Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"I wonder why that is?"

Because the most basic measure of "progress" in Iraq--the most visible measure--is the body count and the violence. How many Americans die each month and how many explosions occur and how many Iraqis are dying in those attacks?

And by that measure, things are worse now than they were last year, or the year before, or the year before that. It is hard to argue that the United States is making "progress" in Iraq when more people are dying each year.

Posted by Andrew Baker at February 24, 2006 06:31 AM

It is hard to argue that the United States is making "progress" in Iraq when more people are dying each year.

Yes, if you (as the MSM does) foolishly use that as a yardstick, and your only yardstick, it's hard to argue that. By that argument, you could say that we were continually losing World War II because more people died in 1942 than in 1941, and in 1943 than in 1942. Despite the fact that the Japanese were in retreat, losing even more heavily, losing territory, Italy fell, etc.

If you use sensible measures, though, as VDH does, it's easy to make the case that we're winning.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 24, 2006 06:36 AM

By Mr. Baker's measure, civilization is a disaster. Millions of people die each year -- whereas before there was civilization, only a few thousand people died in any given year.

Posted by McGehee at February 24, 2006 06:59 AM

"Yes, if you (as the MSM does) foolishly use that as a yardstick, and your only yardstick, it's hard to argue that."

The comparison to WWII makes no sense. Then it was easy to measure progress via other yardsticks, such as territory gained. It was possible to see that we were making progress.

But in Iraq today they have _banned_ daytime vehicular traffic. And there are more bombings now than there were two years ago. None of that looks like progress to Americans. It looks like things are getting worse. So protest all you want, but there are reasons why the American public has lost faith in the administration on Iraq.

Posted by Andrew Baker at February 24, 2006 07:13 AM

"Yet we hear nothing of the other side that is ever so slowly, shrewdly undermining the enemy."

thats not true. ive read plenty of stories about shia death squads, interior ministry torture, etc (perhaps thats what he means by "shrewd").

the problem is that "the enemy" are also iraqi (mostly). i think this article correctly describes our strategy in iraq. we train (shia) soldiers and police, and assist them in attacking insurgents. we have been arming one (the already dominant) faction against the other. the problem is, the natural conclusion to this seems to be (assuming we were to leave) genocidal civil war.

"Now it is simply a yes or no proposition: yes, we can pull it off with patience, or no, it is no longer worth the cost and the lives."

thats not the "propsosition" at all. the question is would we cause more damage by leaving soon or by staying and leaving later? its a very hard question. i believe if we were to leave tomorrow there would be a very high chance of all-out civil war, and that would be disasterous. however, given the administration's handling of the war so far, staying could be worse. i suppose the third option would be staying indefinitely, but that would likely cause more anti-american backlash.

no good options

Posted by ujedujik at February 24, 2006 07:39 AM

The separation between the biz and news end in MSM seems to have made the news end ignorant of basic economics. For example, they don't seem to know that profit=realized benefits-incurred costs.

Most MSM reports on profits use one of two equations, profit=promised benefits or profit=-incurred costs.

Posted by Andy Freeman at February 24, 2006 08:04 AM

Quote from ujedujik: "no good options"

Oh, boohoo! There are no easy feel good paths to take. We have to actually make a hard decision that will take sacrifice.

I think that is part of the larger problem is that these islamofacist guys view us as being weak and ineffectual. They, know that if they keep pushing and tripping us up politically and doing all those little things that have the perception of undermining our desired affect that they can beat us in our hearts and minds.

They have one big advantage in that we as American cherish living and they live to die. For them a thousand deaths to take down one of our own is a great victory since they know how much that impacts us on an emotional level.

Perserverance is the key and even though its hard to admit we have to get down to there level and show them what its like when the U.S.A becomes committed. We have to get in there face and scream, "YOU WANNA DIE, WELL LETS DIE!" and head butt them in the f'in face.

