Friedman Units: Now With Multimedia

The Center for American Progress' Iraq Timeline, charting various Friedman Unit-esque pronouncements over the years is a thing of beauty. It also reminds me specifically of Will Marshall's January 2004 proclamation that "America has about six months to break the resistance and give the new Iraqi government a fighting chance to survive. It would help if our leaders stopped casting anxious glances toward the exits." In January 2004, I thought much the same thing. And, indeed, to this day, I still think that was more-or-less the correct judgment.

But that's exactly why, by the end of 2004, I thought it was time to schedule a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It really was true that if armed resistance had been subdued during 2004 and Iraqis of all stripes been persuaded to pursue their political grievances, including grievances with the existence of a US military presence in Iraq, through the scheduled elections that Iraq would have been a much happier place. It also really was true that if this window of opportunity slipped by, and the new Iraqi government was born compromised by violent sectarian conflict, that the situation was, in important respects, doomed.

Which is all by way of observing that unlike the other people on this list, Will Marshall both still opposes withdrawal from Iraq and has, in the past, responded to posts on this blog. So I'd be interested to know what Marshall thinks of the fact that 43 months ago he said we only had about six months to crush armed resistance before we tipped past the point at which our involvement would become useless. I agreed with him then, and I still agree with him now -- why has he changed his mind?

Comments

These charts/lists are always amusing. Has Friedman ever exhibited any self awareness about this?

Posted by DJ | August 8, 2007 6:51 PM

The moustache does not introspect. The moustache simply states.

Posted by Sangfroid826 | August 8, 2007 7:11 PM

Given that one of the most memorable moustache moments was when he confronted Rumsfeld with his own words on . . . Face the Nation (?), somebody really should give Friedman the same treatment sometime.

Posted by UN Plaza | August 8, 2007 7:13 PM

An excellent question, DJ. According to Wikipedia,

Howard Kurtz asked Friedman himself about the concept: "Now, I want to understand how a columnist’s mind works when you take positions, because you [Tom Friedman] were chided recently for writing several times on different occasions: 'the next six months are crucial in Iraq,' 'the next six months.'" Friedman responded, "the fact is that the outcome there is unclear, and I reflected that in my column. And I will continue to reflect."

I think that means the answer to your question is "No" - especially because, in the cited transcript, Friedman prefaces the quoted response by basically saying people who actually did come to a decision against the war (perhaps after seeing no progress in one of his six-month crucial periods?) are just biased (and clearly not as deep thinkers as is Friedman).

Posted by Warren Terra | August 8, 2007 7:14 PM

Will Marshall on Matt Yglesias:

"Amid some arid logic-chopping and the usual anti-establishment posturing..."

Speaking of logic chopping, isn't a possible that a particular six month period (say, one spanning the last couple of elections) was crucial, and subsequent six month periods were crucial as well?

Posted by Juan | August 8, 2007 7:15 PM

One might even say that all six month periods are crucial, and further that each day is crucial, and that we ought to live each moment as if it were our last, work like we don't need money, love like we've never been hurt, and dance like no one's watching.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 8, 2007 7:20 PM

Juan,
Thank you for the counterfactual. I name it as such because any self-respecting version of Tom Friedman would respond to criticism of his endless series of six-month windows by realizing that he should, at the end of some six-month period he has defined as critical and make-or-break, propose a future strategy on the basis of the recently complete period - perhaps even giving a progress report.

Instead, Friedman repeatedly established a "critical" test, and when that test was failed he simply established a new one. Mulligans become a bit more distasteful when they involve the loss of human life.

(I think SCMT's more lighthearted dismissal of Juan is better, though).

Posted by Warren Terra | August 8, 2007 7:23 PM

Anyone who still believes there is a military solution to the political problem in Iraq is an idiot and should not be listened to.

It was perfectly clear before the war started that if Saddam was removed and the country was left to their own devices that there would be secretarian strife and eventually civil war. These divisions have existed for hundreds of years. We have to stop pretending that we can solve this. It might never be solved. Certainly it won't be solved by America.

