[lpkmckenna]

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_d...cated_dec.html

Originally Posted by Scott Adams

I have a rule I like to use. Let’s say there are a hundred important factors to consider in a given decision. 99 of the factors are impossible to predict, based on the fact that the experts are all over the map with their opinions. But let’s say one of the factors is easy to predict and important. I make my decision based on the one easy-to-predict factor and ignore the other 99.

Just to be clear, any choice that one makes in this hypothetical situation has a high likelihood of being wrong. You have no way of knowing the best path because there are 99 unfathomable factors. So while you can’t know the RIGHT decision, you can know the RATIONAL decision. And the rational decision is to follow the one factor you can predict and ignore the 99 you can’t.

Hard to argue with logic like that. I like it.

I also love the fact that he can discuss a political topic and reach a conclusion without reference to ideological catch-phrases and without slamming nay-sayers for their political beliefs.

Even so, the troops HAVE accomplished a lot for which they can be proud:

1. A dictator was removed.
2. America verified to 100% certainty that Iraq had no WMD (that’s a big deal in my book)
3. Iraq has been given an opportunity for democracy, even if it does not take hold.
4. Presumably we learned a lot that will help us fight terrorism.

All true. I wasn't supportive of the decision to invade, but those are solid accomplishments.

[BRussell]

Yeah, throwing one of the largest and central countries of the Middle East into chaos and virtually ensuring that it will become a radical theocracy sure is a solid accomplishment.

[ink]

Scott Adams is great; have you read his "books"? I put that word in quotes, because they're mostly just essays dressed up with 1-dimensional characters.

Amazon.com: God's Debris: A Thought Experiment: Books: Scott Adams
Amazon.com: The Religion War: Books: Scott Adams

The Religion War is about the prevention of catastrophic a war between Christianity and Islam.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yeah, throwing one of the largest and central countries of the Middle East into chaos and virtually ensuring that it will become a radical theocracy sure is a solid accomplishment.

We don't know that for sure. Besides, has any country transitioned from dictatorship to democracy without passing thru a period of war and chaos?

[tie]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We don't know that for sure. Besides, has any country transitioned from dictatorship to democracy without passing thru a period of war and chaos?

Oh sure, just like we don't know "for sure" whether or not Iraq had WMD. Perhaps they are still hidden somewhere under the sand. Give me a break.

We've lost the war in Iraq. Iraq in the middle of a civil war now, and nobody would bet on it becoming a stable democracy. There are 99 fathomable factors which say it won't and maybe one unfathomable factor.

3. Iraq has been given an opportunity for democracy, even if it does not take hold.
4. Presumably we learned a lot that will help us fight terrorism.

He clearly has a good sense of humor! It's funny to laugh about our mistakes, when it is the Iraqis, much more than the Americans, who are dying because of them.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We don't know that for sure. Besides, has any country transitioned from dictatorship to democracy without passing thru a period of war and chaos?

Not for sure, but it seems pretty damn likely.

There don't seem to be too many countries that have ever transitioned from a Saddam-style dictatorship to a successful democracy. Most current liberal democracies have a long historical tradition leading up to their current status. Most countries that have transitioned quickly to democracy have not turned out to be democratic at all and often revert back to dictatorships very quickly.

That's my own uneducated take on it, anyway. I'm sure some political science/historian types have done studies on which factors seem to be most important in leading to democracies. My guess, though, is that Iraq has none of those factors.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by tie 

Oh sure, just like we don't know "for sure" whether or not Iraq had WMD. Perhaps they are still hidden somewhere under the sand. Give me a break.

I never believed that Iraq had WMDs. But I don't blame most ordinary people for thinking he might have. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, exploited the concerns of ordinary people knowing that intelligence on the matter was weak. That's why I have contempt for Bush and his cronies, but not for most of his supporters, who were just duped.

Originally Posted by tie 

We've lost the war in Iraq. Iraq in the middle of a civil war now...

Actually, I'd say the US won the war and lost the peace. They should have just won the war and left with Saddam and his lieutenants in chains.

He's another guy whose opinion I respect: George Jonas. Here's his take: The Mistake Was to Stay.

