Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

McCain Checks into Cloud Cuckooland
116 Iraqis Killed in Day of Carnage


Senator John McCain has contracted Rumsfeld's Disease. This malady consists of a combination of bad temper, misuse of language to obfuscate reality, and a Panglossian optimism in the face of stubborn, sanguinary facts on the ground.

McCain, for instance, hailed that deployment of Iraqi brigades "at or above 75% of their programmed strength"! Put another way, a quarter of the Iraqi troops ordered to Baghdad technically speaking went AWOL instead! If a quarter of all US troops ordered to Iraq fled to Canada or refused to leave their home base, that would be a catastrophe. But McCain manages to deploy weasel words to make this incredible statistic seem a positive thing. Moreover, even his basic facts may be wrong. Last I knew, one of the Iraqi brigades ordered to Baghdad only came at half strength.

McCain alleged that only about 500 civilians were killed in political violence in Baghdad in February, down from December's toll.

But McCain is wrong to look only at Baghdad. Here is what I wrote on March 1:


An Iraqi official leaked government figures on Iraqi civilians killed in January and February, and tried to spin the US press by saying that there had been a significant drop in such casualties.

But this official reported deaths for 1-31 January and compared them for the toll 1-27 February. Uh, the per day total isn't that different, it is just that February is a short month and the figures were given through the day before it ended!

1990 divided by 31 is 64 per day.

1646 divided by 27 is 61 per day.

While human life is precious and a drop of 3 a day is welcome, I wouldn't call that drop significant.


That is, the Iraqi government statistics for deaths in February were not 500 but 1646. And, as I pointed out, the decline in daily deaths is so far small. In addition, it would not actually be good news that 500 innocent civilians were slaughtered in Baghdad alone in February. Baghdad is a fourth of Iraq by population-- that would be a monthly death rate of about 2000, some 24,000 a year (the Lancet study published last fall found that deaths from violence occur at a similar rate throughout the country). All the real numbers are much worse than the above discussion implies, since passive information- gathering is notoriously unreliable.

McCain ignores the incredible violence against Shiite pilgrims during Ashura, in which hundreds were massacred, mostly outside Baghdad. That is, concentrating on Baghdad is a fallacy. The indications are that the guerrillas are compensating for the higher cost of their operations in Baghdad by shifting some their activities to other cities, such as Baquba and Tal Afar. But they have by no means given up the fight in Baghdad itself, as anyone who followed violence there could tell you.

Then there is this sad exchange on CNN between Wolf Blitzer and McCain:

[Blitzer Clip]: Everything we hear if you leave the so-called Green Zone, the international zone, and you go outside of that secure area, relatively speaking, you’re in trouble if you’re an American.

[McCAIN CLIP]: That’s where you ought to catch up on things, Wolf. General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media. But I know for a fact that much of the success we’re experiencing, including the ability of Americans in many parts. Not all, we have a long, long way to go. We’ve only got two of the five brigades here to go into some neighborhoods in Baghdad in a secure fashion.


So then Wolf Blitzer asked Michael Ware, the intrepid CNN correspondent who is actually in Baghdad, about this comment. Ware replied:

WARE: Well, I’d certainly like to bring Sen. McCain up to speed if he ever gives me the opportunity. And if I have any difficulty hearing you right now Wolf, that’s because of the helicopters circling overhead and the gun battle that is blazing away just a few blocks down the road. Is Baghdad any safer? Sectarian violence, one particular type of violence, is down. But none of the American generals here on the ground have anything like Sen. McCain’s confidence. I mean, Sen. McCain’s credibility now on Iraq, which has been so solid to this point, is now being left out hanging to dry. To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.

And to think that Gen. David Petraeus travels this city in an unarmed humvee? I mean, in the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a humvee. There’s multiple humvees around it, heavily armed. There’s attack helicopters, predator drones, sniper teams, all sorts of layers of protection. So, no, Sen. McCain is way off base on this one.


Remember when, in summer of 2003, Donald Rumsfeld asserted that there was no guerrilla war in Iraq? Remember when he implied that the violence there was no worse than a little race riot in Benton Harbor, Michigan? McCain increasingly sounds like that.

McCain has fallen ill with Rumsfeld's Disease in part because he is losing in the polls because the public doesn't like his gung ho stance on Iraq. If only, he thinks, he could convince the public that actually things are turning around there.

And in part he has succumbed to it because of frustration with his colleagues in the Senate, who just voted to get US troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. McCain thinks things have improved so much that his colleagues are basing their decisions on old information.

The greatest fallacy of all is in McCain's assumption that short-term changes in the Baghdad security environment, produced by deploying an extra US division there, can necessarily be translated into long-term gains. It is much more likely that guerrillas are just lying low and will come right back out when the Americans draw back down (the US can't keep an extra division in Iraq forever.)

McCain is typical of the hawks of his generation, which lost the Vietnam War. For many of them, a war on Iraq promised vindication and restoration of pride. It had all the delights of a Rambo movie, but the advantage of being real. The problem is that in both cases, Vietnam and Iraq, the US fought local nationalisms dressed up in universal ideologies (Communism, Islamism & Baathism). It is a losing proposition, for the most part. Local nationalisms mostly win out these days.