As to Friedman, I don't read him anymore, like most of the country, since the NY Times started charging for it's columnists. I hear that will change soon. But like hockey after the strike, people just might not care anymore....

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | August 8, 2007 7:32 PM

"...43 months ago he said we only had about six months to crush armed resistance before we tipped past the point at which our involvement would become useless. I agreed with him then, and I still agree with him now ..."

Our involvement was useless as of March 20, 2003. Some of use knew it then.

Posted by kafka | August 8, 2007 7:34 PM

Re "43 months ago he said we only had about six months to crush armed resistance before we tipped past the point at which our involvement would become useless."
-----------
Ah, but you rabble don't have the benefits of Thomas Friedman's Oxford education.

Else you would realize that in order to reach the end of a six month window, you must first reach the end of a three month window. But in order to reach the end of the remaining 3 months, you must first reach the end of the first 1 1/2 months. But in order to reach the end of the remaining 1 1/2 months you must first reach the end of 3/4 months. Ad infinitum.

Simple logic thus proves that you can NEVER reach the end of the 6 month window -- because there will always remain some fraction of remaining time.

Which we have verified by actual experience.

If you don't understand yet, I'm sure Thomas's childhood summer camp counselor --Abe Foxman-- can explain it to you. Yes, THAT Abe Foxman.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 7:49 PM

Xeno's Middle East Quagmire. How charming.

Posted by NBarnes | August 8, 2007 7:58 PM

"Anyone who still believes there is a military solution to the political problem in Iraq is an idiot and should not be listened to."

Anyone who assumes there's a clear demarcation between the two hasn't been paying attention. See, for example, today's WSJ's cover story on Iraq (don't worry, there's ammo in in there pro-withdrawal types can use) about what the U.S. Marines have been doing in Anbar. After using military force against Al Qaeda to get the local tribes to see AQI was beatable, they've been using a finely-tuned combination of diplomacy, economic development, palm-greasing, local-level political development, etc. to stop the chaos and killing there. Given the progress there, why bail on that particular province? Why let it go back to AQI cutting people's heads off?

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2007 8:02 PM

Its innumeracy day at Matt's blog.

Don Williams: You should have taken calculus. The value of: the limit of 1/(2*X) as X goes from 1 to infinity equals 0. Not approaches, equals.

Posted by milo | August 8, 2007 8:33 PM

milo: You should have taken Philosophy (or something; I didn't take philosophy, as such, so you should have taken whatever class it was in which I first heard of Zeno's paradox). You never get to the limit; that's the whole point.

Posted by Warren Terra | August 8, 2007 8:40 PM

Jeez, looking at that graphic makes me want to hide under my bed...

Posted by Mr. Noah | August 8, 2007 8:46 PM

Its innumeracy day at Matt's blog.

Illiteracy day as well, apparently.

Posted by love | August 8, 2007 9:00 PM

Fred: Honestly, you post here a lot:

"Given the progress there, why bail on that particular province? Why let it go back to AQI cutting people's heads off?:

Is there any endgame for you?

Seriously, is there any metric that would even make you pause and think about leaving?

Posted by Andruw | August 8, 2007 9:06 PM

The whole Iraq war debacle reminds me of Lao Tzu's famous caution from the Art of War - the successful general wins first, then goes to war. The unsuccessful general goes to war first, then tries to win.

Posted by SZR | August 8, 2007 9:16 PM

Correction - Sun Tzu, not Lau Tzu. I really should learn to check the book before posting.

Posted by szr | August 8, 2007 9:19 PM

Seriously, is there any metric that would even make you pause and think about leaving?

I'll make a guess...

Republican control of the White House and House of Representatives, a filibuster-proof GOP Senate majority, and the indigenous Iraqi oil industry run out of Houston.

Iraq isn't a war, never was. It is, and was, the world's most expensive campaign commercial, and probably the most expensive LBO.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | August 8, 2007 9:24 PM

Warren Terra:
Zeno should have taken Calculus. Newton's insight was useful. Zeno's paradox isn't useful or a paradox.