Originally Posted by George Jonas

The war I supported (as I've written repeatedly) ended on Dec. 13, 2003. That's when Saddam was pulled from his "spider-hole" somewhere in the boonies. On that day, coalition forces should have said: "It's all yours now, we're pulling out." They might have added: "Make the best of it and we'll stand by with aid and investment; relapse into hostile tyranny and we'll be back with missiles and marines."

And more here: May He Swing in Peace.

As I've written elsewhere, Bush the Father and Bush the Son both managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Dealt the same cards, against the same hustler, Bush the Elder lost by folding too soon, and Bush the Younger lost by playing his hand too long.

America's quarrel was with Saddam, not Iraq. Quitting the battlefield and going home before Saddam was removed from power, as the elder Bush did, meant leaving unfinished business. Hanging around after Saddam was captured, as the younger Bush did, meant staying after America had no more business in Iraq.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Actually, I'd say the US won the war and lost the peace. They should have just won the war and left with Saddam and his lieutenants in chains.

Since we're making counterfactuals, which would have been better, deposing Saddam and leaving, or not deposing Saddam at all?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Since we're making counterfactuals, which would have been better, deposing Saddam and leaving, or not deposing Saddam at all?

I'd say deposing, but back during Gulf War I. I'm still against this invasion, but removing Saddam is merely a good outcome from a bad situation. Assassinating Saddam would have been the best of all options, if it had been possible.

While were talking preferences, I'd say a less genocidal Baathist government is preferable to an Iranian-style government, but at the same time, a "moderate Islamic" government is preferable to Saddam's rule. (Moderate in the sense of not being a pain in the ass to the west. I may not like Saudi Arabia's rulers, but at least they aren't openly hostile.)

EDIT: being more clear, I hope a more tolerable government arises out of this situation. You seem certain that an Iranian-style government is coming. I don't know what's coming.

[Chuckit]

Do you reckon it's the moderates who are blowing the **** out of everything in an attempt to gain control of the country?

[Tuoder]

Scott Adams is entertainging, if nothing else. I have always found Dilbert to be funny.

Also, in reference to somebody mentioning that it wasn't funny to laugh about people dying, I submit this: Sometimes you need to laugh to keep from crying.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'd say deposing, but back during Gulf War I. I'm still against this invasion, but removing Saddam is merely a good outcome from a bad situation. Assassinating Saddam would have been the best of all options, if it had been possible.

While were talking preferences, I'd say a less genocidal Baathist government is preferable to an Iranian-style government, but at the same time, a "moderate Islamic" government is preferable to Saddam's rule. (Moderate in the sense of not being a pain in the ass to the west. I may not like Saudi Arabia's rulers, but at least they aren't openly hostile.)

I just don't see how getting rid of him would lead to an improvement under any realistic conditions, whether it was in 1991 or 2003. At best, one of his sons would take over, and at worst, we'd have what we have now. I just don't think an outside force can improve things - it has to be from within.

EDIT: being more clear, I hope a more tolerable government arises out of this situation. You seem certain that an Iranian-style government is coming. I don't know what's coming.

IMO, an Iranian-style government isn't the danger, it's a failed state, another Afghanistan, that is the danger. Come to think of it, an Iranian-style government would be about the best possible option I see. They have a relatively democratic and stable country. Their theocrats have flexed their muscles recently and got this loser in power that they have now. But my impression is that the Iranian people are more liberal than their government and this situation is temporary. The long-term trajectory is positive there, I think. Saudi Arabia's government is more pro-US, that's for sure, but who cares? The people are probably better off in Iran than Saudi Arabia, and the long-term prognosis isn't as positive in Saudi Arabia, in my view.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you reckon it's the moderates who are blowing the **** out of everything in an attempt to gain control of the country?

No.

[marden]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Even so, the troops HAVE accomplished a lot for which they can be proud:

1. A dictator was removed.
2. America verified to 100% certainty that Iraq had no WMD (that’s a big deal in my book)
3. Iraq has been given an opportunity for democracy, even if it does not take hold.
4. Presumably we learned a lot that will help us fight terrorism.

All true. I wasn't supportive of the decision to invade, but those are solid accomplishments.

You are a smart man.

