Polls that Matter (and Polls that Don't)

People often say that after 9/11 (but before Bush ruined everything), the "world was with us." Now everyone hates us. And if you take a U.S.-popularity poll in many countries of the world, you'll find that it's true. But if you take another kind of poll -- a much more important kind of poll -- you'll find that it isn't.

You'd think that if Bush's toppling of a genocidal dictator in Iraq was the crime of the century, then, in country after country, presidential candidates who oppose Bush would be winning elections while those who support him would be losing. Surprisingly, the opposite has happened for the most part, and we are about to get another test of this when France goes to the polls on May 6. But before considering that race, let's consider the other elections that have been held since the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. There may be more, but these are the elections that I kept a close eye on because they could all be construed, in part, as referendums on Bush's decision to invade Iraq. All elections are based on multiple issues, but it seems worth noting that presidential candidates seeking to get themselves elected by proudly announcing their opposition to Bush's "immoral war in Iraq" have not fared well. Here are the results of the elections I followed:

1. The first was John Howard of Australia, who is a staunch (and I mean staunch) supporter of Bush's war on terror. He won reelection in October of 2004 even though his opponent vowed to withdraw Australia's troops from Iraq. And, of course, his opponents accused him of lying about Saddam's WMDs.

2. Then came George Bush, who ran against John Kerry mainly on the issue of Iraq. Obviously, Bush won reelection in November of 2004 despite the inane "Bush lied!" lie that propagated out of control during the election campaign. Kerry, of course, would have pulled our troops from Iraq at the earliest opportunity (which is the plan he still favors to this day).

3. In February of 2005, another Bush supporter, Demark's Anders Rasmussen, also won reelection. His opponent, Social Democrat party leader Mogens Lykketoft, accused his opponent of lying about Saddam's WMDs (of course), but it didn't help him win the election anymore than it helped John Kerry in the U.S.

4. Then came Tony Blair of Great Britain, who is another staunch supporter of George Bush's war on terror. He won reelection in May of 2005. His opponents -- liberal and conservative, in this case -- also accused him of lying (of course), but, like Bush, he was vindicated once a detailed inquiry into the matter took place, and he obviously won reelection.

5. Then came Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi, who is also a Bush supporter and who also sent a small number of troops to Iraq (and whose opponent in the race pledged to withdraw those troops from Iraq). Koizumi won in a landslide in September of 2005. I can't find any evidence that Koizumi's opponent accused him of lying about Saddam's WMDs, so the vast (really vast) rightwing conspiracy apparently did not extend to Japan. What's wrong with liberals in Japan, anyway? They obviously need to get with the program. Look guys: the way you avoid having a substantive debate is to accuse those with whom you disagree of lying. Got it? Let's try to do better next time, OK?

6. Also in September of 2005, Germany held an election. Germany is about as anti-American as you can get these days (only 37% have a favorable view of the U.S.), and its then-prime minister, Gerhard Schroeder, was exceeded only by France's Jacques Chirac in his outspoken and unwavering support for the genocidal dictator of Iraq. Yet the pro-American supporter of the Iraq war, Angela Merkel, ousted Schroeder in a very close race. To date, this was the most remarkable race of all. More than anyone else, Schroeder tried to ride anti-Americanism to victory, and he did it in a country where it seemed almost certain to succeed. It didn't.

7. In October of 2005, Poland held an election, and the top two candidates faced off for reelection. But, as far as I can tell, both of those were relatively pro-American candidates who did not campaign against the war in Iraq. The only anti-Americans who were staunchly opposed to Bush's war in Iraq did not even make it into the runoff.

8. In January of 2006, Canada's pro-American Stephen Harper defeated his liberal (and, by comparison, anti-American) opponent, Paul Martin. Harper would have sent Canadian troops to Iraq.

Two exceptions to this general trend (i.e., the trend of relatively pro-American presidential candidates winning elections even in countries in which America loses a popularity contest) can also be identified. There may be more -- I haven't paid attention to all races around the world -- but two stand out for me. Spain was about to reelect yet another Bush supporter in March of 2004, but a few days before the election, al Qaeda bombed several trains in Madrid, killing 200. Having been given their marching orders from al Qaeda, the Spanish people sheepishly complied, and Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero defeated Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. Zapatero made good on his promise to abandon the people of Iraq to the al Qaeda savages who are wreaking havoc there today by immediately withdrawing his troops. Spain no longer needs to worry that one of its armed soldiers might stand between an innocent Iraqi civilian and an al Qaeda terrorist. However, most would probably agree that this election was an aberration in that it was profoundly affected by a dramatic terrorist incident that had occurred just days before (one that was designed to influence the outcome of the election). Thus, unlike the 8 elections considered above, it is probably not indicative of a general trend. We just don't know how the election would have turned out had al Qaeda not dictated the outcome, and pre-election polls had Aznar in the lead.

In April of 2006, Italy's Romano Brodi narrowly defeated incumbent Prime Minister (and Bush supporter) Silvio Berlusconi. Brodi also made good on his pledge to abandon the people of Iraq to the savages of al Qaeda. I assume that the Italian people are now bursting with pride that no Italian soldier will ever stand between an innocent Iraqi civilian and an al Qaeda terrorist.

Polls have shown that America's "image" has eroded worldwide, thanks to George Bush. My position has long been that such polls are meaningless popularity contests. Winning a popularity contest gains you nothing, and losing one costs you nothing. A much more important poll is the presidential poll that each country takes. A presidential poll differs fundamentally from a popularity poll. A popularity poll asks "Do you have a favorable opinion of America?" There is no alternative presented, so people are just free to vent. A presidential poll asks "Do you favor Candidate A, who supports the war on terror, or Candidate B, who does not?" When you put the question that way, the advanced nations of the world speak with almost one voice. Had all of the elections discussed above turned out otherwise (especially the one in Germany), anti-war advocates would not have been surprised at all. After all, polls show that what Bush has done is really unpopular. The fact that these elections have largely turned out the other way should surprise anti-war advocates a lot.

Here is how the leaders of the G-7 nations (i.e., the major industrialized nations of the world) stack up:

Canada -- pro-American supporter of the war in Iraq
Germany -- pro-American supporter of the war in Iraq
Great Britain -- pro-American supporter of the war in Iraq
Japan -- pro-American supporter of the war in Iraq
United States -- Supporter of the war in Iraq
Italy -- Anti-American opponent of the war in Iraq
France -- ? (to be determined in 1 week)

You see? Silly popularity contests do not matter, at all. Elections do. And when you take that kind of poll, America's "image" in the world looks a bit brighter, whereas the image of anti-Americans is suffering quite badly.

It's also true that our popularity in non-democracies (e.g., the dictatorships and religious theocracies of the Arab world) does not matter. I wrote about that in a post entitled "The Irrelevance of America's Prestige," which you can find here. In a nutshell, what matters is whether or not Arabs embrace terrorism, not whether or not they like us. The French and Germans do not like us, and I'm having a hard time detecting any problem with that. If they embraced terrorism, on the other hand, that would be a problem.

On May 6, we will have yet another test when the French go to the polls. In that race, it is Nicolas Sarkozy vs. Segolene Royal. Sarkozy is pro-American and has even been accused (by Royal) of apologizing to Bush for Chirac's opposition to the invasion of Iraq:

“I am not for a Europe that aligns with the U.S.,” Ms. Royal said on France 2 television. “I have never been, and will never, go apologize to President Bush for the position of France on the issue of refusing to send our troops to Iraq.”

It's not too hard to detect the more anti-American candidate in the race, is it? I don't mean to say that Sarkozy is a champion of the Iraq war. Like Hillary Clinton here at home, he is busily distancing himself from the invasion of Iraq so he doesn't get into too much trouble with the angry French. But here is some telling information about the man:

New opinion polls give conservative Nicolas Sarkozy between 52 and 54 percent of the vote, against 46 and 48 percent for socialist candidate Segolene Royal, in France's May 6 presidential runoff. Sarkozy's election would be good news for French-American relations. If the pro-American Sarkozy defeats the reflexively anti-American Royal, the transatlantic relationship will become healthier than it has been for some time.

During outgoing President Jacques Chirac's tenure, transatlantic relations have been the worst in decades. The low point came amid France's boisterous opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

It spoke volumes that Sarkozy was the only French presidential candidate to visit the United States. On a highly publicized trip to Washington, he was photographed with President Bush. He also gave a strongly pro-American speech. Sarkozy told his audience that, "Friendship is respect, understanding, affection but not submission ... I ask our American friends to let us be free, free to be their friends."
...
Sarkozy's foreign policy adviser is Pierre Lelouche, an experienced politician with strong American ties. Sarkozy may appoint him to a new post of national security adviser. Lelouche is unlikely to tolerate either anti-American rhetoric or calls for a new Europe to act as an economic and diplomatic counterweight to the United States. Lelouche is regularly referred to in the European press as the "pro-American" member of the French senate -- the ultimate insult for a French pol."

Sarkozy has warned that withdrawing American troops too soon from Iraq would "lead to chaos," while avoiding withdrawal would lead the Iraqis to "react with more violence." According to Sarkozy, "The idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable." He opposes military action but favors stronger sanctions against Iran.

In contrast to France's Arabist foreign policy establishment, Sarkozy is strongly pro-Israeli, although he did criticize Israel's disproportionate response to Hezbollah last summer and suggested that not all of Israel's demands regarding settlement of the Palestinian issue should be met.

America's "image" in France is incredibly low, and its current leader (Jacques Chirac) was Bush's main opponent before the war. As such, it would make sense for Royal to be leading in a landslide. She might win, but the fact that the race is even close (with Sarkozy holding a narrow lead in the polls) tells you something important. It tells you to forget polls that sample America's "image" around the world. To mainstream media reporters, those polls are important. But the important poll in France is the one that will happen on May 6.

How to Replace the Obsolete "Civil War" Schema

Everyone knows that Shiites are fighting Sunnis in Iraq, and, in the eyes of many (most, I would say), this sectarian violence is just the long anticipated civil war finally coming to fruition. People who think that way must shake their heads in disgust (at Bush) when the they read stories like this one from yesterday's news:

Car bomb kills 55 at Shiite shrine in Karbala
Explosion near one of Islamic sect’s holiest sites wounds dozens

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A parked car exploded Saturday near one of Shiite Islam’s holiest shrines in the city of Karbala as people were headed to the area for evening prayers, killing 55 people and wounding dozens, officials said.
...
A car bomb exploded in the same area on April 14, killing 47 and wounding 224.
...
The Karbala blast occurred a few hundred yards from the Imam Abbas shrine, setting several cars on fire and causing chaos in the area. The explosion took place as the streets were killed with people heading for evening prayers at the Abbas shrine and the adjacent Imam Hussein shrine, two of Iraq’s holiest Shiite shrines.

Note that there is no mention of the possible role for al Qaeda in this attack. In fact, even when you know for sure that the perpetrators were named by the US military, all MSNBC reports is this:

The U.S. military has warned that such bombings were intended to provoke retaliatory violence by Shiite militias, whose members have largely complied with political pressure to avoid confrontations with Americans during the U.S. troop buildup.

Such bombings were intended by whom to provoke retaliatory violence by Shiite militias? Al Qaeda, obviously. It is their stated plan for Iraq and it is their consistent (and very effective) method. This bombing occurred at a revered Shiite mosque. Sound familiar? It should. First of all, it is what Zarqawi specifically said that al Qaeda would do:

The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance...Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions.

Second, it is precisely how al Qaeda provoked a civil war in Iraq in 2006. In fact, later in the same news story, the reporter reminds us of a similar attack that was the single most significant event of the post-Saddam era:

In Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials declined to comment on Saturday about Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, 46, who was captured last fall on his way to Iraq, where he may have been sent by top terror leaders in Pakistan to take a senior position in al-Qaida in Iraq, the Pentagon said.

The insurgent group has claimed responsibility for some of the deadliest attacks in Iraq, including the bombing last year of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra, which touched off a fierce cycle of retaliatory sectarian violence.

Well, al Qaeda is a terrorist group, not an insurgent group, but at least the story mentions this critical detail about the origins of the civil war in Iraq. That's progress. Perhaps Americans will slowly wake up to the fact that the sectarian violence they lament was not a spontaneous result of the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, it was deliberately engineered by the very terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11.You can pretend that it is a different al Qaeda if it makes you feel better (many will do that as they awaken to what is going on), but I'm not sure why you would. Denial is irrational, even if it is understandable.

Awareness of al Qaeda is slowly growing in the minds of mainstream media reporters who have been hamstrung by the civil war schema that they simply cannot get out of their heads. Even so, there is not the slightest mention of the fact that al Qaeda was probably behind yesterday's bombing. Millions upon millions of readers of countless stories like this all over the world will read about that bombing and then shake their heads at the escalating "civil war" in Iraq. And then they will rage at George Bush for what he has done. Here is CNN's coverage of that event, and, again, not the slightest hint that this was an attack by al Qaeda (because, I assume, the reporter thinks this was part of the civil war). The CNN story even notes that this was a suicide bomber. Many stories fail to mention that key detail. It is important because virtually all suicide bombers are members of al Qaeda, as I detailed here. As such, this bombing was not part of that civil war. It was another atrocity designed to provoke a civil war that has largely abated since the troop surge began. That's the key distinction, and it cannot be emphasized often enough. People just don't get it, so it needs to be explained repeatedly until they do. In fact, what's missing from discussions by Bush and McCain and others who have the details right is the emphatic statement that these attacks are not part of the civil war; they are attempts by al Qaeda to provoke a civil war. Just stating that these attacks were perpetrated by al Qaeda does not go far enough to change the thinking of those whose minds are ensnared by an obsolete civil war schema. You have to specifically tell them that they are wrong to think like that. That gets their attention (because they are under the comfortable impression that the civil war debate was settled long ago), and it momentarily arouses disbelief (trust me -- I've been down this path with people many times). When they are presented with incontrovertible facts regarding the role of al Qaeda in Iraq in a moment of disbelief, it has been my experience that minds change (including liberal minds). But you have to directly assert that these attacks are not examples of the civil war in action, nor do they represent sectarian violence. If you don't, people have great difficulty assimilating the idea that attacks by Sunni al Qaeda against Shiite civilians do not constitute examples of sectarian violence/civil war.

Here is the current (inaccurate) schema:

It is a civil war involving escalating sectarian violence between between Shiite militias and Sunni "insurgents" (Sunni Baathists who once worked for Saddam allied with Sunni al Qaeda)

Almost all news reporters describe events from Iraq after those events are forced through this obsolete way of thinking. Here is the vastly more accurate schema:

Sunni al Qaeda is not trying to win a civil war against the Shiites. Instead, they want the Shiite militias to kill Sunnis in large numbers. The civil war between the Shiite militias and the Sunnis is de-escalating (not escalating); what's escalating are attacks by al Qaeda to re-ignite the civil war that they previously triggered by bombing the Golden Mosque in Samarra

When you draw the contrast between these two schemas, minds change. Bush needs to draw the contrast, and he needs to do it often. Just telling people that al Qaeda is behind these sensational attacks does not give them a new way of thinking, so they just process the information through their pre-existing schema.

The CNN story also notes this:

The bombing occurred as people were heading to evening prayers.

As such, this attack was:

(a) specifically designed to...
(b) indiscriminately slaughter...
(c) innocent civilians.

If that isn't a terrorist attack, what is? Even so, neither MSNBC nor CNN described the attack as such. The problem with people on the right is that they call all combatants in Iraq "terrorists." That's wrong because some are fighting against US and Iraqi military forces. Those insurgents are the enemy, but they aren't terrorists. The problem with people on the left (like reporters at CNN and MSNBC) is that they won't call anyone a terrorist, even when they carry out an atrocity like this. It's freaky, yet it is so common it goes unnoticed.