Love:
Is there a predicate in your sentence? I missed it.

Posted by milo | August 8, 2007 9:31 PM

SomeCallMeTim,

Your comment reminded me of one of my favorite clients who liked to invoke the notion that every day above ground was a good day. Unfortunately because of Tommy the Moustache and his ilk, there's a whole lot of people who aren't ever again going to have the pleasure of another day above ground.

But he's a very serious man. May he rot in hell.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | August 8, 2007 9:31 PM

If there is ever a mockumentary about globalization the major national columnist (who may or may not resemble Mr. Friedman) will get his head lobbed off by Islamic weirdos at the end but the head will go on talking about the flat world.

Also, I still don't get the cop stache.

Posted by Linus | August 8, 2007 10:09 PM

Linus, I think the best investigation of The Moustache Of Understanding is from David Rees, who so comprehensively skewered Friedman's ideological compatriot Michael Ignatieff recently.

Posted by Warren Terra | August 8, 2007 10:19 PM

"It really was true that if armed resistance had been subdued during 2004 and Iraqis of all stripes been persuaded to pursue their political grievances, including grievances with the existence of a US military presence in Iraq, through the scheduled elections that Iraq would have been a much happier place."

There's a basic misunderstanding here.

Iraq has been under US military occupation since Spring '03. There was zero chance that Iraqi elections would alter this.

Please, please, get a grip.

Posted by Hal | August 8, 2007 10:22 PM

Re Milo's comment "Don Williams: You should have taken calculus. The value of: the limit of 1/(2*X) as X goes from 1 to infinity equals 0. Not approaches, equals."
------------
Ah, but you assume that velocity is constant and distance covered is linear.

However, the Bush Administration proceeds in a random pattern called "The Drunkard's Walk". What's the derivative of that?

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 10:35 PM

Re SZR's comment "The whole Iraq war debacle reminds me of [Sun Tzu's] famous caution "
---------
Actually, Sun Tzu (circa 400 BC) had a number of good concepts in his "Art of War". For example,
from Chapter II, para. 7 and 8:

"7. For there has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefitted.

8. Thus those unable to understand the dangers inherent in employing troops are equally unable to understand the advanteous ways of doing so."

Sigh.

Nice to know we have grown so much wiser over the past 2400 years.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 10:46 PM

I've taken both Calculus and introductory Philosophy and what I learned about Zeno was that people have had this argument before. But at the risk of further belaboring the original joke, the basic contrary idea is that applying Calculus doesn't actually resolve the paradox, it begs the question. While you can calculate the limit of an infinite series which would seemingly resolve the problem, what Zeno questioned was whether you could ever complete the permutations of that infinite series given a finite amount of time. A limit describes the behavior of a function but it doesn't say anything about how that function will run to completion - which in this case is that, once you get out to the infinite, the distance between the tortoise and the runner will not exist, it will be zero, but any point before then there's some small but measurable separation between the two, the problem being that you can't get to the point where there is no separation without passing through an infinitely large number of prior states which you shouldn't be able to do in real time (And, of course, the paradox is that simple observation will tell you that you actually can, since the runner will actually pass the tortoise eventually. So logic and reality disagree and you have to change the frame of reference before strange little things from other dimensions break into this plane and start nibbling on your brain matter.). Zeno wasn't interested in getting to that finish line so much as he was the process of getting there. In how you can reach a set distance by taking a step only halfway there each time, which requires an infinite amount of steps, each one of which takes some amount of time for you to make. Figuring out that the tortoise will eventually be overtaken doesn't answer that.

Better ways of slaying Zeno's paradox - that I've heard anyway - involve the nature of time and how it can only be reduced so far before you run up against the cosmic tick. As you run through the steps, eventually you reach a distance so small that you can cover it in less than a unit of Planck time and in that indeterminate state you can jump past the tortoise, violating the Platonic concept of time as a series of "nows" strung together where motion has to take place along a similar series of points. Or something like that. Math makes my head hurt. But, oddly enough, I think it's applicable to the Iraq situation. As we draw ever closer to a decisive point, whenever that will be, we're slicing Friedman units of critical periods ever smaller until we'll eventually reach the point where they're so small they're almost overlapping and in that uncertain state it might actually be possible to change directions.

