Liberals (and other Iraq skeptics) unite: take the Krauthammer Challenge!

[RTFirefly]

In Friday's column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8235-2003Jul17.html), Charles Krauthammer (who's a columnist I actually have a fair amount of respect for, most days) posted the following blooper in defense of the Bush administration: Apart from everything else, war is a highly dangerous political enterprise. No one had any idea that Baghdad would fall in three weeks and with so few casualties. Just as no one had any idea how costly and bloody the post-victory occupation would be. Yeah, I had the same reaction you surely did. Pretty much everyone expected a short war to depose Saddam, whether they were for or against it. And everyone with half a brain expected that the real difficulties would begin once we'd 'won'. The only uncertainty was what form those difficulties would take.

What I'd like to do is find out how many of us here called it in advance: that is, (a) before the shooting started on March 19, you predicted that it wouldn't take long to end Saddam's rule in Iraq, and (b) before the statues toppled on April 9, you predicted that the aftermath was going to be dangerous.

My thought is to send a letter to the editor saying just how many people on my favorite message board (whose name I won't mention; the hamsters are tired enough already) successfully made the impossible prognostication.

Anyhow, I'll start with me: in this 3/12/03 post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3120409#post3120409), I predicted a short war and a long, large occupation: And this won't just be a two-week war, then outta there: we'll have to leave behind a pretty substantial occupation force, and that will limit what we can do in the rest of the world while the occupation continues. Similarly in this 3/13 post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3126542#post3126542): But if we're calling up the reserves and the National Guard in droves for this war, as well as conscripting our former volunteers, and we have to leave a big force behind in Iraq after the battlefield win, doesn't that pretty obviously constrain what sort of war we can fight in some other place later this year?And in this 3/30 post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3211300#post3211300), I discussed worst-case situations for Iraq after the war: Many things can happen once we let Iraq be Iraq, including a new boss bad as the old boss, or civil war and anarchy that would be even worse. (Yes, Virginia, there are worse things in the world than Saddam Hussein's rule.) On the whole, bad things are more likely than good ones, since Iraq has no recent tradition of self-rule other than the sort they've got now. I predicted a 2-week war rather than a 3-week war, the need for a large occupation force, and a messy aftermath. Maybe not the exact messy aftermath we've got, but messy enough.

So, who else got this right? I know there have to be a bunch of you out there; the only challenge is wading through the old posts to find an example of when you said what.



Note to mods: I wasn't really sure where to put this. It's not a debate, it's not a flame, and it's not a poll (despite superficial resemblances), since I'm not polling people on what they thought before the war; I'm asking them to corroborate a particular stance that they might have taken then. Since the people who'd need to see this would be the participants in the political-debate fora, I'd hope that if you move it anywhere, it would be to the Pit.

[Eolbo]

I predicted the war would last 10 days so the Iraqis held out longer then I envisaged. I also thought the post-war problems would be greater then they are, but they are bad enough that my position is essentially unchanged.

[samclem]

In Friday's column, Charles Krauthammer (who's a columnist I actually have a fair amount of respect for, most days)

You lost me there, RTF. I respect you. NOT Krauthammer.

You'll have to offer some additonal proof that he's worth supporting.

From every column I read, he's a true believer. A conservative who believes that conservatives can do no wrong. If you're a liberal, you're shit in his eyes. If you're a conservative, you're God.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
Pretty much everyone expected a short war to depose Saddam, whether they were for or against it.

Except, of course, all those hysterics like (at the time) presidential hopeful Gary Hart, who were running around screaming about how we were going to lose "50,000-100,000 Americans"* (http://www.international.ucla.edu/bcir/article.asp?parentid=2229)

And IIRC, (sorry, no cite**) Pat Buchanan was another vocal hysteric who was predicting dire consequences and horrible quagmire doom if we entered Iraq.

And they were far from the only ones. I agree there were many thoughtful people on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the issue of the war who thought this would be a fairly quick fight. But I strongly disagree that "everyone" expected a short war. My feeling is maybe a 2/3ds of the anti-war types did and maybe 3/4ths or 4/5ths of the pro-war types thought it would be short.

Fenris

*And that's one of his lower predictions. I heard him say "a million or more Americans" (sometimes phrased as "allies") on radio and tv inteviews before and during the war and he repeated them on his website on several occasions. He seems to have revised his site to hide the fact that he was...well...an idiot.

