But if you go, Achmed Al-Netdweeb, who monitors these conversations for his local AlQ chapter, will take that as the result of a successful effort to undermine and demoralize our troops! They will be emboldened!
There are two mistakes being made in this thread that are fairly common but mistakes, nonetheless.
**1) Correlation is not Causality. **
In order to confirm a statement that a change in public opinion in the States leads to more deaths in Iraq, we need to specify a causal mechanism by which the independent variable (publ. op.) is connected to the dependent variable (insurgent activity). I think it is very hard to conjure up such a mechanism and it would be even harder to falsify it. I would say that what we might be looking at here is at best a spurious relationship but actually quite possibly no relationship at all.
2) Statistical Significance
Statistical significance refers to the probability that a certain finding is in fact caused by chance and. When we say that a correlation is significant at the .01 level, this means that the chance of this correlation being caused by chance is 1 in a hundred. Making such statements about a finding requires that such a finding be based on a sample randomly drawn from a specified population. This is not the case here and thus it makes no sense to refer to statistical significance in this situation. If a basketball match ends in 100-99, then team A has won and team B has lost, and no one would make an argument that the difference is insignificant and that in fact the match ended in a draw.
Sure, individuals bear some responsiblity here too, but I’m not seeing the utility of discussing the impact of individual raindrops in the US when there’s a gullywashing thunderstorm in Iraq. Is there any purpose other than an attempt to spread blame?
People have to realize that the sun does not orbit the United States. The majority of Iraqis probably couldn’t tell you what the two main American political parties are and don’t even know the United States is having an election year. Their concerns about American politics is minimal.
Iraqis are fighting us because we’re in Iraq. We invaded their country and they don’t like it. Is that really such a difficult concept to understand? If China invaded and occupied the United States, would you subscribe to the Beijing Times and sit around debating whether Xi Jinping supported the invasion more than Zhou Yongkang? Or would you grab a rifle and start shooting Chinese soldiers in your neighbourhood?
Magellon, it’s pretty clear that you made up your mind long ago and mere facts aren’t going to sway you. The article you found agrees with what you already believe so you believe it as well. Your repeated comments about the Wright Brothers are a feeble attempt to divert attention between the obvious truth that there is a difference in responsibility between people who give an order and people who follow an order.
Correct, of course. And I think it is beyond question that people bear responsibility for the consequences of actions they support.
The war caused some deaths and prevented others. Saddam killed his people by the hundreds of thousands, as well as bearing responsibility for all the deaths in the first Gulf War. And I would expect that civil war could well have broken out in Iraq upon his death or incapacitation anyway.
Failure to invade would have caused some deaths, and prevented others. Protesting the war seems to have caused some deaths, although the inability of the protests to bring about an end to the war means there are no offsetting prevented deaths (yet) to balance off.
I am sure most people would agree that pulling out immediately would cause some deaths and prevent others. The deaths prevented would be American soldiers - if certain posters actually want Americans to die, they should be pressing for a prolonged stay in Iraq. But the civil war that would probably result would no doubt kill a lot of Iraqis. The logical disconnect comes from the attitude “an immediate pull out would kill a lot of Iraqis, but who cares?” coupled with “we should pull out immediately because the current occupation is killing a lot of Iraqis”.
But the crux of the debate is, which option will kill least innocent people? Opponents of the war want to disclaim responsibility for all the deaths, even those that would have occurred if Saddam stayed in power, and blame Bush for deaths that would have occurred in the civil war of succession that would likely have followed his death anyway.
But that’s not logical. If you support an action, you are accepting responsibility for the consequences.
Fortunately for both sides, it is nearly impossible to establish “what would have happened”.
Regards,
Shodan
Yet the study indicates that they pay attention enough that there a correlation. And if you open it up to include protests AND the subsequent response from the administration, a strongly implied causation.
What are you yammering about? I have an opinion, yes. I’ve admitted that it is an opinion. And what are these “facts” you mention that I am supposed to be swayed by? Please list them. If you do not I will have to conclude that you are not debating in good faith and simply ignore you. So please, list these “facts”.
Now you’ve hit on something that has nothing to do with what I’ve posed as the debate. I fully agree there is a difference in responsibility between people who give an order and people who follow it. Where, pray tell, have I said or implied otherwise? Please point it out lest I am forced to come to the same conclusion mentioned above.
And just to lay this out for you in an easier to understand manner. The question goes to one’s decision to protest vociferously. If they choose to do so, and are aware of consequences to that action beforehand, are they morally responsible for those consequences. To help you participate in the debate (if you are so inclined), try starting your answer with a “yes” or a “no” and then expanding on it. I am truly interested in the explanations, particularly to the “no” side.
The Wright Brothers comment was an attempt to keep the debate on track. The decision to go to war is moot to this discussion. We can stipulate that is was wrong, dumb, evil, etc. The debate has to do with a person’s actions today.
And I have to go again. Probably won’t be back to tonight.
If this thread really is about taking on responsibility for deaths (of both US troops AND civilians) in Iraq, rather than simply being a demand by Magellan01 that we all admit that he was right about something in some previous thread, as seems to be the case, here it is: I personally feel responsible for the invasion-related deaths, and have felt that way for a long time.
Basically, whether realistic or not, I feel I could have done much more to register my opposition to the invasion, and my disgust with the Bush Administration for launching it. I feel somewhat ashamed that I have basically given up since the invasion, feeling that nothing further could be done. In my mind, therefore, there is no question that I bear some responsibility for the carnage that has ensued.
So there you go. Total agreement with the OP’s premise, if that is indeed the premise.
This is not a peer reviewed study.