Posted by Sausaletus Rex | August 8, 2007 10:58 PM

Fred, the concept that prior years of U.S. occupation and devastation of Anbar were fighting "Al Queda" to prove something to the tribes of Anbar, rather than killing a great many inhabitants of Anbar in a foreign invasion, is a ludicrous rewriting of history. The tribesmen of Anbar are quite unlikely to see things your way.

Posted by putnam | August 8, 2007 11:01 PM

Here is a list of 52 quotes about the "critical period" ahead in Iraq, from Feb 2003 thru June 2006, plus a bonus Victor Hansen quote from May 2007.

http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/fabius_iraq_series_2006_part_I.htm

Posted by Fabius Maximus | August 8, 2007 11:29 PM

I'd also like to hear from Fred, regarding the question of: what's your end-game? Is there a situation in which you could envision the costs of the war/occupation outweighing the benefits?

Posted by Ben Cronin | August 9, 2007 12:09 AM

I should add that I think the cost has long-since outweighed the benefit by any reasonable measure.

Posted by Ben Cronin | August 9, 2007 12:10 AM

Milo, you should have taken real analysis. There's no such thing as "goes to infinity." When you say "the limit of 1/(2*X) [sic] as X goes from 1 to infinity equals 0," that's just rough shorthand for "Given any epsilon greater than 0, there exists positive integer N such that if X is greater than N, then 1/(2^X) is less than epsilon." A more precise shorthand would be "as X increases without bound."

My apologies to the rest of you for this overly technical, somewhat obnoxious reply to a tangential, overly serious response to a joke. And for all of this self-referential meta-commentary.

Posted by Jack | August 9, 2007 12:11 AM

President Bush Jan 10, 2007:

"I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people."

Posted by Don Bacon | August 9, 2007 12:15 AM

Better ways of slaying Zeno's paradox - that I've heard anyway - involve the nature of time and how it can only be reduced so far before you run up against the cosmic tick. As you run through the steps, eventually you reach a distance so small that you can cover it in less than a unit of Planck time and in that indeterminate state you can jump past the tortoise, violating the Platonic concept of time as a series of "nows" strung together where motion has to take place along a similar series of points. Or something like that. Math makes my head hurt. But, oddly enough, I think it's applicable to the Iraq situation. As we draw ever closer to a decisive point, whenever that will be, we're slicing Friedman units of critical periods ever smaller until we'll eventually reach the point where they're so small they're almost overlapping and in that uncertain state it might actually be possible to change directions.

Look, you don't even need calculus to show the absurdity of Zeno's paradox. What Zeno off-handedly shows is that you can potentially divide any finite length into an infinite number of points, but, hell, Euclid would have said as much. Each time you halve the distance, you also halve time. So what you're doing is actually breaking up the length into increasingly smaller increments over time. Since you never set your goal past the point the tortoise is at, you trick yourself into imagining that passing the tortoise is impossible, when in reality, all you're doing is "proving" there is a potentially infinite number of points between Achilles and his target.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 9, 2007 12:20 AM

Oh, I forgot to add: There ain't no such thing as a "Cosmic Tick". There, I feel better now.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 9, 2007 12:22 AM

If there's no Cosmic Tick, then Dick Cheney is the biggest bloodsucker in the known universe.

He'd probably be flattered.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 9, 2007 1:49 AM

Sausaletus Rex says, "But at the risk of further belaboring the original joke, the basic contrary idea is that applying Calculus doesn't actually resolve the paradox, it begs the question."

Hey now, did you just use the phrase "begs the question" properly? That's not permitted in modern discourse due to recent evolution of the language. This begs the question, where did you get your fancy pants education?