I believe that reporters who write stories like this are engaging in journalistic malpractice because they know perfectly well that the US military attributes these attacks to al Qaeda in Iraq and they know perfectly well they are acts of terrorism by any reasonable definition of that word. Just because you don't want to reinforce Bush's claim that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror is no reason to be deliberately misleading when presenting the news from Iraq. But this story by Reuters in the Washington Post got the details right, and it should serve as a shining example for other reporters who might be interested in reporting the news in an accurate way:

KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - A suicide car bomber killed 57 people and wounded nearly 160 near one of Iraq's most revered Shi'ite Muslim shrines in the city of Kerbala on Saturday, in an attack likely to inflame sectarian tensions.
...
The attack bore the hallmarks of Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, which U.S. and Iraqi officials accuse of trying to tip Iraq into full-scale civil war between the majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs, once dominant under Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said on Thursday al Qaeda was bent on committing what he called "sensational" attacks designed to fuel more sectarian violence.

Speaking in Washington, Petraeus said al Qaeda was now "probably public enemy number one" in Iraq.
...
Four years after U.S-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq has been riven by violence that has killed tens of thousands.

The turmoil escalated when suspected al Qaeda militants destroyed one of the holiest shrines to Shi'ites in the Iraqi town of Samarra in February 2006.

Is all of that clear enough for you? This latest suicide bombing attack was not part of the civil war. It was not Sunni al Qaeda engaged in sectarian violence designed to defeat the Shiites. Instead, it was Sunni al Qaeda trying to goad Muqtada al Sadr's Shiite militias into once again killing hundreds of Sunnis every week (as they were doing back in the Fall). That's the third force at work, and it is now public enemy number one. It always was, but people are only slowly awakening to the idea. Lawrence Kudlow just wrote a column drawing attention to this increasingly undeniable fact.

In light of all of this, when you rage at George Bush for the violence in Iraq, your anger is misplaced. The Muslim world knows that it was al Qaeda, not Bush, who did this (even if you don't):

The blast occurred at a checkpoint on an approach to the golden-domed al-Abbas shrine, situated among shops and restaurants in the holy city. The area was crowded at the time, witnesses said.

Television images showed a man running down a smoke-filled street holding a lifeless baby above his head. Smoke was rising off the child. Ambulances had rushed to the scene in Kerbala, 100 km (70 miles) southwest of Baghdad.

Still think this is an immoral war? If so, your idea of morality is foreign to me. Don't be so morally righteous that you become prepared to surrender to al Qaeda without even realizing it. They are primitive savages, and they did this intentionally. What's more, they plan to keep doing it until Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi manage to engineer our unconditional surrender, and then they'll be free to do a lot more of it. If you don't believe me, then believe Zarqawi. He devised the plan that has been implemented with stunning success in Iraq. Because it is a wretched terrorist telling you what is coming and not George Bush, perhaps you will believe him. You should.

UPDATE: I just noticed a link to this story on freerepublic.com:

BAGHDAD, April 29 (Reuters) - The political battle in Washington over a Democratic plan to pull U.S. troops from Iraq is being exploited by al Qaeda, which has stepped up attacks to hasten a withdrawal, Iraq's foreign minister said on Sunday.

Hoshiyar Zebari said Iraq had become "entangled" in domestic politics in the United States, where there is growing impatience for progress in reconciling the country's warring sects.

U.S. President George W. Bush has vowed to veto a war spending bill that requires combat troops to begin withdrawing by Oct. 1. Congress, which is controlled by the Democrats, plans to send the bill to Bush on Tuesday.

"This plays out very badly here," Zebari said in an interview with Reuters, making the first substantive government comment on the political tussle.

"It shows the administration is not united. And everybody watches this development, al Qaeda, the anti-democratic forces who are fighting us."

He pointed to an increase in car bomb attacks blamed on al Qaeda that have caused the civilian death toll to stay high despite a major 10-week-old operation by U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad, the epicentre of the violence.

"This recent escalation you have seen was expected, just to show the Baghdad security plan is not working. If this plan were to fail, then the next step is for the multinational forces to withdraw. That is their simple strategy," Zebari said.

Al Qaeda's strategy is simple, but it is also amazingly effective. It has even magically caused Democratic leaders to adopt an eerie code of silence on the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq. Using some sort of secret mind-control ray beam (I guess), al Qaeda directs Democrats to robotically talk about going to Afghanistan to fight terrorists. Meanwhile, al Qaeda slaughters hundreds of innocent Shiites every month Iraq -- right before your very eyes -- which mainstream media reporters then obediently mischaracterize as "sectarian violence." It's creepy. I feel like I've just slipped into the Twilight Zone...

A Strong Economy vs. a Strong Dollar

One of the most common mistakes that reporters make when they report on the economy is to assume that the strength of a currency is a direct indicator of the strength of an economy (like GDP growth, unemployment, inflation, etc.). I'm not sure why that is, but, as ridiculous as it might seem, I suspect that it has to do with the use of the word "strong" in both cases. If you think like that, then the current weak dollar seems to imply a weak U.S. economy. Here is a classic example of such thinking:

NEW YORK, April 27 (Reuters) - The United States may have no military equals, but the challenges to its financial power have become impossible to ignore.

A stark reminder came on Friday when the weakening dollar slumped to a record low against its main rival, the euro, after the U.S. economy recorded its fourth consecutive quarter of below-trend growth.

That is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous opening to a story about the exchange rate for the dollar that I have ever read. It implies, wrongly, that the value of the dollar relative to the euro is an indicator of the strength of the US economy relative to European economies. But the value of a currency is not a measure of economic health. If it were, the euro would not have strengthened relative to the dollar over the last 5 years. It has, but over that time the US economy has far outperformed the Eurozone (i.e., the 13 European countries that use the euro). Even so, the euro has strengthened against the dollar very considerably.

The article continues with these laughable assertions:

The strength of the dollar is more than just a matter of bragging rights. Experts say the consequences of its long-term decline could have deep significance -- for average Americans and for the country's position as an unrivaled global power.

Over time, the forces behind its decline could further marginalize the United States on the world stage, lower its standard of living and tie its hands in responding to crucial security issues or financial crises.

Bragging rights? Would it make sense for Americans to brag if the dollar were strong, thereby helping US companies that import goods from overseas while hurting US companies that export goods overseas? I don't see why, unless you only like companies that import and have something against companies that export. Remember, this is what Sarkozy says about the strength of the euro (he's likely to become the next president of France):

Sarkozy demands 'radical' policy shift

Nicolas Sarkozy, the front-runner in France's presidential race, has launched a ferocious attack on the European Central Bank and its president Jean-Claude Trichet, accusing Frankfurt of battling an inflation "that no longer exists" while Europe's export industry withers on the vine.

The Gaulliste candidate demanded a radical shift in policy to drive down the euro and match the devaluation tactics of the Asian powers.
...
Mr Sarkozy said, if elected, he would propose a plan to fellow EU leaders forcing a change in monetary policy to stop the "deindustrialisation of Europe". He said the ECB's strong euro policy was the overriding cause of woes threatening the survival of Airbus.

He's not exactly bragging about the strong euro, is he? That's because it is not an indication of the strength of the European economy.

What about the idea that a weak dollar is going to lower our standard of living? The standard of living is best indicated by GDP per capita. Although it is not a perfect measure, it is better than any other measure we have. Once again, let me show you how that indicator compares in the US vs. the 13-nation Eurozone (data obtained from the International Monetary Fund):


And here is how unemployment rates compare:


Does it look to you like the US is about to be marginalized by the Eurozone? Or does it instead look like the US has been utterly dominant and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future? The answer is obvious. Look at these two graphs and then think about the fact that the euro has been strengthening against the dollar for the last 5 years. GDP per capita (and the year-to-year growth in that statistic) and the unemployment rate are indicators of economic strength. The exchange rate for the dollar is not.

Other articles will point to the fact that the Eurozone is expected to grow more rapidly than the US this year. That's true. The IMF anticipates that the US GDP will grow by 2.1%, whereas the GDP of the Eurozone will grow by 2.2%. If so, we will have a rare year in which the Eurozone barely outperforms the US. What does the IMF predict about growth in 2008? The Eurozone is expected to increase by 2.3%, whereas the US is expected to grow by 2.8%. Thus, the strength of the euro does not come from the fact that the eurozone is expected to economically outperform the US in any significant way. There may be a one-year blip in which it is an effective tie, but things are expected to get back to normal after that.

The article's next howler is this:

Today, China is growing more rapidly than the United States, and many investors and historians alike see the European Union as its economic equal.

I am sure this reporter means well, but he really needs to go back to school and read up on the basics. Let's take China first. China's economy is, indeed, growing much more rapidly than the US economy in percentage terms, but that's because it is in the process of becoming an industrialized nation. When you make next to nothing, even a 100% increase represents a small gain. Let's put this another way: if your salary increases by 10% next year, you might be able to buy a new car with the extra money you earn. If Bill Gates receives a salary increase of only 3% next year, he could buy a tropical island with the extra money he earns. The reason is that a 10% increase over a small salary is, in absolute terms, much less money than a 3% increase over an enormous salary. China has a per capita GDP of $7598. The US? $43,444. That's how different the two economies are. China's GDP has been growing at 10% per year, but it is so drastically behind the US that it will never catch up (and 10% increases in China's GDP will not continue once it is fully industrialized). All of this needs to be kept in mind when you read that "China is growing more rapidly than the United States." It's true in percentage terms, but if China's GDP increases by 10% next year, then each person in China will be about $760 better off. If the US economy increases by only 2.2%, then each person in the US will be about $955 better off. That is, on a per capita basis, the difference between the US and China would increase (not decrease). The percentage increase measure obscures this fact and makes it seem as if the Chinese economy is overtaking the US economy. It isn't (and you aren't catching up with Bill Gates either, even if you did get a 10% raise this year).

The only way in which China's economy is catching up is if you count overall GDP without correcting for population differences. There is a sense in which that matters because the larger a population, the more economically influential a country will be. In fact, one reason why the US is so economically dominant is that we have a fabulous economy AND we have 300 million people. Still, it is important to keep economic comparisons between the US and China in perspective. China is a third-world nation that is in the process of becoming industrialized. Any country doing that is going to experience rapid growth in percentage terms (but it is very definitely not going to continue forever). It's economic strength, whatever it might be, comes mainly from its huge population.

The same point applies to the European Union being the "economic equal" of the US. Not quite. According to various measures, the GDP of the US and the 27-nation European Union are both in the 12- to 13-trillion dollar range. That is, they are about equal. But the population of the European Union is about 500 million, whereas the population of the US is 300 million. Thus, on a per capita basis, the US is far ahead. To put this another way, 500 million Europeans produce about the same amount as 300 million Americans. It's true that if you cobble together enough people, you will have an aggregate economy as large or larger than that of the US. But, again, you need to keep the comparison in perspective. Also, the European Union is not really one economic entity. It is 27 different nations trying to work together. That makes the comparison to the US a little misleading as well.

The forces that determine exchange rates are complex, but the main force right now is that the European Central Bank is expected to raise interest rates, whereas, in the US, the Fed is expected to lower interest rates. That will push the euro up, and that's precisely why Sarkozy is NOT bragging. Here is an article that gets it right:

“The currency changes are all based on speculation over interest rates,” said Keitaro Matsuda, economist for Union Bank in San Francisco. “People expect higher rates of return than they're getting from the dollar. They're moving to a high-yielding currency like the euro because they expect the dollar will continue to be low-yielding.”

No kidding.

Trying (but Failing) to be Serious about Iraq

A new article just came out in Foreign Affairs. It is unique in that the author, Bruce Riedel, (a) completely understands what is happening in Iraq and (b) echoes left wing talking points anyway. To me, this is remarkable. If the withdrawal plan put forth by the Democrats is the one that should be followed (as the author ends up suggesting), it would mean that they have accidentally come up with exactly the right plan of action even though their conceptualization of Iraq (which includes no analysis of al Qaeda) is very far off the mark. That seems rather unlikely to me.

First, let me show you that the author has an accurate understanding of what is happening in Iraq:

In Iraq, Zarqawi...focused on the fault line in Iraqi society -- the divide between Sunnis and Shiites -- with the goal of precipitating a civil war...Even by the ruthless standards of al Qaeda, Zarqawi excelled.
...
Although he led only a small percentage of the Sunni militants in Iraq, Zarqawi was at the cutting edge of the insurgency, the engine of the civil war. By late 2004, he had formally proclaimed his allegiance to bin Laden, and bin Laden had anointed him "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq."

Zarqawi's group, al Qaeda in Iraq, has continued to foment sectarian unrest. In February 2006, it attacked one of the country's most sacred Shiite sites, the Golden Mosque in Samarra...Most of all, al Qaeda in Iraq has continued to orchestrate massacres against Shiites in Baghdad.

This is amazing. A man of the left who appreciates the fact that there is a powerful third force in Iraq, one that is inciting -- not participating in -- a civil war. In fact, al Qaeda is the "engine of the civil war." All of this is right on the money, and it is what is eerily missing from virtually all liberal analyses of Iraq.

But then he makes an absolutely flagrant error:

Osama bin Laden has mounted a successful propaganda campaign to make himself and his movement the primary symbols of Islamic resistance worldwide. His ideas now attract more followers than ever.

It's as if Riedel is unaware of the fact that Osama bin Laden's reputation throughout the Muslim world has plummeted. That's what has happened even though it is also true that al Qaeda has flushed deranged jihadists out of the woodwork and drawn them like flies to help him fight the Great Satan in Iraq. That's not really a propaganda victory. Instead, it is a propaganda defeat, one that can only be undone if al Qaeda achieves a clear victory over America in Iraq. For good reason, Reidel cites no evidence whatsoever to support his claim that al Qaeda has won a glorious propaganda victory. Here is evidence against that claim:

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A13

Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some pivotal Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released yesterday.
...
"These are eye-catching results, but not surprising," said Augustus Richard Norton, a Middle East specialist at Boston University. "Muslims, like non-Muslims, are plugged into the world. . . . It is one thing to be caught up in the supposed glamour of attacking the superpower or global bully, but it is quite another to have to pay the consequences economically, politically -- not to mention personally. This is what has happened in places like Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, where many people now see extremist Islam as a threat to their lives, not a fantasy game of kick Uncle Sam."

That's the propaganda "victory" that al Qaeda has supposedly won. Why does Reidel get this critical point exactly backwards? Because it is the only way to embrace the Democratic plan for Iraq, which is what he finally ends up doing. If al Qaeda has already won a glorious propaganda victory, it doesn't matter if we hand them another propaganda victory by leaving with our tails between our legs. That's a silly maneuver to make just to embrace left wing talking points. The Iraq Study Group did not make that mistake. The National Intelligence Estimates provided to the president do not make that mistake. Why does Riedel make that mistake? Because he could not embrace a policy of surrender to al Qaeda if he didn't. To adopt the Democratic plan for Iraq, you must adopt Harry Reid's suggestion that "this war is lost." People who think like that generally don't even realize that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Riedel is showing peple how to think like that while also acknowledging al Qaeda in Iraq. To do it, you just (a) assert (out of the blue and with no supporting evidence whatsoever) that al Qaeda has already won a great propaganda victory, and (b) further assert that everything will be just fine when we leave. Here is Riedel's proposed solution for Iraq (in its entirety):

Iraq is, of course, another critical battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends. Anbar and adjacent Sunni provinces have little water, few other natural resources, and no access to the outside world except through hostile territory. The Shiites and the Kurdish militias will have no compunction about attacking the Islamic State of Iraq. (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)

That's his entire prescription for Iraq (and his article is very long). He writes a 6000 word article and then devotes a scant 248 words to what should be done Iraq. To me, that indicates that he has not given this critical issue a lot of thought. He clearly needs to do that because in those 248 words he has advanced a line of thinking that is simply not credible. It's downright bizarre that after acknowledging quite clearly that there is a 3rd force in Iraq seeking to incite civil war, he simply states that we have to withdraw from Iraq's civil war so that the Iraqis can settle their differences themselves (as if it's a 2-sided civil war that is mainly attributable to policy disagreements). Al Qaeda does not care if the Sunnis and Shiites come to an agreement about sharing oil wealth (or whatever), and they don't want to negotiate with anyone. Moreover, even with 150,000 U.S. troops fighting against al Qaeda, with the Shiite militias working against al Qaeda, and with the tribes of the Anbar Province now largely turning against al Qaeda, we still see one horrific attack after another. By my count, al Qaeda was responsible for 1/3 of civilian casualties in Iraq so far in April. Yet Riedel just fantasizes a scenario according to which everything goes south for al Qaeda when we leave. If you are going to make an outlandish claim like that, you need to present the details that underlie your reasoning. Riedel doesn't do that (though he presumably would if he could).