[Face Ache]

Telegraph | Comment | I remember the quiet day we lost the war in Iraq

I remember the quiet day we lost the war in Iraq
Boris Johnson

It was the moment I should have twigged. It was the moment I should have realised that I had voted for the biggest British military fiasco since the Second World War. I was wandering around Baghdad, about 10 days after Iraq had been "liberated", and it seemed to me that the place was not entirely without hope.

OK, so the gunfire popped round every corner like popcorn on a stove, and civil society had broken down so badly that the looters were taking the very copper from the electricity cables in the streets. But I was able to stroll without a flak jacket and eat shoarma and chips in the restaurants.

With no protection except for Isaac, my interpreter, I went to the Iraqi foreign ministry, and found the place deserted. The windows were broken, and every piece of computer equipment had been looted. As I was staring at the fire-blackened walls a Humvee came through the gates. A pair of large GIs got out and asked me my business. I explained that I was representing the people of South Oxfordshire and Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph.

That didn't cut much ice. Then I noticed a figure begin to unpack his giraffe-like limbs from the shady interior of the Humvee. He was one of those quiet Americans that you sometimes meet in odd places.

He was grizzled and in his mid-50s and with a lantern jaw, and unlike every other US soldier I'd met he had neither his name nor his blood group stitched on his person. I grasped at once that this quiet American was no soldier. He had that Brahmin air, a bit Ivy League, a touch of JK Galbraith. Yes, folks, he was some kind of spook.

I remember how he walked slowly towards the shattered foreign ministry building, stroking his chin. Then he walked back towards us, and posed a remarkable question. "Have you, uh, seen anyone here?" he asked.

Nope, we said. All quiet here, we said. Quiet as the grave.

"Uhuh," he said, and started to get back in the Humvee. And then I blurted my own question: "But who are you?" I asked. "Oh, let's just say I work for the US government," he sighed. "I was just wondering if anyone was going to show up for work," he said. "That's all."

And that, of course, was the beginning of the disaster. Nobody came to work that day, or the next, or the one after that, because we failed to understand what our intervention would do to Iraqi society. We failed to anticipate that in taking out Saddam, we would also remove government and order and authority from Iraq.

We destroyed the Baathist state, without realising that nothing would supplant it. The result was that salaries went unpaid, electricity was not generated, sanitation was not provided, and all the disorder was gradually and expertly fomented until it was quite beyond our control.

And what we had failed to see in advance was that almost from the outset the Iraqis would blame us – and not just the insurgents – for every distress they experienced.

It is now commonplace for people like me, who supported the war, to say that we "did the right thing" but that it had mysteriously "turned out wrong". This is intellectually vacuous. It is like saying British strategy for July 1, 1916 was perfect, but let down by faulty execution. The thing was a disaster from the moment we invaded, and it wasn't poor old Rumsfeld's fault for failing to send in enough troops, or failing to do more "planning" for the post-war. No quantity of troops could have prevented this catastrophe; and the dreadful thing is that I think Saddam knew it.

A couple of years ago I had a chilling conversation with a very senior British general who was then intimately involved in our efforts in Iraq.

The trouble was, he said, that Saddam had thought it all through. He knew he hadn't a hope against the Pentagon, so he had a three-stage strategy. First he instructed his army not to put up much resistance to the Patton-like thrusts of the US army. Then, when Baghdad had fallen, he encouraged his soldiers to melt away to their homes and keep their weapons. The third stage, said this British general, was the one we had been embroiled in ever since: a guerrilla war, spiced with sectarian violence, to become gradually more intense until it became no longer possible for the allies to remain in Iraq.

And was he right in his analysis, this British general? Look at the place now. If Saddam had somehow managed to elude capture and stay in that hideyhole, people might now say he was on the verge of a sensational victory. Last time I was in Basra I was able to go for a run past the Shatt-al-Arab canal. You'd need a death-wish to do that today, and even in the massively fortified British compound the risk to life is so great that the Foreign Office has pulled most personnel back to the airport.

Of course we must resist the great national sport of wallowing in our own failures. Of course it is still true that some good will ultimately come, just as some good comes from all disasters. But we must be honest and accept that the price has been far too high, and that General Dannatt is right to say that our presence is making things worse.

