The Trouble With Facts

When I read this story about conditions falling apart in Basra after British troops handed practical control over to the locals, I thought it was yet-more ammunition for my quest to persuade whoever will listen that the US ought to end its tragic military engagement in Iraq. Somehow, though, I never got around to writing the post and it occurs to me that, of course, the article could be used to prove the precise reverse -- that we can't afford to leave lest we wind up with a country-sized Basra.

This sort of thing, ultimately, is why no conceivable September report will make any real difference to the Iraq debate. It's not that ideological blinders prevent people from seeing the facts, it's that the facts don't really determine anything. Signs of improving conditions can be a reason to stay or a reason to leave. Signs of deteriorating conditions can be a reason to leave or a reason to stay. Ultimately, the issue doesn't hinge on fine-grained appreciation of the facts, nearly so much as it hinges on broader questions of how you look at American interests in the region and whether or not the prospect of spending tens of billions of dollars a day for an indefinite period of time on maintaining a military presence in a foreign country against the will of the population is the kind of thing that makes you queasy.

Comments

Matt, that is the best blog post of all time on Iraq.

Posted by IP Guy | August 7, 2007 4:55 PM

I think you are missing a lot here in terms of the methodology. You cannot consider one fact in isolation and say that, since it can be used to justify a specific policy prescription and its opposite just as well, consideration of facts is not that important.

There are a lot of other existing facts that, when combined with the deteriorating situation in Basra, for example, suggest that leaving Iraq is the best course of action. For starters, look at the trajectory of any western occupation of any third world country in the past.

Posted by gregor | August 7, 2007 4:58 PM

An entry in the "Be the next Thomas Friedman" contest?

It's pretty good.

How's the book coming along?

The World is Flatter?

Posted by alphie | August 7, 2007 5:01 PM

It's not that ideological blinders prevent people from seeing the facts, it's that the facts don't really determine anything.

Well, sure, but also a lot of war supporters are bad with facts. I mean, seriously.

Posted by strannix | August 7, 2007 5:03 PM

Matt, Bravo. For those of us who were against the war before we were against it, I must say arguing against people who say "if we leave now, it'll just get worse" has been worse than infuriating. I will say it loud and clear: whatever happens in Iraq, it needs to not happen as a result of any US Military action other than complete and permanent withdrawal. Diplomatic arrangements may be made, but our troops (and tax dollars going to offense) need to march home posthaste. Madness is doing the same thing over and over again and saying it's working and changing your definition of "working" instead of your tactics.

Posted by JBF | August 7, 2007 5:07 PM

An entry in the "Be the next Thomas Friedman" contest?

It's pretty good.

How's the book coming along?

"The World is Flatter: Tom Friedman's and the rest of the neo-con's campaign to flatten the Middle East"?

Posted by alphie | August 7, 2007 5:01 PM

There, fixed it for you.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 7, 2007 5:20 PM

Matt, this is not rocket science. There are no "broader questions of how you look at American interests in the region".

The 'surge' announced seven months ago--seven months!!--was supposed to provide the enhanced stability so that political progress, the 'bottom line' in Iraq, would improve and the eighteen benchmarks would be accomplished.

So: Is there enhanced stability? Have the benchmarks been accomplished? are the only two questions, with the second being paramount, and their correct answers can be easily ascertained without fuzzing them up with extraneous irrelevancies.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 7, 2007 5:20 PM

There are no "broader questions of how you look at American interests in the region". ... Is there enhanced stability? Have the benchmarks been accomplished? are the only two questions

You're wrong, Don Bacon. Whether you answer 'yes' or 'no' to stability, 'yes' or 'no' to benchmarks, you can *still* use it as an argument to stay, or an argument to withdraw. Those questions are not a guide to what we should do -- only our interests should be a guide to what we should do. America has no interests in the region? WTF?

Posted by Ryan | August 7, 2007 5:33 PM

Excellent, Matthew. We need to leave Iraq, but the President obviously has no intention of leaving.

Posted by Jennifer | August 7, 2007 5:42 PM

Let's say, hypothetically, the worst occurs after a complete withdraw. After several hundred thousand people die, Iran takes over Iraq with a puppet government. What would the withdraw crowd say would be a good step for the US to do next to further its interests in the region?

