Melted Noggin

McCain Tries to Call a Truce

2008-09-24T19:58:00.000-07:00

As everybody knows, the big story in politics today is that McCain is "suspending" his campaign to ride into Washington like cowboy in a white hat, guns ablazin', to solve the U.S. financial crisis. But I like to look at the actions more than the explanations, and here's what we have: a call to stop campaign ads, to postpone the debate, and join in with the crowd in Washington, which already includes the best financial and economic minds. It sounds like a call for a truce to me, and when you call for truce, that's usually when you are losing and need time to rebuild.

As pointed out on Marc Ambinder's blog, who really knows what "suspending" your campaign means anyway.

I kind of wonder how this is going to play out. Suspiciously, McCain's decision comes at a time when Palin-mania is waning, and Obama is again surging in the polls. Kind of looks like round 2 of McCain's attempts to change the game and salvage a losing game.

CNN readers agree with me: As of this writing, out of 217 thousand votes on their website poll, 71% of people think McCain is pulling a political gimmick. McCain? The guy who brought in an unknown, inexperienced governor from Alaska pull a stunt? No way!

Interest in Palin Drops Below Obama

2008-09-24T08:39:00.000-07:00

A lot of people have been speculating whether Palin-mania is over not. Of course its hard to say what a good indicator for that would be, but I like to use Google Trends as a casual indicator of interest in things. So, today, for the first time since her selection as the Republican VP candidate, search volume for Palin has dropped below the volumefor Obama, as shown in the Google Trends screencap below. Interestingly, for people who were claiming that the news was whipping up interest in Palin, it looks like the news lost interest over a week ago.

Vietnamese Call McCain a Liar Too

2008-09-14T20:43:00.001-07:00

Apparently, the Vietnamese accounts of Senator McCain's stay at the "Hanoi Hilton" differ significantly from McCain's story. Far from being tortured and beaten, as McCain claims, the Vietnamese report that McCain's stay at the Hanoi Hilton was practically a vacation. According to According to The Wall Street Journal,

Photographs [at the jail] show smiling, well-coiffed American inmates having cookies and tea. "There's plenty of fruit in this tropical land. It is as if one is being in California, somewhere on the West Coast," says one poster depicting POWs playing basketball and guitar."
One photograph shows Sen. McCain -- who complained of being denied critical care for his broken limbs -- being examined by a Vietnamese doctor.

A Colonel Duyet, the camp commander when McCain was incarcerated, claims in fact, that he was McCain's "friend," and says that the two used to talk about the chicas together.

Mr. Duyet also insisted that "prisoners liked me because I was good to them and treated them nicely."

Sen. McCain doesn't remember it quite that way

In an interview with the magazine U.S. News shortly after his release in 1973, Sen. McCain described Mr. Duyet -- nicknamed "Slopehead" by the American POWs -- as "a particularly idiotic individual" and "the bad guy" with a penchant for sadism.

Ms. Hien, a director of the museum constructed where the Hanoi Hilton used to stand, says no prisoner abuse occurred there. She says, "What we display is based on historical evidence, and the evidence is that the POWs were all treated in a humanitarian way."

Further, according to Luu Dinh Mien, an official with the Vietnam War Veterans Association who served as a propaganda officer and interrogator in the camp, "The American body is different from the Vietnamese body -- the American diet is different, and so the American prisoners were receiving much bigger portions than our ordinary citizens."

Senator McCain claims that frequently the only food served was pumpkin soup and soggy bread.

I've been ragging McCain over his campaign lies over the last couple of days. But, c'mon folks, I've got to go with McCain on this one.

McCain Campaign Lies Continue

2008-09-13T18:42:00.000-07:00

I guess now that Palin-mania is fading, the McCain camp has to come up with another trick, which appears to be outrageous fabrications.