As long as we are there, the terrorists know that they can maximise the damage to Bush and Blair by blowing up our troops, and so we incite the very violence we are trying to quell. We need to plan for withdrawal, and we need to understand why, why, why we were so mad as to attack Iraq without working out the consequences. That is why I want an inquiry. I want to interrogate our Government, and above all I want to hear from the Americans.

I want to find that tall, quiet American spook, and get him to explain to a parliamentary committee exactly why he thought there would be people in that Iraqi government building. And I bet most British soldiers would be interested to know the answer.

You can assume that capturing Saddam was the one "easy to predict" factor in this war, but what if he hadn't been caught at this point? Would the US still be talking about pulling out? Imagine how badly this could have gone. What would be the "upside" if that were the case?

[Chuckit]

Good grief, man, that quote's likely to give Abe a heart attack.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Good grief, man, that quote's likely to give Abe a heart attack.

If Abe doesn't like what I post he can kiss my ___.

[Face Ache]

Well...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/wo.../24saddam.html

In Video, Hussein Uses Slingshots and Bows to Rally Iraqis for War

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — As the world worried about Saddam Hussein’s quest for nuclear and biological weapons, he took time out to discuss with his top advisers the merits of a decidedly more primitive arsenal: slingshots, Molotov cocktails and crossbows.

... at least he had a plan for post-invasion Iraq.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Well...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/wo.../24saddam.html

... at least he had a plan for post-invasion Iraq.

I like how the chief of the commission to build unconventional weapons was in fact developing slingshots, caltrops, and throwing stars. Definitely unconventional weapons, but not quite what Cheney was thinking of. Oops.

[tie]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Actually, I'd say the US won the war and lost the peace. They should have just won the war and left with Saddam and his lieutenants in chains.

Why do you think things would be better than they are now if we had left?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Oh sure, just like we don't know "for sure" whether or not Iraq had WMD. Perhaps they are still hidden somewhere under the sand. Give me a break.

David Kay testified that while no WMDs were found, definitive programs for WMDs in fact existed and there were a host of rogue nations willing to buy. It wasn't only about WMDs, it was about the possibility of designing the program, selling the info, and developing them. With Iraq engaged in an arms race with Iran, both of which have expressed the desire to eliminate Israel, it had become increasingly apparent the time to act was now. Our intention was to spread democracy from Iraq-outward.

He clearly has a good sense of humor! It's funny to laugh about our mistakes, when it is the Iraqis, much more than the Americans, who are dying because of them.

Where was your humanitarian concern for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis starved to death by oppressive economic sanctions? You know, the "peaceful alternative". Something tells me you weren't paying attention until there was a (R) to blame.

Give me a break.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why do you think things would be better than they are now if we had left?

The worst mistake of the invasion involved disruptions of the Iraqi government. More than anything else, this contributed to the chaos.

Disbanding the Iraqi army and building an entirely new one from scratch is such a boneheaded idea I can't believe they went thru with it. The entire knowledge base of the previous army having been destroy means leaving a group of novices to battle the insurgency. Worse, if Iran chose to invade, they'd have the advantage of a seasoned army. (Unlikely, be still....)

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_d...cated_dec.html



Hard to argue with logic like that. I like it.

I also love the fact that he can discuss a political topic and reach a conclusion without reference to ideological catch-phrases and without slamming nay-sayers for their political beliefs.



All true. I wasn't supportive of the decision to invade, but those are solid accomplishments.

Making decisions that you admit you have only the vaguest information at your disposal is not what I'd call rational.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Making decisions that you admit you have only the vaguest information at your disposal is not what I'd call rational.

Whoa, that's a complete misrepresentation. What Adams said was to make decisions based on what you know, not on what you don't know. That's the opposite of making decisions based on vague information.

Misrepresenting the statements of others isn't what I'd call rational. It's called a straw-man argument.

[Chuckit]

When you have 99 unknowns and only one thing you know with reasonable surety, that's generally considered to be making a decision based on vague information. In a pinch, the most rational thing to do is to go with the little information you have, even if it's not much — so the question here is whether we were in a pinch.

[Nicko]

Just finished watching Platoon, a great cautionary tale.

I wonder if Oliver Stone has a working draft for the Iraq movie yet?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Give me a break.

Hmmm no I don't think so. The US deserves Iraq.

