Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq.

[Inquartata]

the nature of the AQ organisation. Since the organisation itself is not coherent, it's operations can't be coherent either. AQ is described more as a "brand" of terrorism then as a rigidly commanded organisation anyways, with individual groups aligning themselves under the AQ banner, but pretty much doing their own thing.

Meh, but---"described" by who? Our intelligence services? The same ones who were so off "base" about the state of things in Iraq pre-invasion?

[Inquartata]

Finishing up from last week:

At no point did a majority of Americans call for a withdrawal from Vietnam,

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ublic_opinion/

The anti-Iraq war is nothing like as pervassive or as vocal as how you characterise the Vietnam peace campaign. There are no mass marches, no real counter-culture. College kids don't really give a crap, mothers don't fear the draft for their sons.

Sure. What do you think it proves, though?

What we have now is much more efficacious in affecting public policy: Opposition by "the silent majority", by opinion leaders and much of the political establishment---including Congress. And it happened much faster than it did in Vietnam, mostly because of the immediate nature of the modern media story and because of the much sharper nature of the political divide and the acrimonious tone it has acquired of late.

Even when this was so, according to you, this lasted a good 6 years of the war. Public opinion didn't turn agaisnt Iraq until 2005/6-meaning we have had under 2 years.

Yes. The phenomenon is getting worse, not better.

Even by the weak standards of Vietnam that means you probably have at least another 4 years to keep telling us the war is winnable and we are fighting them abroad instead of at home.

I do, but we do not. I am in the minority, alas.

in these two conflicts, the US accepted huge and very sudden casualties- the explanation must go beyond the absence of a liberal media campaign.

Why?

And---you're still focusing on numbers. It has little to do with numbers. It has to do with endurance. The American public has no "wind" any more. It likes its wars to be sprints, not marathons. ( Perhaps this parallels the growing obesity and unhealthiness of Americans generally. )

So recruitment as either gone down or would have gone up anyway?

Or has stayed about the same. No way to know, but that would be my guess.
( I'm sure recruitment for the Iraqi insurgency is up, but recruitment for worldwide jihad as a result of Iraq? Color me dubious. I mean, what? Are there Muslims who hated us for supporting Israel and the hundred other reasons customarily offered but did nothing, and then Iraq pushed them that little bit farther into action? )

And my dubiety has just about the same amount of factual evidence supporting it as the "common wisdom" that it has increased it, by the way. Like "Al Qaeda is just a loose affiliation of like-minded but largely independent groups", that one is often claimed but never really demonstrated. Those are the worst sort of assumptions upon which to "base" an argument.

There cannot be a swift victory against the forces targetting the West- everyone knows that.

Don't be so quick to speak for "everyone". There are in every country great masses of the naive, the indifferent and the stupid who are easily lured onto bandwagons. That you and I know this does not mean that the majority of voters knows this.

You see the Iraq as evidence as that we are losing resolve to fight this threat. I, and a great many others, see invading Iraq as unconnected to nullifying this threat, indeed we see that prolonging it serves only to stengthen the resolve of our enemies.

This is a separate issue, which has nothing to do with AQ's strategic plans for us.

I think it is this feeling of the war being counter-productive that you find hardest to accept,

Mostly because no one ever troubles themselves to try to prove it, as opposed to shouting it fervently, over and over, and hoping it will become truth by default.

bollox

How cogent. Who can refute such forceful logic?

Why didn't this happen after 7/7

After what?

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...ublic_opinion/

I am aware of those stats- but this was not the 'question' I was asking. I said at no point did the US public favour an immediate withdrawal- not characterise the war as a 'mistake'. The stat I gave (1969- only 19% wanted an immediate end to the war) came at a time when, by the gallup poll, a majority still characterised the was as a mistake. So essentially you are using data to refute a different a point I have not made.

Sure. What do you think it proves, though?

That this war is less traumatic for the US public. Not that this has a bearing on your point of course. However, I stil think you barking up the wrong tree. From my POV, public opinion is faltering chiefly because public faith in the pronouncements of the US government has been eroded. This erosion is due, not to a weakness of spirit, a post-Vietnam impatience or an efficious liberal clique manipulating the media.

The waning public support is due almost entirely because of the collapse of the 'case' for war. Had the case for war been made with integrity and without 'hypothosis based intelligence'- i.e I have an opinion- get me some 'facts' to back this up, ignore those that don't, then the situation would be different.

Shifting war aims, from WMD to regime change, from democratisation to humanitarianism, failed to establish solid foundations upon which long term public opinion could be secured. I actually heard Bolton recently say that US aims had been achieved in Iraq and that it doens't matter if it becomes a failed state- essentially a problem for the Iraqis. I also remember a few speeches, before the war, in which failed states were claimed to pose the greatest danger to US national security.

Essentialy the wise man builds his house upon the rocks. The foolish man (men) have built there house upon the sand and the rain has come tumbling down. The media is reflecting this- not driving it. The USG have only themselves to blame for there being such a disparity between what they said would happen and what has happened. And that's just the conduct of the war- lets not even get into the WMD case.

