News Brief, Good Sons Edition
Joshua Foust on Aug 31 2007 at 1:35 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Military Matters, Notes on the war
Josh is taking a break from everything until Tuesday. Happy Labor Day, you Socialist pigs!.
Defense & The War
- One of the men involved in the Abu Ghraib atrocity has been brought to justice: for “disobeying an official order to keep silent about the investigation. Prosecutors have asked that Jordan be fined one months pay – about $7,400.” Our fabulous system of military justice.
- The GAO just called the White House and DoD a a cabal of liars.
- A good look at crashing morale in the Army, and the ways in which an outspoken enlisted corps might change civilian-military relations. There is also a rather shocking exhibit of an underreported side effect of the war: advances in medical technology now allow survivability after injuries that once were fatal. Which means a new generation of the crippled and maimed are coming home.
Around the World
- I’ve been asked to begin assembling roundups of what blogs are saying about Afghanistan for Global Voices Online, a cross-cultural communication website run by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law. My first post, on the poor judgment used by the West and the U.S. in Afghanistan, is up.
- Seeing the trailer for The Kite Runner actually made me excited about a new movie for once.
- So Uncle Pervy is quitting the Army. Cool. But in Benazir Bhutto, who proved a feckless and ineffective ruler last time she was around, really a better choice? Roger Williams has more.
- I guess Belgium is on the verge of collapse?
- Another company is figuring out how to use cell phones to make profit through poverty relief. I really think this kind of distributed microfinance is going to lead to a revolution in how we view commerce: that profit-making can be targeted to specifically benefit the worst off among us; and in process everyone is made wealthier. In this case, they’re enable micropayments and remittances through cell phones, so expatriates can wire money back home incredibly quickly. Think about how that could be leveraged on a global scale, among many countries, in a massive, and spontaneous, outpouring of profit-making poverty relief. Incredible.
- Why is the nuclear deal with India such a bad idea? I’ve speculated it is because it undermines the NPT, grants needless favoritism to a tense standoff in South Asia, and undermines our case against North Korea, while giving us even less credibility and moral authority over nuclear proliferation. Ivan Oelrich explains further just how bad an idea this really is.
- Speaking of nukes, what exactly is Iran doing with theirs? Something doesn’t add up.
- Again, with the Soviet dystopian industrial nightmare pictures. I can’t get enough of ‘em.
Back at Home
- Lance neglects to notice that the absurdly small brains of French civil servants have already graced this blog, in a News Brief dated July 25. Thanks for reading, Lance!
- Image advice for Senator Craig, from one homosexual to another. Don’t miss the “You’re a naughty boy, Bill Clinton” video at the end.
- An acapella group at my alma mater has decided to make jokes about that kid whose throat was slashed in their application process. Classy!
- I am not the only one who is kind of bored but definitely put off by the Instapundit’s beathlessly incorrect sensationalism.
- It is a refrain oft-repeated here: our terrible information policy, which is the equivalent of building only roads that would generate the most toll volume and leaving the rest to be gravel paths, will destroy us in the future.
No, they have a more pessimistic assessment. Some of which, assuming it is being characterized accurately, I’ll just say are wrong, or look at the issue in a rather screwy manner. Nor do I think those benchmarks are the only things we should be looking at.
On a more positive note, the Post is calling the large casualty estimates a bunch of hooey as well judging by the estimates they continue to use posted at the bottom of the article in question. It must be true. It is in the Post.
The GAO is basically saying what the rest of the administration is saying is not supported by data. It is baseless assertion, in other words. IE when they say they’re so happy things are getting better, they are lying, since there is no basis for it.
Other people say they are wrong. There is a basis for it, the GAO doesn’t (once again, assuming the report is accurate) agree on what data or metrics are as relevant. Fine, or not. I guess I can say they, and you, are liars.
For example: They claim because there has been a decrease in number of units capable of operating independently that Iraqi forces have not improved. That could be a sign of something, and I would be interested in hearing Petraeus or someone else address that. However, in and of itself that is pretty meaningless over a short period of time. It could even be a sign of progress (For example, the unit is no less effective, but due to continuing efforts at removing sectarian influence the leadership has been changed.) More “on the ground” and subjective assessments from within and without the military have come to very different conclusions. While all the problems mentioned exist and are serious, the unmistakable conclusion is that from an operational standpoint there has been large amounts of progress.
Nor is independence the only metric, though that is the only metric the congress allowed the GAO to assess. They could be far more effective, yet not be independent, that will depend on base construction, logistics, etc. By law they are required only to assess, up or down, no middle ground allowed, whether the benchmark has been met. It doesn’t even pretend to make a more complete assessment. So, from everything I have seen the idea that the report characterizes the Iraqi Army as not having improved not only is not true, but the report doesn’t even address that as a matter of law.
I could go through each benchmark in that fashion, but I think the point is that the “data” in such an exercise is not the best way to measure things, as Kilcullen recently pointed out. That is not to imply happy talk, just recognize the report for what it is.
Finally, this statement I find disturbing:
To put it another way, the person wanted these preliminary judgments, with no feedback from other agencies, to stand regardless of any other data put out that might be in support of a less pessimistic assessment. One should be able to ask, what if the conclusions reached (once again, understanding by law that much progress could exist and still in the report be judged, not met. No middle ground is allowed) are wrong? What if, as in a completed assessment, the report needs review to ensure an accurate judgment? Typically that is assumed to be true. They are an independent agency, other agencies cannot force them to agree the other data changes things, so why would this person fear the result? Unlike the NIE, which arguably could be manipulated by the administration, the GAO is obviously not toeing the line. So the real fear should not be the DOD or other agencies will force something down their throats (and just because the GAO disagrees doesn’t make them right anyway) but that people who fear the GAO will find compelling evidence to alter their preliminary conclusions are busy poisoning the well.
We should await the actual report, and understand the reports limitations.
If that reasoning holds then they are lying, not the administration. I don’t believe that is the implication, but you set up the syllogism, not me. That progress is occurring in many ways is now almost universally held by observers of diverse ideological views. The implications of that progress is debatable, one could argue they are just temporary gains, or one could acknowledge it and still feel we should withdraw or a range of actions. To deny that it has occurred requires one to ignore just about every credible observer, including many who still argue for as rapid a withdrawal as possible. So, according to you, they must be lying if I am going to go with something other than just assertion from afar.