**I had the Gary Hart one handy from a previous debate, that's why.

[december]

U.N. Sees 500,000 Iraqi Casualties at Start of War (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0107-09.htm)

A war on Iraq could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond (http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/worldnews/europe/medact121102.htm)

Former chief of defence staff Field Marshall Lord Bramall told the BBC there was a risk Britain could be dragged into a long Middle East war. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2172164.stm)

March 11, 2003 14:05 IST...The International Monetary Fund sees a long war in Iraq cutting global economic growth by up to two percentage points (http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/mar/11imf.htm)

As recently as March 11, 2003, the IMF was predicting a long war that would substantially weaken the global economy.

[RickJay]

Holy Christ, december, can you even READ? The article quotes the IMF as saying that a long war WOULD cause a global economic slowdown. It doesn't say they predicted the war would be long!

I mean, surely you agree it would be economically bad IF the war dragged on. It didn't - but your link doesn't suggest the IMF said it would. What the hell?

[tomndebb]

There is no indication, yet, that Lord Bramall was in error. He may turn out to have been in error. However, he simply identified a "long war" and the way that the current gerilla activity continues to ramp up, it may, indeed, be a long war. We have now lost more troops since the "victory" than we lost securing it. I do not know how long the war will last, but Lord Bramall has not yet been proven wrong.

The IMF report does not say anything close to the headline. (The second paragraph is more accurate, using the word "if.") The actual IMF report, World Economic Outlook Growth and Institutions April 2003 (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2003/01/) makes no prediction for the length of the war. In the summary, they note that IF a protracted war occurs, there will be repercussions, but the prediction of a long war is simply a headline writer's illusion.

So half of december's citations are bogus.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I predicted a short war. We had all the airplanes and the tanks and the missiles. It was impossible not to win quickly. Winning or losing wasn't the point. It doesn't make you right just because you win.

[Squink]

Are any of these organizations Dopers ? ;)
I expected a couple, 3 more weeks before the fall of Baghad, and a shorter delay before the guerilla campaign got going. Somewhere in GD I predicted a degeneration into a west-bank like situation, which is not far off.

[Sam Stone]

This is what I said before the war started:


What will Iraq look like a year after the war?
I believe it will be free, and relatively peaceful. While I expect the occasional acts of violence and maybe terror, I believe there will be real progress towards a stable, prosperous country.

How long will the U.S. military occupation last?
A full Japanese-style controlling occupation will last for a year or maybe two. Maybe much less, but not more.

There will still be an American military presence there in ten years, much like there is still an American military presence in Japan, Germany, and South Korea today.

What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?
A rise in short-term instability as various terror organizations react.

A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there.


The missing piece of this is the appearance of an organized guerrilla force. It looks to me like Saddam's 'real' war plan is now being shown - he took his closest troops and went to ground. Now he's fighting a well armed guerrilla war. That changes things. I was pretty accurate about how long the war would take, and how many casualties there would be (less than 500 American, somewhere between 5,000 and 50,000 Iraqis).

It's interesting how difficult it is for a democracy to handle a Guerrilla war. It personalizes every casualty. If the war had been won with 1000 American lives lost in battle, it would still have been seen as a rousing success. But if this low-grade conflict kills another 500 Americans, people will be screaming in rage.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by RickJay
Holy Christ, december, can you even READ?


It's one of his little schticks. He turns contingency planning into "predictions" - whether because he actually does not understand the difference or because he can use it (pitibly attempt to) villify opponents I don't know. In december world, if you take out fire insurance and plan for a fire, that means you're predicting there will be a terrible fire.

[iampunha]

I didn't post much of anything regarding this in GD (or anywhere else, for that matter), but I figured that Iraqi resistance to US/Coalition/whatever troops would be scrambled, ineffective and foolish at best, and deliberate suicide for no purpose other than "If we don't do what Saddam says, he'll kill us. If we do what Saddam says, we die. Gunfire will kill us faster than torture."

I also thought (again, I guess in the end you'll just have to trust me on this one) that Saddam, being a slippery guy to apprehend, would probably not be captured, and that if he were he'd probably kill himself before anything could be done to—I mean with—I mean ... er...