Posted by Shochu John | August 9, 2007 2:13 AM

What Zeno off-handedly shows is that you can potentially divide any finite length into an infinite number of points, but, hell, Euclid would have said as much.

Zeno lived 200 years before Euclid, though, so to dismiss Zeno as warmed-over Euclid is a lttle unfair . . .

Posted by rea | August 9, 2007 8:31 AM

Part of the misunderstanding between Friedman and his critics is due to the Einsteinian Time Dilation effect. In Friedman world, the White House is moving in a steady, slow and stately manner toward success.

Friedman's critics, however, are stuck in the "Sept 10" inertial frame of reference --where events are occurring at a frenzied pace and we are heading toward disaster at near light speed.

Hence, they think 43 months has elapsed since the invasion of Iraq , whereas in reality --i.e., in Friedman world -- only 2 months has elapsed.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation .

Posted by Don Williams | August 9, 2007 9:09 AM

PS There is also the "Gravitational time dilation"
effect -- since Thomas Friedman lives at a much higher and more elevated level than do his critics.

Posted by Don Williams | August 9, 2007 9:13 AM

The "Gravitational time dilation" effect is easily observed by visiting enlisted men in Iraq and then visiting Mr Friedman.

You will observe that time moves much more quickly when you are being shot at and are trying to stanch a buddy's sucking chest wound versus when you are sitting on your ass in a nice, plush Manhattan office.

Posted by Don Williams | August 9, 2007 9:17 AM

Well you could say f(t)=x, or f(x)=t, but it would be incorrect to say f(t)=f(x) which is what Zeno says.

Posted by milo | August 9, 2007 9:20 AM

re Milo 9:31 PM:

Love:
Is there a predicate in your sentence? I missed it.

What you are missing in my sentence is the "It's," which is not a predicate. In any case, my sentence is allowable as colloquial usage. The same cannot be said for your use of "Its."

Posted by love | August 9, 2007 10:58 AM

I'm surprised that more people aren't ripping into Matt for saying this:

It really was true that if armed resistance had been subdued during 2004 and Iraqis of all stripes been persuaded to pursue their political grievances, including grievances with the existence of a US military presence in Iraq, through the scheduled elections that Iraq would have been a much happier place.

Because, yeah, that probably really was true. But it was also true, at that time, that if rainbow colored bunnies hopped across the unicorn meadow and kissed Rainbow Bright on her pink painted toenails that the Smurfs would have been able to teach the Iraqis to get along and just be happy! But only during those critical first eighteen months. After that, forget it!

We can fantasize all we want about how if things had only gone exactly perfectly that invasion and occupation would have lead to peace and harmony, but nothing will ever be that perfect. So I would counter that it really was true that invading and occupying Iraq was a very bad idea from the start and that there was no way it ever could have gone well enough to justify the expense, risk, loss of life, cost to US prestige, etc.

In essence Matt is trying to say that he was right all along and it was just the dastardly mishandling of the occupation that doomed the glorious enterprise. No, Matt. Sorry. Try again.

Posted by Rob Mac | August 9, 2007 11:49 AM

Speaking of logic chopping, isn't a possible that a particular six month period (say, one spanning the last couple of elections) was crucial, and subsequent six month periods were crucial as well?

Sure, theoretically, any six-month period (SMP) could be "the" six-month period. However, if this SMP is "the" SMP, than the previous SMP was not. Therefore, someone who said the previous SMP was "the" SMP, and has continued to do so every six months for the past four years, is not engaging in serious and rational analysis.

Also, if there is a good and convincing and strong argument that a certain SMP is "the" SMP, and after that SMP our country's win or loss would be determined one way or the other, and that SMP was more than three years ago, then either we should reconsider why it was a good and convincing and strong argument (and be skeptical of such reasons in the future) or evaluate whether that SMP determined a win or determined a loss, and act on it.

Not that the question needed more serious treatment than SCMT gave it, but hey, I felt like procrastinating.

Posted by Cyrus | August 9, 2007 12:08 PM