And Riedel's completely unsupported assertion that al Qaeda fears the Shiite militias suggests that he completely misunderstands Zarqawi's plan for Iraq. Zarqawi did not fear them. Instead, he was goading them into taking up arms against the Sunnis, and he clearly explained back in 2004 why he wanted to do that:

The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans
...
So i say again, the only solution is to strike the religious, military, and other cadres of the Shi'a so that they revolt against the Sunnis.
...
If we are able to deal them blow after painful blow so that they engage in a battle, we will be able to reshuffle the cards so there will remain no value or influence for the ruling council, or even for the Americans who will enter into a second battle with the Shi'a. This is what we want. Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions.

Al Qaeda has already proven its ability to provoke a civil war, and they did so by following Zarqawi's brilliant plan to the letter. Why will they fail to do that again when we leave? Not one word about that. Who, exactly, is going to stop them? Riedel doesn't say because there is no credible argument that one could put forth to defend such a preposterous claim. And when al Qaeda continues its large-scale massacres of Shiites, as they surely plan to do, will the Shiite militias take out their wrath only on al Qaeda terrorists while leaving good Sunnis alone? They didn't do that last Fall when they were executing 800 Sunni males a month. Why would anyone believe that they would not do it again once we leave? Riedel doesn't say because there is no credible argument that one could put forth to defend such a preposterous claim. It seems obvious that our immediate departure would precipitate genocide, much to the delight of al Qaeda.

Obviously, we cannot leave Iraq until we are reasonably confident that al Qaeda cannot do again what they have already proven they can do, namely, to plunge Iraq into sectarian chaos. The fact that the Anbar Province does not have a lot of water is not a good reason to believe that al Qaeda will fail to achieve its goals for Iraq. The Anbar Province didn't have a lot of water last year when al Qaeda made good on its plan to bring the Shiite militias into the battle. How is it going to stop them from bringing them into the battle again? Obviously, it won't.

Still, give the man credit. Riedel has used the technique that I have long imagined was on the way. Eventually, the left will simply have to acknowledge what they have been eerily denying for many months, which is the critical role played by al Qaeda in Iraq. When they do, they will just make a up a reason why the exact same plan they have already been advocating -- a plan devised with no thought of al Qaeda in mind -- is still the right way to go. All you have to do is fantasize that everything will be OK.

What's Plan B if our departure precipitates genocide and massive al-Qaeda-induced instability? One gets the feeling that Plan A is Plan B. Riedel must know that there is a very real possibility that pulling our troops from Iraq will lead to the chaotic genocidal collapse that al Qaeda is seeking to engineer. His breathtaking unwillingness to openly address that possibility suggests to me that he would be comfortable with that outcome (because, I assume, the left would have the glorious opportunity to blame it all on Bush).

Now read this interview with Fred Kagan and tell me who makes more sense to you, Riedel or Kagan:

HH (Hugh Hewitt): Yesterday on this program, Lawrence Wright detailed the flow of jihadis to al Anbar, and now evidently Diyala Province with the hope of taking on the Americans. Has that halted, slowed, are do they continue pretty much at will to arrive in the country?

FK: Al Qaeda is surging against us, and I think that’s happening globally. I think that al Qaeda is funneling all of the resources it can into defeating us in Iraq, and it is funneling all of its resources in Iraq to creating spectacular attacks against us, and against innocent Iraqi civilians, both Sunni and Shia. And they’re indiscriminant in their killing. This isn’t really sectarian killing. This is just terrorism, plain and simple. And they are surging to try to break our will, and I hope to Heaven that we won’t let them.
...
HH: Now given a very short period of time for a tough question, how then do you prevail in the long war?

FK: Well, you start by getting Iraq under control, because if we don’t get Iraq under control, and if we allow ourselves to be driven out, we will be reinforcing the message that terrorism succeeds against the United States every time. And that’s a disaster. Over the long term, the tactics of these terrorists are going to alienate them increasingly within the Muslim population at large, as is already happening in Iraq. The truth of the matter is that most Muslims don’t want to live in accord with Sharia law the way these guys interpret it, and they don’t want to be terrorized and killed. And that’s something that we’re going to have to plan, but we’ve got to show that there’s an alternative, and we’ve got to show that we’re prepared to help democratic regimes fight off terrorism.

Unlike Riedel, Fred Kagan knows that al Qaeda is tarnishing its reputation in the Muslim world. Pretending that they aren't so you can pretend that it doesn't matter that we'd hand al Qaeda a propaganda victory by leaving Iraq on a timetable is dangerously naive. And it would not be just a propaganda victory that we'd be handing to them. It would be an actual victory.

And here is another interview by Hugh Hewitt with Max Boot who echoes a point I have been hammering on for a while now:

HH: Well, I called it a telegram to the Taliban. Does the enemy read this and follow this, in your opinion, Max Boot?

MB: Oh, absolutely, and I think there’s this very naïve attitude that oh, well, we can pull out of Iraq, it won’t be a big deal, and then we can concentrate our resources on the real fight. In Afghanistan, ignoring the fact that Iraq right now is the front line of the struggle against al Qaeda, and if we give up there, it will be a tremendous boost to al Qaeda, similar to defeating the Red Army in Afghanistan. And they’re not going to be content with fighting us in Iraq. They’re going to go fight us in Afghanistan, and the situation there will deteriorate, and they’ll fight us elsewhere around the world, and we would have to grapple with that. So there’s not an easy exit strategy by simply saying oh, this is no big deal, we don’t have to worry about it. We do have to worry about it. The cost of defeat will be very heavy.

Indeed it will be. Unless, that is, you are a Democratic leader whose computation of the costs involved are purely political. From Harry Reid's point of view, if all of the above happens and the Democrats pick up a few senate seats, that's good. After all, as I noted yesterday, here is Harry Reid's analysis of the costs of losing in Iraq:

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

Perhaps you will, but only because you and your like-minded colleagues in the media have succeeded in falsely portraying what is happening in Iraq as a civil war, one that has nothing at all to do with the war on terror. In that sense, it's like the prior collusion between Democrats and the media on the issue of the "jobless recovery" we once had. That collusion makes it possible to just make stuff up and to get traction with the American people when you do. Once upon a time, the fact that such a thing could happen was amazing to me. Now it's just scary.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt is on a roll. Here is part of his interview with Michael O'Hanlon of the (relatively liberal) Brookings Institute(via Powerline):

HH: And that is, however, a broadly representative characterization of the left side of the Democratic Party, which is very activist, and very urgent in their demand that we withdraw. And so, just to inform them, from someone from Brookings, what do you think the consequences…I asked Lawrence Wright this as well, but what do you think the consequences would be of a precipitous withdrawal?

MO’H: Well, I think they would probably be…the civil war getting anywhere from two to ten times worse in terms of the rate of killing. I think ultimately, the Sunni Arabs would be mostly defeated, and they would essentially be ghettoized in the western part of their country without much oil, very angry at the world, and therefore even more likely to collaborate with al Qaeda. As you know, one of the hopeful things right now is that the Sunni Arabs are not collaborating as much with al Qaeda, and in some cases, fighting them out in al Anbar Province. But I think that dynamic would probably change for the worse, and you would see that region become to some extent a sanctuary for terrorism, and of course, there’d be a risk of regional war. I don’t know how to score the probabilities on that, but some risk of a greater regional war. And Iraq itself would be in mayhem probably for many years to come, looking sort of like Somalia or maybe the way Afghanistan did in the 80’s and 90’s. I think that’s the most likely outcome. You know, I’m not saying that it would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf, but there would be some chance of a regional war, and a very high chance of genocide inside Iraq.

O'Hanlon spearheads the Iraq Index project at Brookings. It is far and away the most complete and most informative analysis of what is happening in Iraq (everything from casualty statistics to troop counts to economic indicators). His opinion should not be taken lightly, even if you are an angry left wing zealot who hates George Bush with every fiber of your being.

The Eerie Code of Denial

I have repeatedly made reference to the eerie code of silence among Democratic leaders when it comes to the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama never, ever demonstrate an understanding of the details of the conflict in Iraq. And, as part of their willful ignorance, they never exhibit any detailed knowledge of the critical role played by al Qaeda in Iraq. Even the most elementary information on this topic, such as the fact that al Qaeda bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra in a deliberate and successful effort to provoke sectarian warfare, goes unmentioned (as if they don't know about it). On the subject of al Qaeda in Iraq, Democratic leaders have adopted an eerie code of silence. If you support a timetable for withdrawal, it should give you pause that your like-minded leadership is behaving in that bizarre and inexcusable fashion.

Yesterday, though, the House Majority Leader, who had just been briefed by General Petraeus, actually mentioned al Qaeda. This always gets my attention because I am dying to know exactly why Democrats want to surrender to the very terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. But because they usually don't mention al Qaeda at all (or, if they do, they ludicrously pretend that al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, not Iraq), I don't know what they are thinking. Here is what the majority leader said:

House Majority Leader: 'Solution in Iraq is a political solution'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Wednesday told reporters "the solution in Iraq is a political solution" after the commander of U.S. forces in that nation briefed Hoyer and other House members on the four-year old war there.

After listening to Gen. David Petraeus, Hoyer said he thinks the fight in Iraq is not against al Qaeda but is "a virulent sectarian battle against various factions within the Iraq populous that has not been brought under control by the Iraqis themselves."

Say what? I believe General Petraeus to be a truthful and honorable man. Moreover, I take what the military reports to be some of the best evidence we can get about the situation in Iraq. Thus, the fact that Petraeus would claim that we are not in a fight against al Qaeda in Iraq weakens my theory considerably.

Then again, Ronald Reagan once said "trust, but verify," so I went looking for some quotes from the general himself. I found a detailed account here:

Q: General, did you give the members any specific number in terms of violence, and what numbers did you give them?

GEN. PETRAEUS: What I did highlight was one of the areas in which there has been progress, and that is in the reduction in sectarian murders in Baghdad, which is about one-third now of what it was in January. That's an important development because the sectarian murders can be a cancer in a neighborhood. It is something on which our commanders and the Iraqi commanders have focused quite a bit, and it is an area in which, as I say, there has been progress. Having said that, the ability of al Qaeda to conduct horrific sensational attacks obviously has represented a setback and is an area in which we are focusing considerable attention, as you might imagine.

OK, now I'm confused. Didn't Hoyer imply that the general said the exact opposite of what he is saying here? The general is saying exactly what you have been reading about on my blog (which is merely what the incontrovertible evidence shows to be true). But Majority Leader Hoyer says that we are not in a fight against al Qaeda and that what we need is a political solution. With whom? Al Qaeda? That's an interesting idea. General Petraeus says that "we are focusing considerable attention" on the problem of al Qaeda in Iraq. To me, that sounds like the general is saying that the fight in Iraq is against al Qaeda now that sectarian murders are decreasing. Did Hoyer not hear him? Or is he just counting on Americans not paying attention to the details? I believe it to be the latter, and that's disgraceful.

Petraeus goes on to say this:

I also pointed out the progress in Anbar Province, which has been very substantial, as you know. Literally over the last two months, Anbar has gone -- or certainly over the last six months -- from being assessed as being lost, to a situation that now is quite heartening because of the decision by a number of Sunni Arab tribes to join the fight against al Qaeda, saying no more -- they've had it -- and linking arms with the coalition to take on al Qaeda and one city after another really cleaning them out all the way down the Euphrates River Valley from al Qaim and Husaybah through Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and so forth, although as I pointed out to each of the respective bodies -- the House and the Senate -- there still is considerable work to be done in Anbar Province although all the trends are in the right direction.

In other words, the Sunni tribes have joined our fight against al Qaeda in Iraq. Does that sound like Hoyer is telling truth when he says that, after listening to General Petraeus, the fight in Iraq is not against al Qaeda but is "a virulent sectarian battle against various factions within the Iraq populous that has not been brought under control by the Iraqis themselves?" I realize that it is politically expedient for Democrats to push the fantasy that it's all just a big ol' civil war in Iraq, but Hoyer's audacity in this regard is hard for even me to believe. Then again, that liberal champion Harry Reid is focusing on political expediency as well:

Added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war."

First, "this war is lost" and now this. It's hard to imagine a more inspirational leader in a time of war, isn't it? When al Qaeda kills our soldiers, Senator Reid starts counting up the senate seats his party might win -- not in private, but in public. How very impressive.

The interview with General Petraeus continued with this question:

Q: General, are you being pressured by the president to continue to say that the U.S. involvement should continue in Iraq?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I'm not being pressured by the president to say anything. I am a soldier and I'm going to give a forthright assessment, and that's all that I will provide, and I'm not going to be pressured by political leaders of either party.

I wish some enterprising reporter would ask Hoyer if he is being pressured to make up a story about Iraq because it is politically expedient to do so or if he really believes that al Qaeda is an almost irrelevant factor in Iraq. But reporters won't do that because what Hoyer says makes perfect sense to them. To reporters who just knew that the invasion of Iraq would lead to a civil war, what's happening in Iraq is a civil war, and that's pretty much all there is to it. It's their fight now, and only a political solution can stop the fighting. Because their thinking is so severely compromised by their triumphant civil war schema, reporters don't flip our when Democratic leaders make absurd statements about the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. But I do.

Here is more of what General Petraeus said, and you can certainly see how it would lead any honest House Majority Leader to believe that what we are doing in Iraq has nothing at all to do with al Qaeda:

Clearly, we have additional work to be done to make inroads into those who are carrying out these horrific suicide bombing attacks against all Iraqis.

In fact, the other day, Secretary of Defense Gates said that his sense was that al Qaeda Iraq has declared war on all Iraqis. They have attacked Sunni Arabs, they have attacked Shi'a, they have attacked Iraqi Kurds. No one has been outside their crosshairs. And they have targeted indiscriminately civilians, crowds outside mosques and all the rest of that.

General Petraeus could be writing my blog. As he implies here, and as all other evidence suggests, the suicide bombers represent the work of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Now tell me, who do you believe, General Petraeus or House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer? And if you think we should pull our troops from Iraq, what do you make of the fact that the leadership on your side of the debate is either badly uninformed or shamefully dishonest (take your pick)? Hoyer has graduated from the eerie code of silence to the eerie code of denial, and I expect to see more of that from Democrats as it becomes increasingly impossible to pretend that al Qaeda is Afghanistan.

Still, not wanting to rush to judgment, I went to Hoyer's web page and searched on al Qaeda to see what he really thinks. This what I found:

There are others who will argue that this bill will compromise our position in the war on terror. To them I say that this legislation goes above and beyond the president's funding request supporting our troops, deployed at the tip of the spear. And reaffirming our commitment to fighting and defeating al Qaeda.
...
In addition, the legislation provides a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces, provides greater protections for our troops and veterans, and refocuses our efforts on fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Good grief. He is reaffirming his commitment to fighting al Qaeda by suggesting that we send our soldiers to Afghanistan even though al Qaeda sent theirs to Iraq. If you favor withdrawing our troops from Iraq, aren't you at least slightly embarrassed by the level of understanding exhibited by those who favor the same policy that you do? Just for your information, I'll finish my post today by presenting the suicide bomb attacks in Iraq just since the beginning of April. These attacks by al Qaeda (in Iraq, not Afghanistan) have killed 366 civilians (about one-third of all civilian deaths recorded by the media in Iraq this month). But their attacks are not limited to civilians. They are also directed at police, and U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. Al Qaeda is wreaking havoc in Iraq. Think about Hoyer's comments (and try to make sense of them) as you read through these reports:

04/24/07 RAMADI - A suicide truck bomb killed 25 people and wounded 44 in the Albufarraj area near the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, 110 km (70 miles) west of Baghdad, police said.