Today, from CNN, come several more McCain lies:

Reportedly, Palin has only left North America once, which was a trip last year to visit the troops in the Middle East. This trip supposedly included visits to Iraq and Ireland. But, as it turns out, she really only made it to the Iraq-Kuwaiti border, and the visit to Ireland was only a refueling stop.
Obama says McCain is inflating estimates of crowds that attend his events. McCain says he gets the estimates from law enforcement. But law enforcement denies providing such numbers to the McCain campaign.
McCain's "Disrespectful" television ad says that Obama attacked Palin and dismissed her as "good looking. But, Obama never made the statements in the ad, and the "good looking" comment was made by Biden, who was conceding that she was better looking than him. In fact, Biden has many times said that Palin was qualified to be vice president.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor sums it up:

The McCain campaign said Gov. Palin opposed the bridge to nowhere, but now we know she supported it. They said she didn't seek earmarks, but now we know she hired a lobbyist to get millions in pork for her town and her state. They said she visited Iraq, but today we learned that she only stopped at the border. Americans are starting to wonder, is there anything the McCain campaign isn't lying about?

McCain Camp Resorts to Unabashed Lying

2008-09-11T18:23:00.000-07:00

The McCain campaign is taking lying to the next level. According to Associated Press, "Even in a political culture accustomed to truth-stretching, McCain's skirting of facts has stood out this week." Apparently, winning the Presidency is worth being two-faced, as McCain has previously denounced lying by other politicians. But its fine for him, and he isn't apologetic about it.

Politicians usually modify or drop claims when a string of newspaper and TV news accounts concludes they are untrue or greatly exaggerated...But McCain and his running mate Palin, the Alaska governor, were defiant this week in the face of similar reports.

These are just some of the instances that I found on a quick look

The McCain camp twisted a report from FactCheck.org to say that Obama had made false attacks on Palin, when that is not what they said at all. Here is FactCheck's response denouncing McCain for doing so.
McCain made a big issue out of Obama saying that a pig with lipstick is still a pig, when in fact McCain has also used the same phrase
The McCain campaign falsely claimed that Obama was advocating sex education for kindergarteners
McCain has been claiming that Obama would raise taxes. But the truth is that most Americans would have their taxes lowered more under Obama than McCain. The only Americans who would get a better tax deal under McCain would be those making over $112K/year, and the more they make, the more they would benefit. Go figure.

Palin is fully in the lying game herself and has already told a slew of lies in just the short time she's been on the ticket. Besides repeating McCain's standard lies (above), she has added lying that she opposed earmarks and that she opposed the infamous "bridge to nowhere." The truth is that she was originally for it and only changed her mind when it became an embarrassment. But she still kept the money.

See this report from Anderson Cooper:

And finally, one of the big lies for most of the campaign has been that Obama is all about hope and has no substance. But see Obama's complete plan here.

McCain Jettisons the Playbook and Throws the Long Ball

2008-09-01T20:27:00.000-07:00

I'll be the first to admit that elections aren't decided by the rational decision making of voters. That's a good thing for John McCain, because if logic was the major factor in deciding on a president, he would be pretty much finished for this race.

By selecting Palin as his running mate, McCain pretty much concedes that Senator Obama is ready to lead, which has been the Republican's chief criticism of the Democratic nominee. But worse, Obama has been saying its not about experience but about judgment, and McCain seems to have played right into his hand there. I mean, surely, there are plenty of women in this country more qualified than a gun-toting journalist and self-proclaimed "hockey mom" from Alaska with a consituency smaller than most major American cities. (The population of Alaska is about 670,000.)

For those who might say, "Well she's got more executive experience than Obama," you're missing the point. The point is, "Was that the best choice McCain could make?" According to CNN, "McCain first met Palin only six months ago and had just one conversation with the Alaska governor before offering her the vice presidential slot on the Republican ticket." Is that how the most powerful person in American should choose their potential successor?

CNN's Paul Begalia says,

In choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, he is not thinking "outside the box," as some have said. More like out of his mind.

I've got to agree with Mr. Begalia. See the bottom of his article for a short but poignant list of other more qualified candidates that McCain could have chosen.

Clearly, McCain didn't choose Palin because of her qualifications to be President. Rather, she was picked because of her perceived potential to lure angry Hillary Clinton supporters over to McCain. Here again, you've got to wonder what McCain is thinking. Anyone that switches over to McCain because of Palin would have to be a Democrat who had no loyalty to Hillary or any affinity with Democratic platform. Such a person would have to be voting strictly for getting a woman in as either President or Vice-President. I'm sure these people exist, but is that a big enough constituency to bank your campaign on? And what is the net result when you figure in people who don't like the choice of Palin?