I think we've won inasmuch as the actual invading thing has been transacted, so to speak, and it took about as long as I thought it would (less than a month). But I don't think troops, barring some sort of UN requirement or Act of Congress (like if the decision was reached that they shouldn't be there/didn't belong there), are going to be leaving any time soon.

[even sven]

Here are some quotes by me from the handy Middle East Predictions Thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169260). I admit I was wrong about a lot of things (like our moving on to another country immediatly after this war), but I did see the current sitation coming.

But I don't think Iraq will be that easy. People get fierce when faced with occupation by the people they loathe most. I think that we will face guerrilla warfare and it will take well over a year to get things under control.

How many civilian casualties will there be in Iraq?

Surprisingly few at first. But then as guerilla fighting steps up, we'll pretty much abolish the concept af "civilian" and there will be massive casualties.


[Corrected link. -- MEB]

[capacitor]

Before the war, Even Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf, Baghdad Bob, said that while Iraq was spending $20 million a week on inspections, the US government will spen a lot more conducting a war.

He was so right about this.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Fenris
Except, of course, all those hysterics like (at the time) presidential hopeful Gary Hart, who were running around screaming about how we were going to lose "50,000-100,000 Americans"* (http://www.international.ucla.edu/bcir/article.asp?parentid=2229)

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what Gary Hart said, but just for the record, your characterization of what he said is not accurate based on the link you provided. He didn't say we were "going to lose" 50-100,000; it was a worst-case scenario that followed this statement:

If the Iraqi army collapses at the first blow, casualties may be as few as a couple of hundred, maybe 500 at the most.

He most likely was not screaming, either.;)

[Fenris]

Originally posted by blowero
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what Gary Hart said, but just for the record, your characterization of what he said is not accurate based on the link you provided. He didn't say we were "going to lose" 50-100,000; it was a worst-case scenario that followed this statement:


I disagree with your characterization of my characterization not being accurate. ;)

The full quote:
If the Iraqi army collapses at the first blow, casualties may be as few as a couple of hundred, maybe 500 at the most. But if they dig in and defend the major cities, if they fight house to house, if they take off their uniforms and merge with the civilian population, casualties can easily reach 50,000 or even 100,000 Americans and 250,000 or more Iraqis.

First, he's presenting the two scenarios as equal possiblities. He's not saying "It's likely that the Iraqi army will collapse and we'll only lose 500 people, but if the worst happens..." The way he phrases it, it's a 50/50 chance either way.

And secondly, 50,000-100,000 is a remarkably silly worst case scenario (and it was one of his lower numbers.) Not quite up there with "Saddam may have an escaped Kryptonian criminal from the Phantom Zone who will use his heat vision from low earth orbit to devistate our troops", but it's in the same ballpark. IIRC, that would be about 1/3d of all the US soldiers over there. (I may be wrong about the proportion, but it's a number that's so insanely out of whack that it would have been laughable had it not been coming from a presidential hopeful.)

But, as I said, that was one of the more mild of his predictions. When he was toying with the idea of another run at the presidency, he was on the radio/tv in Colorado on a regular basis predicting dire consequences (and using higher numbers).

His usual stchick was to say (parphrased) "IF (emphasis, his) the Iraqui army collapses, it'll be over quickly. IF it does. But given that we could lose over a MILLION (or whatever number he chose) troops if the Iraqi army resists..." and present the two as at least equal possibilities and emphasising our possible destruction.

Fenris

[jjimm]

Originally posted by even sven
Here are some quotes by me from the handy Middle East Predictions Thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169260). I admit I was wrong about a lot of things (like our moving on to another country immediatly after this war), but I did see the current sitation coming. Er...you might want to get a mod to change the link for you.


[Corrected link. -- MEB]

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
What I'd like to do is find out how many of us here called it in advance: that is, (a) before the shooting started on March 19, you predicted that it wouldn't take long to end Saddam's rule in Iraq, and (b) before the statues toppled on April 9, you predicted that the aftermath was going to be dangerous.

My thought is to send a letter to the editor saying just how many people on my favorite message board (whose name I won't mention; the hamsters are tired enough already) successfully made the impossible prognostication.
Just send the editor a copy or link to Sam Stone's excellent Iraq War predictions thread. By and large, the predictions in that thread were amazingly accurate and insightful. Some of them erred on the side of wishful thinking, others erred on the side of disastrous thinking, but the majority were spot on.