What we have now is much more efficacious in affecting public policy: Opposition by "the silent majority", by opinion leaders and much of the political establishment---including Congress.

To be honest I think that sounds a bit paranoid. The media also played their part in making an erroneous case for war, you didn't mind that.

I do, but we do not. I am in the minority, alas.

In all these discussions I have emplored you to present your case for how the war in Iraq can reach a succesful outcome. All you have said is that, if it doens't it will be the fault of the liberal media. That's not good enough.

Or has stayed about the same. No way to know, but that would be my guess.( I'm sure recruitment for the Iraqi insurgency is up, but recruitment for worldwide jihad as a result of Iraq? Color me dubious. I mean, what? Are there Muslims who hated us for supporting Israel and the hundred other reasons customarily offered but did nothing, and then Iraq pushed them that little bit farther into action?

I grant you this is not USFA- there are no membership figs by which we can measure recruitment. But there are other indicators. If we can get beyond your refusal, perhaps understandably, to contemplate any official sources- 'the same agencies you blame for Iraq' then there is this. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html

If not then the number of attacks could be an indicator.

"The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237percent rise in the fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). I accept A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, the scene of almost half the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks. But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan—the other current jihadist hot spot—there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities."

Of course, just because jihadist terrorism has risen in the period after the invasion of Iraq, it does not follow that events in Iraq itself caused the change. For example, a rise in attacks in the Kashmir conflict and the Chechen separatist war against Russian forces may have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. But the most direct test of The Iraq Effect--whether the United States and its allies have suffered more jihadist terrorism after the invasion than before--shows that the rate of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and Iraq) has risen by a quarter, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198.

“Iraq Effect” by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank. Research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law. Data from the MIPT-RAND Terrorism database (available at terrorismknowledgebase.org)

And my dubiety has just about the same amount of factual evidence supporting it as the "common wisdom" that it has increased it, by the way. Like "Al Qaeda is just a loose affiliation of like-minded but largely independent groups", that one is often claimed but never really demonstrated. Those are the worst sort of assumptions upon which to "base" an argument.

It is an observation not a hypothesis. AQ has about 50 bases for operation, each with specific goals tailored to what they want to achieve in that state, as well as the ethnic composition of operatives in that state. They might want to force a withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, or hit Western tourism in Egypt or cause the Iraqi govt to fall. They might come from pakistani, algerian, Chechyan, Indonesian or Somali stock and this will change the specifics of their world view and agenda. Granted they have a lot in common in terms of their opinion of the West.

As far as proving AQ as operating laregely independently- surely the predicament of its leadership makes this self-evident? How could OBL be directing their activities?

Don't be so quick to speak for "everyone". There are in every country great masses of the naive, the indifferent and the stupid who are easily lured onto bandwagons. That you and I know this does not mean that the majority of voters knows this.

A YouGov poll in the UK found that only 6% of the public thought that the war on terror would be over within 5 years. Not sure about the US

Mostly because no one ever troubles themselves to try to prove it, as opposed to shouting it fervently, over and over, and hoping it will become truth by default.

Maybe people who support the war should start shouting louder about the benefits then

How cogent. Who can refute such forceful logic?

I thought it was beautifully eloquent.

After what?

7/7- 7th July attacks on London (we do love to Americanise our terminology!) The attacks did not increase our inclination to fight AQ in Iraq.

[jBirch]

Meh, but---"described" by who? Our intelligence services? The same ones who were so off "base" about the state of things in Iraq pre-invasion?

By the global intelligence community. And since that includes Canadian Intelligence, it's gotta be right.

*grin*

James.

[jBirch]

I recently found an interesting piece of opinion from a senior member of the US intelligence service (can't remember who, but it was in the MSM) during the build up to the Iraq invasion. He mentioned that the job of the intelligence community was to support the President in his decisions, not act as some sort of moral compass or arbiter of truth. That the President chose to act on subsets of the Intelligence that he was given, is entirely within his prerogative as CIC.

He trusted in the American peoples' choice of President and in their ability to choose wisely.

I would submit that the reason for America's increased inability to continue foreign wars with ambiguous morality is because America, at its core, is wise in determining what is a good idea and what is not. This is simply a learning process for America and it will emerge wiser then when it started.

James.

[jBirch]

Mostly because no one ever troubles themselves to try to prove it, as opposed to shouting it fervently, over and over, and hoping it will become truth by default.

Just had to pick at this piece here...

In matters of humanity, proof is impossible and to hold a rhetorical opponent to such a ridiculous level of certainty is an example of poisoning the well: there is no possible way that they can make an argument with that level of certainty and because of that, anything they say is BS.

When discussing hypotheticals and evaluating decisions in the human realm, probability dominates and degrees of certainty need to be considered.

Is the war more likely to be counter-productive then it is to be productive, given the data you currently possess? In my case, my read of the data is that the war in Iraq is significantly more counter-productive to both the "War on Terror" and the US global ability to operate efficiently then it is productive. The benefits are substantially less then the costs, IMHO.

Inq? What's your opinion of whether the war is more probably productive or counter-productive? Where on that spectrum does your analysis place you?

James.