Besides the potential draw for angry Hillary supporters, the McCain camp would like to have us believe that Palin is rebel like him who would fight lobbyists and shake things up. But let's get real here. First, just shaking things up is not a goal in itself--it could make things worse. Things need to be shaken up a in the proper direction, which is mainly in a different direction than what Bush was doing. Secondly, as much as we all desire a change, just sending in a maverick to shake things up rarely works. Remember that maverick Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary who were "Washington outsiders" who went to shake things up? The Washington system is impervious to any single person coming in and changing it. If we want change, we have to gather together and elect the people who will support our values across the board. So if Sarah Palin matches your values, then good. But if its just because she's a woman, or you're mad at the Democrats for not picking Hillary, then think again.

If anything, Palin's selection is an indicator of how the McCain campaign viewed their chances of winning the election as of last week. The pick has been labeled by pundits as a "Hail Mary" pass. When do that? When you are behind in points, desperate, and the clock is running out.

IOC Makes Mockery of Underage Gymnast Investigation

2008-09-01T13:03:00.000-07:00

I'm sure the International Olympic Committee wishes the whole scandal of underage Chinese gymnasts would go away, and they are doing their best to confuse the situation.

Background: If by chance you just go back from climbing Mt. Everest and haven't had access to the news, the evidence that corruption has occurred on a major scale is pretty convincing. See these links:

David Flumenbaum shows how He Kexin as able to age 2 years within a few months
Sports Illustrated gives a solid overview the situation
The Stryde Hax blog shows how "someone" attempted to cover up the deception

Its clear from those reports that He Kexin, and perhaps several others on the Chinese gymnastics team, is underage. So why did the IOC let her compete? According to Flumenbaum, "Chinese Olympic officials have forcefully defended He's eligibility, maintaining that when asked, they submitted proper passport documentation to the IOC."

Okay, that's reasonable. I can understand that the IOC received a seemingly valid passport, and that is normally considered adequate. But here's the problem: Now that we know there is a cover up, the passport is obviously dubious. Moreover, a faked or otherwise fraudulent passport suggests something more sinister: complicity or corruption in the Chinese government.

Chinese coach Lu Shanzhen says, ""Surely it's not possible that these documents are still not sufficient proof of her birthdate?" Lu asked. "The passports were issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. The identity card was issued by China's Ministry of Public Security. If these valid documents are not enough to clarify this problem, then what will you believe?"

Exactly, coach. So why is the IOC's solution to ask for more official documents from the Chinese government? Clearly who ever produced the fake passport can fabricate as many other documents as they need.

The solution here is get some documents, like a birth certificate and grade school records that would have have been created years ago and submit them to forensic analysis by outside experts to confirm the age of the documents. But it looks like the IOC's plan is to just ask for more fake documents and then shrug their shoulders after the intense scrutiny dies down.

Where Would You Rather Do Time?

2008-06-28T20:11:00.000-07:00

Americans are used to thinking that being imprisoned in a foreign country would be even more miserable than being imprisoned domestically. But that depends on your criteria. Consider the following examples.

At left is a typical cell in California, which I'm going to assume for the purposes of discussion is, if nothing else sanitary, albeit overcrowded.

Here's a cell in Paris. No frills but looks clean and painted.

Here's the cell of convicted Australian drug smuggler Schapelle Corby in Bali's Kerobokan Prison. According to the article, those with money can obtain

Personal items such as proper mattresses, disc players, TVs and DVD players.
Mobile phones that can be used from the prison
A day out at the beach or shopping with a guard or trusted friend acting as escort
Privacy for sex with spouse

Admittedly, Kerobokan is infamously unsanitary and dilapidated. But which is the bigger "hell hole"?

Priests, Illegal Immigrants, and the Average American: Who's Most Likely a Sexual Predator?

2008-05-19T19:49:00.000-07:00

Fox News reported last week "San Francisco Radio Host Bernie Ward Admits Distributing Child Porn." What really caught my eye was that Bernie was also a former Catholic priest. You've got to be kidding. Chris Hanson could have an entire To Catch a Predator just baiting the clergy.

