The Iraq War Poll

[grumbler]

Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures). 

At least, the Cuban government wants you to believe it does.  That's not a group famous for honesty and openness.

Next you'll tell us the Soviets weren't always honest about their statistics

I'm not gonna be the one to burst that bubble, but no.

[Berkut]

It is because they promote values that I think one can make a pretty good argument for that are objectively good. Things like life expectancy, literacy, health, infant mortality, etc., etc. Those are not subjective, unless you want to re-define the definition of "good".

You can argue that those are subjective measures I suppose, but at that point we have no common grounds for discussion. If your argument is that the things that actually define life are not important to life, then that is just solipsism.

Which nicely illustrates my point - you would rather argue something you don't even agree with (that those things are not good measures) if that is what is necessary to hang onto your ideological perspective.

It is not subjective to say the democracy is better than not democracy based on defined criteria.

Like I've already said, you can attack my position (and I am sure some people would, like religious extremists) on the basis that those criteria are incomplete, ie that the will of god is more important than women's right to an education, hence literacy is not a good measure of overall quality of life, as an example. But that still does not make the obeservation based on the criteria specified subjective. You can measure literacy. You can measure life expectancy.

Do you know what "Objective" actually means?  You can measure life expectancy, true.  But you can't measure "good".

Of course you can, as long as you agree on what is good. For example, if we agree that literacy is good, then we can measure literacy rates and decided that Country A is objectively more good than Country B because it has higher literacy. You can argue that the criteria are wrong (and if so, make that argument), but you cannot claim that the conclusion is not objective because you *might* not agree with the criteria.

  "4 is less then 5" is Objective.  "The man is wearing a hat," is Objective.  "Tod is dead", is Objective.  "4 is better then 5", is Subjective.  "the man is wearing a nice hat", is Subjective.  "Tod is better off dead", is Subjective.

I'm harping on this because it's an annoying trait you have.  You confuse your opinion with something that is objectively true, and consider people who disagree with you irrational tribalists.

No, you are harping on this because you cannot successfully attack my position, so go after silly crap like this instead.

Why I respond, I don't know. Luckily, that at least is easily remedied.

[Razgovory]

No, if I want to attack your position that Iraq is not a functional democracy I can.  It's quite easy, and I've already done it.  Private armies that intimidate voters nullify any claims to a democracy there is.

I'm attacking your inability to know what the word "Objective" means.  For instance, Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate then the US.  Does that mean that Poland is more "good" then the US?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate  If a totalitarian dictatorship had higher rates of literacy, life expectancy, etc would that make it a better system?  In a less theoretical example some of the Scandi-Socialist countries beat the US in many of the criteria you suggest.  Does this mean you think that Scandi-Socilism is better then the American system?  Are they more "good".

[DGuller]

I'm really weary of using statistics to compare entities that are not entirely quantifiable.  If you can quantify only some of the variables, and not others, what winds up happening is that you start optimizing the quanfiables at the expense of important, but unquantifiable things. 

[Ed Anger]

I'm really weary of using statistics to compare entities that are not entirely quantifiable.  If you can quantify only some of the variables, and not others, what winds up happening is that you start optimizing the quanfiables at the expense of important, but unquantifiable things.

I agree with 56% of your post.

[Sheilbh]

On Iraq I think this post by Tom Ricks contains a lot of my worries incidentally the links are worth reading too - I'm jealous of the students of Lady Emma Sky at Oxford :
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/24/the_great_gamble_of_iraq_2012_what_to_read_about_post_surge_iraq_and_a_new_book_of_

I think the observations Ambassador Ryan Crocker strike me as particularly true: 'That the events for which the war will be remembered have not yet happened and that he kind of expected Iraq to wind up looking like Lebanon.'

As to the rest Guller has a point that especially Communist regimes tend to have a pretty good record on things like literacy and life expectancy, comparable with their economic situation they often over perform.

How you define democracy matters when debating its impact in a society.  Democracy, in my view, should mean more than just reasonably free and fair elections - it should include the rule of law, civil society, reasonable separation of powers and the freedoms that underpin all of that.  Different societies will interpret that in different ways.  On the other hand you can have 'democracies' that have relatively regular reasonably free and fair elections but lack everything else.  Lebanon is a democracy.  For much of her history Pakistan has been a democracy.  Simply having elections is not sufficient to deliver the benefits of democracy though it may make a state democratic.