[Inquartata]

I am aware of those stats- but this was not the 'question' I was asking. I said at no point did the US public favour an immediate withdrawal- not characterise the war as a 'mistake'.

Very well, but once again: What does it prove?

BTW, support for "immediate withdrawal" from Iraq is only at 37%, so it can equally be said that "the American public" doesn't support that now, either...so again, what is proved?

http://legacy.rasmussenreports.com/P...al20070426.htm

Certainly it says nothing to refute my assertion that US public opinion is easily turned against anything that promises to be difficult for a long time.

The stat I gave (1969- only 19% wanted an immediate end to the war) came at a time when, by the gallup poll, a majority still characterised the was as a mistake.

What source are you using?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...-vietnam_x.htm

Look at the title of the article.

If you need more, look at the comparative results for question #3 here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2...-iraq-poll.htm

So essentially you are using data to refute a different a point I have not made.

I hope this is now corrected.

That this war is less traumatic for the US public.

How so?

I stil think you barking up the wrong tree. From my POV, public opinion is faltering chiefly because public faith in the pronouncements of the US government has been eroded. This erosion is due, not to a weakness of spirit, a post-Vietnam impatience or an efficious liberal clique manipulating the media.

That's exactly what it is IMO. It was the same with Vietnam.

As I see it, there's a social change at work. You can see it everywhere: an increasing focus on the short-term, a demand for immediacy, an insistence on having everything now. It's why TV and movies have developed this modern choppy, quick-cut editing, courtesy of music videos. It's why people assume so much debt buying things NOW rather than saving up for what they want. There is simply no patience in the American psyche any more. And clever special interests and PR specialists can play on that.

The waning public support is due almost entirely because of the collapse of the 'case' for war.

Which "case"? There were several. Are several.

Shifting war aims, from WMD to regime change, from democratisation to humanitarianism, failed to establish solid foundations upon which long term public opinion could be secured.

How many times must I correct you on this "shifting" business? Please go read the original rationale submitted to Congress, which cites ALL of the aims you have listed. From the beginning. This is not a "shift". The only "shift" you have seen has been one of emphasis. Maybe.

I actually heard Bolton recently say that US aims had been achieved in Iraq and that it doens't matter if it becomes a failed state- essentially a problem for the Iraqis.

Which, again, proves what?

I also remember a few speeches, before the war, in which failed states were claimed to pose the greatest danger to US national security.

Cites?

Essentialy the wise man builds his house upon the rocks. The foolish man (men) have built there house upon the sand and the rain has come tumbling down.

Sounds very Middle Eastern.

The media is reflecting this- not driving it.

Chicken or egg?

The USG have only themselves to blame for there being such a disparity between what they said would happen and what has happened. And that's just the conduct of the war- lets not even get into the WMD case.

OK.

What is your point?

To be honest I think that sounds a bit paranoid. The media also played their part in making an erroneous case for war, you didn't mind that.

Very clever, trying to slip the assumption past and hoping I'd just argue the conclusion. Sorry, though, I am still not buying the "erroneous case for war" business. Because you don't really mean just mistaken, you mean deceptive.

Nice try, though.

In all these discussions I have emplored you to present your case for how the war in Iraq can reach a succesful outcome.

And my point was that it doesn't matter. Withdrawal in defeat ( it will be spun differently, of course, but that's the reality ) is a foregone conclusion, because a variety of influences---not all of them intentional---have been exerted upon a weakness in the American character to turn public opinion in that direction. It's apparent that it's going to happen. It's only a question of when. And Bin Laden et al can surely see the writing on the wall as easily as anyone. Hence my belief that there have been no more attacks in the US because AQ has been holding off. Currently it has the best of it: it can kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus lending credence to its assertion that it is fighting American "invasion of Islam" and pursuing one of its stated goals, to drive us from Islamic lands. Once we retreat, it can claim to have beaten us and driven us out. And if you think that our being in Iraq helps AQ recruit jihadis, what do you think a military victory over us will do for its battered credibility? Nothing succeeds like success. I expect the money and the eager recruits to flood in, to participate in the next phase of the victorious jihad...

All you have said is that, if it doens't it will be the fault of the liberal media. That's not good enough.

Heh. Sorry you feel that way about the truth.

( BTW, yes, I did see that little straw man there: I have never said that ONLY the media was to blame. )



[quote]there is this. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html

We have been over that report ( courtesy of the same intel establishment that gave us your "erroneous case for war", but suddenly rehabilitated once they say something you like, apparently ) before. There's nothing new there, and the report does NOT say unequivocally that Iraq=more recruitment.

If not then the number of attacks could be an indicator.

Or not.

Of course, just because jihadist terrorism has risen in the period after the invasion of Iraq, it does not follow that events in Iraq itself caused the change.

Drat, you've deprived me of an opportunity to fling Latin at you!

the rate of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and Iraq) has risen by a quarter, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198.

"Western"?

In other words, on countries which either did NOT support the Iraq invasion ( like France ) or which did in only a token fashion ( Spain ), but NOT on the prime mover itself?!

And you explain this---how?

It is an observation not a hypothesis.