Anyway, that got me wondering, "Are there really more Catholic priests who are sexual predators than the rest of the population? Or is it just that they get in the news?" Here's some rough numbers. I think you'll agree that they are thought provoking.

All Americans

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children provides a nice state-by-state map and estimates that .213% of the total population are registered sex offenders. Relatively few offenders are women, and about half the population are women, so for rough estimation we could ignore them and say that .426% of men in the general population are registered sex offenders.

Illegal Immigrants

World Net Daily discusses the high rate of sexual offenses by illegal immigrants to the United States, attributing this in part to the fact that a disproportionately large number of illegal immigrants are men. WND estimates that about 2% of illegal immigrants are sex offenders.

Catholic Priests

A 2004 survey of Catholic Priests conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice and presented to the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops estimated that children accused more than 4,000 priests of sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002, an estimated 4% of those who served in that time period.

Well, its not conclusive evidence but it sure isn't a pretty picture.

A Casual Case for the Practice of Reason

2008-05-17T21:57:00.001-07:00

I believe in reason. That's not to say that I haven't heard about the shortcomings of reason. In fact, I'm well aware, if not versed, in them. So if you want to argue to about logical positivism, Wittgenstein, Popper, Habermas, Kant, or whatever, bring it on.

Actually don't. I'm not interested in mental gamesmanship. Instead, what I plan to bring to this blog are examples of crazy talk in the mediated world. 'Cuz here's the thing: For all its shortcomings, logic is really all we have available to make good decisions with. And it normally works if applied appropriately. I'm not talking about mapping out syllogisms. I'm just advocating trying to say and believe things that make sense.

Now I know that a lot of people are revolted by the thought of logic. So let me point out a couple of things:

How will you make a decision without logic? Plenty of people have held dearly to their strong emotions, intuition,or faith, only to have it fail them horribly. For example, an 11-year old girl recently died from treatable diabetes because her parents thought prayer alone was going to heal her. Just because somebody believes something strongly doesn't make it so.

Now for a little trick I learned from Jurgen Habermas. Suppose someone comes up to you and this conversation occurs:

THEM: "You can't determine anything by logic. You just have to have faith that it works."

YOU: "Say what? Why is that?"

THEM: "I just know it."

Even though it seems like they have won, they have actually fallen into the trap.

YOU: "But aren't you trying to use logic now to convince me to believe you?"

Ta-Da! The other person has committed a performative contradiction, which you have wisely highlighted. It is in fact paradoxical to argue against using logic because to do that you have to use logic.

So this blog is a sort of homage to casual logic. I'm just sweeping in what I see and trying to sort out the crazy talk into something understandable.

Miley Cyrus Not a Kid Anymore

2008-05-15T13:06:00.000-07:00

Maybe I just have a gutter-mind, but the recent stream of publicity photos coming from Team Miley caused a little stir. (And I'm talking about a stir of curiosity or incredulity.)

But first a few puzzle pieces. Relatively recent research has suggested that, under certain circumstances, subliminal messages can be effective in advertising products. For years, various researchers have alleged that advertisers were putting subliminal, sexual images in ads. (For example, the Gibley's gin ad at right allegedly has the letters S-E-X in the ice cubes.) Advertisers, as you might expect, have denied this.

To be fair, it might be a little bit like seeing the Madonna in sandwich—that is, in the eye of beholder.

But for the purposes of discussion, let us put that subliminal research alongside this note about Britney Spears' transition from Micky Mouse Club girl to sex kitten,

[Larry] Rudolph's plans included marketing her as the teenage Lolita of middle-aged men's dreams. In January 1999, Britney emerged on the national stage with the video for ". . . Baby One More Time," as a Catholic schoolgirl in pink pompom hair barrettes. The genius stroke of her creation was that her next single was a ballad, with a video featuring her dancing in a white outfit on a pier: By emerging as a vixen and then reverting to a child, she allowed the world to breathe a sigh of relief that her temptress act was make-believe.

This transformation of Britney was a huge triumph in promotional terms, enabling her to successfully navigate the tricky path of leaving an established child audience and entering the world of adult, sexualized audiences.
I'm quite sure that Team Miley Cyrus is also worried about navigating these waters. After all, Miley earned over $18 million last year, presumably from an adolescent and preadolescent audience. Without a doubt, her people are worried about how to keep the cash flow going as Miley attempts to navigate the transition from innocent child to sultry young sex symbol.
So is Team Miley trying to find their own answer to Britney Spear's "Lolita"? Well, after making like they had egg on their face and apologizing profusely for the recent Vanity Fair picture scandal showing Miley's bare back, you would think the next effort would be far away from any moral boundaries.