04/23/07 BAGHDAD - Six people were killed and 14 wounded when a suicide bomber blew up in a restaurant near the entrance to the heavily fortified Green Zone that houses the U.S. embassy and Iraqi government offices, police said.

04/23/07 BAQUBA - A suicide car bomber attacked a gathering of senior police officials in the city of Baquba, killing 10 policemen and wounding 23, police said. Police chief Brigadier-General Safaa al-Timimi was killed in the blast.

04/23/07 MOSUL (near)- At least 10 people were killed and 20 wounded when a suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into the office of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan (PDK) of Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani

04/23/07 RAMADI - Three suicide car bombers killed 20 people and wounded 35 others in the Iraqi insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, 110 km (70 miles) west of Baghdad, police said. A source at a local hospital said it received 29 bodies after the blast.

04/22/07 BAGHDAD - Two suicide bombers rammed their vehicles into a police station in southwestern Baghdad, killing 12 people and wounding 95, police said. Most of the dead were civilians, police said.

04/20/07 FALLUJA - A suicide truck bomber targeting a police station near Falluja killed two civilians and wounded 37, police said.

04/20/07 SAQLAWIYA - One civilian was killed and eight U.S. troops wounded in a suicide attack on a U.S. checkpoint near Saqlawiya, near Falluja, 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

04/19/07 BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber rammed his car into a fuel tanker, killing 10 people and wounding 21 in the southern Jadriya district of Baghdad, police said.

04/18/07 BAGHDAD - A car bomb in Baghdad's mainly Shi'ite district of Sadriya killed 140 people and wounded 150, police said, in the worst single insurgent bomb attack in the capital since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

04/18/07 BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed 35 people and wounded 75 near an intersection in the Shi'ite district of Sadr city in northeastern Baghdad, said Dr Qassem Ali, the head of Imam Ali hospital in Sadr City.

04/18/07 BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomb targeting a police patrol killed two policemen and wounded four, including two civilians, near Baghdad, police said.

04/18/07 Baghdad SADIYAH - Two police were killed and eight wounded in a suicide car bomb attack at a police checkpoint in Baghdad's Sadiyah district, police said.

04/17/07 MOSUL (near) - A suicide bomber driving a tanker targeting a police patrol east of Mosul killed one civilian and wounded four Iraqi soldiers, police said.

04/16/07 ISHAQI - A suicide car bomber targeting a police directorate killed nine people and wounded 10 others in Ishaqi, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad. Ten cars were destroyed.

04/15/07 BAGHDAD - A bomb inside a small bus killed three people and wounded 11 in the Kadhimiya district of northwestern Baghdad, police said. Another police source put the death toll at six dead and 11 wounded by a suicide bomber on the bus.

04/15/07 MOSUL - Four people, including two Iraqi soldiers, were killed and 16 wounded when two oil trucks driven by suicide bombers exploded outside a military base in the northern city of Mosul, police said.

04/14/07 BAIJI - A suicide car bomber killed five Iraqi soldiers and wounded four others when he detonated his explosives at a checkpoint in the northern town of Baiji, police said.

04/14/07 KERBALA - A suicide car bomber killed at least 40 people and wounded scores more at a bus station near a Shi'ite shrine in the holy Iraqi city of Kerbala, police said.

04/14/07 KERBALA - Health officials said a further three people had died after a suicide car bombing at a crowded bus station in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala on Saturday, taking the death toll to 43. They said 200 were wounded.

04/10/07 MUQDADIYA - A suicide bomber targeting police recruits outside a police station killed 17 and wounded 33, including three civilians, in the town of Muqdadiya, 90 km (50 miles) northeast of Baghdad, police said.

04/08/07 BAGHDAD - Seven people were killed and 21 wounded when a suicide car bomb exploded near an intersection in Ilaam district in southern Baghdad, police said.

04/07/07 SAMARRA - A suicide bomber targeting an Iraqi security forces checkpoint killed five people near Samarra, 100 km (62 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

04/06/07 Ramadi - Police...now say a suicide bomber was driving a truck loaded with explosives and toxic chlorine gas when he crashed into a police checkpoint...At least 27 people, two of them policemen, died

04/02/07 BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into an Iraqi police checkpoint, killing two people and wounding five in the Doura district of southern Baghdad, police said.

04/02/07 KHALIS - A suicide bomber killed three people and wounded 20 when he detonated his explosive belt near a popular restaurant in the town of Khalis, 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

04/01/07 MOSUL - Two suicide truck bombs killed two people and wounded 17 when they exploded at an Iraqi army base east of the northern city of Mosul...police said. The two dead were civilians while most of the wounded were soldiers

Al Qaeda's Troop Surge in Iraq

This article in Time, which discusses the recent suicide bombing that killed 9 U.S. soldiers, is typical of coverage from Iraq:

Is the Surge Backfiring?

Word of yesterday's deadly assault in eastern Diyala Province spread quickly among U.S. troops as far away as the western city of Tikrit, where soldiers with the 82nd Airborne kept a close watch on reports of their comrades sent to the Baqubah area to deal with rising violence there. The strike was what U.S. soldiers call a complex attack, one involving elaborate planning to maximize casualties. Initial assessments suggest that first a suicide car bomber rammed a vehicle into the gates of a small U.S. patrol base outside Baquba in the same area where single car bomber attacked a patrol base last month. A second suicide car bomber apparently followed the first in yesterday's attack, however.
...
It remains to be seen whether the dozens of other combat outposts popping up around Iraq amid the surge will come to face similar attacks aimed at sending U.S. troops back into heavily fortified compounds and, in the hopes of insurgents, ultimately home to the United States in defeat.

Yes, the "insurgents" certainly do hope to send our troops home to the United States in defeat. And bringing our troops home in defeat happens to be the plan that Harry Reid endorsed with his now infamous suggestion that "This war is lost." As usual, the Time article says nothing at all about who these insurgents might be, but some other articles do, such as this one:

Al-Qa'ida group behind US deaths in Iraq

A group linked to al-Qa'ida has claimed responsibility for two suicide truck bombs that killed nine US soldiers and wounded 20 in Diyala province in one of the deadliest attacks on American forces in the past year.

"Two knights from the Islamic State of Iraq ... driving booby-trapped trucks, hit the heart of the Crusader American headquarters in the region of Diyala," said a statement from the group calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq, which was posted on the internet.

Now, let me explain something to you that you should be obvious. These "knights of the Islamic State" are not freedom fighters seeking to oust an occupying military force so that the Iraqi people can determine their own future, nor are they insurgents engaged in a civil war against the Shiites of Iraq. Instead, these are wretched al Qaeda terrorists (al Qaeda being the organization that attacked us on 9/11) seeking to impose a humiliating defeat on America so they can get on with their grand plans for the region. Those plans involve provoking a civil war (which should be very easy to do once our troops are out of the way) and imposing strict Taliban-like Islamic law on Iraq and neighboring states. To accomplish that, al Qaeda knows that they first have to destabilize the entire region. They are starting with Iraq, and they are doing a pretty good job of it. You can blame George Bush for that if it will make you feel better, but when you are all done raging at your president, come back and think about what should be done now. Raging at Bush won't address the problem at all.

Al Qaeda specializes in suicide bombings, and such bombings are occurring with alarming frequency in Iraq. It's hard to appreciate how many incidents involve suicide bombers because the media often reports these attacks as involving truck bombs or car bombs. Very often, there was a suicide driver involved as well even if that fact goes unreported. That matters because of who these suicide bombers are. If you don't know, I recommend that you peruse yesterday's post on that subject.

I found a Wikipedia site that tracks suicide bombings in Iraq that are reported in the media. I am not sure how reliable the information is, but it has been accurate in its tracking of suicide bombings over the last week, so I will tentatively assume that the information is valid. It is hard to process all of the information presented there because it is just a long list of documented suicide attacks over the last few years. In an effort to make sense of it, I condensed the information by simply counting up the number of days per month that a suicide attack was reported in the news. So, for example, if suicide attacks were reported on March 7, March 18 and March 27, then I would count 3 suicide attacks for that month (even if there might have been more than one suicide attack reported on one or more of those days). It's a rough measure, but it should reveal trends, and it is the trend that I'd like to draw your attention to today. Here are the results of my analysis:


Notice anything in particular? In 2006, suicide attacks increased noticeably. Often, these attacks were directed at Shiite civilians in an effort to provoke a civil war. In that year, Muqtada al Sadr accepted the invitation and ordered his Mahdi Army to start executing Sunni males in Baghdad at a very high rate. That's when "sectarian violence" got out of hand. During 2007, the troop surge has been underway. Sectarian violence has dropped, but something else has increased, and that's why overall civilian casualties have remained high. As you can see, what has increased are suicide bombings.

Who are the suicide bombers? As I explained yesterday, they are al Qaeda terrorists (not Baathist insurgents). As far as I know, this is not disputed by anyone, but if you know of a contrary claim, please draw my attention to it. If suicide bombers are al Qaeda terrorists, then to say that the surge is not working (which is what Harry Reid says) is to say that it has been effectively countered by al Qaeda. There is no other interpretation. This is important to understand because I don't believe that most Americans would favor retreating in the face of a counter-surge being launched by al Qaeda. Fortunately for Democrats, most Americans do not know much about al Qaeda in Iraq, so they don't know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. But you can be sure that al Qaeda knows it, and they'd like to move that front elsewhere after our troops leave. In fact, they might be coming soon to theater near you.

Now read this:

Iraq insurgent unity collapses

The Iraqi insurgency is showing signs of growing divisions between the nationalists and groups aligned with Al-Qaeda. Encompassing Iraqi nationalism, conservative Islam and radical Islamism, the Sunni insurgency has always been a fractious affair with numerous groups and subgroups operating in the field. In the past, these groups have generally tried to keep their disputes and rivalries private, instead focusing their efforts on attacking the US military and its Iraqi allies.

However, this facade of unity is breaking down, with the most notable example being the Islamic Army's stern criticism of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State in Iraq. The rift indicates that the nationalist factions are increasingly divided at the same time as the Islamic State becomes more aggressive.

Indeed. As my chart shows, the Islamic State (i.e., a branch of al Qaeda in Iraq -- the very branch that killed 9 of our brave soldiers yesterday) is becoming much more aggressive. Even so, their fortunes are changing in Iraq, and their long-term prospects look bleak. Their only hope is that Harry Reid successfully engineers an American defeat before al Qaeda collapses in Iraq. I, myself, am rooting for George Bush and General Petraeus to prevail over al Qaeda in Iraq. You are, of course, free to root for al Qaeda and Harry Reid, but I'm not sure why you would.

The Suicide Bombers of Iraq

Still think Iraq is just descending into a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis and has nothing at all to do with the war on terror? If so, it's time to wake up from that dangerous liberal fantasy.

As sectarian violence in Iraq has abated somewhat, suicide bombings have increased dramatically. Who are these suicide bombers, and what are they trying to accomplish?

About a month ago, a suicide bomber did this:

The Iraqi Interior Ministry on Saturday raised the death toll in last week's suicide truck bombing against a Shiite market in Tal Afar to 152, which would make it the deadliest single strike since the war started four years ago

Then, about a week ago, suicide bombers carried out this horrendous mass-casualty attack in Baghdad:

Continued al-Qaeda attacks seem to mean that jobs done by the captured or killed terrorists are now performed by replacements under Zarqawi’s successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Just last week, at least seven suicide bombers killed over 200 Iraqis in attacks the United States blamed on al-Qaeda.

And yesterday alone, suicide bombers carried out this series of attacks:

At least nine American soldiers were killed and 20 wounded in a suicide car bombing at a U.S. base in Diyala province.

A suicide bomber attacked a restaurant near the entrance to the heavily fortified Green Zone killing eight people and wounding 14.

Three suicide bombers killed between 20 and 29 people and wounded 35 others in Ramadi.

A suicide car bomber attacked the office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party near Mosul, at least 10 were killed and 20 wounded. At a gathering of senior police officials in Baquba, a suicide car bomber killed 10 policemen and wounded 23 more, the chief of police was killed in the attack.

In Diyala, a suicide bomber attacked the civil defense headquarters and destroyed it killing four and wounding 25.

Every time Americans see news of these atrocities, they shake their heads at the relentless civil war raging in Iraq. But that's not what these attacks represent, and correcting this misunderstanding seems increasingly essential to me.

Who are these suicide bombers? Some articles from a couple of years ago help to answer this question. Here is one account from a 2005 Human Rights Watch report:

The groups that are most responsible for the abuse, namely al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna and the Islamic Army in Iraq, have all targeted civilians for abductions and executions. The first two groups have repeatedly boasted about massive car bombs and suicide bombs in mosques, markets, bus stations and other civilian areas. Such acts are war crimes and in some cases may constitute crimes against humanity, which are defined as serious crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

Note that al Qaeda is mentioned here (that's a clue!), and Ansar al-Sunna is another radical militant organization affiliated with al Qaeda that is seeking to establish an Islamic state. As I have explained repeatedly -- and as Zarqawi explained quite clearly in his intercepted letter from 2004 -- al Qaeda's attacks on civilians are designed to provoke civil war in Iraq (the very civil war that causes Americans to want to bring the troops home on a timetable). The attacks are not, themselves, part of that civil war. Thinking otherwise is the big mistake that everyone makes.

Here is another article that shed some light on who the suicide bombers of Iraq really are:

'Martyrs' In Iraq Mostly Saudis
Web Sites Track Suicide Bombings

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page A01

Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? By the radicals' account, they are an internationalist brigade of Arabs, with the largest share in the online lists from Saudi Arabia and a significant minority from other countries on Iraq's borders, such as Syria and Kuwait. The roster of the dead on just one extremist Web site reviewed by The Washington Post runs to nearly 250 names...
...
Many of the Arabs, according to the postings, were drawn to fight in Iraq under the banner of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the group run by Jordanian militant Abu Musab Zarqawi that has taken credit for a gruesome series of beheadings, kidnappings and suicide attacks -- many of them filmed and then disseminated on the Internet in a convergence between the electronic jihad and the real-life war.

Get the picture? The suicide bombers of Iraq are al Qaeda terrorists (not "insurgents"), and they are seeking to demoralize Americans by inciting a civil war in Iraq. Call them terrorists because that's what they are. That is, they deliberately target innocent civilians for death, and they seek to slaughter as many of them as they can. If they aren't terrorists, then who is? The media almost always refers to these people as insurgents, as if they are just Baathist militants fighting the Iraqi government and American forces in an effort to restore themselves to power. But the media's well-meaning efforts to avoid being judgmental has clouded our understanding of what is happening in Iraq because it has caused Americans to believe that it is largely a civil war between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. But there is a third force in the mix, and it happens to be the one that attacked us on 9/11.

Suicide bombers are mostly foreign jihadists, but al Qaeda has also been able to recruit a few religious fanatics who grew up in Iraq:

Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber
Sunday, Jun. 26, 2005 By APARISIM GHOSH / BAGHDAD
...
At 20, Marwan is already a battle-hardened insurgent, a jihadi foot soldier in Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi's terrorist group, al-Qaeda in Iraq. Like the bulk of insurgents, he is a Sunni Muslim from the former ruling minority community. In his hometown, Fallujah, he is known for his ferociousness in battle and deep religiosity.
...
The sincerity of his desire to make himself a "martyr" was attested to by several figures-- a member of his organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq; a Baghdad-area commander of an insurgent unit that provides logistical support for al-Qaeda bombers; and a Sunni imam who is sometimes brought in to counsel bombers during their premission spiritual "purification"--whom TIME consulted through Iraqis with contacts inside the insurgency. His account provides a rare glimpse into the mind-set and preparation of one aspiring suicide bomber.
...
Marwan says he became expert with machine guns, a skill that brought him to the attention of al-Zarqawi's group, then called Attawhid wal Jihad. Marwan's piety apparently impressed the foreign-led jihadis as well...
...
For the deeply pious Marwan, his colleagues in Attawhid are now closer to his heart than his family or former friends. "The jihadis are more religious people," he says. "You ask them anything--anything--and they can instantly quote a relevant section from the Koran." Like them, Marwan works Koranic allusions into his speech. He has also embraced the jihadist worldview of one global Islamic state where there is, in Marwan's words, "no alcohol, no music and no Western influences."
...
Marwan seems certain he is on a "pure" path. Unlike many other insurgents, who reject the terrorist label and call themselves freedom fighters or holy warriors, Marwan embraces it. "Yes, I am a terrorist," he says. "Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim." He quotes lines from the surah known as Al-Anfal, or the Spoils of War: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
...
"It doesn't matter whether people know what I did," he says. "The only person who matters is Allah--and the only question he will ask me is 'How many infidels did you kill?'"

