Bad Math

Here's Ken Pollack explaining that if you count wrong, then McCain and Obama have similar positions on Iraq:

Well, I actually think his timeline, Obama’s timeline, even McCain’s timeline are actually pretty close. Now that’s what you’ve seen over the last 18 months, that we’re now really debating months, maybe years, but really just months. Mr. McCain is basically saying he’ll start some kind of a drawdown in 2011, 2012. Mr. Obama is saying it’d be more like 2009, 2010. And what Maliki seems to be saying is 2010, 2011 — somewhere in the middle.

For one thing, it's just flat-out wrong to say that Maliki is talking about a drawdown starting in 2010 or 2011 -- he said he wanted a timeline whose endpoint is somewhere in 2010. But more to the point, Pollack's counting the wrong thing. Sure, if you go from when different people say they want to start reducing troop levels there's not so much disagreement. But the most important part about these timetables is when they end. Obama's timetable ends in 2010. Maliki's timetable ends in 2010. McCain's timetable, by contrast, ends . . . never.

Comments

Although I think this is implied in what you posted, it is also flat out wrong to say Obama's withdrawal timetable would start in 2009 or 2010. He has proposed starting withdrawal soon after taking office, so early 2009.

But here is the thing: this is Pollack waving the white flag on this issue. And so the best case scenario for McCain given Pollack's approach is that this issue becomes a nullity. And that leaves McCain with what to win the election on? The economy? Good luck.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 10:47 AM

Remind me once again why anyone listens to anything this guy has to say about Iraq?

Posted by Glenn | July 25, 2008 10:50 AM

Remind me once again why anyone listens to anything this guy has to say about Iraq?

Posted by Glenn | July 25, 2008 10:52 AM

Remind me once again why anyone listens to anything this guy has to say about Iraq?

Posted by Glenn | July 25, 2008 10:54 AM

Can I just say that The Atlantic is really losing a treasure by your leaving, Matt? I really look forward to your future work. Sorry to go all fangirl like this . . ..

Posted by Mad As Hell | July 25, 2008 10:58 AM

Which reminds me: Hillary Clinton's timetable for withdrawal also began in 2009, and would have ended when she left office - presumably by the end of 2016. (That's all that "If Bush won't end the war, I will" promised.) If she ever promised to have all (or close to all) of our troops out at an earlier point than that, I missed it.

Iraq was what gave Obama his opening to seriously contend for the nomination, and it wasn't just the vote on whether to invade in the first place. That Hillary was in no hurry to get out was, for me, the key disqualifier that tipped the balance between two very talented politicians with mostly very similar views.

While there's no such closeness between Obama and McCain on the issues, so there's quite a few sizable disqualifiers of McCain rather than just one big one, his willingness to keep a substantial troop presence in Iraq indefinitely is one of them.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 25, 2008 11:49 AM

Even if you grant Pollack's his incorrect dates, isn't it better to withdraw your troops from a sovereign nation one year before they want you to rather than one year after?

Posted by ibid | July 25, 2008 11:52 AM

"Remind me once again why anyone listens to anything this guy has to say about Iraq?

Posted by Glenn | July 25, 2008 10:52 AM"

Remind me again why anyone listens to anything Pollack says about anything?

Posted by Reality Man | July 25, 2008 12:28 PM

It is pretty easy to understand why news people listen to Pollack. He was wrong when they were wrong; he puts a moral gloss on what is, to the objective view, actions that are nakedly self interested; he has paid his dues by mouthing the conventional wisdom on the way up to sinecures in think tanks that make themselves available for comment to national journalists who are required to write stories in which at least one paragraph concerns what "some experts say"; he never pollutes his views with appraisals of public opinion elsewhere that would be shocking to the D.C. mindset, nor will he admit to the existence of any national interest that isn't subsumed by the interest of a small group of inside dealers within the defense-industry-petro-industry complex. Plus, of course, he is "liberal" - as that word is defined by the press. A liberal is defined by organizational association, rather than by some personal overview. It is a job description. If he advocated interning opponents of the Iraq war in concentration camps tomorrow, he'd still be liberal - so that the news meme could be, even liberals see the promise in interning opponents of the Iraq war in concentration camps. This would add to his credit in the press, because he would not only be a pro-war liberal, but a contrarian too. The press loves contrarians. And for good reason. It isn't the best paying job, journalism. And when it becomes a remunerative function, the sacrifice one has to make is of the motive that usually led one to become a journalist in the first place - you have to put on a certain inner servility and make sure to toe the company line. Absorbing this is difficult, so, if the company line can be made to seem like an act of rebellion rather than an act of sycophancy to the reigning oligarchs, it relieves a psychological stress. This is what the contrarian does. By the magic of his contrarianism, always contrasted with some overwhelmingly politically correct view (which, magically enough, is actually a minority view that is unable in any way to set policy), the contrarian makes adopting a view that rewards the wealthy and supports a knee jerk militarism seem like a wild rock n roll thing to do, risking the wrath of the ever so powerful commissars of political correctness. One becomes practically a heroic dissident. And thus, dissidence is so hollowed out that it becomes the comformist's path to career advancement.

The end result of this system is the elevation of the Pollack personality type. He is, in a word, perfect.

Posted by roger | July 25, 2008 12:58 PM

roger,

brilliant!
and right on target.
it is truly frightening that someone like pollack gets so much airtime and has so much credibility.

Posted by frankie d | July 25, 2008 1:19 PM

Mr Pollack and objectivity are two opposing values.

This the guy who massively advocated Iraq war. 'nuff said.

Posted by Hameed | July 25, 2008 5:16 PM

Let's put it MY way!

If I was running my old game today, Pollack would return home from his interview to find a bullet in his head.

This is what needs to happen to people like him and the journalists who pay attention to people like him. After a few of them get bullets in the head - and the reasons why become generally known - the professions involved might be considered a little shakier career paths to that expensive condo.

And that would be a Good Thing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 25, 2008 11:38 PM