As you like, but either way it is as likely to be wrong as right IMO. Certainly I have seen no strong evidence to bulwark such an "observation". I only hear the observation bruited about, as though that alone is enough to establish it as a fundamental fact of the discussion. ( The political world is full of these. My current favorite is the one about illegal immigration: "It just isn't possible to expel 12 million illegal aliens." Why is it impossible? Has it been tried? Has it been studied? Answer there cometh none, just repetitions of the assertion. Take our word for it, in other words, and swallow the conclusion we base upon it. )

As far as proving AQ as operating laregely independently- surely the predicament of its leadership makes this self-evident?

Ah...no?

How could OBL be directing their activities?

Maybe he never has. It's always been men like al Zawahiri and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who have done this. And not all of them are scurrying around the tribal hills of Pakistan.

Maybe people who support the war should start shouting louder about the benefits then

If only it were that easy...

7/7- 7th July attacks on London (we do love to Americanise our terminology!)

Ah.

The attacks did not increase our inclination to fight AQ in Iraq.

Perhaps that's because those responsible were home-grown and not foreign attackers...or perhaps the Bristish are somewhere between the Americans and the Spanish in terms of national response to these sorts of things.

In other words, maybe AQ knows its enemies pretty well.

[Inquartata]

In matters of humanity, proof is impossible and to hold a rhetorical opponent to such a ridiculous level of certainty is an example of poisoning the well: there is no possible way that they can make an argument with that level of certainty and because of that, anything they say is BS.

And the alternative you recommend is--what? Just to accept assertions as the basis for sound arguments?

Decisions are made on the basis of arguments. Decisions have consequences. If the assertion is wrong, the decsion will be wrong and the consequences will probably be unfortunate. I mean, isn't that the whole case against the Bush Administration's decision-making proces vis-a-vis Iraq? That its basic assumptions were little more than insufficiently supported opinion which turned out to be wrong, leading to assorted miseries?

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about theories based on ideological premises alone when they come from one side, and then excuplate them from the other.

Inq? What's your opinion of whether the war is more probably productive or counter-productive? Where on that spectrum does your analysis place you?

Obviously, I support the war, so I think it's a net plus. Just the fact that it nettles the Syrians, the Iranians and other assorted bad actors so much is enough for me, frankly. And given experiences such as that of Lebanon I think the potential for spillover benefits for the region are also quite good.

Or rather, I would think so, were it not for the fact that it is obvious that we are out of there quite soon no matter what happens. That changes everything. Once it becomes apparent that a policy is going to be abandoned, no one can have any confidence in its usefulness any more.

[jBirch]

And the alternative you recommend is--what? Just to accept assertions as the basis for sound arguments?

No. To take into account probability when evaluating assertions. You required PM to PROVE his assertions accurate, rather then show that they are most likely to be accurate. I'm saying that you've put an impossible standard of certainty around his assertions and then asserted that since he can't meet those standards, his arguments are invalid.

It's faulty reasoning.

Decisions are made on the basis of arguments. Decisions have consequences. If the assertion is wrong, the decsion will be wrong and the consequences will probably be unfortunate. I mean, isn't that the whole case against the Bush Administration's decision-making proces vis-a-vis Iraq? That its basic assumptions were little more than insufficiently supported opinion which turned out to be wrong, leading to assorted miseries?

No. The case against the decision making process is that the assertions were not LIKELY to be accurate. They may have been accurate in hindsight and still been arrived at using poor judgement. We call it "Luck" when a stupid process leads to the right decision.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about theories based on ideological premises alone when they come from one side, and then excuplate them from the other.

You do like the straw men, don't you?

Obviously, I support the war, so I think it's a net plus. Just the fact that it nettles the Syrians, the Iranians and other assorted bad actors so much is enough for me, frankly. And given experiences such as that of Lebanon I think the potential for spillover benefits for the region are also quite good.

Ah. Now THIS is an interesting argument, though ancillary to the original intent which is that the war in Iraq makes the US safer from terrorism. I disagree that making Syria/Iran and other bad actors "uncomfortable" necessarily makes the cost justified. What actions are they likely to abandon because they are "uncomfortable"?

Or rather, I would think so, were it not for the fact that it is obvious that we are out of there quite soon no matter what happens. That changes everything. Once it becomes apparent that a policy is going to be abandoned, no one can have any confidence in its usefulness any more.

I'm against the war and against withdrawl. I think that the "bigger stick" approach in Iraq is what's causing the problem. The tactics and strategies need to be more nuanced to achieve their effect. In particular, the rule of law must be held as the ultimate authority, for all sides. The Iraqi congress/parliament/whatever must be seen as having total control over the foreign troops acting in their country.

Anything else, and it's an occupation with the insurgents being "La Resistance".

James.

[Inquartata]

No. To take into account probability when evaluating assertions. You required PM to PROVE his assertions accurate, rather then show that they are most likely to be accurate.

No, I'm just asking for a whiff of evidence---something more than hearsay presentation of more opinion from other sources.