[kingpengvin]

Well, I wasn't 100% correct but I have to say I was impress a little by my super ESP the day I posted on this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=168783)

The Items I was right:

In my oppinion The United States will easily over run and take Bhagdad within a few weeks.

Now I'm not a mindles "USA USA" chanter but the facts are that the modern army sitting on Iraq's doorstep is too formitable a force. The Iraqi army is no match despite any doom sayers convoluted tactics.

and

That being said the main defeat will come not from the military actions but dealing with Iraq after. All this talk of regieme change is nice but the reality of what that means is not so easy. The entire structure of the governement will have to be built from scratch. Who will rule? Will there be an ethnic divide (I'm sure the Kurds are not going to simply give up self rule to join in a greater Iraq) Will the leadership be strong and independent or appear to its neighbours as a puppet government? Will this be the call to radicals to rise up against the US as even more terrorists? Then on top of this there are the actual costs both of replacing munitions and rebuilding a country. Last Time I checked Afghanistan isn't quite the thriving bastion of democracy and freedom yet. Still isn't...


Count me as stunned if the US has fully thought this out in Iraq any better than Afghanistan. Sure they can have a friendly Iraq but what will that do to the people of the region.

[El_Kabong]

I don't think I made any specific time predictions prior to the launching of the invasion, but onMarch 27 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3196492#post3196492), I said I expected about two weeks until the major Iraqi cities had been entered and 2-4 weeks additional until Baghdad was secured. So, not entirely wrong, I guess.

I believe I made some general statements concerning a lengthy period of low-level combat post-war, in other threads.

Oh, I would like to make a gratuitious comment: Charles Krauthammer is a braying ass.

[Governor Quinn]

Personally, I thought that the air war would last for several weeks, but that the ground war would be over in a matter of days (basically, I thought that they would fight this war like Desert Storm).

[DrDeth]

I did predict a short and not-very-bloody (well, for the Allies, at least) war, and that the "real problems would come after the invasion". But I must admit I though the "real problems" would be handing over the reins of power to dudes unused to Democracy, not this continued Guerrila war. Oh, well- 2 out of 3 ain't bad. :D

[Menocchio]

Sam Stone summarized the results of the predictions in his thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169260) (it's towards the bottom). He left off vague predictions, and even some were hedged in a manner that the participants maight take issue with his summation.

Still, it seems that both sides only slightly overestimated US casualties and the length of the "proper" war. Others estimated a lengthy and bloody occupation.

FTR, here's my responses to the relevant questions in that thread:
How long will the war last?
2-3 Weeks bombing.
2 Weeks to Take Baghdad and other major objectves (th end of the "war", as far as the media is concerned.
6 Months until teh area is finally pacified to any realistic degree.

How many American casualties will there be in an Iraq war?
Less than 1,000 in the initial campaign. Moire during the occupation.

How many Iraqi combatants will be killed?
10,000

How many civilian casualties will there be in Iraq?
Less than 5,000 due to war damage. 20,000 + due to disease, starvation, etc. due to loss of infrastructure resulting from the war.

Will the Americans be seen as liberators or oppressers by the Iraqi people?
At first, they will be grateful for teh ousting of Saddam. But they'll begin to resent us soon enough.

What will Iraq look like a year after the war?
A low key and largely secret civil war. The Shia and the Kurds will both rise up. Baathist hardliners will hold out long after Saddam has died/surrendered/fled the country and gone underground (all likely, IMHO). Sunni fundamentalist will also be active in the region. And a few assholes will carve out their own fiefdoms just because they can. A US supported puppet will rule little outside of the oil and Baghdad itself.

In retrospect, I thought the war would be a bit bloodier, and, of course, I was dead wrong on the air war. Still, I wasn't too far off, and my dire predictions for the occupation and post-war war, will still too soon to call, seem to be in line with current events.

[ElvisL1ves]

Nope, not playing Krauthammer's self-indulgent little game here. He's plainly trying to let himself off the hook for having been fooled by telling himself that everyone was fooled. The game is a coping mechanism for him, and anyone who plays it is enabling him - and the segment of the populace who similarly has trouble admitting having been fooled (board's been a little quiet lately, hasn't it?).