But, not so fast. You be the judge: Did that egg on her face become some creamy white substance? Can this be an accident or is it some kind of Virgin Mary-egg-sandwich?

Basra Crackdown Illustrates the True Difficulty in Iraq

2008-03-31T20:35:00.000-07:00

Earlier in the week, the Iraqi central government, led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Miliki, initiated a large-scale crackdown on alleged criminal elements in the southern port city of Basra. Naturally, the administration of U.S. President Bush painted the situation in binary terms, as a fight between good and evil. In a speech at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, President Bush said:

Prime Minister Maliki's bold decision—and it was a bold decision—to go after the illegal groups in Basra shows his leadership and his commitment to enforce the law in an even-handed manner.

But, as Dan Froomkin notes, this simplistic explanation glosses over the real story. By examining situation a little more closely, we can gain a powerful insight into the mind-bending difficulty of establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. For beneath the sophomoric good-versus-evil spin is a complex situation propagated by a fragmented internal power structure and heavy handed interference from outside meddlers.

Fighting Crime

On the surface, the Basra operation was cast as an example of the Iraqi government stepping up to take control over its own affairs. Mr. Maliki's government alleges that criminal elements have taken over Basra, and action was necessary to restore order. The New York Times reported that

In the weeks leading up to the operation, Iraqi officials indicated that part of the operation would be aimed at the Fadhila groups, which are widely believed to be in control of Basra's lucrative port operations and other parts of the city. The ports have been plagued by corruption, draining revenue that could flow to the central and local governments.

Allegations of Political Motivations

On the other hand, although the military operation wasostensibly aimed at the Fadhila groups, it appeard to also impact elements of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army. CNN reported that

Tensions between the Sadrist movement and the Iraqi government, which is dominated by rival Shiite parties, have been growing for months. The cleric's followers have fought street battles in southern Iraqi cities such as Diwaniya and Kut with security forces linked to the leading Shiite party in Iraq, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and its Badr Brigade militia.

Al-Sadr's followers contended that they were being singlded out for political reasons. According to the Seattle Times, "Al-Sadr's followers claim the Americans and their Iraqi allies have taken advantage of the cease-fire to arrest hundreds of al-Sadr's followers."

The Sadrist's theory was that "the U.S. had been pressing for new elections to give Sunnis, who boycotted the last provincial balloting three years ago, a chance for greater power." Thus, once the parliment agreed to hold provincial elections in October, activities began to arrest Sadrists in order to diminish their political power in the election.

CNN clarified the situation, describing the situation as follows:

The Basra operation came after months of jockeying for power among the Sadrists, the Fadhila party and the ISCI -- a situation CNN military analyst Don Shepperd compared to the gang wars that wracked Chicago, Illinois, in the 1920s. Al-Maliki's move is an attempt to reassert the central government's control over the city, but Shepperd warned the operation is likely to result in "significant combat in a very highly populated area."

One possible casualty of the crackdown could be the truce established by al-Sadr last summer that has undeniably been a major contributor to the decline in violence during the same period. To Mr. al-Sadr's credit, it appears that he has been resisting the use of force, although this is somewhat contradictory since his forces are in combat in the streets.

Iranian Involvement

What complicates the situation immensely is the untoward and covert involvement of Iran. Despite Iranian denials, it seems quite clear that Iranian operatives are heavily meddling in Iraq.

The Seattle Times notes,

The U.S. military is careful not to criticize al-Sadr, but says Iran is training breakaway cells it calls "special groups," arming them with rockets and deadly armor-piercing roadside bombs. Iran denies the allegations. Last year, al-Sadr fled to Iran, fearing arrest after a U.S.-led security crackdown. His current whereabouts are kept secret.

CNN gives a cogent description of the situation. According to CNN,

[al-Sadr's]Mehdi Army militia and the cease-fire al-Sadr recently extended are no match for Iranian intrigue, according to CNN's experts.