Posted by Dave | August 7, 2007 5:43 PM

The situation in Basra (and I'm curious what "deteriorating" exactly means, if the Brits have had to occupy neighborhoods before) suggests that "sectarian" violence is NOT drawn along religious lines but along neighborhood lines.

The situation has, to my completely uninformed eyes, always more closely resembled organized crime in inner cities.

If it's just competing gangs, a US withdrawal would BY NO MEANS risk a partition and the massive ethnic cleansing contained therein. It also means that the US is just one more competing gang.

Posted by Luke | August 7, 2007 5:44 PM

Ultimately, the issue doesn't hinge on fine-grained appreciation of the facts, nearly so much as it hinges on broader questions of how you look at American interests in the region and whether or not the prospect of spending tens of billions of dollars a day for an indefinite period of time on maintaining a military presence in a foreign country against the will of the population is the kind of thing that makes you queasy.

I suppose assume at least some people in this world, including many right here in the United States, are considering factors other than "American interests in the region" and their own subjective sensations of queasiness.

There is of course the global policy question: "what is to be done in Iraq?" And it is possible to address the issue of the US role in Iraq in the context of answering that question.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 7, 2007 5:44 PM

Matt,

You're right that facts do not determine anything, but you should've left it at that.

"Ultimately, the issue doesn't hinge on fine-grained appreciation of the facts, nearly so much as it hinges on broader questions of how you look at American interests in the region and whether or not the prospect of spending tens of billions of dollars a day for an indefinite period of time on maintaining a military presence in a foreign country against the will of the population is the kind of thing that makes you queasy."

Surely you don't believe that, do you? Bush will not remove the troops because he doesn't want to. He doesn't have a reason and he doesn't need one. It has nothing to do with American interests." It's about power and it's about mental illness. He simply won't remove them under any circumstances and American policy interests are as irrelevant as facts. If this were about American policy interests we would already be long gone.

Posted by Lee | August 7, 2007 5:46 PM

There are no Iraqi phenomena; there are only interpretations of Iraqi phenomena.

Posted by Martin Morgan | August 7, 2007 5:53 PM

Matt, what an odd perspective on that cherrypickin' article. Because Tom Ricks is on the byline, I think the article is getting more respect than it should. Ricks, however, seems to know little about what went on in Southern Iraq during the last 4 years, and when he imagines that after the invasion, art, trade and universities were 'flourishing' in Basra, he's obviously doing serious mushrooms again.

Again and again, the idea has to get about that since, a., Bush is president, and b., the Dems in Congress can't muster a majority for an immediate withdrawal, we should truly be talking about the integration of ameliorating conditions in Iraq with withdrawal. And so, here's a wild thought - why not look around the Middle East and see what works? Hey, what do you notice: in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, etc? What you notice is a state heavy economy. Hmm, could it be there for a reason? I know that american rightwingers think it is there because of Satan - but american rightwingers are crazy. So, could it be that absorbing the sixty percent of the unemployed in Iraq might, sorta, help us along to a less violent country? Could it be the stubborn persistance of the U.S. in trying to impress a free trade, narrow state sector state on Iraq is a friggin disaster? Since the withdrawal trajectory is obviously going to be slow, over a period of at least a year, why don't we ignore the flatliners in D.C. associated with the WAPO editorial board and AEI and encourage, like, the huge growth of the Iraqi state? Encourage infrastructural repairs on the model of what used to work in Iraq - not having American corporations do it, and hiring Indians for cheap labor, but simply funding Iraqi ministries with the mandate that they have to grow one hundred, two hundred percent, three hundred percent. The benchmarks that should count have nothing to do with that grotesque oil bill. They should be: infrastructural repair, growth of the number of people employed by the state, diminishment of unemployment. That's what the U.S. is desperate, unfortunately, to prevent. That should be the lesson of Basra: a lot of idle men means a lot of idle violent men taking up a lot of extremist causes.

Next up: the world IS round.

Posted by roger | August 7, 2007 6:06 PM

"tens of billions of dollars a day"

You are overstating this by about a factor of thirty. Also, if the democratically elected Iraqi government wanted us to leave now, we'd be on our way out already; instead, they'd rather we stay until they can provide for their own security.

Posted by Juan | August 7, 2007 6:09 PM

"signs of deteriorating conditions can be a reason to leave or a reason to stay."

It's not as indeterminate as all that. The rationale for why deteriorating conditions are a reason to leave is obvious.