[Berkut]

I'm attacking your inability to know what the word "Objective" means.  For instance, Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate then the US.  Does that mean that Poland is more "good" then the US?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate  If a totalitarian dictatorship had higher rates of literacy, life expectancy, etc would that make it a better system?  In a less theoretical example some of the Scandi-Socialist countries beat the US in many of the criteria you suggest.  Does this mean you think that Scandi-Socilism is better then the American system?  Are they more "good".

If Poland has a slightly higher literacy rte than the US, then Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate than the US, and if one is using literacy as a criteria for overall quality of life, then obviously that is good for Poland. Of course, as is blindingly obvious to anyone without an axe to grind, I mentioned many criteria, and literacy was just one of them. Clearly there are others.

What is your point? Poland have a higher literacy rate than the US does not prove that literacy is a poor measure, nor does it prove that using literacy as a measure is innately subjective.

[Berkut]

On Iraq I think this post by Tom Ricks contains a lot of my worries incidentally the links are worth reading too - I'm jealous of the students of Lady Emma Sky at Oxford :
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/24/the_great_gamble_of_iraq_2012_what_to_read_about_post_surge_iraq_and_a_new_book_of_

I think the observations Ambassador Ryan Crocker strike me as particularly true: 'That the events for which the war will be remembered have not yet happened and that he kind of expected Iraq to wind up looking like Lebanon.'

I don't think there is any doubt that the future of Iraq is still very troublesome. Still, it seems like at any point since the second war, there was always well reasoned, well thought out, and considered articles about how terrible it was going to be, how hopeless the situation, and how imminent the downfall of whatever transitory and ultimately illusory gams that have been made would be.

But at this point, I think Iraq has to pretty much succeed or fail on their own. I don't know that the US can do much to influence it beyond what has already been done, and it is likely that all we are doing is staving off whatever ultimate resolution is going to happen.

But I don't accept that basic premise that if Iraq does fall apart, or becomes dominated by Iran, then that means that the US invasion failed. The point of the invasion was not to create some guaranteed great outcome, it was to remove Saddam and the threat he created, to destroy a totalitarian regime when we had the opportunity to do so, and to hopefully give a large and potentially wealthy middle eastern country at least the chance to make themselves some kind of example of what could be.

If it doesn't work out that Iraq can in fact function as a stable democracy, does that mean that the effort was a mistake? Must all outcomes be guaranteed before an effort is justified?

The US invasion, as costly as it was for the US and for Iraq, has given Iraq a chance that they certainly did not have under Saddam. In hindsight the cost was probably too high for the chance given, but like grumbler pointed out, its not like there was some better opportunity missed.

As to the rest Guller has a point that especially Communist regimes tend to have a pretty good record on things like literacy and life expectancy, comparable with their economic situation they often over perform.

I don't think I am inclined to give them a pass on their "economic situation". It is a situation created as a direct result of them being Communist regimes. And unfortunately, in regimes without a free press, how do you trust any of the statistics in any case?

How you define democracy matters when debating its impact in a society.  Democracy, in my view, should mean more than just reasonably free and fair elections - it should include the rule of law, civil society, reasonable separation of powers and the freedoms that underpin all of that. 

Those are all certainly desireable things, but it is hard to decide where the absence of them means there is an absence of democracies, or the benefits democracy entails. I think there is obviously a spectrum, and most of the benefits will be realized along that spectrum.

IN other words, a lot of democracy is great, but even a little is better than none.

Different societies will interpret that in different ways.  On the other hand you can have 'democracies' that have relatively regular reasonably free and fair elections but lack everything else.  Lebanon is a democracy.  For much of her history Pakistan has been a democracy.  Simply having elections is not sufficient to deliver the benefits of democracy though it may make a state democratic.

True.

[Razgovory]

If Poland has a slightly higher literacy rte than the US, then Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate than the US,

This is exactly my point.  That's all that it means.  It does not mean Poland is better or worse then the US.  You and I give these statistics meaning.  When we do that, it's subjective.  Do you see now?  Country A has a higher literacy rate then country B.  Objective truth.  Country A is better then country B because country A has a higher literacy rate.  Subjective.