On Tuesday, AP reports that two massive truck bombings ripped through a market in the northern Turkmen city of Tal Afar, killing 63 persons and wounding dozens.

Al-Hayat, writing in Arabic, estimated the death toll from political violence in Iraq on Tuesday at 116. Truck bombers killed 17 and wound 32 in the Sunni Arab city of Ramadi north of Baghdad.

Reuters rounds up political violence in Iraq for Tuesday.

Labels:

13 Comments:

At 7:09 AM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

For all the bad news in Iraq, it is an amazing testimony to the Iraqi people that Iraq is not one of the puppet dictatorships that the US is trying to promote in the current Arab summit.

That accomplishment is the result of both Sunni and Shiite actions, even if those groups largely have not been acting together.

Now, of the two Arab groups that have actually won competitive elections in the Middle East - Hamas and Maliki's coalition - both are being downplayed by the US. Neither is to have a major role in presenting an "Arab" peace plan to Israel.

Who would have thought in 2003 that a list of dependable US allies made in 2007 (just four years later) would not include Iraq?

 
At 10:42 AM, Blogger Swan said...

Re: the Iraq war in general

(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

 
At 11:25 AM, Blogger Robert Naiman said...

Here's another way of looking at these numbers. If we take them at face value, then 87 Iraqis were alive on February 27 who would not been alive, had the January death rate remained constant.

Given the human, political, and financial costs involved in the surge, if saving Iraqi civilian lives were the goal, could we not have saved these 87 lives more efficiently through aggressive diplomacy?

Or, put another way: if we put the same resources into aggressive diplomacy, could we not have saved more than 87 Iraqi civilians?

 
At 11:38 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Some months ago, a Republican insider stated that party leaders would never allow McCain to be nominated because he was not stable, but had become a loose cannon who would explode once under the constant pressure of a national campaign. It has happened already, as McCain has gone from a to a rising stock to a laughing stock in time-warp speed.

 
At 12:36 PM, Blogger Dancewater said...

I did a roundup of security incidents yesterday (March 27, 2007) on my blog:

http://newsaboutiraq.blogspot.com

Used a bit of your blog in that post too.

 
At 1:22 PM, Blogger karlof1 said...

The McCain story seems directly from the panels of Doonesbury. It's been my belief that his mental faculties were fundamentally impaired by his wartime internment. Both him and Kyl are unworthy of the Senate; but then, so are many others.

 
At 2:18 PM, Blogger Alamaine said...

McCain

Of course, the M(ar)c (of) Cain is blighting the military and the truth about things thereof. How Biblical can we get when John's sacrifice was rejected and those of some Abel-bodied people are accepted, when considering the Presidency.* McCain's offering to the gods of candidate fund-raising were meager compared to that offered by Bush, even being able to provide the milk of a stallion. John went to war and was defeated for the CINC job while George skipped out and skipped into the White House! Making things sound better in Iraq only makes it worse for those in country and in charge of the whole pool of cess, incessantly. This is 'Manchurian Candidate' stuff, seeking the means by which he can rid himself of the scourge of those who perpetrated character assassination on him, only wanting to return the favour. We all recall the 'Mike/Fredo' hug (and kiss?) John put on George, acting so much the brother, the real high flyer getting the dodo in his sights and talons, causing everyone to think, "Is John really his bothersome Republican 'brother's' keeper?"

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain

 
At 2:49 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

I think it would clarify American politics considerably, in particular the current Congressional debate over the Iraq supplemental, if John McCain were to accompany some other war supporters, say George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Robert Gates, and Duncan Hunter, in riding through Baghdad with General Petraeus in his unarmed Humvee.

 
At 4:37 PM, Blogger Brian said...

Prof Cole,

Do you think the blow from which the Muslim community never realy recovered was the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols, as is being discussed here?.

I think this a very interesting point, as Baghdad was the intellectual center of Islam at that time.

 
At 6:51 PM, Blogger Mike Breton said...

Think Progress has a nice piece on McCain's delusions.

A couple of comments -- including one of my own, I confess -- joke about his growing similarity to Grampa Simpson.

Good 'ol Grampa McCain and his kooky war stories. They just keep on getting crazier and crazier.

 
At 10:27 PM, Blogger à la bob said...

What about his comment regarding the impending arrival of terrorists in America?

I want to feel good about the guy, but jeez....

 
At 11:31 PM, Blogger Jaraparilla said...

Bush cites a WSJ po-ed by the bogus Iraqi bloggers at ITM as proof that his surge is working.

If that's not a crystal clear example of where we are at right now I don't know what is.

 
At 1:04 PM, Blogger LiberalGrace said...

And this too..

"McCain, appearing on NBC’s Today show yesterday from Orlando, Florida, said the war “was badly mismanaged. But there are signs of progress everywhere. I am confident that given the opportunity, we can have success."

"Signs of progress everywhere"?!?!?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home