I don't know how I could make this any clearer. No one seriously suggests that these suicide bombers are Baathist insurgents even though they sometimes work with those insurgents (an alliance that finally seems to be falling apart). Yet, somehow, the media, Democrats, and the American people have been hypnotized into believing that they are witnessing "sectarian violence" every time one of these suicide bombers strikes. No matter how comforting that thought might be to, and no matter how much you might relish the opportunity to savage George Bush for not predicting the civil war that you, yourself, predicted, it's time to wake up. Feel free to hate George Bush for picking a fight with al Qaeda, but that's who we are fighting in Iraq.

How's that fight going, anyway? Consider this:

Al-Qaeda still well-oiled machine: U.S.

Apr 23, 2007
by Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - U.S. profiles of al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq show the terror group as a complex and well-financed operation that has survived constant attacks from U.S. forces.

The U.S. command in Baghdad compiled the profiles of captured and killed al-Qaeda in Iraq starting in 2006 based on interrogations and other intelligence. The command said the list of such high-value al-Qaeda members provides “clear evidence of the systematic dismantling of the AQI network.” The name of the group is “al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

But the Pentagon acknowledged last week that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been able to rejuvenate a cadre of new leaders, after last summer’s killing of founder Abu Musab Zarqawi and other lieutenants.

“There are new leaders emerging, yes,” said Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero said.

Continued al-Qaeda attacks seem to mean that jobs done by the captured or killed terrorists are now performed by replacements under Zarqawi’s successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri. Just last week, at least seven suicide bombers killed over 200 Iraqis in attacks the United States blamed on al-Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is alive and well, and they have come to Iraq to fight us. Thus, if you think Iraq has fallen into a civil war and that it has nothing to do with the war on terror, then you have it exactly backwards. As I noted yesterday, the civil war has abated to a large extent, but attacks by suicide bombers have greatly accelerated. And these suicide bombers represent al Qaeda in action, not the Baathist insurgency. No one disputes this, but many ignore it because they simply cannot assimilate this information when they try to process it through their obsolete "civil war" schema. That's why Democrats like Harry Reid and John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi never, ever discuss the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. Their amazing silence about that has earned a name from me. I call it "the eerie code of silence." Mainstream media reporters also process all information from Iraq through a civil war schema, so it does not seem patently absurd to them that our Democratic leaders exhibit no detailed knowledge of the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, when Bush and others raise the issue of al Qaeda, sneering reporters act as if it's just an excuse to explain away the civil war that every liberal critic just knew would spontaneously erupt if we removed the genocidal dictator from power. But what you are seeing in Iraq is not confirmation of your long-held belief. It is something altogether different. Something much more ominous.

It's time to get real. Like it or not (and I don't like it), the war on terror is taking place mainly in Iraq now. Al Qaeda concentrated its resources there (not in Afghanistan, which is where Democrats preposterously want to send our troops to fight them). Increasingly, al Qaeda's leaders are sending their deranged suicide bombers to carry out attacks designed to demoralize America so that our forces leave Iraq on their terms. Unfortunately, Harry Reid has decided that the time has come to accept al Qaeda's terms of surrender. If we leave on their terms, we will reinforce the world's most dangerous theory. It will mean that al Qaeda will learn anew what they already believed to be true, which is that they have the power to defeat the world's only superpower using a simple weapon: the religiously deranged suicide bomber.

If you want to leave Iraq on a timetable, so be it. But make no mistake about it, we will have lost to al Qaeda. Whether you like it or not, it's not a civil war -- it really is the central front in the war on terror.

UPDATE: This just in:

Al-Qaida group claims killing of 9 GIs in Iraq

BAGHDAD - An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web statement Tuesday claiming responsibility for a suicide car bombing that killed nine U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in the worst attack on American ground forces in Iraq in more than a year

It's not a civil war. It's the war on terror, and the terrorists are fighting hard to drive us from Iraq. Harry Reid says the war is lost. He's entitled to that opinion, but he should not neglect to mention who he believes has won.

Carelessly Conceptualizing Iraq

I try to pay close attention to the details in Iraq, and as part of that effort, I am always looking for signs that bear on the validity of my analyses of casualties. Here is a rare tidbit of relevant information:

U.S. commanders say sectarian murders fell from 1,200 in Baghdad in January to fewer than 400 in March. Markets are reopening, and a few thousand families have trickled back to areas they had fled.

But they agreed that among the most troubling trends in Iraq has been the proliferation of suicide bomb attacks, because they risk reigniting sectarian revenge killings and undermining the government. Suicide bombings have increased 30 percent over the six weeks that ended in early April, according to military data.

All of this pretty much fits with my analysis of trends in Baghdad. For example, here is my chart showing one type of sectarian violence, namely, execution-style killings mostly carried out (presumably) by Muqtada al Sadr's militia:


Obviously, there was a big drop in this kind of killing, and the method I use to track this sort of thing (based on media reports tabulated by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count) was sensitive to that change. Still, my numbers for January are lower than those reported by the U.S. military. I suspect that this is party because there is more to sectarian violence than just the execution-style killings. The executions that I track are always reported in stories like this:

BAGHDAD - A total of 21 bodies were found in different areas of Baghdad on Monday, police said.

For the category of "sectarian murders," it might make sense to also add in deaths reported like this (involving "gunmen"):

BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed five people from the same family and wounded another three when they stormed into a Shi'ite home in Baghdad's Amil district on Friday night, police and hospital officials said.

And it might also make sense to add deaths reported like this (i.e., mortar attacks):

BAGHDAD - Mortars killed four people and wounded 13 more on Wednesday night in northern Baghdad, police said.

When I include these as part of the sectarian violence tally, my number for January approaches 900, whereas the number for March becomes 465. Still not identical to what the military reports, but the method is nevertheless pretty good at capturing the overall trend (i.e., a big drop in sectarian violence).

Excluded from my tabulation of sectarian violence are suicide bombings. The U.S. military excludes attacks like these as well, and for good reason. These suicide bombers almost invariably target Shiites civilians, and they are thought to involve al Qaeda terrorists. For example, the always informative Iraq Index (published by the Brookings Institution) says this on page 22:

[Foreign fighters] are very few in number, although as far as we can tell, they constitute about 100 percent of the suicide bombers.” DoD News Briefing with Col. Sean MacFarland, Commander of 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Stationed in Ramadi, July 14, 2006.

These foreign fighters are not "insurgents." Instead, they the al Qaeda terrorists who have been drawn to Iraq like flies. Al Qaeda uses precisely that method (suicide bombings), it is a terrorist organization (i.e., they indiscriminately target civilians), they have stated their intention to slaughter Shiites, they claim many of these spectacular bombings, and the U.S. military attributes almost all of them to al Qaeda. By contrast, there is not one shred of evidence that I have encountered to suggest that these mass-casualty suicide bombings are being carried out by Sunni Baathist insurgents as part of a civil war. Al Qaeda terrorists target Shiite civilians for indiscriminate slaughter because their whole plan to provoke civil war in Iraq, not because they are fighting in that civil war to defeat the Shiites. It's a good plan, not foreseen by anyone, and it has been working fairly well.

All of this brings me to the important point I'd like to re-emphasize today because of a new article that just came out in the prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine (which I'll get to shortly). What is critical to understand, and what even prominent thinkers cannot seem to assimilate, is that there is a distinction between two kinds of violence in Iraq:

1. Sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis as they seek to defeat each other (which can be reasonably construed as being part of a civil war)

2. The indiscriminate slaughter of Shiite civilians by al Qaeda suicide bombers as they seek to provoke Shiite-vs.-Sunni conflict (which cannot be reasonably construed as being part of a civil war)

As violence of the first kind has decreased of late (i.e., as the civil war has abated), violence of the second kind has increased significantly (i.e., efforts to re-ignite the civil war have ramped up). That's what the evidence shows, and those who are paying attention to the details know that. Those who aren't paying close attention, such as Harry Reid, just see confirmation that Iraq has descended into civil war. Yet Reid, who has never shown the slightest understanding of the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq, has the audacity to claim that Bush is in a state of denial:

Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Bush repeatedly said there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he ordered last winter.

“The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial,” said Reid.

I wonder if, someday, some reporter will ask him this question: "Excuse me senator, but what is your analysis of the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq, especially with regard to the more spectacular mass-casualty suicide bombings that we've seen lately?" It's downright creepy that Reid is calling for withdrawal while saying nothing intelligent about al Qaeda in Iraq. Equally creepy is the fact that the mainstream media seems perfectly OK with that. Is this Alice in Wonderland, or are we living in the real world? Sometimes, I'm not sure.

Now consider this new article in Foreign Affairs by James D. Fearon (described as the Geballe Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Stanford University). This is a prominent professor at a top university writing in a leading journal. Even so, he misses the boat completely:

Iraq's Civil War

Summary: The White House still avoids the label, but by any reasonable historical standard, the Iraqi civil war has begun. The record of past such wars suggests that Washington cannot stop this one -- and that Iraqis will be able to reach a power-sharing deal only after much more fighting, if then. The United States can help bring about a settlement eventually by balancing Iraqi factions from afar, but there is little it can do to avert bloodshed now.

Here we go again. Before I can accept the author's thesis, I want to see him explain the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. Usually, proponents of the civil war schema barely touch on this point, and he turns out to be no exception. He only mentions al Qaeda in a few places and then only in passing, such as here:

As the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad proceeds, the weak Shiite-dominated government is inevitably becoming an open partisan in a nasty civil war between Sunni and Shiite Arabs...A decisive military victory by a Shiite-dominated government is not possible anytime soon given the favorable conditions for insurgency fought from the Sunni-dominated provinces. Furthermore, this course encourages Sunni nationalists to turn to al Qaeda in Iraq for support against Shiite militias and the Iraqi army.

Here, Fearon hints that he at least understands one small aspect of Zarqawi's grand plan, which is that a civil war in which Shiites begin to prevail will cause the Sunnis turn to al Qaeda for help. It is a little weird that he does not acknowledge the steep drop in the "ethnic cleansing" in Baghdad (as I documented above) and also does not acknowledge that the Sunni tribes in the Anbar Province are turning away from (and fighting against) al Qaeda, but at least he sees that a civil war can push the Sunnis into al Qaeda's camp. I wish he would exhibit at least a slight understanding of the fact that this is precisely why al Qaeda seeks to provoke a civil war. But there is not one single word about that in this long, scholarly article.

Here is how Fearon defines a civil war:

A civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies.

Fair enough. But what do you call it when foreign jihadists repeatedly launch spectacular mass-casualty attacks in an effort to provoke a civil war? I ask because that's what is happening now, yet Fearon offers no evidence whatsoever that he appreciates this fact. Not one word about al Qaeda indiscriminately slaughtering Shiite civilians, and not one word about the fact that they are doing so in order to cause (not to help win) a civil war. I can only assume that he mistakenly believes that these mass-casualty suicide attacks by al Qaeda are really just part of the nasty civil war between Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. But that is wrong. Yes, al Qaeda happens to made up of Sunnis, but they are not joining the Sunnis in their fight against the Shiites. Instead, they are goading the Shiites into killing even more Sunnis. And, as I noted here, al Qaeda is responsible for about 40% of the civilian casualties in Iraq so far in the month of April. How can this massive contribution to the violence in Iraq just be ignored, as if it does not exist? Well, that's how it is when you have a mental schema. You process all information through that schema, and any information that does not fit is twisted beyond recognition until is does.

Consider this very telling summary analysis of the situation:

The civil war in Iraq began in 2004 as a primarily urban guerrilla struggle by Sunni insurgent groups hoping to drive out the United States and to regain the power held by Sunnis under Saddam Hussein. It escalated in 2006 with the proliferation and intensification of violence by Shiite militias, who ostensibly seek to defend Shiites from the Sunni insurgents and who have pursued this end with "ethnic cleansing" and a great deal of gang violence and thuggery.

The Shiite militias ostensibly seek to defend Shiites from Sunni "insurgents?" Here, you see the civil-war schema in all of its glory. First, there is nothing ostensible about what the Shiite militias were doing, and, second, they were not trying to protect their people from Sunni "insurgents." Instead, they were actually trying to protect them from mass-casualty attacks by al Qaeda. The militias did use brutal methods to achieve this end, but one should not lose sight of the fact that they were deliberately drawn into the battle as part of al Qaeda's plan for Iraq. It never ceases to amaze me that the civil-war schema can create such a blind spot in this regard. It is as if the role of al Qaeda in all of this is either so implausible or is so transparently obvious that not one word needs to be said about it. Which is it, in the mind of the author? Implausible or transparently obvious? I don't know because he does not say.

Fearon analyzes several other civil wars from the past to guide his thinking about Iraq, and that's probably why he cannot seem to assimilate the role of al Qaeda in Iraq. Civil wars of the past did not have this new element (namely, a third force using mass-casualty terrorist attacks to try to get the civil war rolling). In that sense, he is like a general fighting the last war instead of the current one. We are in a new war now, one that Fearon does not even recognize -- even as al Qaeda fills your computer screens and TV screens with the blood of hundreds of innocent Shiites every few weeks. But that's how it is when you have a blind spot.

You absolutely must throw off the shackles that bind your thinking if you really believe that what you are witnessing in Iraq is simply the civil war you predicted all along. As Zarqawi explained long ago, al Qaeda launched its vicious assault against the Shiites precisely because democracy was advancing in Iraq (not because it was failing). They had to do something about it, and they did. Their relentless terrorist attacks against innocent Shiite civilians and their holy sites finally brought the Shiite militias into the battle (just as Zarqawi had planned). Fearon says not one single word about this in his entire (very long) article published in a prestigious journal. It is simply bizarre. The editors of the journal must share his civil war schema, thereby explaining why they did not even notice this glaring omission.

Fearon's article is laced with pessimism about the future of Iraq. That's fine. No one can predict the future, and he is entitled to his opinion that Iraq is basically hopeless. I even agree with his (obvious) point that violence in Iraq is not going to go away anytime soon. But his thinking is severely compromised by the civil war schema that he probably adopted well before we invaded Iraq. Now, he feels like he was right all along (I assume), and that's preventing him from seeing the screaming flaw in his analysis. Along with everyone else, he did not foresee the role that al Qaeda would play.

This is not an enemy to be underestimated, much less completely ignored. Someone please tell Harry Reid, who preposterously wants to go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan and, ironically, claims that Bush is in state of denial.

UPDATE: Powerline links to this interesting interview with Condoleezza Rice in which she says this about the role of al Qaeda in Iraq:

The kind of attack that you saw yesterday, the kind of big suicide bombings -- I think some of us suspect have more of a hallmark of the kind of al-Qaida -- maybe in conjunction with insurgents that are indeed going to be difficult. But at some level, Iraqis may be more inclined to unite against those people than to see that as a source of tension between them. For instance, in a place like Anbar where the sheikhs are fighting back now because of what the al-Qaida has done or when the parliament was bombed and al-Qaida took responsibility for it, you saw Iraqis saying, you know, this attacked all Iraqis.