There should be more terrorist training camps, for example, if there really is a greater influx of volunteers into the jihadi movement. Probably there should be more in proximity to Iraq, as well. Arms sales in Muslim areas of the world should be way up, no? After all, those teeming masses of new shuhada will need weapons. A little thought should be able to come up with all sorts of indicators. But the ones he offers are things like increased numbers of ( reported ) attacks on "Western interests", which only proves increased numbers of attacks, not that there are more individuals doing the attacking. It could as easily be explained by "productivity gains" by existing groups. And note too the extreme statistical weakness involved in interpreting an increase from 7.2 to 9 as significant. At those levels it could be simple random chance.

If one is going to base a conclusion on a premise like "Iraq has caused an increase in the number of recruits for radical militant Islamist groups", I think one is obliged to demonstrate that the premise is more likely than not to be true, not merely that it might be true...

The case against the decision making process is that the assertions were not LIKELY to be accurate.

"Likely" is an awfully fuzzy condition. What does it mean? And what criteria define the answer?

They may have been accurate in hindsight and still been arrived at using poor judgement. We call it "Luck" when a stupid process leads to the right decision.

And what do we call it when a smart process leads to the wrong decision?

I'll say it again: Decisions have consequences, and a clever, plausible one that is wrong may be just as calamitous in its outcome as an intuitive, "I prayed on it" one. Evidence---facts---are what reduce the chances of a bad outcome in both cases---not some fungible standard of an opinion's "likelihood".

You do like the straw men, don't you?

You do like assertions without demonstration, don't you?

Another of those unsupported opinions. Case not proven. Dismissed.

ancillary to the original intent which is that the war in Iraq makes the US safer from terrorism.

That, too. I figured we'd already established this one.

There are other grounds as well, eg the removal of a regime which had not only used chemical weapons, invaded neighboring countries, acted truculently against Allied forces overseeing an agreement to which it had itself agreed as a condition of truce, aided, financed and otherwise abetted terrorists, attempted assassinations, corrupted sundry Western agencies and individuals using transgressions of the oil-for-food program while showing every sign of keeping needed oil reseves off the market indefinitely even as its people suffered, repressed its own people, cooperated with other repressive regimes, etc.

What actions are they likely to abandon because they are "uncomfortable"?

You mean, like Syria pulling out of Lebanon? Like the sudden reforming of Libya and the dropping of its WMD programs?

Anything else, and it's an occupation with the insurgents being "La Resistance".

Then perhaps that's what is needed, to make the insurgency despair of ever being able to accomplish its objectives. Maybe Petraeus should go on Iraqi TV and say "We came here to free you and rebuild. Had you let us do that, we'd have been out of here years ago. But no, you insisted on not believing us, despite having no example of an unending American "occupation" to point at elsewhere and thus no proof that we intended such here. So guess what? Now it's going to BE an one. We're going to settle down here indefinitely, and you're going to see what a real occupation is. When you get tired of it, come out of your homes and businesses, people of Iraq, drag the "insurgents" squealing out of their holes and toss them into cells. Dig out the foreign jihadis and string them up. Boot the warlord imams running militias and death squads while you're at it. Then we'll become liberators and builders again, we'll give you back your own government and we'll go home. Until then, you're stuck with the government you deserve and the outcome you've chosen."

[jBirch]

No, I'm just asking for a whiff of evidence---something more than hearsay presentation of more opinion from other sources.
[snip of excellent evidence]

Fair enough, though I would take the opinion of experts in the field over the information gathered personally on the Internet.

"Likely" is an awfully fuzzy condition. What does it mean? And what criteria define the answer?

Oh come now. I'm using "Likely" in the statistical sense. We can haggle about probability measurements and the like, but you know precisely the meaning I attributed to that word. Given the options available to the administration, and limited for the sake of argument to those of interest to us, I would say that the course chosen was obviously sub-optimal given the data at the time.

And what do we call it when a smart process leads to the wrong decision?

Chance: "The fickle finger of fate"?

I'll say it again: Decisions have consequences, and a clever, plausible one that is wrong may be just as calamitous in its outcome as an intuitive, "I prayed on it" one. Evidence---facts---are what reduce the chances of a bad outcome in both cases---not some fungible standard of an opinion's "likelihood".

Agreed. So again, the facts at the time seemed to imply (and you can check my posting history to validate my memory) that Iraq did not pose a significant threat and that invasion would be a dumb idea. When you take a decision against the facts, and it turns out badly, that's called "poor reasoning".

You do like assertions without demonstration, don't you?

Now it's my turn to cry ambiguity. Which assertions are you referring to?

Another of those unsupported opinions. Case not proven. Dismissed.

The prosecution is not the judge, Big Boy. That's why we appeal these kinds of things to rational, neutral third parties.

That, too. I figured we'd already established this one.

Sorry, which one have we established?

There are other grounds as well, eg the removal of a regime which had not only used chemical weapons, invaded neighboring countries, acted truculently against Allied forces overseeing an agreement to which it had itself agreed as a condition of truce, aided, financed and otherwise abetted terrorists, attempted assassinations, corrupted sundry Western agencies and individuals using transgressions of the oil-for-food program while showing every sign of keeping needed oil reseves off the market indefinitely even as its people suffered, repressed its own people, cooperated with other repressive regimes, etc.

