Willing to go to bat for Eliot Engel?

I posted about Rep. Eliot Engel's disgraceful and fallacious attempt to undermine Gen. David Petraeus' trustworthiness earlier. "Duane" popped by to offer something like a defense of Engel's comments. Turns out that a blogger went to bat for Engel right about the time I was blasting him.

Petraeus thanked Engel for the opportunity to defend the piece, because "I stand by it." He noted that it contained several notes of caution, in which he said there were still many challenges ahead in Iraq. (That's true, but any honest reading of the whole piece will indicate it communicates a sense of positive momentum that cannot be easily reconciled with the past three years of lack of progress toward the U.S. handoff to Iraqi troops.)
(Minnesota Monitor)

Ah, if only I had high-paying advertiser for every time I'd seen the "any honest reading" ploy ...

Eric Black wrote the entry, and I'll address my reply to him.

Eric, there's absolutely nothing difficult about reconciling a short-term positive assessment of momentum with a long-term negative observation of momentum, in principle.



The green arrow represents a short-term assessment of progress.
The dark blue bracket represents a long-term trend of negative progress.

The blue bracket can never contradict the assessment given at the green arrow unless said assessment makes predictions about progress that fall into the blue bracketed area. I don't see anything remotely like that. Engel failed to point out anything like that. Black followed Engel's lead.


The line I graphed does not represent an attempt to realistically graph progress in Iraq, just in case there's any doubt on that point.


*****

Forcing the reality-based to face reality

A visitor calling himself "Duane" apparently thinks that Rep. Engel's comments about General David Petraeus were somehow reasonable.

I don't intend to go back and forth endlessly with Duane in the comments section. I'll address every argument Duane presents, but only if he can keep himself on topic.
After I had pointed out that Duane was treating Petraeus' op-ed comments as though they were predictions (when they weren't), Duane came back with this:

I noticed that you made no comment on Rumsfelds "6 month" PREDICTION. I also noted that Petraeus offered no timeline. If they had told Americans at the beginning that this would last 5+ years they would have run them out of town. If three years of "on track" has not allowed us to remove troops then your track is endless. You are like the out of work brother-in-law that moves in for a "few months" and five years later you are still looking for a job and just need another loan until you get going. All the things that the White House predicts if we pull out, chaos, violence, factional fighting, etc. are happening NOW. We have spent 3400 lives and half a trillion dollars and they have less electricity now than when Saddam was in power. Millions of Iraqis with skills, money or out of desperation have left the country. The Sunni's have completely withdrawn from the central government. Sectarian violence may be down in some areas because they are becoming purely Sunni or Shiite. Not counting car bomb deaths? Assasinations don't count if they are shot in the front of the head? The GAO report bears no resemblance to the Petraeus report?? Just give us 6 more months he says. How about we redeploy to the border and see if the horrible consequences they keep talking of happen? How about listening to the 65% of Americans AND Iraqis that want us out of there?
Duane | 09.13.07 - 10:05 am