"Al-Sadr is involved in a very complicated relationship with the Iranians," said CNN Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware. "The Iranians do provide funding and support for his militia, yet at the same time they're trying to rein him in and get him to adopt a certain political agenda, which from time to time he resists."

Ware said Iran wants to use al-Sadr's populist base to advance its agenda in Iraq. "However, they don't want to see him get too big for his boots or to rise to a position where they can no longer have sway over him."

Iran has weakened al-Sadr by encouraging dissension within his Mehdi Army and backing hardliners -- known as the Special Groups -- who break away and keep up the fight against the U.S. occupation, Ware said.

"Iran's very good at putting pressure on you, forcing you to split, and anything that squeezes out the side, Iran picks up and turns into hardline factions," Ware said. "That's exactly what's happened to Muqtada. He's had purge after purge after purge of belligerent commanders, and they've all been swept up by Iran.

"And now the most lethal attacks on U.S. forces, the most coordinated attacks on U.S. forces, the most daring attacks on U.S. forces in the country are committed by Iranian-backed breakaway elements of Muqtada's militia faction.

Analysis

We can now begin to sort out this tangled picture. First, the most important factor here is that the Iraqi government has the clear right—even obligation—to take action in Basra against the Mehdi Army, if for no other reason than the fact that armed militias are illegal in Iraq. According to Brett McGurk, Director for Iraq for the National Security Council, "The Iraqi constitution makes clear that militias are illegal and the new government platform pledges to demobilize militias as one of its principal goals."

Second, there is no question that there is corruption, graft, and other illegal activity going on. None of this would be tolerated in any modern, reasonably well functioning democracy. If the Greenpeace had a 60,000 man armed milita that controlled parts of the Sierra-Nevadas would this be tolerated? Of course not. The Mehdi Army's assertion that they have a right to exit and exert control by force over parts of Iraq is fallacious.

Third, it may be that the action has the effect of diminishing al-Miliki's rivals, but that is more of a side effect than main show. Besides the undeniably illegality of the militias, Basra is Iraq's second largest city and a key port for oil exportation. Having Basra under central government control is clearly important to the stability of Iraq, so so arguments by the Sadrists about being singled out are spurious. Without question they feel that way; however, that is just sour grapes. If they controlled a small village in western Iraq while some other faction controlled Basra, that would be one thing. But the fact is that they are an illegal, armed militia controlling a major city and that cannot be tolerated in a stable, high functioning country.

Finally, the alleged failing of al-Maliki's are not germaine to the discussion. While his party might benefit from the actions, the overall effort seemingly quite reasonable for government working in the best interests of the country. Al-Maliki and his supporters have probably engaged in some dirty deeds and let some groups slide while cracking down on others, but that is irrelevant to the current situation and smacks of a tu quoque fallacy. That is, he has the legal right, moral obligation, and clear reasoning to stabilize Iraq in this way. The fact that he may have engaged in his own dubious activities doesn't make him any less right in this case.

Edwards-Clinton Campaign Sparring Only Helping Obama Win

2008-01-17T20:33:00.000-08:00

I miss the days when candidates only attacked each other indirectly. One candidate would say,"One of my esteemed opponents believes that abortion should be outlawed," and then give a counterargument. The candidates would always talk highly of each other and stick to the issues.

Not any more. I guess negative campaigning works, or they wouldn't do it. But I've seen it derail both sides. At least, I think that that is what happened to Phil Angelides in his campaign for California governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger. Prior to Angelides' nomination, he and then state controller Steve Westley spent so much time trashing each other with allegations of fraud and other things that both looked like dirtbags, leaving Schwarzenegger as the best looking option.

This seems to be the way that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton now want to go. ABC News' Jake Tapper outlines the current spectacle well: Clinton suggests Edwards practically murdered a girl because he didn't get some Patient's Rights legislation through, while Edwards alleges that the Clinton campaign has no conscience.

The only good I can see is that it makes Obama look better.

Wehner's Report on Iraq

2007-07-27T20:44:00.000-07:00

I started this blog in part to talk about--and counteract--the lack of reasoning being bandied about (particularly by the Bush Administration) in public discussion about the pressing issues of our times. But, as I intended to touch on a lot of the world's chronic and pressing issues, I was in a pickle about where to start. At first, I was going to follow the lead of CNN and ABC and talk about Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears, but then I noticed something really strange: A coherent article about progress in Iraq from someone who worked at the White House.