This study has been submitted for publication, but that doesn’t mean dick. If I were part of the peer review process, I would at best reject with a possibility for resubmission if they can correct some serious problems that were evident even from a cursory reading.
First, the measurement of “emboldenment” is bullshit. It’s not a measure of war critics or loud protests or anything of the sort, it’s a measure of 1) statements by Bush administration officials and 2) publication of poll results.
It should be very, very clear to anyone with a modicum of thought that statements by the Bush administration are exceptionally biased. They would make statements about how others are “emboldening” the “terrorists” precisely when things are going bad in Iraq, not at a rate equal to the level of protests by citizens.
Recognizing the exceptionally problematic nature of the index they’ve chosen, the authors decide to incorporate poll results with the former to create some composite of “emboldening.” They make the following dubious claim:
The timing of the release of polls is unrelated to conditons on the ground in Iraq? Really? Bullshit.
The basic measure of the outcome has nothing to do with outspoken critics or protests. The study is fucked, and if it ever passes peer review at all, it will be in some piece of shit journal. It’s only purpose and function is to give people who read the Washington Times something to feel better about, because they don’t need facts and accuracy.
It may very well be that opposition to war is emboldening the insurgents. From the looks of things, these folks will press any advantage, exploit any weakness, and portray any non-defeat, any slight setback for their enemies as a morale-boosting victory.
However, a few observations:
[ul]To an even greater extent, these people are vengeful and defiant. They’re not easily intimidated. The see this war as a continuation of the crusades. The fact that seemingly every Muslim kid wants to grow up to be a martyr should give us pause.[/ul]
[ul]The situation in Iraq is far more complex with all the factions (incl. Iran) than one of a single insurgent group of otherwise marginal resolve pushing back against the US.[/ul]
[ul]The anti-war movement is very chaotic, broad-based and grass-roots. It’s a lot easier to point the finger of blame for the whole shootin’ match on the Bush administration and the Republican rank-and-file.[/ul]
[ul]Bush supporters have been saying “you’re emboldening the enemy” (along with “support the troops”) since day 1 not just to keep that from happening, but to silence their political opponents and to score points in the broader political landscape. I don’t know if they see the War on Liberals as the central front in the War on Terrorism or vice-versa.[/ul]
[ul]What if we had stayed focused on Afghanistan? There was and still is very little opposition to the operation there. We could have avoided the problem of Muslims seeing a pattern of US intervention in Muslim country after Muslim country.
[/ul]
Let me ask you a hypothetical – let’s say that the study is, indeed, true, and pans out after repreated studies? What the?
Let’s say that protestors maghically cease all protesting. There are no more negative statements to embolden the enemy.
Do you really think that they’re going to sit on the thousands of poumnds of explosive and not build and use any more IEDs, just because there are no more negative statements to give them an excuse? Having been angered and motivated by the US actions and the opportunities offered, will they simply sit on their hands in frustration? Will a relative peace ensue?
It seems far more likely that the attacks will continue, probably in response to local actions and opportunities. There will be events that people can find correlations with, still.
Or do you believe otherwise?
Really.
I find it hard to credit the initial report, especially if it isn’t peer reviewed, but I haven’t read it myself, and the only dissenting report I’ve been able to find on the internet (repeated in several places) basically says they haven’t had time to stufy it, either, but pointing out the odd way of counting “negative statements”. Thw reaction to this report looks, as we had during the Vietnam War, a frustrated attempt to shut up the opposition.
So, what would you want, ideally? That people opposed to the war protest it only in ways they’re sure will go completely unoticed? Isn’t the point of a protest to be noticed by the medias and the government, so that it could result in a change in policies?
I expect that’s exactly what he wants. He wants the political opposition to silence itself.
I don’t want the antiwar movement to be quiet. If you’re antiwar, you should have your say.
I wouldn’t be upset at all if the antiwar movement loses politically, but that’s another subject entirely.
I don’t think anyone will argue that opposition to our forces in Iraq is done in such a way as to maximize political pressure here. A similar thing was done in the Vietnam era. This doesn’t invalidate an antiwar opinion, but it does contextualize it.
Going by previous posts to this thread, I’m pretty sure he’s going to respond that that’s not what he’s discussing at all; that his sole interest is i n getting you to acknowledge that persons who protest too ‘loudly’, such as yourself, maybe, are responsible for at least some of the American deaths in Iraq.
But we’ll see.
I’m curious if he’ll even acknowledge that the study has nothing at all to do with protests, loud, silent or otherwise.
To repeat myself:
The predictor measured was not protests or even individual expressions of opposition to the war or anything to do with antiwar anybodies.
Also, this is not a peer reviewed article.
I’m sure it’s been said already, but if we hadn’t invaded and occupied Iraq, there’d be ZERO Iraq War deaths.
The proponents of this war are responsible for the 4000 American war dead, the 300 or so war dead from our coalition partners, the tens of thousands of Americans who’ve been injured, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who’ve been killed, and the millions who’ve been exiled and dislocated.
If proponents of this war want to stop war opponents from protesting or criticizing our occupation of Iraq and our participation in the resulting civil war, the best way to do it is to bring this occupation to an end.
It’s not fair for me to assume that he would make that argument. But if anyone did, my answer would have to be that I don’t believe protestors are to blame at all. it’s like blaming the relatives of a kidnap victim for the victim’s losing fingers for not being fast enough in providing ransom – it’s the kidnappers that are at fault. In this case, the enemy will find some excuse to use those explosives, whether I protest or not, whetgher he hears me or not.
The blood of the dead Americans is on the hands of those like you, magellan01, who supported the war, as is the blood of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
To be fair, I believe magellan01 says above that he did NOT support starting this war.
I find it difficult to believe that a war opponent would make the “stabbed in the back” argument, but whatever.