Lets use a more immediate example.  Two politicians are running for the same office.  Say President of the United States.  We like for our Journalists to at least try to be objective.  If a journalist favors one politician over the other because that politician espouses views more in line with that journalists values can he say "This politician is better then the other one"? Would that be objective journalism?  No.  Of course not.

[DGuller]

As to the rest Guller has a point that especially Communist regimes tend to have a pretty good record on things like literacy and life expectancy, comparable with their economic situation they often over perform.

I don't think I am inclined to give them a pass on their "economic situation". It is a situation created as a direct result of them being Communist regimes. And unfortunately, in regimes without a free press, how do you trust any of the statistics in any case?

I think we can trust the literacy figures.  In Soviet Union, at least, there is no way anyone could avoid completing the school, whether you lived in a city or a remote village.  It was also a nation that was really well-read.  Of course, all book reading in the world can't teach you to think critically, but that's not a literacy issue.  Child mortality rates, of course, are a much more fakeable number, you can affect it just by changing the definition of live birth and such.

[Berkut]

As to the rest Guller has a point that especially Communist regimes tend to have a pretty good record on things like literacy and life expectancy, comparable with their economic situation they often over perform.

I don't think I am inclined to give them a pass on their "economic situation". It is a situation created as a direct result of them being Communist regimes. And unfortunately, in regimes without a free press, how do you trust any of the statistics in any case?

I think we can trust the literacy figures.  In Soviet Union, at least, there is no way anyone could avoid completing the school, whether you lived in a city or a remote village.  It was also a nation that was really well-read.  Of course, all book reading in the world can't teach you to think critically, but that's not a literacy issue.  Child mortality rates, of course, are a much more fakeable number, you can affect it just by changing the definition of live birth and such.

Well, I think there is pretty good anecdotal evidence that the USSR for example had pretty good literacy, at least in the urban areas.

But all these "quality of life" statistics are pretty easy to fudge if you have a state controlled press. And my basic view is that government stats are largely self-serving to the extent that the government can get away with it, no matter what the ideological bent.

When it comes to Communism, you have an ideology where there isn't even any reason to be truthful about such things - there is no value associated with that kind of data except insofar as it serves the purposes of the State. So there is really no reason at all to trust the data. They lied to themselves constantly, why would anyone assume that they would be honest to outsiders?

[grumbler]

They lied to themselves constantly, why would anyone assume that they would be honest to outsiders?

I'd go further and point out that the figures we are talking about are not numbers made up for "outsiders," but rather the numbers the government is reporting to its own people.  There is no incentive for the government to tell the absolute truth, but plenty of incentive to make the numbers at least plausible.

I'd argue that literacy, per se, isn't all that useful a measure.  The US effective literacy rate isn't nearly as high as the nominal literacy rate, and I suspect that this is true elsewhere.  People who are "literate" by virtue of being able to read, but still cannot read a newspaper or an adult book, are not really literate for the purposes of measuring quality of life.  You'd probably need some kind of standardized test to determine "real" literacy. 

[Berkut]

They lied to themselves constantly, why would anyone assume that they would be honest to outsiders?

I'd go further and point out that the figures we are talking about are not numbers made up for "outsiders," but rather the numbers the government is reporting to its own people.  There is no incentive for the government to tell the absolute truth, but plenty of incentive to make the numbers at least plausible.

I'd argue that literacy, per se, isn't all that useful a measure.  The US effective literacy rate isn't nearly as high as the nominal literacy rate, and I suspect that this is true elsewhere.  People who are "literate" by virtue of being able to read, but still cannot read a newspaper or an adult book, are not really literate for the purposes of measuring quality of life.  You'd probably need some kind of standardized test to determine "real" literacy. 

No real argument, but when comparing QoL stats, literacy is a decent gross measure for general education level when making comparisons between nations. It probably fails when you want to compare two pretty similar countries, like the US and Poland, but works ok as a measure when comparing dis-similar countries, to highlight the lack of educational opportunity.

As one of many such QoL variables, it is fine.

[grumbler]

No real argument, but when comparing QoL stats, literacy is a decent gross measure for general education level when making comparisons between nations. It probably fails when you want to compare two pretty similar countries, like the US and Poland, but works ok as a measure when comparing dis-similar countries, to highlight the lack of educational opportunity.

I agree that big differences say something, while similarities don't.