1) I pointed out to Duane that the 6 month prediction looked perfectly true. More on this later.
2) Duane offered that he noted that Petraeus offered no time line. How that is supposed to help his case is anyone's guess.
3) Duane opined that if Americans had known the war would take 5 years they wouldn't go along with it. I don't have such a dim view of the average American, though it wouldn't surprise me if liberal circles were substantially filled with people who will give up if the war looks difficult or unpleasantly long. That's an aspect of American culture that bin Laden picked up on, though I trust he's wrong about it.
4) Duane thinks that if three years of "on-track" doesn't result in bringing (how many?) troops home then the track is endless. That doesn't follow. If the track takes 100 years instead of 5 then the track has an ending, obviously. If Duane was merely indulging in hyperbole then he doesn't really have a relevant point--especially with regard to Petraeus' reliability.
5) Duane's out-of-work brother-in-law analogy is inane in this context. Is he supposing anti-war Democrats as the ones giving money to pro-war Republicans? Or is Iraq the freeloader? In the former case, our system of government only works if the minority accedes to cooperate with the laws passed by the majority. In the latter case, Iraq is a multi-faceted entity with immense global strategic importance. The brother-in-law analogy isn't apt where the brother-in-law is of vast strategic importance. If you're smart you'll invest quite a bit in that brother-in-law.
6) Duane thinks that the feared result of a pullout are already happening. Duane apparently has zero sense of scale. Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are each likely to move to fill a power vacuum in the wake of a U.S. pullout. Is it possible that peace will break out spontaneously in the wake of a U.S. withdrawal? Only in the strict logical sense that also makes it possible for a cow to balance itself spontaneously on top of the Eiffel Tower.
7) Less electricity? Can Duane explain the relevance to Petraeus' testimony? The power grid problem stems from downgraded infrastructure inherited from Hussein plus deliberate attacks by insurgents. The insurgents probably hope that Americans will regard the war as unwinnable if they deprive their own people of electricity.
8) Yes, many Iraqis have fled the country. What does that have to do with Petraeus' testimony before Congress?
9) The Sunnis withdrew from the federal government, but have now returned. Al-Maliki achieved significant progress in compromise deals in August. Not that it's relevant to Petraeus' testimony, from what I can tell.
10) Duane offered that sectarian violence may have subsided because fewer integrated neighborhoods remain. Well, that's a step in the right direction, Duane, allowing that sectarian violence may have decreased.
11) See story linked just above regarding execution-style killings and car bombs.
12) The GAO report relied on civilian attack data through July 2007, the first month that the surge troop levels first hit their target. See page 10 (.pdf). If Duane wants to assert differences in the reports, he should be specific.
13) Redeploy to the border? Which border? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia (they love us there)? Syria (they love us there)? Iran (they love us there)? Turkey? How about Okinawa? And if the violence gets worse you want to go back in when you left because of the violence? Pure genius.
14) We don't listen to the 65 percent (provide a reference any day, now) because they tend to reason like you do. Many people holding to a stupid idea doesn't make it less stupid. The Iraqis appear to be a bit smarter than you paint them, according to this ABC/BBC graph.





Duane followed up with a prediction from General Casey, apparently hoping that the accompanying story would be taken to contradict Petraeus' op-ed assessment. Could you be specific, Duane?

As for predictions, saying that training is "on track" indicates there is a timeline. If you don't meet that goal then either your "on track" statement was wrong or something changed to throw the plan off track. If there is evidence of substantial, measurable success in Iraq I would say the ball is in your court to show it to me. As skeptical as I was about this war I never dreamed we could make it worse for the average Iraqi than they had it under Saddam.

If it indicates a time line, Duane, then why did you earlier note that "Petraeus offered no time line"? Sure, there was an implied time line for the training of Iraqi security forces. Something threw the plan off track. I thought I had already mentioned the attack on the Golden Mosque.

Duane, I don't care if you can't see the progress in Iraq. I don't pretend to be able to open thoroughly closed minds. But I do care to see you support your implied defense of Rep. Engel. You're not up for that, are you?

Petraeus before the House

Hopefully I can be one of the first to make fun of the pathetic swipe at General Petraeus taken by Rep. Eliot Engel (D, New York).

Engel brought up an editorial written by Petraeus, published in the Washington Post, that gave an assessment of progress in Iraq. Engel asked why, given the op-ed, people should believe what Petraeus was saying before Congress.

Petraeus thanked Engel for bringing up the topic, and assured Engel that he could provide an answer.

"I stand by it," Petraeus said.

He went on to say that his assessment in 2004 was accurate. Indeed, if you read it over there isn't much in the way of wild predictions or claims.

Petraeus also pointed out that his assessment predated the destruction of the "Golden Mosque" (Feb 22, 2006), not that he needed a rationale for justifying any failed predictions. This was as strong as the op-ed got:

There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.
(Washington Post)

So, Engel committed a fallacy of the complex question, including in his question the false premise that Petraeus' op-ed was not good information, for the purpose of supporting an ad hominem attack on Petraeus.

Shame on you, Rep. Engel.