Well, I disagree that these benefits outweigh the costs to achieve them, both to the Iraqi people, the American people, the Western people and the world as a whole.

I would also argue that if this moral position was the sole justification for the war, then the same moral arguments can be used against the US. After all, the US has:

* used WMD on civilians,
* invaded other countries,
* acted trucluntly in its treaty obligations,
* aided, abetted and financed terrorists
* co-operated with other repressive regimes

About the only thing on that list that the US can not be accused of, is repressing its people (though you can argue that depending on the scale that you're considering "repressing").

If these reasons morally justify the invasion of Iraq and the removal of its leader, surely they morally justify the invasion of the US and the removal of its leader as well.

Or is it the lack of other redeaming features that marks the moral difference between the two? Iraq did these bad things, but didn't do anything good, so it's ok to destroy it. America did these bad things, but has done plenty good too, so it's not ok to destroy it.

You mean, like Syria pulling out of Lebanon? Like the sudden reforming of Libya and the dropping of its WMD programs?

Libya, I buy, though I doubt that they were far enough along that it made much matter.

Syria is a simple temporal correlation caused by someone's assassination of a prominent, popular, Lebanese politician. It had nothing to do with the US efforts isolated in Iraq. Do you have other positive examples of outcomes of the war in Iraq?

My basic premise is that the costs do not outweigh the benefits. You seem to have a good handle on the benefits. What are they?

Then perhaps that's what is needed, to make the insurgency despair of ever being able to accomplish its objectives.

I'm not sure I buy that logic either, though I think it could be an appropriate choice to make. The catch, of course, is that when that happens Iraqis would become Americans.

I think that the better course is to take the Afghanistan model and subjugate the foreign troops to the indiginous government, with appropriate safeguards and conditions of course. Iraq needs a functioning state and the enforcement of a communal rule of law. Until then, people will look for protection wherever they can.

James.

[Inquartata]

Fair enough, though I would take the opinion of experts in the field over the information gathered personally on the Internet.

What if the information on the internet is posted BY experts? Or it it consists of the publications of their writings and studies?

Too, expertise is less valuable in the realm of forecasting than might be imagined, especially when it comes to political matters. Before the Iraq war I could be found citing Fouad Ajami's expert opinion about how an American invasion to topple Saddam would be greeted. He was one of the main proponents of the "they will throw flowers at the soldiers" theory. Clearly, his expertise was no guarantor of accuracy in reading the future.

I'm using "Likely" in the statistical sense.

Well...but how can you apply a "statistical sense" to an issue when there are no numbers or quantifiable data available? Statistics is a branch of mathematics. It requires inputs, not vague guesses at what inputs might be if only they could be collected.

That's my point here: There are no reliable data to which to apply statistical principles, and no reasonable way to gather data, because the data points are actively trying to escape being gathered, and in some cases are assiduously attempting to falsify themselves. And possibly to kill the gatherers, but never mind that now.

Given the options available to the administration, and limited for the sake of argument to those of interest to us, I would say that the course chosen was obviously sub-optimal given the data at the time.

Now you seem to be talking about the decision to invade Iraq. I was talking about the impossible task of measuring this oft-claimed "increase in jihadis/terrorists recruitment as a result of the invasion of Iraq"...

Chance: "The fickle finger of fate"?

Chance operates also in the realm of poor decision-making processes. Sometimes very bad guesses turn out to be right, and ghastly gambles pay off big. And even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.

Obviously, the "likelihood" is greater when the guesses are careful and based in solid evidence. Although the Vikings gave greater honor to men with reputations for luck than those with reputations for sagacity.

the facts at the time seemed to imply (and you can check my posting history to validate my memory) that Iraq did not pose a significant threat and that invasion would be a dumb idea.

Even if you are talking only about the WMD and support-of-terrorisn rationales, I couldn't disagree more. This only became apparent in hindsight.

When you take a decision against the facts, and it turns out badly, that's called "poor reasoning".

It's poor reasoning even when it doesn't turn out badly. It just doesn't tend to get recorded as such in the history books, or punished at the polls.

Which assertions are you referring to?

Meh, the one I quoted just before I made the assertion, to wit, your labelling of an assertion I made as a straw man, without showing why it was one.

You have attacked the Bush Administration for making decisions without sufficient hard evidence. When I attacked PM for doing the same thing---concluding that "the was is counter-productive" on the basis of a "feeling" rather than on that of hard evidence---you defended him, talking about how "proof is impossible" and I was holding him to a ridiculous standard of certainty. I pointed out that this is a double standard, that you cannot say that a practice is bad when X does it but defend it when Y does it. You called this a straw man argument. I failed to see how it is either an unwonted exaggeration of your position or a different position altogether.

The prosecution is not the judge, Big Boy. That's why we appeal these kinds of things to rational, neutral third parties.

I must have thought I was in a sharia court.

Sorry, which one have we established?

That I believed that "the war in Iraq makes the US safer from terrorism" ( your phrase ). I didn't include it in my list of "benefits" of the war because I assumed we'd already established that it was one on there.