Posted by Josh Reiter at February 24, 2006 08:12 AM

its not a question of sacrifice. its a question of no matter what we do we make things worse.

Posted by ujedujik at February 24, 2006 09:50 AM

And as VDH writes, that's not true. In many ways we have made, and continue to make, things better. Only if you focus on the negative, and ignore the positive, can we be said to have "made things worse." Certainly the Kurds don't think we've made things worse.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 24, 2006 09:59 AM

Ujedujik- "the problem is that "the enemy" are also iraqi (mostly)."

The problem with your analysis is the 'mostly'. Look at the enemy as two seperate groups, Al Queda and Iraq and you will notice that those two are fighting and more and more bad Iraqi's are switching sides or at least no longer helping the insurgency.

Posted by rjschwarz at February 24, 2006 10:03 AM

"And as VDH writes, that's not true. In many ways we have made, and continue to make, things better."

The Hanson article does not make much of a case for that. For instance, he admits that progress in reestablishing the energy and fuel infrastructure "seems dismal," things are going great and all they need to do is... finish pipelines and transmission lines, which are prone to sabotage. But pipelines and transmission lines are KEY PARTS of the infrastructure, and security is a KEY PART of their operation. He's hand-waving a major issue aside as if it's only a trivial detail.

He also says things like: "It is the American plan, in a certain sense, to gradually expand the security inside the so-called international or green zone, block by block, to the other 6 million Iraqis outside, where sewers run in the streets and power from the grid is available less than 12 hours per day." That's a pretty stunning statement--the goal of the military, three years after the war, is to expand security from their own facility to, er, the REST of the city?

And while he bemoans the 100K criminals running around the country, he simply blames that on Saddam, when the reality is that Saddam has been deposed for three years and so if those criminals are still on the street, it is OUR problem.

Put more simply, he claims that "progress" is being made, but then provides assertions that we're _almost_ ready to provide such vitally important things as infrastructure and security.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Posted by Andrew Baker at February 24, 2006 10:43 AM

Again, if you choose to focus on Baghdad and a few other hot spots, and ignore the large parts of the country in which things are getting better, and are much improved over the Saddam era.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 24, 2006 10:46 AM

About the costs of our operations in Iraq-- I think one thing the anti-war types overlook is the costs of doing nothing. That is, they forget to look at what the butcher's bill would have been had we done nothing.

It's estimated that under Saddam, something like 30,000 Iraqis were dying each year at the hands of Saddam's henchmen in random shootings, in the rape rooms, and in the torture chambers. No doubt thousands more were dying as a result of the various trade embargos placed on Iraq due to its failure to live up to its treaty obligations in connection with the end of Gulf War I.

It's true enough that something like 10,000 Iraqis and 2,000+ Americans have died in Iraq over the last three years. Compare those 12,000 or so dead against the 100,000 people who would have died had we done nothing.

Add in the fact that Iraq is a much freer, prosperous, and safer place than it was under Saddam, and that we have gained an ally where once we had an implacable enemy, I think the war has been "worth it".

No doubt there are those who would argue that it's not worth spending the lives of 2,000 Americans to liberate 25,000,000 foreigners and save over 90,000 of their lives to date, and 30,000 lives every year for the next generation.

But I, for one, am reluctant to make that argument, especially when thousands of young American men and women each year join the armed forces OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, knowing that they will likely be posted to Iraq or elsewhere in the course of their enlistment.

Posted by Hale Adams at February 24, 2006 10:53 AM

rjschwarz- "The problem with your analysis is the 'mostly'. Look at the enemy as two seperate groups, Al Queda and Iraq and you will notice that those two are fighting and more and more bad Iraqi's are switching sides or at least no longer helping the insurgency."

yes, i agree it is good the insurgency shows some signs of growing tired with al qaeda. however, the sunni vs shia conflict is the worrisome one.

hale adams- yes saddam was bad, but right now iraq is a war zone. even the president (who is a proven propagandist) puts the number of iraqis killed at 30,000, where do you get your 10,000 number? on an earlier thread i was part of a fairly long discussion regarding the lancet study (which showed that as of over a year ago the invasion had caused 100,000 iraqi deaths, mostly from american bombs), but suffice it to say that nobody changed their mind on either side. or at least nobody admitted to changing their mind. and as to your broader point, i would say that the "cost of doing nothing" is much higher in places like darfur.