Now it does not make it any less tragic for the people who die, it doesn't make it any less difficult in terms of a sense of insecurity, but its political character is somewhat different. And perhaps still then, if you're in a situation in which it's clear that the government is really trying to be evenhanded, you still have a basis for political reconciliation even if you continue to have these kinds of spectacular attacks by terrorists who largely are not associated with the political process in any way and largely -- possibly associated with al-Qaida. Although I want to be very clear, we don't know for certain that they're al-Qaida attacks, but they have the hallmark of that.

She is surprisingly tentative about blaming spectacular suicide bombings on al Qaeda, but at least she recognizes that such attacks bear the hallmarks of that terrorist organization. I would also add that the attacks fit perfectly with al Qaeda's stated plan for Iraq. The al Qaeda connection could not be proven in a court of law, which is why I assume that Rice makes the case in a tentative way, but all evidence points in that direction (which is my main point).

The New York Times Loves Jacques Chirac (but the French Don't)

My eyes just about popped out of my head when I saw this story in the New York Times:

French Voters Feeling Frustrated Despite a Not-So-Bad Economy

THE French presidential election, which has its first round tomorrow, features a dozen candidates, none of whom seem to have much good to say about the performance of the man who is leaving office after 12 years in power, Jacques Chirac.

A look at the economic performance of the country under Mr. Chirac does not easily explain the antipathy.

A not-so-bad economy? Are you kidding? I follow economic statistics closely, so I read this story with great interest to see what I may have missed. As it turns out, I haven't missed anything. Thus, I assume that this gentle analysis of Chirac's easily documented failure to improve the French economy reflects admiration for a man who opposed the Iraq war, who believes in the social welfare state, who opposes the death penalty, and so on. Perhaps there is another reason why coverage of Bush's fabulous economy is so rarely positive while coverage of Chirac's anemic economy in France is so forgiving, but that's the reason that immediately leaps to my mind.

The article notes this about Chirac's economy:

Unemployment remains high, but it is lower than it was when he took office. Economic growth has lagged that of Britain and the United States, but it has outpaced that of Germany.

Well, let's take a look at unemployment and economic growth during the years that Chirac has been in power. Here is the unemployment story (data taken from the International Monetary Fund):


Well, yes, in his 12 long years of work, Chirac has managed to decrease unemployment in France from an astronomically high 11.1% to a still astronomically high 9.0%. By contrast, Bush was getting blasted in 2003 and 2004 for a "jobless recovery" -- back when our unemployment rate was about 6% (a level not seen in France since 1980). These days, our unemployment rate is below 4.5%. If the New York Times thinks that Chirac deserves moderately high marks for his pathetic performance in this regard, doesn't George Bush deserve to be nominated for the Nobel Prize in economics? Try to imagine what the New York Times would be saying about George Bush's handling of the economy if our unemployment rate were anywhere near 9%. I shudder to think.

The Summer of 2003 was when I learned that the media could just make stuff up -- make it up right out of the blue -- and Democrats would starting acting as if it were true. And because most Americans don't pay close attention to the details, the media and the Democrats can get some traction no matter how preposterous the claim. Previously, I would have thought that an audacious strategy like that would always be doomed to failure, but I know better now. Here is an editorial in the New York Sun that offers up a reminder of how things were back then:

A few years ago, it was a favorite Democratic theme — the so-called "jobless recovery." Senator Clinton spoke about it on the Senate floor in October of 2002. Senator Schumer wrote in the New York Times that "To call this a ‘jobless recovery' is inaccurate: lots of new jobs are being created, just not here in the United States."

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer ran a piece in September of 2003 quoting Senator Edwards, then as now running for president, saying, of President Bush, "The only Spanish he speaks when it comes to jobs is hasta la vista." Senator Kerry piped up to say, "I think the only jobs created in the United States of America by George Bush are the nine of us running for President of the United States." And the NewsHour reporter intoned, "a harsh fact remains: Since President Bush took office, the nation has lost some 2.7 million jobs. And a vast majority of those jobs may be permanently lost."

Remember, our unemployment rate at the time was a mere 6%, a level that would seem like economic nirvana if it were achieved under Chirac. Can you imagine the loving portrayal that Chirac would receive in the New York Times if the unemployment rate in France were 6%? I can.

At the time, I was simply aghast that a fabricated story about a "jobless recovery" could get any traction at all. Then, not long after that, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence basically exonerated George Bush of lying about Saddam's WMDs and made it crystal clear that Joseph Wilson was a fraud. I thought that would be the end of it (as it should have been), but the media and the Democrats just pretended that the truth was otherwise -- as if nothing significant (much less decisive) had been added to the debate. To this day, some people think that Joseph Wilson "blew the whistle" on George Bush. It was shocking to me that it could be that way, but I now know that it can happen. We had two amazing examples of this in the run up to the last election, and I'm still reeling from the creepy experience. Do you suppose that the media and the Democrats appreciate the fact that they are just making stuff up, or is it a shared delusion? I honestly don't know.

Anyway, let's move on to economic growth in France:

During Mr. Chirac’s terms, the French economy grew at an average rate of 2.1 percent a year, far below the 2.8 percent rate in Britain but surpassing the 1.5 percent rate in Germany.

Umm, why no mention of the U.S. here? Let's take a look at France vs. the U.S. on this most basic measure of economic health:


Not much of a contest during the Clinton years and certainly not much of a contest during the Bush years. The only exception occurs in the middle years, when the stock market bubble burst and the United States was attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11. But the New York Times gives Chirac fair marks on this measure, too. They'd be savaging George Bush for similar performance, wouldn't they? You know they would be, and they could get their chance if U.S. economic growth slows in 2007 (as it must eventually).

Moving on to GDP per capita, the article says this:

As a result, the per capita G.D.P. in France came to $36,463 last year. That is only 82 percent of the comparable figure in the United States, and 93 percent that of Britain, but it is higher than the figure in Germany.

Let's go to the relevant chart:


When Chirac took office, France was tied with the U.S. Now France is way behind. But the New York Times thinks that Chirac is doing just fine anyway. If Chirac gets reasonably good marks for this kind of performance, what grade does the New York Times give George Bush? A failing grade because, as I said, in America, the media can just make stuff up, then Democrats start acting as if it were true (which is creepy), and then it gets some traction with partially-attentive Americans.

Chirac's poor economic performance has not come from a lack of trying. His country's deficit is now much like ours:


The negative numbers indicate deficit spending. You can see that we eventually had a budget surplus under Clinton (largely an illusion due to the stock market bubble, but still good), but our overall deficit now is lot like the one Chirac presides over. However, France has not gotten much of a return from from their deficit spending (e.g., they do not have a world-class military or a robust economy, whereas we have both).

The New York Times obviously loves Chirac, but the French don't:

Chirac's popularity rating has slumped from a second-term high of 60 per cent during the Iraq war, according to TNS-Sofres, a polling organization, to just 29 per cent today. Midway through 2006, he became the most unpopular president under the French Fifth Republic since polling began. Midway through 2006, he became the most unpopular president under the French Fifth Republic since polling began.

Chirac is less popular than Bush, and he has been for some time now. Shouldn't he be riding high given his principled opposition to Bush's "adventure in Iraq" and his high-minded support for the genocidal dictator that Bush removed from power? After all, Iraq is a mess, so Chirac's support for the mass-murdering dictator should have cemented his place in history, right? Well, it did, just not in the way he thought it would.

Chirac won't be remembered as a human rights champion who tried to save Iraq from the evil George Bush. Instead, he'll be remembered as the man who tried to prevent democracy in Iraq because he thought that the most important thing to do was to show that France could influence America's foreign policy. He was wrong and, on top of that, his economy stinks. He deserves his place in history as the man who presided over France's miserable economy, and, on top of that, he will always be remembered as Saddam Hussein's most loyal supporter.

Guns and Murder in America

The recent shooting rampage at Virginia Tech has everyone talking about gun control. I've never had a strong opinion on the matter because I've never really looked into the relevant facts. I've just started to do that, and I stumbled across my first big surprise, one that I suspect will surprise you as well.

The murder rate in America is very high compared to a lot of other countries (that's not the surprise). I've always assumed that this could be attributed to the fact that we have far more guns than other countries have. I'm not so sure about that anymore.

The point I am going to make today uses murder rate statistics from the 1980s (found here), but the story isn't a lot different if more recent statistics are used. I'm using the older data because they illustrate the main point most clearly.

Here is a chart of the murder rate in America in the mid-1980s compared to a number of other countries:


Back in the 1980s, our murder rate was really high. This was not long after our extended experiment in "human decency" during which we refused to execute any convicted murderers. In the 1980s, capital punishment was again coming back into style, but it took a while for the murder rate in America to come down from the high level you see in this chart. Our murder rate is still quite high compared to other nations, but not quite that high.

We have a lot more guns (especially handguns) than those other nations, so it seems reasonable to suppose that our high murder rate is largely related to that. I've always assumed that our suicide rate would be higher than that of these other nations for the same reason (i.e., it's easier to commit suicide when you have a gun in the house than when you don't). My first minor surprise was that this isn't true:


Odd. You'd think that with so many guns around, the suicide rate might be conspicuously high (like our murder rate), but it isn't so.

But my biggest surprise came when I re-plotted the murder rate chart. This time, I changed only the figure for America and left all of the other values unchanged. For America alone, I subtracted off all of the homicides that involved a firearm (which is most of them) so that only the homicides caused by something other than firearms remained. Here is what that chart looks like:


As you can see, for this comparison group of nations, the murder rate in America is still the highest. That means that our high murder rate is not caused by guns. Even if no one had a gun, our murder rate would still be conspicuously high. In fact, our murder rate would be even higher than this chart suggests because at least some of the murders that were caused by guns (which have been subtracted off) would have occurred even if no guns had been available.

Obviously, the availability of guns makes our murder rate even higher than it would otherwise be, but guns are not the root cause of our high murder rate. This came as a surprise to me, though I noticed that it was mentioned in a piece by James Q. Wilson (via Instapundit). We are a country that is more prone to murder than a lot of other countries, and, on top of that, we've added 250 million guns to the mix. That's why that first chart above looks like it does.

None of this is an argument for or against gun control. What it suggests is that one should gather some facts before making a firm decision about that one way or the other (because the facts might surprise you).

Finally, if you look at the numbers in the first two charts above, you'll see that suicide rates are a lot higher than homicide rates (everywhere). I hadn't realized that before. Moreover, the suicide rates in Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, France and Finland are three times the (high) murder rate in America and about twice the suicide rate in America (in the 1980s, at least). I'm not sure what explains that, but it is another issue I plan to look into when I get a chance.

UPDATE: I just stumbled across this explanation for the high suicide rates in some European countries:

Eight European countries have no crime of assiting a suicide: Switzerland, Scotland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Sweden and Finland.

That certainly seems to explain it.

When al Qaeda speaks...

...Harry Reid listens:

Top Senate Democrat to Bush: Iraq war is lost

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Thursday he told President George W. Bush the Iraq war was lost and the recent U.S. troop increase had accomplished nothing.
...
"Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, of Nevada.

Let me ask a question that you should always ask yourself when you hear bad news from Iraq: Who was responsible for that extreme violence, and what are they trying to accomplish? Or, to put this question another way, who is the enemy that has, in the opinion of Harry Reid, finally defeated us in Iraq? To its great credit, the same Reuters news story that reports Reid's unconditional surrender actually supplies the answer:

Suspected Sunni al Qaeda militants detonated a string of bombs in mostly Shi'ite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday.

I couldn't have said it better myself! In other words, the attack that has caused Harry Reid to finally concede defeat in Iraq was carried out by none other than al Qaeda (remember them?).

As I look through the casualty reports at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, I estimate that in the month of April, approximately 360 out of 881 civilian deaths so far can be attributed to al Qaeda (suicide bombings and truck bombings targeting innocent Shiite civilians or, in some cases, targeting members of Sunni tribes opposing al Qaeda), whereas about 460 deaths reflect a combination of sectarian violence and criminal violence (e.g., execution-style deaths in Baghdad, dead bodies found in Mosul, people being gunned down in the street in various places throughout Iraq, assassinations of judges, etc.). The remaining civilians (about 60) were killed because they were caught in the crossfire of a battle or because they were near IED attacks aimed at US or Iraqi troops.

My point is that about 40% of the recent violence in Iraq is directly attributable to al Qaeda. Much of the remaining violence is indirectly attributable to al Qaeda because their deliberate efforts to provoke sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis has been fairly successful. To analyze what is happening in Iraq without so much as mentioning al Qaeda in Iraq is like diagnosing a lung problem without considering the role played by the 3 packs of cigarettes the patient smokes every day. It would be a truly bizarre thing to do, but that's what almost every Democrat does when it comes to analyzing Iraq. Yet I seem to be one of very few people who finds that to be simply too bizarre to comprehend. Perhaps al Qaeda's role is so utterly insignificant that it makes perfect logical sense to not even mention that terrorist organization -- not even in passing -- when analyzing what is happening in Iraq and what we should do about it. But I don't understand how that could be.

What is Harry Reid's analysis of al Qaeda in Iraq? He usually does not say (which should be really alarming to you -- why isn't it?), but you can find it on his web site here:

Press Release of Senator Reid
REID: FOUR YEARS OF WAR IN IRAQ HAS MADE AMERICA LESS SECURE

Monday, March 19, 2007

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada released the following statement on the anniversary of the Iraq war.

"As we enter the fifth year of the war, the core question Americans should be asking themselves today is whether the Administration's approach in Iraq has made America more secure. The answer is clearly no. By diverting attention from Al Qaeda and stretching our troops to the breaking point, the Iraq war has made America less safe, not more."

I'm sorry to be the one to have to inform you of this senator, but al Qaeda is precisely who we are fighting in Iraq. That's where they are. Had we not invaded Iraq, they'd have sent their jihadists to fight us in Afghanistan, and we'd be having an argument about the terrible loss of innocent life there (and you'd be declaring Afghanistan to be lost). But that's not what happened. Instead, al Qaeda decided to concentrate its forces against us in Iraq. We don't have to go looking for them because they came looking for us. This is not complicated, and it's not debatable. Even so, Harry Reid eerily acts as if al Qaeda is somewhere else and that we have taken our eye off them.

If you want to fight al Qaeda, Senator Reid, good for you. Then support the troop surge. If you want to surrender to al Qaeda, then declare our efforts in Iraq already lost. Oh, I see that you just did:

Reid said he did not think more U.S. troops could help. "I think it's failed, I say that without any question," he said of the troop increase.

I wish al Qaeda would directly attach puppet strings to Harry Reid so they could make him say these things without having to kill 200 innocent Iraqis every few weeks. It would be much more efficient that way.

UPDATE: I just noticed this story that I found after a search of Google News:

On Thursday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada touched off a firestorm saying quote, "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq."

Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan responded saying, "What does he propose? Will we walk away from this threat in Iraq where not only are we surging but al Qaeda is surging."

Reid's spokesman said he meant the war would be lost with no change in policy.

Good for Peter Hoekstra. He nailed the critical issue. And good for Harry Reid for saying that he did not mean what he said (even though I suspect that he did mean it). He just thinks we need a new policy. Fine. I'm open to that. Just be sure to say how that new policy will defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. Not even mentioning al Qaeda when proposing a new policy will not inspire confidence that you have thought through the relevant issues.

Academia in Action

You've probably already heard enough about the Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of raping a black stripper who the team had hired for a raucous party. The overzealous prosecutor -- Mike Nifong -- seems likely to pay a steep price for his attempt to send 3 rich kids to jail despite the inconvenient truth that all 3 are innocent. But my focus today on the Duke university professors who jumped into the fray before all of the facts were known.

As you may or may not know, some Duke faculty members took out an ad shortly after the (false) accusations were made, and that ad has turned out to be somewhat controversial. I'll get to the ad in a moment, but in a more recent web posting, the professors say this about the controversy:

In April, a group of Duke faculty members published an advertisement in The Chronicle. The ad, titled "What does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" was mostly a compilation of statements made by Duke students in response to the incident and its immediate aftermath. This ad has figured in many discussions of the event and of the University's response. It has been broadly, and often intentionally, misread. We urge everyone to read the original ad, available at http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm.
...
There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character. We reject all of these. We think the ad's authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real. We also acknowledge the pain that has been generated by what we believe is a misperception that the authors of the ad prejudged the rape case.