One of the primary motivations of this blog is the critique and response to the lack of evidence-based reason displayed in public discourse. In that arena, the Bush Administration has been one of the worst offenders, regularly failing to make even modestly logical arguments about matters of extreme national importance. Cheney's declaration that he is not part of the executive branch is just one of the most public and ludicrous examples.

That said, I do believe in looking through multiple perspectives, which means you've got to give credit where credit is due, even when it comes from the Bush Administration. So here goes. Although I have been deeply concerned about the difficulty in sorting out whether we are winning or losing in Iraq, and I'll probably have more on that in the future, Mr. Peter Wehner posted an article, "General Petraeus Needs Time," in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that made a seemingly reasonable argument that "the surge" in Iraq is working. While the article leaves some questions, at least this is more along the lines of communication that I would like to see more of from the White House.

Mr. Wehner, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives at the White House, uses some observable data to make his point, and, in terms of security, he concludes "we are in significantly better shape than we were six months ago, and the trajectory of events is positive." Are his facts accurate? Do they lead to the conclusion that he is making? That is another question. But at least he has provided some reasoning that can be critiqued. For example,

Shiite death-squad activity and executions in Baghdad have decreased significantly since January. But what is "signficant"?

Tribal sheikhs in some provinces are turning against al Qaeda and are now siding with American and Iraqi Security Forces; Attack levels in Anbar have reached a two-year low; Ramadi, once among the most dangerous cities in Iraq, is now dramatically safer; Violence in Fallujah has declined. Interesting, but is it representative of what is happening across the country or is it just a list of the isolated good spots?

Al Qaeda's networks and safe havens are being disrupted at a historically high rate, and arms caches are being found at more than three times the rate of a year ago; intelligence tips are sharply up. More arms caches found could mean more arms caches are existing to be found.

Normalcy is returning to Baghdad, including soccer leagues, amusement parks and vibrant market places, and more than half of Baghdad is now under the control of coalition or Iraqi Security Forces. It is kind of shocking that only half of the capital is under the control of friendly forces.

Mr. Wehner does address the crucial question, which is "Can we still influence the outcome in Iraq?" Across the US, there seems to be a mass desire to withdraw, without the commensurate recognition of the humanitarian and political disaster that is likely to follow. As Mr. Wehner states, "American retreat may well lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide, massive refugee flows and regional destabilization, spreading civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, creating a new safe haven for terrorists and giving an enormous psychological victory for America's enemies, from Iran to Syria to al Qaeda."

This is why the question of whether we are winning or losing (and how we know that) is so important. Whether we got into the war on false pretenses or through a tragic series of blunders is not germaine to the discussion of whether we should leave. Rather, we must ask "What is our responsibility?" and "Can we get the job done?" and "How can we do it cost effectively?"

Clearly there is a cost to be considered (which probably should have been considered before the war was started.) But what is the cost of withdrawal? It might be much higher than staying and finishing the job, once all the impacts are considered.

Iraq Metric: Opportunity Cost

2007-07-08T20:48:00.000-07:00

Besides the human cost of the Iraq war, as I have been discussing in the previous threads, there is also a huge financial cost. In fact, according to the National Priorities Project, the cost of the war today is some $449 billion dollars.

This is a fantastically large number, but is it too much? Could it be a bargain? Saftey from global terrorism has got to be pretty valuable, doesn't it?

One way to look at this involves a concept from economics called the opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is "the cost of something in terms of an opportunity forgone." In other words, what else could have been done with the money? For example, what could have been done in terms of addressing the problems in the social security, education, health care, or transportation?

The need to make massive investments in transportatation has been more poignant lately, since the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Studies show that the US needs to invest a significant amount of money in repairing and upgrading the transportation system. By some accounts, more than a trillion and half dollars are needed to make key improvements. Four hundred billion dollars would have gone a long way to that!

The National Priorities Project website provides a nice calculator for comparing the cost of the war to improvements in housing, education, healtchare, and college scholarships. This is well worth persuing.