Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Logical Fallacy of the Surge

There's an outrageous logical fallacy being blindly perpetuated by the American press that I just have to comment on. The situation in Iraq has improved, meaning that the average number of people dying from violence every day is down about 30%. (If you can call that improvement). The press has said to itself that since the reduction in violence occurred about the same time as the surge, the surge must be responsible for the reduction.

There is absolutely NO proof of this. It's the equivalent of saying I danced for rain on Thursday and it rained, therefore my dance worked. We have no way of knowing what things would be like without the surge. But there is ample evidence that things like the Awakening of the Sunnis, the hollowing out and walling of Baghdad, the ethnic cleansing that already occurred having run its course, and the containment of Al Sadr may well have had the same effects without the Surge. In fact, perhaps if we had withdrawn in 2006, things would be even more stable then they are now, no more targeting of Americans, Iraqis forced to cooperate, etc. It is quite clear that we will never know because historical conditionals are impossible to prove. No one will ever know if the Axis would still have lost without Pearl Harbor.

So please, members of the press, show that you have at least a basic grasp of logic. Replace the phrase "the reduction of violence due to the Surge" with "the reduction of violence which coincided with the Surge."