OK, at their urging, I finally read the ad to find out for myself whether or not they prejudged the guilt of these innocent young men. And it was a painful experience for me. Here is some of what the ad said:

Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday. They know that it isn't just Duke, it isn't everybody, and it isn't just individuals making this disaster. But it is a disaster nonetheless. These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves.

Well, it certainly is a disaster, just not the one the professors apparently thought it was. Were they prejudging this case, or do you suppose that the racism and sexism they refer to was meant to embrace the possibility that a conniving young black woman would maliciously and falsely accuse 3 white men of a crime they did not commit? If so, why didn't that last sentence read: "These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to these young men and to themselves." It didn't read that way because they were quite sure it was the 3 white men who had committed a crime here and that the black woman was the victim.

In their ad, the professors also highlight this statement (which I think they attribute to a Duke student):

If it turns out that these students are guilty, I want them expelled. But their expulsion will only bring resolution to this case and not the bigger problem. This is much bigger than them and throwing them out will not solve the problem.

Hold it right there! This isn't prejudgment? Is that because the paragraph begins with the words "If it turns out that these students are guilty.."? That doesn't do it. To see why, imagine that the professors had decided to include a statement like this instead:

If it turns out that the accuser is a fraud, I want her sent to jail. But her incarceration will only bring resolution to this case and not the bigger problem. This is much bigger than her, and throwing her in jail will not solve the problem.

Would the professors have regarded an ad like that as having steered completely clear of prejudging the outcome? Of course not, and neither would I. Despite the conditional that opens the paragraph, this talk of possibly throwing the accuser in jail would be an example of blatant prejudgment. The words the professors decided to include in their ad was an example, of that, too.

The ad continues:

The students know that the disaster didn't begin on March 13th and won't end with what the police say or the court decides. Like all disasters, this one has a history.

Indeed. The disaster that occurred in this case does have a history, one that comes into sharper focus when you look at the departments that signed on to this ad:

We thank the following departments and programs for signing onto this ad with African & African American Studies: Romance Studies; Psychology: Social and Health Sciences; Franklin Humanities Institute; Critical U.S. Studies; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; Classical Studies; Asian & African Languages & Literature; Women’s Studies; Latino/a Studies; Latin American and Caribbean Studies; Medieval and Renaissance Studies; European Studies; Program in Education; and the Center for Documentary Studies.

Good heavens. Where are the departments of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, neuroscience and engineering? They aren't there for some odd reason. Instead, we have departments like Critical U.S. Studies. What the heck is that, anyway? I went to their web page and found this description:

The Institute will promote collective re-thinkings about formulations that challenge older ways of conceptualizing space and regions, approaches that challenge what Lisa Maalki has called "the metaphysics of sedentarism," the profoundly territorializing tendency to identify peoples and cultures with particular pieces of land and to isomorphically relate people and place to nation. We also anticipate looking more systematically at the ways in which new formulations are frequently posed with a keen eye to the contributing and intersecting effects of raced, classed, gendered, and sex-based differentiations themselves generated by the conjuncture of a range of economic, social, and political developments. Some of the newest work in a more broadly conceived U.S. Studies project focuses on the ways in which categories of difference have been fundamental to the construction of structural, economic, and legal inequalities that are central to definitions of citizenship and the nation. At the same time, however, this work also asks what political possibilities have emerged. The differentiating process also gives people reason to find common cause with each other, producing dissident understandings of what constitutes an "American" and what defines "America." As much as the new research is attentive to the macro and micro processes through which U.S. national power has been exercised, it also addresses the contradictions produced by that power. The forces that brought the nation into being also produced equally powerful critiques on which the Institute plans to build.

Hmm. They are out to "promote collective re-thinkings," huh? It's not hard to sense a political agenda here, one that does not involve an overabundance of logic and reasoned analysis. And that line about having "...a keen eye to the contributing and intersecting effects of raced, classed, gendered, and sex-based differentiations" tells you something about the political ideology that dominates this department. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that there is not a wide range of political diversity in the Critical U.S. Studies department at Duke University. There is probably not one wretchedly evil, close-minded, Neanderthal (their probable view of a conservative Republican) in the whole department.

I heard Dennis Prager say on his radio show that you can easily spot liberal academic departments because the department name includes the word "studies." It's funny, but I never realized that before even though academia is my business. A quick look at the departments that signed the ad (and a brief consideration of the departments that did not) confirms his point.

Anyway, with regard to Duke professors, I don't know which is more painful, their obvious prejudgment of this case or their pathetic attempt to deny that any prejudgment occurred. These professors want you to believe that, in reference to the accused, their suggestion that "throwing them out will not solve the problem" reflects a balanced view, one that allows for the defendants' guilt as well as their possible innocence. That doesn't work for me. The professors make no mention of the fact that the accused might be (and, as it turns out, actually are) innocent, either in their original ad or in their unconvincing attempt to explain how they never prejudged these innocent young men.

If these professors will not acknowledge (and apologize for) the fact that they prejudged this case because they lack the decency to do so, why won't they at least publicly state something about the now-established innocence of the accused and the apparent guilt of the accuser? Somehow, they can't bring themselves to do that. The closest they come is when they say "We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence." Well, they, themselves, tried the case in the court of public opinion when they thought it would make them look like champions of social justice to do so, and now all they can do is pretend to "stand by the principle of the presumption of innocence." That presumption was nowhere to be found in their infamous ad, and a clear acknowledgment that the Duke players are innocent is nowhere to be found in their updated statement about the ad. Professors like that give academia the bad name it deserves.

Bombs Away in Baghdad

I noted a few days ago that violence in Iraq was down for the month of April, but I also said that I would never underestimate al Qaeda's ability to change that on a moment's notice. Today, al Qaeda struck again in Baghdad, but this is how CNN covers the story:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgent bombers launched a series of attacks across Baghdad on Wednesday and killed at least 127 people and wounded scores -- a particularly violent day in a bloody capital city enduring sectarian warfare and an aggressive government crackdown against insurgents.

"Insurgent bombers" is the phrase that CNN chooses to use to describe al Qaeda terrorists. And, according to CNN, those insurgent bombers are engaged in "sectarian warfare." If you are normal consumer of the news, you'll read this opening paragraph and find complete confirmation of your belief that Iraq has descended into a hopeless civil war.

But that's now how it is. A more accurate opening paragraph would read like this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Suspected al Qaeda terrorists launched a series of attacks across Shiite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday and killed at least 127 innocent civilians and wounded scores -- a particularly violent day in a bloody capital city enduring relentless attempts by al Qaeda to provoke a civil war.

I know that left wing reporters think that "one man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter" and that many on the right overreach by referring to all insurgents in Iraq as terrorists (even when they strike military targets). Neither approach makes any sense to me. Referring to both al Qaeda terrorists and Baathist insurgents by one term (either "terrorists" or "insurgents") is misleading. Everyone can agree -- even left wing reporters, I assume -- that someone who intentionally and indiscriminately slaughters innocent civilians is a terrorist. Thus, that's the term that should be used in this case, not "insurgent bombers." The use of the right term has the added advantage of making it clear that this was not an episode in an on-going civil war in Iraq. That is, these bombs did not go off in retaliation for what Shiites have done to Sunnis in the past or because the "insurgent bombers" hate Shiites (or because they are trying to win a civil war against Shiites). Instead, this attack was yet another in a long series of attempts by al Qaeda to provoke the Shiite militias into killing Sunnis. Al Qaeda wants a civil war because the anticipated militant response by Shiite militias will push fearful Sunnis into al Qaeda's camp. In addition, the overall increase in violence will drive a demoralized America out of the country (an epic result that the jihadists will use to greatly advance their cause by declaring victory over the Great Satan).

That's not a civil war. It is a war between the civilized forces of the world and the savage forces of terrorism. And only one side is going to win this war. America's ever-increasing desire to leave Iraq on a timetable -- which this latest attack was designed to further nurture -- unfortunately makes one outcome more likely than the other, and it's not the one that's good for America and bad for al Qaeda. Amazingly, it would happen below the radar screen because most Americans would think that we are simply getting out of the way of "insurgent bombers" engaged in "sectarian violence" as part of a "civil war." Nothing in CNN's opening paragraph would cause any American to conceptualize Iraq in any other way.

If you keep reading the CNN story, you'll find a quote from Defense Secretary Robert Gates that just nails it:

Gates explained that there aren't "thousands of people in the streets in Iraq trying to kill each other."

"What you have are armed gangs of death squads going around killing people. You have large vehicle-borne IEDs that are being used by al Qaeda to try and bring to bring massive casualties to the Shia in hope of stoking sectarian violence."

And, he said, "you have a Baathist insurgency."

But the CNN reporter does not make the connection to today's bombing. Today's bombing was an example of al Qaeda attempting to stoke sectarian violence. It was not an instance of that sectarian violence.

Even with this latest attack, violence throughout Iraq is below where it has been in recent months. A few more attacks like this from "insurgent bombers" will change that pretty fast, unfortunately. If that happens, expect Democrats to fully cooperate with al Qaeda by (a) criticizing George Bush's "failed policy," (b) lamenting the "civil war" in Iraq, (c) calling for withdrawal on a timetable, and (d) making no reference whatsoever to the hundreds of Iraqi civilians being killed by al Qaeda in an attempt to incite civil war and to drive American forces out of the country. I do not understand why Democrats would do that even though I know they will. If you want to concede to al Qaeda in Iraq, stand up an be counted as someone who thinks that is the right course of action, and then explain your rationale to the American people. Pretending that it's all just a civil war so that you can avoid doing that is disgraceful. But the leadership of the Democratic party does that repeatedly, and that says something important about their character.

Why is the Euro Strong vs. the Dollar?

Over the last 5 years, the value of the Euro has increased relative to the dollar, as shown in this chart:


These days, 1 euro is worth about 1.30 dollars. What does this mean? Does it mean that the European economies have been getting stronger relative to the U.S. economy over the last 5 years? Lots of people seem to think so, but it isn't true.

This issue is in the news again:

Dollar Trades Near Record Low Vs. Euro

By Jackie Farwell, AP Business Writer
Dollar Loses Ground to Euro and Pound As Tourist Season Approaches

NEW YORK (AP) -- The dollar hovered near a record low Monday against the euro after the 13-nation currency climbed to within 1 cent of its all-time high, while the pound backed down from a 14-year record.

Currency traders now turn their eyes in the coming days to economic data that could further the pound's rally...The data could increase the risk of a British rate hike while worries about sluggish economic growth in the U.S. persist.
...
The euro has charged higher against the dollar in recent months as the region's economy improves and jobless figures decline.

Sluggish economic growth in the U.S., and improving economies in Europe (along with declining joblessness over there). Is that the explanation for the strong Euro? Hardly.

The Euro is used by 13 countries that make up the Eurozone (also called the "Euro Area"). In today's post, I am going to compare the economies of those 13 countries to the U.S. economy. Before I do, I'd like to make a point about the ubiquitous "percent increase" measure. Do you remember when you got your first real job? Perhaps you earned $30,000 that year, while your boss earned something like $200,000. Let's say you both got a 5% pay increase one year. For you, that meant that your pay would increase by a mere $1500. For your boss, the increase would be a hefty $10,000. Thus, the same percentage increase in salary means a lot more if you already earn lots of money than if you don't. In percentage terms, both the employee and the boss had an equally good year when their salaries increased by 5%. In absolute terms, the boss had a much better year. That point will become relevant in a moment.

First, let's look at GDP per capita in the U.S. vs. the Eurozone, corrected for Purchasing Power Parity, which is an attempt to account for price difference across countries (data obtained from the International Monetary Fund):


You can see that the U.S. is far outperforming the Eurozone, and the difference between the two is increasing, as it has been for a while now. Per capita GDP is nearing $45,000 in the U.S., but it barely exceeds $30,000 in the Eurozone. Because GDP per capita is quite a bit higher in the U.S., an equal percentage increase will translate into a larger increase here than in Europe (as in the salary example above). Even so, the percentage increase in GDP has not been equal most of the time. Instead, it has mostly favored the U.S., as you can see in the next chart:


This chart shows the percentage increase in overall GDP, not per capita GDP, but the same basic story emerges no matter which calculation you use. The effect of the stock market crash and the attacks on the World Trade Center are evident in 2001 and 2002, but GDP growth -- even in percentage terms -- has generally been higher in the U.S. compared to the Eurozone. Given that per capita GDP is already quite a bit higher in the U.S., the U.S. lead would be increasing even if percentage increases were the same. The fact that the percentage increase in GDP is actually higher in the U.S. most of the time means that the U.S. lead over the Eurozone is increasing even faster than that. To put this another way, GDP growth would have to be much, much higher in the Eurozone for many years in a row for them to have any hope of catching up. It's not going to happen. No matter how you slice it, the Eurozone cannot really compete with America (economically speaking).

Part of the problem is the chronically high unemployment rate in Europe:


The unemployment rate in the Eurozone has not even gotten down to the "jobless recovery" levels that were in effect in the U.S. when Bush was running against Kerry in the summer of 2003. Remember that? Look at the unemployment rate in America for 2003 and ask yourself: how could the national media portray that value in such negative terms? Who were they attempting to engineer a victory for? Not Bush, obviously. Here is one great story from back then:

Welcome to the Amazing Jobless Recovery

It will take 340,000 new jobs a month to get back to near-full employment by late 2004. Sadly, there's little chance of that happening

The unemployment rate is now 6.4%, a nine-year high. Optimists note that the rate of job decline has slowed and that the unemployment rate is up mainly because formerly discouraged workers are returning to the labor force. The Administration's tax cuts will provide about $200 billion of stimulus in the second half of 2003. All of this supposedly prefigures a real improvement on the labor front in the coming months.

But a closer look at the employment data suggests a bleaker picture...
...
How can government policy help? The Bush tax cuts will provide a spur, but any of several alternatives would have produced more stimulus and job creation for the same dollars. These include public investment in education, research, and health, relief to cities and states, and a payroll-tax reduction that would put money in the pocket of wage workers and lower the cost of new hires.

The Bush Administration cannot be blamed for inheriting the dot-com bust. But it can and will be blamed for applying the wrong economic cure.

Oh really? Instead of getting this anticipated blame, will Bush get the credit now that the unemployment rate is approaching 4%? Highly unlikely. The Eurozone has a long way to go just to reach our so-called "jobless recovery" levels, yet news story after news story talks about how bright the prospects are for European unemployment figures. It's bizarre, but it is also so common that no one seems to notice anymore.

Here is the key point: Despite the vastly stronger U.S. economy over the last 5 years, the euro has been strengthening relative to the dollar. Why? It is obviously not a function of relative economic strength. If it were, the value of the dollar would be skyrocketing.

Europe is not really benefiting from the strong euro, and certain industries (e.g., Airbus) are really suffering because of it. One reason why the euro is strong is that interest rates might be higher in Europe. If you can get a better return on the euro than on the dollar, it makes sense for investors to value the euro over the dollar. However, when I first looked into this, what I found suggested that interest rates over there are about the same as they are over here. As such, I was a bit puzzled. However, a new article suggests that it is not current interest rates but expected interest rates that matter. It seems that interest rates in Europe are expected to increase, and that's one reason why the euro is strong (not because because the European economies are so healthy):

Euro hits new two-year high against dollar

The euro rose to 1.3534 dollars on Friday in early European trading, reaching the highest level since January 3, 2005 on expectations of rising eurozone interest rates.

The single currency later stood at 1.3523 dollars, compared with 1.3480 dollars late on Thursday.

The euro had breached 1.35 dollars on Thursday after the European Central Bank (ECB) signalled that it was ready to raise eurozone borrowing costs again in June.

ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet sent a clear signal that the bank was set to raise its key interest rates -- already at a five-and-a-half-year high -- still further in June, after holding rates at 3.75 percent on Thursday.