Any proposed rationale for deteriorating conditions as a reason to stay requires more work. You have to provide some independent evidence that 1) there is a reasonable chance of success, which has not been shown, and 2) one of the following: either a) we have to succeed no matter what the cost, which has not been shown, or b) that there is some reasonable prospect for success at a reasonable cost, which has also not been shown.

Both logic and experience strongly suggest the odds of success are very low, while the costs are high and certain. Therefore deteriorating conditions make far more sense as a reason to leave than to stay.

Posted by Junius Brutus | August 7, 2007 6:16 PM

"Let's say, hypothetically, the worst occurs after a complete withdraw. After several hundred thousand people die, Iran takes over Iraq with a puppet government. What would the withdraw crowd say would be a good step for the US to do next to further its interests in the region?"

If Iran "takes over," then the United States would be in roughly the position that Iran is in right now. That's a good position seeing as Iran has come out of this head-and-shoulders above nearly everyone else.

Posted by Tom | August 7, 2007 6:16 PM

America has no interests in the region? WTF?

It's not as if there aren't important US interests in the region that will be hurt by our withdrawal--there are and they will. It's not as if our going won't make things worse--it will. It's just that when we decided to go in, we made all that inevitable.

We can't stay forever--we don't have the resources. We've put more than a trillion dollars--a trillion dollars--into Iraq, we've used up our army, we've increased our danger from other enemies through having so much of our fighting capability tied up in Iraq, we've alienated the whole world.

Sooner or later we have to get out. When we leave it will be a disaster--but the longer we stay, the worse the disaster will be.

As a country, we have to have the moral courage to face up to our defeat, save what we can that's worth saving, and learn the appropriate lessons from our mistakes.

Posted by rea | August 7, 2007 6:17 PM

You are overstating this by about a factor of thirty.

Oh, only 333 million a day? What a bargain.

Posted by goethean | August 7, 2007 6:18 PM

Actually, the Basra disaster IS directly relevant to the question of whether we ought to stay in Iraq, since it further indicates tht there is no possible way for us to pacify Iraq without several times our current troop level, maintained for 5-10 years -- something which would require a draft, and which the Bushites have never even dared to whisper about as a possibility (and they certainly aren't now).

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 7, 2007 6:28 PM

Let's say, hypothetically, the worst occurs after a complete withdraw. After several hundred thousand people die, Iran takes over Iraq with a puppet government. What would the withdraw crowd say would be a good step for the US to do next to further its interests in the region?

For those whose interest is the US interest, I would recommend the step of developing better relations with Iran. Of course I think that is actually the step the US should be taking right now.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 7, 2007 6:31 PM

President Bush announcing the surge, 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."

*It hasn't.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 7, 2007 6:41 PM

Signs of improving conditions can be a reason to stay or a reason to leave.

While this is true, it is imprecise, and it would be more accurate to say that while signs of improving conditions, because they haven't crossed a certain threshold, despite offering reaons to stay and to leave, offer better reasons to leave; and that therefore, the facts don't "determine" policy wisdom but do have policy implications when properly interpreted. To put it another way, the "broader questions" you cite in the end of the post themselves can be more-supported or less-supported by the facts of this case and by history.

Posted by jason | August 7, 2007 7:29 PM

"Let's say, hypothetically, the worst occurs after a complete withdraw. After several hundred thousand people die, Iran takes over Iraq with a puppet government. What would the withdraw crowd say would be a good step for the US to do next to further its interests in the region?"

They would likely work through the parties that are already in charge in Iraq, which are already close to Iran. Al-Sistani, like many lesser known leaders in Iraq, fled to Tehran when he left Iraq before returning.

"Also, if the democratically elected Iraqi government wanted us to leave now, we'd be on our way out already; instead, they'd rather we stay until they can provide for their own security.

Posted by Juan | August 7, 2007 6:09 PM"

Opinion polls of Iraqis show that the majority of Iraqis are against our presence and support attacks on US troops. The only exceptions are the Kurds in the north. The Arab Iraqi majority, both Sunni and Shia, wants us gone.

Posted by Reality Man | August 7, 2007 8:43 PM

I've been saying for almost four years now that the Iraq occupation is best understood as "a high-stakes, real-life game of Survivor," with players ranging from the U.S. to not only the various indigenous Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions but the repatriated exiles, as well as neighboring countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

The way to look at the situation in Basra (as I said in writing about this same article this morning) is that it represents what will happen in Baghdad and the surrounding provinces once the Sunnis and U.S. are voted (or ethnically cleansed, as the case may be) off the proverbial island.