Posted by ujedujik at February 24, 2006 11:19 AM

Ujedujik, you've obviously never read the Lancet study
(which is on the web and easily available to anyone that
wishes to read it) because there is no mention in it of
american bombs causing deaths, let alone mostly.

I have read it, although it was some while ago, and here
I'll briefly review from memory how that study worked and
some of the problems with it. Questioners were sent out to
16 randomly chosen locations in Iraq. At each target location
the surveyors chose nearby heads of households and asked them
how many, if any, people died in their household for a
fifteen month period prior to the american invasion versus
eighteen months after. Deaths from all causes were tabulated,
cancer, heart attacks, deaths of infants, deaths from unknown
causes, and, of course, deaths believed likely due to
violance.

For the people questioned the data showed that violent deaths,
deaths from heart attacks, deaths from disease, infant deaths,
etc., all increased after the invasion. The researchers then
extroplated this data to the whole population of Iraq and
arrive at an estimate of an excess 100,000 deaths from
all causes, with much of the excess being attributed not to
people being killed but the disruption and presumbably breakdown
of medical services due to the conflict between the americans
and the baathists and terrorists.

Ok, now to the problems.

First off, it was a small study. The researchers manage
to fool themselves and try to fool the reader into believing
they had 32 sample points instead of 16, but even with that
assumption and the assumption that the survey was conducted
perfectly with no bias, unconscious or not, we still end up,
statistically, with a result that is consistent with there
being no excess deaths at all (that is this is within the range
of the 95% confidence interval).

In any other context but a war, people would laugh and say,
"Don't be ridiculus, you need more data."

Second and more serious, the count of deaths for the fifteen
month period before the invasion is inconsistent with other
data and inconsistent with common sense. If we are to believe
the study then Iraq under Saddam was utopian in the middle
eastern context with a lower death rate from all causes than
it's neighbors, and this despite being under U.N. embargo,
and despite the constant low-grade war, from many reports,
the Baathist regime was waging on it's own population.

Third, the authors of this study have not addressed the
possibility that just maybe some of the people they questioned
were biased and might give false data. The purpose of the
study was obvious, indeed, I believe the questioners
explained to those they were asking what they were doing.
The sample size is so small that just one false death
report is enough to significantly jack up the death estimate.

Fourth, I believe that inadequate attention has been paid
to human nature. The study hinges on the definition of what
is a "household." What the authors of the study intended
that to mean was someone actually living in that place at
some point in either the fifteen months or the eighteen
months. Suppose you have a son, or a nephew even, that
died violently and suppose that this son or nephew wasn't
in fact living in your home during one of these time spans.
Wouldn't it go against human nature to not report that death
as a death in your household?

Posted by Mark Amerman at February 24, 2006 02:37 PM

Andrew,
I'll give you the best yardstick there is. Forget Rand's opinion or mine or anyone elses who posted here now, or ever.

Find the nearest Army or Marine base.
Enter any nearby restaurant or tavern.
Ask any young warrior if they have been there.
If they have, ask them about the difference in the violence, the attitde of the people and how soon the people want the forces on the ground to leave.

Now if your immediate reaction is that these guys will just spout the party line of the Bush Administration, then you haven't dealt with many service members. It's a very true saying that a b1tch1n Marine/Soldier is a happy Marine/Soldier. They do, however, tend to tell the truth, as it exists, no flavoring.

You won't get any BS from them. They'll tell you what they saw, good or bad. They'll tell you who they met good or bad. They'll tell you if they think its worthwhile for them or anyone to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, good or bad. Don't interrupt the stories, just let them talk and buy a round once in a while.