But FTR, things are happening pretty much as I'd expected, although it'll have to be a few more years to be sure. The only ones who have to reconsider are those who were selling us visions of peace, harmony, and American-style democracy and capitalism breaking out over the entire Middle East within months of the simple ouster of Saddam, just like music and colors returning to Pepperland after the Beatles bonked the Blue Meanies. Krauthammer was one of that group, of course.

[rjung]

Originally posted by samclem
You lost me there, RTF. I respect you. NOT Krauthammer.

You'll have to offer some additonal proof that he's worth supporting.
Yeah, what he said. I get enough Krauthammer in my weekly copy of Time, and while he was fairly level-headed before, nowadays he's making a beeline for the right-wing loony special. Give him another three months and he'll be Brutus with a better vocabulary.

Anyway, I can't remember exactly what I predicted about the war, and I'm too lazy to look, but I'm fairly confident that I predicted the US would steamroll over the Iraqi army. I know I didn't predict how Bush's excuses for war would fall apart so soon afterwards, though.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Fenris
[B]I disagree with your characterization of my characterization not being accurate. ;)

Well I disagree with your....ugh, never mind.

First, he's presenting the two scenarios as equal possiblities. He's not saying "It's likely that the Iraqi army will collapse and we'll only lose 500 people, but if the worst happens..." The way he phrases it, it's a 50/50 chance either way.

That's simply not true. There is absolutely nothing in the cited quote about the relative statistical chances of either scenario. His point was that all scenarios should be considered. He makes no predictions as to which scenario is more or less likely.

And secondly, 50,000-100,000 is a remarkably silly worst case scenario

Yes, in light of what actually happened, it seems quite silly. And had that been your only point, I wouldn't have said anything. I'm not disagreeing with your point, just pointing out that you overstated it. You didn't say he came up with an overblown worst case scenario, you said he was "screaming about how we were going to lose" that many troops. Do you understand the difference between:

"We MIGHT lose a few hundred troops, or we MIGHT lose 50-100,000 troops"

and

"We ARE GOING TO lose 50-100,000 troops"?

But, as I said, that was one of the more mild of his predictions. When he was toying with the idea of another run at the presidency, he was on the radio/tv in Colorado on a regular basis predicting dire consequences (and using higher numbers).

Could be, but you'll notice that I said "based on the link you provided". And even if his worst-case scenario WERE higher than what you originally posted, it's still a mischaracterization that he said we ARE GOING TO lose that many troops.

[Scylla]

Well, I thought the war would take longer than 3 weeks. I figured two to three months, but then I imagined we'd be doing it conventionally which would be basically fighting the whole way and securing our lines each step of the way.

What we actually did was a Blitzkrieg. We just charged straight into the heart and destroyed organized resistance and C&C, taking the country basically intact.

This tactic produced a very short war which was light on casualties comparatively speaking.

The trade off is that we have a bigger mopping up job to do.

It is my hope that the coming months will show the actions against American soldiers in recent weeks will mark the end of this mopping up period.

It is my fear that we may face something like a protracted organized resistance that may grow and intensify.

[RTFirefly]

Thanks, all, for the link to the Middle East Predictions thread. It's not as useful as I'd hoped; it's missing a lot of the people one would hope to find there, including me. I can only hazard the WAG that I mentally associated "Middle East" with "Israel/Palestine" and skipped on past. I suspect that if it had been titled "The Iraq War Prediction Thread" it might have done somewhat better. Such is life.

Seems that some of us don't agree on Krauthammer. Maybe we need a couple of threads like, "Liberals, which conservative columnists do you find worth reading?" and "Conservatives, which liberal columnists..." but let's try that on another day.

Concerning Gary Hart, I suppose it's possible that a couple hundred people, scattered across America, were taking him seriously. But whatever he may have said, it's not an indication of widespread belief in any position by anybody.

[tomndebb]

Well, I did not explicitly say "short war followed by interminable problems", but I did say "short war" and expressed doubt that the Bush Administration knew how to wage the peace in the Yippe kai yai yea, we are goin to war! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3152490#post3152490) thread.

[elucidator]

Everything happened precisely as I anticipated. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.