Staying won't prevent "a country-sized Basra"; it will only delay it. So, the question becomes how many American troops' lives you are willing to sacrifice for the sake of delaying the inevitable.

Posted by Swopa | August 7, 2007 8:45 PM

Let's say, hypothetically, the worst occurs after a complete withdraw. After several hundred thousand people die, Iran takes over Iraq with a puppet government. What would the withdraw crowd say would be a good step for the US to do next to further its interests in the region?

First off, what are our interests in the region?

1. Oil
2. Protection of Israel

So the answers would be:

1. Reduce our oil usage until it becomes a non-factor
2. Make a real attempt at peace between Arabs/Israelis

Beyond that, we have no interests and there's nothing we can really do to further them.

Posted by Naveen | August 7, 2007 9:00 PM

"There are no Iraqi phenomena; there are only interpretations of Iraqi phenomena."

Yes, Martin, while reading this post I had terrible flashbacks to seminars in postmodernism and poststructuralism that I took 15 years ago. Please, Matt, you're better than this, unless you were practicing an irony I didn't get.

Liars, sophists, and propagandists have always been able to advance their arguments by using the same set of facts as their opponents. That's what they're good at. But that doesn't mean "the facts don't really determine anything." It may take a long, long time, but the facts win out on the ground -- which is another way of saying that reality doesn't care what kind of arguments we spin. It will bite us in the ass no matter how hard we try to obfuscate it.

Posted by dporreca | August 7, 2007 9:13 PM

"Beyond that, we have no interests and there's nothing we can really do to further them."

So we have no interest at all in preventing genocide anywhere? The Obama position?

Posted by Dave | August 7, 2007 9:28 PM

Dave, we certainly do. Starting with the genocides of which we are the chief cause. So, perhaps you think we should get behind doing something for the two million people who have fled Iraq so far. I'd suggest an emergency aid package for Syria - what do you say? After all, the Syrians are showing infinitely more generosity than the Americans by allowing a huge number of very shaky Iraqis into the country. Same with Jordan and Iran. So, on this humanitarian kick, how many billions for each country?

Or is it that preventing mass death isn't any fun if it isn't like a computer war game?

Posted by roger | August 7, 2007 10:29 PM

roger's right--those that want us to stay in Iraq to 'protect Iraqis' yet have no thoughts about helping Iraqis today are brazen hypocrites.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 7, 2007 11:51 PM

Let's say, hypothetically, the worst occurs after a complete withdraw. After several hundred thousand people die, Iran takes over Iraq with a puppet government. What would the withdraw crowd say would be a good step for the US to do next to further its interests in the region?

Let's say, hypothetically, the best occurs after a complete withdrawl. We leave, and several hundred thousand ponies spring magically from the sand, lambs lie down with lions, and families live in peace and harmony. What would the "stay the course" crowd say that could convince me that putting off this utopia in Iraq is a good idea?

Or, we could just stay there and keep killing people. Whatever.

Posted by justinb | August 8, 2007 12:04 AM

Should I stay or should I go. If I go it will be trouble. If I stay it will be double.

Foreign Policy by the Clash. It's as good as anything else I've heard.

Posted by William Jensen | August 8, 2007 1:45 AM

Some groups in Iraq want us to stay and some want us to leave ASAP.

Would it be possible for us to leave this decision to the Iraqis, either nationwide or by religious/ethnic gruop?

Is this purple finger time?

If someone wants to argue that the democratic will of the Iraqi people should be ignored, on what basis is there a legimate reason to stay?

My suggestion: Let Congress pass a resolution (not a vetoable law) saying that Iraq must have an election by a date certain (November?) on the question of should US forces remain, perhaps with three choices: some residual force (25,000?); major forces (125,000 or plus); or no forces.

We should make it clear that if no election is conducted, we will move to completely withdraw by starting spring (April?) 2008 and completeing by September 2008.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | August 8, 2007 3:23 AM

Shorter MY:

The British leave, things fall apart, we should leave.

Extended MY:

The US should care about money and its interests, not about the Iraqis.

I'm for a phased withdrawal myself, but these arguments suck.

Posted by novakant | August 8, 2007 5:15 AM