My grandfather used to tell me he knew which horse was going to win, because he got his information from the horses mouth.

Posted by Steve at February 24, 2006 03:03 PM

mark amerman- i havent read the study in its entirety, most of my information comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_study and the radio interview on "this american life" (linked at the bottom of the wikipedia page). however, i just opened up the study, and on the very first page it includes statements such as, "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths."

"...we still end up, statistically, with a result that is consistent with there being no excess deaths at all (that is this is within the range of the 95% confidence interval)."

yes, but it is highly unlikely.(from wikipedia- "There is a 2.5 % chance that the number is lower than 8000")

i agree (as do the study's authors) that the study is flawed. it only included 988 households (total) among 33 randomly-selected clusters. its also over a year old. however, as you point out, it is a war zone, so expectations are lowered a bit (as it is i believe some of its authors were put in life-threatening situations). it is an estimation, but i see no reason to disbelieve it, you just need to take the number with a grain of salt. as to your other criticisms, you should read the wikipedia article.

Posted by ujedujik at February 25, 2006 03:49 AM

"I'll give you the best yardstick there is."

"Ask any young warrior if they have been there.
If they have, ask them about the difference in the violence, the attitde of the people and how soon the people want the forces on the ground to leave."

This is a silly way to get the information, because no grunt on the ground is going to be able to provide anything approaching aggregate data. It's like trying to figure out the US unemployment rate by walking out onto the street and asking a person if they have a job--they say yes and then you conclude that nobody is unemployed.

The biggest problem with the Hanson article is that while he complains that the MSM doesn't report on real "progress" in Iraq, he himself provides no data to indicate that progress is being made. He does not even provide units of measurement that one could use to _gauge_ such progress.

And in fact, the things Hanson mentions throw this problem into stark relief--the infrastructure is _almost_ about to be fixed, the military is _almost_ about to extend security from beyond the Green Zone. But what unit of measurement is "almost"? Volume? Mass?

This is why the body count and the bomb count directly contributes to the American public's lack of confidence in the US Iraq strategy. The violence has increased, the rate of casualties has increased, and there are no other good units of measurement of "progress." No territory gained, insurgents killed, weapons siezed. Yes, you can count the elections as "progress." But they are easily overshadowed by the issue of security and stability. If things keep blowing up and the country seems to teeter on the brink of civil war, then it is hard to believe that political reforms will have long term viability.

Posted by Andrew Baker at February 25, 2006 07:38 AM

This is a silly way to get the information, because no grunt on the ground is going to be able to provide anything approaching aggregate data.

Grunts talk to other grunts. Overall, they have a pretty good sense of whether or not things are going badly or well, and what the trends are. Certainly, I'll take the word of people who are actually doing the hard lifting there over that of stateside media with an agenda, especially when they get their news from pampered reporters who rarely leave the Green Zone.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 25, 2006 07:45 AM

Rand,
I knew that some kind of weasel words would be his answer, I was counting on it.

It proves, to me anyway, that the ONLY truth the antiwar, anti-Bush crowd will listen to is the sound of their own voices. They'll believe the darling of the left Cindy Sheehan, or her buddy Chavez, but not the guys and girls who have been on the ground.

I guess the Ernie Pyle school of journalism doesn't work anymore. We can't believe the people fighting the war, we are supposed to get our "truth" from THE MSM. That’s where truth and knowledge comes from alright, the coffee shop of the Baghdad Hilton

Posted by Steve at February 25, 2006 08:43 PM

This is a silly way to get the information, because no grunt on the ground is going to be able to provide anything approaching aggregate data.

You're right they won't. So?

Your average grunt on the ground is going to have a better sense of how things are going than a mass of data. You need the data, but you're foolish to ignore reports from the guys who are, you know, providing the data.

Posted by Brian at February 27, 2006 03:43 PM

“I knew that some kind of weasel words would be his answer, I was counting on it.

