A Wee Discussion
McCain is insisting that the Dems admit that the surge worked. The following started running in a loop through my head, so I spat it out. It's very informal and sketchy, obviously, but I'm just expelling it from my head so that I can get back to work.
Proposition 1: The surge worked
Evidence: After the surge, violence in
Objection: Proposition 1 does not follow from the evidence. In fact, this is an instance of the post hoc fallacy, i.e., of inferring that x caused y from the fact that y happened after x.
Response: In this case, the fact that the decrease in violence followed the surge is at least some reason to believe that the surge contributed to the surge. We don’t have proof that it did, but we don’t have proof that it didn’t. Unless we get serious about investigating the causes of the decrease in violence, the smart bet here (at the level of casual discussion) remains that the surge contributed to the decrease in violence. Ergo the surge did what it was supposed to do, i.e. help to decrease violence.
Objection: Other factors seem to be responsible for the decrease in violence. For example, neighborhoods had been largely ethnically homogenized (“Ethnically cleansed”) by the time of the decrease in violence. That’s what was really responsible for the decrease in violence.
Response: Here you seem to be arguing that violence went down after communities were homogenized, therefore it’s the homogenization that’s responsible for the decrease—post hoc ergo propter hoc. Yet you rejected that reasoning in the case of the surge. But we must either accept the reasoning in both cases or reject it in both cases. (And, p.s., the fact that you accepted the very same kind of argument in one case and rejected it in another suggests that you’re cheating for your favored conclusion. So cut it out.)
Objection: The surge didn’t work, because decreasing violence was only the proximate goal. The ultimate goal was to achieve political reconciliation. That was not achieved. So the surge did not work.
Response: If I do x in order to achieve y in order to make achieving x possible, and x succeeds in achieving y, then, even if z doesn’t happen, it is reasonable to say that x was successful. For example, if we do surgery on you in order to clear up a heart condition in order to allow you to live longer, and we succeed in clearing up the heart condition, the surgery is a success even if you are hit by a meteor the next day and killed.
finBut anyway.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:10 AM
6 Comments:
The escalation quelled violence better than I had expected. Even though part of the lull came independently from Sunni alliances and part from the completion of sectarian cleansing in and around Baghdad, it seems to me a best guess that the extra boots on the ground and the change in their deployment made a difference, too. I don't think I know this, but it's my operating hypothesis.
What the escalation has yet to do is allow a major draw-down in our troop commitment. Not only has it run 15 months instead of 6, but our troop levels are still higher than they were before the escalation. The deadline slide I can understand, but the force size is beginning to look more or less permanent.
The escalation has also not produced the sort of credible political resolution that could win the peace (which was always the important question - and I phrased it that way in late 2002). There have been hints here and there of progress, but the Ba'athist rehabilitation turned out to be a sham, and the Sadrists are restive again, too.
Oh, and Iran is ascendant, which I also predicted in 2002 (or so I remember). That moron Ahmadinejad can make scheduled appointments, but Duhbya, Darth, and McCain all have to fly in incognito.
So, someone as politically inconsequential as I am can admit error in that my skepticism of the escalation has been proven wrong, at least to a degree.
The Dems for President can't however. It's a symptom of the pathology of the American polity that any admission of error is electoral poison. Look how long the stubborn refusal to do it has worked for Duhbya. Sure, it infuriates us intellectuals (and pseudo-intellectuals, in my case) in the reality-based community. However, for many others, he's a mule, but at least he's their mule.
Admissions of error are seen and exploited as a sign of weakness by one's enemies, foreign or domestic. It's the way of the world.
Jack Kennedy got a lot of personal credit for taking responsibilty for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but 3 months later, an emboldened Soviet Union put up the Berlin Wall, and 18 months later precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis, perhaps the closest humanity has come to all-out nuclear war.
And at the debates, when clever journos ask the candidates "what was your biggest mistake?", you can see the wheels turning. Everybody knows that any truthful answer will end up in a campaign ad against you.
That moron Ahmadinejad can make scheduled appointments, but Duhbya, Darth, and McCain all have to fly in incognito.
An elegant observation, unfortunately.
And a tidy adoption of the Thomistic form, WS. I shall try to emulate you [and him] in future.
WS,
It seems to me that the assessment of whether or not the surge worked should be based against its stated goals.
The best summary of those goals I have found to date is this .pdf document at the White House web site.
The objectives in this new phase are:
1. Defeat al-Qaida and its supporters and ensure that no terrorist safe haven exists in Iraq.
2. Support Iraqi efforts to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad and regain control over the capital.
3. Ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq and counter/limit destructive Iranian and Syrian activity in Iraq.
4. Help safeguard democracy in Iraq by encouraging strong democratic institutions impartially serving all Iraqis and preventing the return of the forces of tyranny.
5. Foster the conditions for Iraqi national reconciliation but with the Iraqi Government clearly in the lead.
6. Continue to strengthen Iraqi Security Forces and accelerate the transition of security responsibility to the Iraqi Government.
7. Encourage an expanding Iraqi economy including by helping Iraq maintain and expand its export of oil to support Iraqi development.
8. Promote support for Iraq from its neighbors, the region, and the international community.
Let us look at each in turn.
1. Since there is no indication that al-Qaida (not to be confused with al-Qaida in Iraq) was ever in Iraq in any force, this goal was accomplished before the surge began. This is not a meaningful goal.
2. Definite success here, for most of 2007 and into 2008. It is not clear if the current fighting is a transient phenomenon, or is the start of a newer, more violent phase in Iraq.
3. There was no indication that the territorial integrity of Iraq was at risk, and no substantial evidence of direct Iranian or Syrian activity in Iraq. Like #1, goal #3 is not meaningful.
4. The US may have encouraged “strong democratic institutions in Iraq,” but little progress was been made on this front in 2007. Failure.
5. As with #4, conditions may have been “fostered”, but there are no signs of significant progress towards reconciliation. Recent fighting suggests reconciliation may be further away than at the start of the surge. Failure.
6. Iraqi security forces were undoubtedly strengthened to some degree. It is not clear that they can take on the required responsibility. Jury is still out, but if Iraqi security forces can quell the current uprising with limited US involvement, this is a big success. If it takes major US intervention, then this is a bigfailure.
7. It appears that Iraq’s oil production increased from an average of approximately 2 million barrels / day in 2006 (warning -- .pdf file) to approx. 2.4 million barrels / day for the month of Nov. 2007. If the Nov. level is sustained, this is a success.
(The data is harder to find on this than I expected. There are persistent discrepancies of 100,000 to 300,000 barrels per day, depending on the source.)
8. I am not aware of a significant increase in international support for the Iraqi government. Failure.
My take? By the stated goals, the surge has had some significant successes (reduced violence & increased oil production), some significant failures (promoting democracy, nation building, gaining international support), and some where the jury is out.
More importantly, IMHO, it is not clear that these gains will be sustainable as US forces draw down.
I have other concerns as well, which I’ll put in a different comment.
Jim
PS -- Congrats to the Tar Heels!
Thanks, Jim.
I'll definitely think more about this--though my fast reaction is to think that the fostering, promoting and encouraging bits of the conditions make these goals relatively easy to meet.
But more thought required.
A fair-minded halftime report from Jim, and kudos on using a source document from the White House itself as the springboard for inquiry.
Of course, history is still being written, and Vegas doesn't let you cash your bet tickets at intermission.
At this moment, the Iraqi army is apparently taking the lead in the battle against the Sadrist forces, albeit with heavy American support.
This is where push begins to come to shove. Those who are not ideologically invested in the bad guys winning over there are crossing their fingers.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home