Well, I disagree that these benefits outweigh the costs to achieve them, both to the Iraqi people, the American people, the Western people and the world as a whole.

"You may be right; and certainly I cannot go so far as to say that you are wrong; but still---!" ( Stupid smily limits! )

Far be it from me to infringe on your right to believe whatever you wish....however loopy it may be! ( And again, a hypothetical smily. )

I would also argue that if this moral position was the sole justification for the war, then the same moral arguments can be used against the US. After all, the US has:

* used WMD on civilians,

Not that I can recall. When was that?

* invaded other countries,

After provocation. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was unprovoked, and one might argue that the invasion of Iran was as well. I cannot think of a US invasion of another country without provocation which went beyond mere rhetoric.

* acted trucluntly in its treaty obligations,

Sorry, this one wants more explanation.

* aided, abetted and financed terrorists

Which ones?

* co-operated with other repressive regimes

Alas, yes.

About the only thing on that list that the US can not be accused of, is repressing its people

You forgot "attempted assassinations, corrupted sundry Western agencies and individuals using transgressions of the oil-for-food program while showing every sign of keeping needed oil reseves off the market indefinitely even as its people suffered".

Syria is a simple temporal correlation

Really? You don't think that pressure from a US with a sudden large military presence next door and a recently demonstrated willingness to topple dictators by force---with the swift defeat of the world's 4th largest army in the recent past and as yet no clear indications that its reform of Iraqi society and politics was doomed to fail---made Assad at all nervous? You don't think that maybe he decided he might soon need his army elsewhere?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4305591.stm

Do you have other positive examples of outcomes of the war in Iraq? My basic premise is that the costs do not outweigh the benefits. You seem to have a good handle on the benefits. What are they?

Sure. The converse of all the charges laid against Saddam's regime, above. The attraction of jiahdists there, rather than here. Etc.

[jBirch]

Attempt to cut down on volume of post...

1. Re: Experts. Again, people that have studied the matter are more likely to be correct then those of us who are not experts in our field, espeically when it comes to predicting likely futures.

2. Re: Statistics. History provides the data points as do the social sciences. If it hasn't worked in the past, it is unlikely to work in the future.

3. Re: terrorist recruiting has increased as a result of the invasion of Iraq. You are correct, there is not enough data to be certain. However, the experts in the field of terrorism have asserted that the increase in terrorist related activity overseas (in particular, in Iraq) is based, partly, on the propaganda provided by both insurgent and American activity in Iraq. I'll find sources later, if this assertion fails to convince you that many experts ARE saying this.

4. Re: decision to invade Iraq. I can go back through my posts, if you like, and while I'm no expert, I was asserting before the invasion that it was a dumb idea. I listed my reasons back then, but to summarise:

* Iraq could not have had enough WMD to threaten the US.
* All other weaponry was focused on convincing Iran that Iraq shouldn't be attacked.
* The humanitarian situation in Iraq was not dire enough to warrent invasion.
* The backlash from the invasion would hurt the US's ability to manouvre in its foreign affairs.

This was foresight, not hindsight on my part at least. I, and many others, predicted exactly the state of affairs that the US currently finds itself in, significantly prior to the invasion. Check my post history for examples of my own soothsaying ability on this matter.

5. Re: Luck. It's a poor way to plan foreign policy, unless you're a Norseman and no one will notice if you simply fail to return home. Though if luck is what you like to base decisions on, I'd again ask you which of us was right predicting the current situation in Iraq.

6. Re: Straw Man. You were attempting to get me to argue that ideaological arguments are flawed always by interpreting what I said as asserting that some ideology is ok, while others are not. I never asserted that one ideology is correct, while others are not.

7. Re: US actions. WMD = Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Invasion = Iraq. Cuba. Nicaragua. Guam. North Vietnam. North Korea. Afghanistan. Provocation is not a mitigation. Just because I call you a prick, doesn't mean you can run me over with your car. Terrorists: French Resistance. Chechen Rebels. Mujadeen. Jewish actions in Palestine before they created Israel. Nicaragua. Africa. Treaty Violations: ABM deployment in Europe. ABM deployment on board ship. To quote from the 1972 Treaty:

2. Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems for a defense of the territory of its country and not to provide a base for such a defense, and not to deploy ABM systems for defense of an individual region except as provided for in Article III of this Treaty.

Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems or their components except that:

(a) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred and fifty kilometers and centered on the Partys national capital, a Party may deploy: (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one hundred ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, and (2) ABM radars within no more than six ABM radar complexes, the area of each complex being circular and having a diameter of no more than three kilometers; and

(b) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred and fifty kilometers and containing ICBM silo launchers, a Party may deploy: (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one hundred ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, (2) two large phased-array ABM radars comparable in potential to corresponding ABM radars operational or under construction on the date of signature of the Treaty in an ABM system deployment area containing ICBM silo launchers, and (3) no more than eighteen ABM radars each having a potential less than the potential of the smaller of the above-mentioned two large phased-array ABM radars.

