the U.S. possesses
many of these characteristics, its ranking was brought down by its engagement
in warfare and external conflict, as well as high levels of incarceration
and homicide...

The index, brainchild of the Economist Intelligence Unit, is described further
in this press
release, which also lists the countries in order of their ranking. It is
a very silly exercise:After compiling the Index, the researchers examined it for patterns in order
to identify the "drivers" that make for peaceful societies. They found that
peaceful countries often shared high levels of democracy and transparency
of government, education and material well-being. While the U.S. possesses
many of these characteristics, its ranking was brought down by its engagement
in warfare and external conflict, as well as high levels of incarceration
and homicide. The U.S.'s rank also suffered due to the large share of military
expenditure from its GDP, attributed to its status as one of the world's military-diplomatic
powers.

Let's just focus on that last measure, defense spending as a share of GDP.
The most "peaceful" country, according to this survey, is Norway.
OK, we guess Norway is pretty peaceful, but we seem to remember 60-odd years
ago it was occupied by Germany, which comes in at a respectable No. 12.

Today both Norway and Germany are peaceful because America entered World War
II and because America spends an outsize share of its GDP on defense in order
to protect its allies from aggressive threats. But the Economist index faults
the U.S. for the strength that makes possible Europe's peace. Of the 20 "most
peaceful" countries, 12 are U.S. allies, and another five are formally
neutral European states--i.e., free-riding nonmembers of the NATO alliance.

Another example of the survey's absurd bias: Israel places No. 119, ahead
of only Sudan and Iraq. But of course most Israelis would like nothing more
than to live in peace, as would their leaders. They are forced into frequent
wars because they are surrounded by enemy states, almost all of which The Economist
reckons as more "peaceful"--including Iran, which comes 22 places
above Israel despite its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its president's vow
to "wipe Israel off the map." Syria, at No. 77, actually places
well ahead of the U.S., despite its support for terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon
and Israel. The Palestinian Arabs aren't even mentioned in the survey, which...

Another example of the survey's absurd bias: Israel places No. 119, ahead
of only Sudan and Iraq. But of course most Israelis would like nothing more
than to live in peace, as would their leaders. They are forced into frequent
wars because they are surrounded by enemy states, almost all of which The Economist
reckons as more "peaceful"--including Iran, which comes 22 places
above Israel despite its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its president's vow
to "wipe Israel off the map." Syria, at No. 77, actually places
well ahead of the U.S., despite its support for terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon
and Israel. The Palestinian Arabs aren't even mentioned in the survey, which
covers only nations.

Then again, maybe this is all a clever ruse to discredit pacifism.

Now, if I were going to use statistics to lie, and I'm not saying I do, and it was my goal to make America the No. 1 most peaceful nation, it would be just as easy as ranking it last.

I would first refine my definition of peace to include only war, not crime. Then I would take and spread out statistics we are high in, like military spending, with statistics we are low in, like civilian combat casualties. With a careful defintion of "combat" and "civilian" we could say the number of civilian combat casualties in America for the last century is 0.

Then I would also insist on diluting other things we are high in, like the number of troops commited to active combat zones, by dividing it by th...

Now, if I were going to use statistics to lie, and I'm not saying I do, and it was my goal to make America the No. 1 most peaceful nation, it would be just as easy as ranking it last.

I would first refine my definition of peace to include only war, not crime. Then I would take and spread out statistics we are high in, like military spending, with statistics we are low in, like civilian combat casualties. With a careful defintion of "combat" and "civilian" we could say the number of civilian combat casualties in America for the last century is 0.

Then I would also insist on diluting other things we are high in, like the number of troops commited to active combat zones, by dividing it by the countries GDP and landmass, arguing that it is inevitable that large countries with powerful economies are more likely to become entangled in conflict than small countries not worth fighting with. (Switzerland, I'm talking to you!)

Now its total BS, but without giving to many details on my reasoning, I could just say,

"by evaluating a number of criteria such as military spending and combat casualties, as well as many others, we arrived at this list."

The reason I clipped this is because the insistence that there was no editorial content in this list pissed me off. I can just as easily produce a list that is just as authoritative in the exact opposite order.

This means that the whole "ranking" scheme amounts to nothing more than an auto-erotic act best performed in the privacy of your own home!