"
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A U.N. envoy urged Iraq's government on Saturday to halt a slide into civil war and stop the "cancer" of sectarianism from destroying the country, warning that the carnage of this week could tear Iraq apart.
As a curfew was extended until Monday, possibly derailing a trip to Iran by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, the U.N. envoy in Baghdad, Ashraf Qazi, said car bombs on Thursday that killed more than 200 Shi'ites and "blind acts of revenge" were "tearing apart the very political and social fabric of Iraq".
"No country could tolerate such a cancer in its body politic," Qazi said in a statement."




You guys have alot of work to do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Hmmm no I don't think so. The US deserves Iraq.

No more than we deserve AIDS for sending social grants your way.

You guys have alot of work to do.

You too. May want to start in Kenya and work your way to Sudan.

[Kevin]

America verified to 100% certainty that Iraq had no WMD

Wow when did that happen?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No more than we deserve AIDS for sending social grants your way.


You too. May want to start in Kenya and work your way to Sudan.

Actually Kenya has fallen so far behind in tackling corruption that their funding from UN, USAID, EU ect has been slashed in recent years. In fact, I think Kenya is now ranked slightly lower than Sudan in several respects.

My point was, if the US invaded Iraq as some kind of democracy crusade the least they should do is sacracfice the time, blood, and $$$ and turn Iraq into a shining example -- or something. I don't think they are capable of doing that at this point as they have little or no credibility left. The only respectable thing the US can do now is leave Iraq to the Iraqis to sort out.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Actually Kenya has fallen so far behind in tackling corruption that their funding from UN, USAID, EU ect has been slashed in recent years. In fact, I think Kenya is now ranked slightly lower than Sudan in several respects.

That's why I suggested starting in Kenya and working your way to Sudan.

My point was, if the US invaded Iraq as some kind of democracy crusade

"democracy crusade"? What are you talking about?

the least they should do is sacracfice the time, blood, and $$$ and turn Iraq into a shining example -- or something. I don't think they are capable of doing that at this point as they have little or no credibility left.

I suspect we'll begin leaving when the Iraqi PM asks us to leave and when the Iraqi civil defense is provisioned adequately.

The only respectable thing the US can do now is leave Iraq to the Iraqis to sort out.

Most others in touch with the situation including the Iraqi PM, military personnel, and most of both parties here in the US feel that more time, blood, and $$$ is needed to outfit the Iraqi military so they are capable of sorting things out. You may have to wait a couple more years before carrying on about US failure in Iraq. It would be irresponsible to leave now. We're not out of there yet.

I'm not personally concerned with looking "respectable" to others, particularly those of nations woefully unable to address the most basic needs of their people.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Dilbert Blog: Complicated Decisions

Hard to argue with logic like that. I like it.

I also love the fact that he can discuss a political topic and reach a conclusion without reference to ideological catch-phrases and without slamming nay-sayers for their political beliefs.
(...)
All true. I wasn't supportive of the decision to invade, but those are solid accomplishments.

Well, I am not too sure.

Quote:
Even so, the troops HAVE accomplished a lot for which they can be proud:

1. A dictator was removed.

I agree, a big "+". However, because of point #3, there is no way to tell whether another dictator will surface in the near future. Also, the economical ties entertained with other dictators tend to diminish the moral value of the removal of Hussein.

2. America verified to 100% certainty that Iraq had no WMD (that’s a big deal in my book)

Funny; there are some who believe there is enough to destroy the planet, burried somewhere...

3. Iraq has been given an opportunity for democracy, even if it does not take hold.

I think there are several books to be written on this topic only. RAND's pages on "nation-building" amounts to a lot of theories, while facts are lost in subjectives depictions from interested and compromise historians. We may never develop an efficient recipe for the development of democracy. Even the defiinition of democracy is idealistic, and practice shows its imperfections on a daily basis, even if there are some models that work pretty well right now.

4. Presumably we learned a lot that will help us fight terrorism.

I think that still remains to be proven. My guess is that Afghanistan taught us more about it than Iraq will ever do in the next 10 years.

So the 4 affirmations are deep in the "99%". The only 1% is owned by the decisions of spending so much money in an operation with disputable returns imho.