Hmmmm hmmmm hmmmmm hmmmm hmmmm

Oh, wait, sorry. I was humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic there. You really like to wrap yourself in the flag and self-righteousness don’t you? What with all that talk of supporting the troops by buying them a beer and such.

But you lost me with the stuff about being antiwar, anti-Bush and then Cindy Sheehan. I don’t remember saying anything about being antiwar, or anti-Bush. And Cindy who? Chavez who? Do a word search. Were any of them mentioned at all? (I’ll help: NO.) Here is a newsflash: just because somebody expresses skepticism about the progress of the war in Iraq does not make them a fan of Cindy Sheehan. There are different degrees of opinions on things like this.

I’m not anti-war. Well, I am, actually. And I’m sorry if that offends all the pro-war people. But I just wasn’t that fond of World War II and have failed to work up much enthusiasm for blowing people to bits.

Oh, wait. I guess you were specifically referring to Iraq, right? Actually, I supported the invasion. Thought it was necessary and right. Still do. But I’m pretty unhappy with the current situation, what with the descent into civil war and all that. And starting about a year ago I pretty much came to the depressing conclusion that the current administration does not know how to fight it and is not making any progress in winning it. If this puts me in the same camp with liberals such as, say, George Will, then I guess that makes me a pinko.

As for being anti-Bush? Again, I wasn’t originally. Voted for him. Twice, actually. But seeing no indication that he has a strategy for winning in Iraq has soured me, and seeing how his administration responded to a predicted natural disaster (that hurricane thing), did not help. If the administration does this bad of a job responding to a predicted disaster, then I don’t expect them to do a good job responding to an unpredicted disaster, such as a nuclear dirty bomb exploding in Chicago, or smallpox introduced to Los Angeles. And here's the deal: I supported him because I thought that he could fight the terrorists and deal with the disasters better than the other guy. But Iraq and Katrina have damaged my confidence in his administration's ability to deal with these things. Turns out that I'm not in a minority here and lots of people have suffered the same loss of confidence in the administration.

As for supporting Cindy Sheehan and Chavez? I lump this in with your opening ad hominem comment about “weasel words.” That’s a common underhanded Internet tactic. If somebody disagrees with you, if they do not accept your argument, then what you do is say that they are “whining” or using “weasel words.” It is a convenient label that gets you out of discussing the issue. But it is also uncivil and unprofessional, and it is the kind of retort that would not work in someplace like a business meeting. There is no reason to tar everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush, or resort to namecalling.

To get back to the issue at hand. All I pointed out was that the Victor David Hanson article is sloppy and does not make a good argument about progress in Iraq. He declares that the MSM is not reporting on the progress made in Iraq, but then totally fails to provide any metrics by which we can judge progress. All he has is vague assurances that the US military is _about_ to extend its security zone from outside of its armed encampment, or _about_ to turn the electricity back on. How does one actually quantify that?

And allow me to be blunt here, but Hanson’s article was pretty much discredited as soon as it appeared. As he noted, some people blew up a mosque in Iraq, and then mass bombings and fighting broke out, and in about a week at least 1300 civilians were killed. More people killed in a week since the beginning of the war. By any objective standard that is a lack of progress, and it cannot be countered by saying that the US troops are almost ready to extend security beyond the Green Zone. There is no way that Hanson (or you) can claim that what we have seen in the past week--the mosque bombing, over a thousand civilians dead, and a daylight curfew--represent "progress."

Posted by Andrew Baker at March 2, 2006 11:43 AM

There is no way that Hanson (or you) can claim that what we have seen in the past week--the mosque bombing, over a thousand civilians dead, and a daylight curfew--represent "progress."

Did anyone claim that those things represent progress? Strawman arguments don't impress. The claim is that there is progress that goes unreported, and ignored. Nothing you wrote negates that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 2, 2006 11:54 AM

Post a comment