[Sheilbh]

But I don't accept that basic premise that if Iraq does fall apart, or becomes dominated by Iran, then that means that the US invasion failed. The point of the invasion was not to create some guaranteed great outcome, it was to remove Saddam and the threat he created, to destroy a totalitarian regime when we had the opportunity to do so, and to hopefully give a large and potentially wealthy middle eastern country at least the chance to make themselves some kind of example of what could be.

Okay.  From an American perspective I don't think the Iraq war has advanced your national interests in the Middle East at all, it could possibly have hurt them.  It distracted from Afghanistan for a number of years which is something that we're now trying to rectify.  Fiscally I think it was a disaster for your budget over the last decade.

From an Iraqi perspective at least a hundred thousand civilians have died.  Many cities have been effectively ethnically cleansed into discrete sectarian quarters.  Your country went to the brink of a civil war.  Now, after 8 years, and a successful surge that hugely increased security you're still more dangerous, for civilians, than Pakistan.  That doesn't even touch on the problems with the government - it and Hezbullah are the only Arab forces supporting Assad and so on.

I can't see from what angle it can be considered not to have failed.  Unless from an American perspective US foreign policy is to give people chances; or from an Iraqi perspective to invade, fail for a number of years then pull back from civil war to only being a 'potentially failing state'.  Who hasn't been failed by this?

If it doesn't work out that Iraq can in fact function as a stable democracy, does that mean that the effort was a mistake? Must all outcomes be guaranteed before an effort is justified?

The US invasion, as costly as it was for the US and for Iraq, has given Iraq a chance that they certainly did not have under Saddam. In hindsight the cost was probably too high for the chance given, but like grumbler pointed out, its not like there was some better opportunity missed.

I think there was a missed opportunity and I don't think outcomes need to be guaranteed before an effort is justified but I think you've got to be committed to putting the effort in.

If the way the war's gone was inevitable and Iraq was iredeemably broken then I think that the war was not just wrong on a realist level but offensive on a moral one.  But I don't believe that.  I think Iraq could have been rebuilt successfully after the war but we, in the coalition nations, abdicated responsibility.  We never secured the country, we never established a coherent and inclusive process to rebuild Iraq.  When I hear politicians - like Blair - talking about how they didn't expect the Iranians or al-Qaeda to get involved, or for there to be sectarian or ethnic conflict I feel let down.  It's the same as the politician's apology that 'mistakes were made' without actually admitting error, or fault.  As you point out the articles were there.  I think they were ignored or dismissed as old Arab hands in the Foreign Office.

In the UK I think we'll get an answer to our political mistakes in joining the war (though it was, from our perspective, the right thing to do and any government would do the same - we need to stick by you).  I think the various inquiries have published important work and I think Chilcott will do the same.  On the other hand we lost Basra.  It was a military as well as a political failure and I don't think many people really want to admit that because everyone likes the military and it'd be a brave politician who would think that they'd be more trusted than someone in uniform.  Despite that there's a General now plugging a book on how we lost Basra because I don't think that's been widely admitted.  I hope it has in the military so we don't do it again.  I'm not terribly confident though.

In the US I don't think you'll get political answers because I think in your system right now it would automatically seem partisan, which is a shame because I'd love to see Rumsfeld being taken through his decision making process by a Commission.  And I think it would be important because I think his decisions more than anything else 'lost' Iraq.  On the other hand I think the US military seems to have entirely assimilated a lot of lessons from Iraq about how they operated.

If we could put them together it'd be useful.  But I suppose I think that if there wasn't an opportunity the war was doubly wrong, if there was then we'd do well to think about why we lost it.

I don't think I am inclined to give them a pass on their "economic situation". It is a situation created as a direct result of them being Communist regimes. And unfortunately, in regimes without a free press, how do you trust any of the statistics in any case?

I mean their other indicators are good considering how fucked their economies normally were.  I take your point on not trusting statistics, but the USSR did report dips in infant mortality rates and life expectancy so it wasn't all tractor production.  And as far as we can tell in terms of things like healthcare and, especially, education the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe and modern Vietnam and China have generally done pretty well.  Central Asian states, for example, still have unusually high female literacy rates for Islamic countries that economically undeveloped.  There are more primary school kids learning English in China than in India.  I don't necessarily think central planning hurts when devising minimum healthcare or education schemes (being batshit crazy does - Mao and Pol Pot).