7. Re: Oil for food. Obviously, the US can't be accused of running counter to that program since it only affects Iraq.

8. Re: Jihadists in Iraq instead of the US. This argument is repugnant. You're asserting that it's better that Iraqi civilians die in place of Americans. And that it is good that the US has caused it's enemies to kill Iraqis instead of killing Americans.

James.

[Inquartata]

1. Re: Experts. Again, people that have studied the matter are more likely to be correct then those of us who are not experts in our field, espeically when it comes to predicting likely futures.

Why? It's largely a coin flip. Can a numismatist predict the outcome of a coin flip better than a boob with more than 50% accuracy over a large number of tries?

It's not as though the experts in the fields we are discussing have any quantifiable data that gives them an advantage. ( And even if they did, you have only to look at the woeful predictive track record of political polls to see why I am dubious that familiarity with a subject gives anyone an edge in making random guesses. )

2. Re: Statistics. History provides the data points as do the social sciences.

It provides data points about past events. This is of little use in predicting future events in the fungible realms of human behavior. Which is why all that nonsense peddled by stock market chartists is for them merely a product to be sold to others. If it were really that reliably predictive, the chartists would have used it to become rich as Croesus and retire rather than to try to sell the analysis itself.

If it hasn't worked in the past, it is unlikely to work in the future.

Tell it to the shades of the Wright brothers.

the experts in the field of terrorism have asserted that the increase in terrorist related activity overseas (in particular, in Iraq) is based, partly, on the propaganda provided by both insurgent and American activity in Iraq.

Yes, they assert. It's their business. They have to assert, or people stop buying their books and their analyses.

But that doesn't convince me to buy it.

For example, I would say that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of Sunni "resistance" which was planned long before the invasion. Once it occurred, these people shed their uniforms and melted into the general population, waiting their chance to begin a guerilla war. The Shia violence arises from militia activities and is a result largely of Sunni depredations, not American ones. All that is left is the relatively small contingent of foreigners. These will follow Americans wherever they may go. Had Iraq not happened I suspect they would either have gone to Afghanistan or here by now. And I have seen nothing to indicate that their numbers have swelled because of Iraq qua Iraq...

I can go back through my posts, if you like, and while I'm no expert, I was asserting before the invasion that it was a dumb idea.

I believe you. However, that you thought it to be a dumb idea does not mean either that it was, objectively, a dumb idea, or that your analysis was obviously persuasive.

( BTW, since you were arguing so fervently for the superior predictive capacity of experts, what of the preponderance of those who bought into or contributed to the belief that Saddam had WMDs? If the experts were wrong but you---who have just denied being one---were right... )

Luckk. It's a poor way to plan foreign policy, unless you're a Norseman and no one will notice if you simply fail to return home.

Indeed.

Though if luck is what you like to base decisions on, I'd again ask you which of us was right predicting the current situation in Iraq.

Maybe we should wait until the game is over before we crown the winner?

You were attempting to get me to argue that ideaological arguments are flawed always by interpreting what I said as asserting that some ideology is ok, while others are not. I never asserted that one ideology is correct, while others are not.

Again, you defended one person for doing exactly what you have taken others to task for doing. The only difference I could see lay in the ideological perspectives of the parties in question.

If you say to A that he should make his decisions on factual data, not on what he believes to be the situation, then you cannot logically say that it is perfectly allright for B to base his decision on what he believes to be the situation rather than on factual data. This is independent of ideologies; it's just a matter of consistency.

WMD = Nagasaki/Hiroshima.

Both were military targets.

Invasion = Iraq. Cuba. Nicaragua. Guam. North Vietnam. North Korea. Afghanistan. Provocation is not a mitigation.

No, it's an outright justification.

Just because I call you a prick, doesn't mean you can run me over with your car.

You will recall that I said "beyond mere rhetoric". None of those actions was occasioned by words alone. Saddam invaded a neighbor, attempted to shoot down Allied overflights, attempted assassinations, etc. Cuba moved Soviet nuclear missiles in. Etc.

Terrorists: French Resistance.

Refresh my memory: Which unarmed uninvolved civilians did they attack?

Chechen Rebels.

Odd, I cannot recall us aiding them.

Mujadeen.

See under "French Resistance".

Jewish actions in Palestine before they created Israel.

We assisted them?

Nicaragua.

See under "French Resistance".

Africa.

Big continent. Care to be more specific, or is it every country therein?

Treaty Violations: ABM deployment in Europe.

Really? We have ABMs in Europe?

And here I thought we couldn't even get test systems to work yet...

ABM deployment on board ship. To quote from the 1972 Treaty:

In vain I searched your citation for the word "ship"...

Jihadists in Iraq instead of the US. This argument is repugnant. You're asserting that it's better that Iraqi civilians die in place of Americans.

Ah, now who is erecting straw men to terrify the natives?

It's good that they attack US soldiers---whose job it is to fight them, and who are legitimate targets in war---there, rather than civilians here, as they did before Iraq. The killing of Iraqi civilians by them has nothing to do with us. It has to do with existing enmities and internal power struggles which would go on without us.

We have not "caused" anyone to kill anyone. That's blaming the victim. The guilt is on the terrorists, and no one else. No one makes them pull the trigger but their own twisted ideology.