And this article makes the same point with regard to the value of the euro relative to the Japanese Yen:

The 13-nation currency surged to an all-time high against the yen yesterday as traders bet European lending rates will rise faster than Japan's, increasing the allure of euro- denominated assets. European government bond yields rose to the highest in almost five years yesterday.

And this article makes brief mention of why higher interest rates strengthen the value of a currency:

Higher interest rates, used to combat inflation, can bolster a currency by making certain types of investments more attractive.

So, there you have it. Investors expect the European Central Bank (the ECB) to raise interest rates in an effort to keep inflation in check. Those anticipated interest rate hikes make the euro more attractive. That's why the value of the euro is increasing relative to the dollar (not because European economies are so strong). Some Europeans recognize the problem with that:

Sarkozy demands 'radical' policy shift

Nicolas Sarkozy, the front-runner in France's presidential race, has launched a ferocious attack on the European Central Bank and its president Jean-Claude Trichet, accusing Frankfurt of battling an inflation "that no longer exists" while Europe's export industry withers on the vine.

The Gaulliste candidate demanded a radical shift in policy to drive down the euro and match the devaluation tactics of the Asian powers.
...
Mr Sarkozy said, if elected, he would propose a plan to fellow EU leaders forcing a change in monetary policy to stop the "deindustrialisation of Europe". He said the ECB's strong euro policy was the overriding cause of woes threatening the survival of Airbus.

So, forget all those suggestive adjectives that accompany news stories about the value of the euro relative to the dollar (a "weak" dollar, the "surging" euro, the dollar at "record lows," investors worried about America's "sluggish" economy). That's just a bunch of nonsense, and I don't know if reflects a lack of knowledge on the part of well-meaning reporters or a deliberate attempt to make you think that the liberal way of life is the way to go (as was obviously true back when reporters were preposterously complaining about Bush's "jobless recovery"). Either way, stories like that are misleading. The U.S. economy has been far outperforming European economies in every way for the last 5 years, yet the value of the euro has climbed anyway. Instead of being a sign of the great strength of European economies, it is the result of various complex forces, one of which is simply expected interest rates. If inflation were rearing its ugly head in America, and if the Federal Reserve decided to aggressively fight back by raising interest rates, we'd suddenly have a "strong" dollar. No thanks...

Do Bush's Tax Cuts Only Favor The Wealthy?

I suppose it would be the same way if we had a Democratic president, but myths about George Bush abound, and they are often uncritically gobbled up by the left. To them, Bush is merely a caricature of the evil Republican whose motives are invariably sinister. Knowing how their base feels about Bush (emphasis on feels), Democratic politicians exploit that caricature all the time. For example, George Bush favors the wealthy, doesn't he? After all, we know that he invaded Iraq merely to line the pockets of Halliburton executives, not because of Saddam's suspected WMDs or to use democracy to transform a diseased Middle East that is stuck in a 12th-century mind set. No, those were just lies to cover up his true (and downright nefarious) motives.

How strange it must be to think like that. Actually, it is not really thinking. It is more like feeling. It is addressing contemporary political issues with the emotional part of your brain, which, in evolutionary terms, is an old set of structures and pathways that do not require evidence or reasoned analysis to draw firm conclusions. That's why so many on the left who disagree with Bush spit venom when they talk about the man (i.e., they are angry), and if you try to have a conversation with them about Iraq, the discussion quickly turns to Bush and his sinister motives. To deal with this phenomenon, I've learned to start my conversations on Iraq by saying "Let's start by agreeing that Bush is a stupid, incompetent, evil, Halliburton-loving, Christian cowboy who will be regarded as the worst president this nation has ever had. He lied about Saddam's WMDs because he lies about everything. Now he's gotten into this huge mess in Iraq. So forget Bush. Let's talk about what is happening in Iraq and what we are going to do about it." When I start the conversation like that, I actually can have a discussion about Iraq. If you don't start out like that, you'll have trouble getting around the obsession with Bush's evil motives. It's as if those on the left want to say "Obviously, his policies are flawed. We don't even have to discuss them because they have been endorsed by the modern-day Hitler. Bush is pure evil, and that's what we really need to talk about."

All of this applies to Bush's domestic policies, such as his tax policies. Are his policies sound? Ask people on the left and they will instantly respond by speaking about Bush's evil motives. Specifically, they'll assert that his tax policies are simply designed to favor the wealthy. You probably believe that, too, don't you? In fact, you are so sure that it is true that you don't even need any evidence (because that's how it is with that part of the brain). Neither do elected Democrats, even when they are speaking to the nation:

Democrats used their weekly radio address Saturday to call for changes in tax policy to better benefit middle-class families.

Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel said the Bush administration has only cut taxes for the extremely wealthy, which means middle-class families are paying an even greater share of federal taxes.

In that address, Emanuel said:

"The fact is that the Bush administration has cut taxes, but only for the extremely wealthy..."

That's a fact? I am sure that his listeners just gobbled it up. After all, it fits perfectly with the Halliburton delusion. Everything Bush does is traceable to a sinister underlying motivation: he wants to use his presidency to further line the pockets of his rich cronies. It's that simple.

I recommend that whenever you find yourself immersed in thoughts about Bush's perverse motivations that you stop and consider the possibility that you are embracing that state of mind to avoid having to think through the policy itself. It makes the world easier to comprehend by having everything explained by one simple-minded concept (i.e., Bush is evil), but it is really just an escape from reality -- like a drug. And as far as I can tell, it is addictive.

Have Bush's tax cuts only favored the wealthy? Don't think about Bush's motivations or about Halliburton for a moment. Instead, make an inquiry by looking for the evidence that relates to that claim. You could, for example, check by the pre-tax and after-tax income data reported by the Tax Policy Center (found here) to calculate the percentage of take-home pay for people in various income groups. What we should see, if Emanuel's charge is accurate, is that the wealthy are now taking home more of their pay, whereas everyone else is paying the same, if not more. And we should also presumably find that things were vastly different back when Saint Clinton was president. Here is what you find instead:


The blue vertical line shows the beginning of the Clinton years; the red vertical line shows the beginning of the Bush years. There are a few things to note here. First, as you can see, the less you make, the higher the percentage of your earned income that you get to keep. That is, our tax code is progressive, and it has been for a long time. Also, and this is my main point, you can see that everyone benefited from the Bush tax cuts. The poorest 20% have never kept such a high percentage of what they earned (not even during the Clinton years). The second poorest quintile is also doing very well in this regard.

Does it look to you as if Bush is only favoring the wealthy? Was Clinton a champion for the little guy, whereas Bush is just enriching his Halliburton buddies by cutting taxes for corporate gazillionaires? Of course not. The tax code remains very progressive, and everyone benefited from the tax cuts. It seems fair to say that only the rich were taxed at higher rates during the Clinton years, but it is not fair to say that only the rich are making off like bandits now.

What should Bush do if he really, truly cared about the poor, like you presumably do? Let them keep 96% of their take home pay? Is that the difference between one who truly cares about the poor and one who is only out to line the pockets of the rich (95% vs. 96%)?

Bush's later cut taxes on capital gains presumably favor the rich over the poor in a direct sense (but may or may not indirectly benefit everyone -- that's what the debate is about). Still, Emanuel's charge that "... the Bush administration has cut taxes, but only for the extremely wealthy" is apparently untrue. And a political party that seems pathologically obsessed with "lies, lies, lies" is surprisingly comfortable with that. I don't know why.

Troop Surge Statistics

The degree of confusion about the effects of the troop surge in Iraq is amazing. One liberal friend told me that the surge was only making things worse, and I was surprised that anyone would believe that. But then I was listening to Air America Radio News on Saturday, and the newscaster said this:

"The violence in Baghdad is escalating despite President Bush's troop surge."

Say what? Violence in Baghdad is way down since the start of the troop surge. How could anyone believe otherwise? I started looking for accounts of troop surge provided by liberal analysts, and I stumbled across this one by Juan Cole from early last month:

Is the Bush surge already failing?

The president just gave a rosy assessment of his plan, but insurgents have adapted and Iraqis continue to be slaughtered.
...
With plenty of warning of the U.S. escalation, the Shiite Mahdi Army is lying low. Meanwhile, the Iraqi army and the much better equipped and trained U.S. military have made no appreciable progress against the real drivers of the country's civil war, Sunni Arab guerrillas, who have so far adapted successfully to the new deployments.
...
The other problem with Bush's talk of "encouraging signs" is the steep increase in civilian casualties. Since the security plan began, the guerrillas have pulled off a whole series of horrific bombings right in downtown Baghdad, within spitting distance of the Green Zone, where the U.S. and the Iraqi government planned out the new security arrangements.

Steep increase in civilian casualties? Now I know why my liberal friends and colleagues believe that the troop surge is making things worse. Liberal outlets keep making that very claim.

It is fine to predict that the troop surge will end in disaster (here, for example, is Wesley Clark making that prediction), but it is very wrong to sugggest that the surge is making things worse now. We just completed two weeks of April, so I decided to look at civilian casualties in the first two weeks of each month going back to September (data here):


The blue bars represent the troop surge months. What you can see is that, beginning in October, the first two weeks of each month sees something like 700 civilian casualties (and casualties generally continued at a similar rate to the end of each of those months). This was also true of the first two months of the troop surge, though March looked a bit better than February (a small gain that was erased by several mass-casualty attacks by al Qaeda in their on-going efforts to incite civil war). But so far in April, casualties are noticeably down. We have not seen numbers this low since the first two weeks of September.

I am not saying that the troop surge is a smashing success based on this information, and I am not saying that the numbers will remain this low by the time April is finished. I would never underestimate al Qaeda like that. What I am saying is that it is simply preposterous to suggest that, as of right now, the troop surge has made things worse. Things could change in an instant, but, as of right now, the evidence suggests that things are better (and there is not a shred of evidence -- not one shred -- suggesting that they are worse).

In terms of troop strength, the surge is still only about at the halfway point (data here):


As of about 10 days ago, there were fewer than 10,000 additional troops in Baghdad, and that number will climb to about twice that over the next month or so. But the fact that -- as of this moment -- violence in Iraq is down even with the troops at only half strength is worth noting.

Our troops are facing somewhat more casualties in Iraq these days, but that began before the troop surge. Compared to civilian casualties, the monthly totals are low, so to see trends I averaged the data over 3-month blocks:


So, for example, the last point (in blue) represents the 3 months that include the onset of the troop surge (January, February and March), and the average casualty rate for those months was about 80 per month. The numbers were even higher in the 3 months prior to that. Thus, over the last 6 months, we've seen an increase in US military casualties compared to the average of about 60 to 70 per month that had been in effect for a while.

I hope that casualty trends for American troops come down as the Iraqis begin to take on more responsibility, but I understand why people are pessimistic about that given the performance of Iraqi security forces thus far. Still, because people make comparisons to Vietnam quite frequently, it seems worth keeping these casualty statistics in perspective (data obtained here and here):


Monthly casualties for U.S. soldiers at the height of the Vietnam War were vastly higher than what we see in Iraq today. And I assume that we are now at about the height of this war (or soon will be, as the surge gets there in full force). Thus, when we finally do leave Iraq -- having won or lost to al Qaeda, depending on whether Republicans or Democrats get their way -- this chart will probably be similar to the one that represents the history of those two wars.

The Chicago Tribune wants to Abolish the Death Penalty

The editors of the Chicago Tribune recently came out against the death penalty, and yesterday they noted that, in response, they received surprisingly little public protest. That's probably because, as you will see, they did not make any novel arguments, so all they were doing was writing about their own state of mind. Who cares about that? It's their arguments that matter, and they did not have any new ones to offer. Even so, I'd like to take the opportunity to consider the strength of the case they make.

My own position on capital punishment is simple: if the evidence suggests that it serves as a deterrent to murder, then I am in favor of it. If the evidence points in the other direction, then I am opposed to it. To put this another way, if executing a relatively small number of convicted murderers saves hundreds of innocent lives every year, then the death penalty should be retained (even if, despite our best efforts, we occasionally inadvertently execute an innocent person every decade or so). I feel the same way about heart surgery. Occasionally, doctors perform a surgical operation that, in retrospect, was not necessary, and the surgery inadvertently killed the patient. This does not make me want to abolish heart surgery because, despite the imperfect technique that we are always seeking to improve, many lives are saved by this medical intervention.

Debating the death penalty is hard because, when you step into that arena, you quickly realize that people have all kinds of crazy ideas that they rely on to convince themselves that capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent to murder. If you are new to my blog, I am quite sure that you are convinced that it has no deterrent effect (because you have been trained to think that way all of your life). But I assure you that your certainty about that is misplaced.

One silly idea that people have is that the deterrent effect comes from laws per se. That is, if you enact a law that stipulates the death penalty for murder, then, if capital punishment has a deterrent effect, the murder rate should go down. This argument is frequently made in connection with the Canadian experience. Here is an example:

Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards.

To me, this makes no sense. Potential murderers may be deterred by actual executions, but they are surely not paying close attention to laws passed by a legislative body. Thus, the relevant issue is the effect on the murder rate when executions came to a halt, not when an unenforced law was passed. In Canada, executions had come to halt many years earlier. What happened to the murder rate in the years following the last execution? That's the question, and you can ask that question for various countries. Did the murder rate go up, go down, or did it stay the same when executions ceased (regardless of when laws were passed)?

America, Canada, Australia and England all stopped executing people in the 1960s, and, in each case, the murder rates increased shortly thereafter. France did not stop executing people until quite a bit later (1977), and neither Germany nor Italy has executed anyone since WW II. So, let's look at what happened to the murder rates between 1965 and 1975 for the countries that stopped executions in the mid 1960s vs. those that did not change their policies:


I collected these data from sources that are meticulously referenced in my prior posts (a summary of those posts can be found here).

You might think that including America in this chart is unfair because its murder rate is so much higher than that of the other nations (so perhaps America is a qualitatively different case and should not be included). But when you remove America, the effect is still evident:


The murder rates in these two sets of countries were about the same in 1965, but they diverged shortly thereafter (right after one set stopped enforcing capital punishment). One can, of course, explain away these effects and attribute to them to something other than the enforcement of capital punishment. In fact, that will always be true. If that's your standard, then ignore the evidence because we'll never have absolute proof one way or the other (so just believe what you want to believe). To me, though, the evidence suggests that the enforcement of capital punishment (not the mere passage of laws) may serve as a deterrent to murder.

With that in mind, let's consider the Chicago Tribune editorial:

Abolish the death penalty
...
We have learned much, particularly with advances in DNA technology, about the criminal justice system's capacity to make terrible mistakes. These revelations--many stemming from investigations by this newspaper--shake the foundation of support for capital punishment.
...
An editorial in 1869 stated: "Imprisonment as a penalty for capital crime has lost all its preventative value." A Tribune editorial in 1952 called the death penalty "the most powerful deterrent to other criminals." In 1976 this page said, "The danger of executing an innocent person is often cited, but we think unjustifiably."

That last sentence sounds chilling today, in light of evidence in recent years of scores of cases in which government has wrongfully convicted defendants and sentenced them to death. The evidence of recent years argues that it is necessary to curb the government's power. It is time to abolish the death penalty.

OK, the system makes mistakes, and it always will (same goes for heart surgery). One can respond to such mistakes by trying to improve the system, especially if the system does a lot of good as well, or one can respond by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the editors of the Chicago Tribune have suggested.

The concern about the state inadvertently taking innocent life is completely understandable. However, the complete lack of concern for the other innocent lives at stake -- those whose lives might be saved if capital punishment deters murder -- always surprises me. Now, you might not care about that. That is, you might think that it is so morally objectionable for the state to take the lives of convicted killers (and make an occasional inadvertent mistake while doing so) that this barbaric practice should be eliminated even if, say, 600 additional innocent people would be brutally murdered each year as a result. I'm fine with that. I don't get it, but at least you'd be acknowledging the possible consequences of your curious moral position. Most people opposed to capital punishment don't do that.

The editors of the Chicago Tribune next move on to another standard issue, which is the fairness issue:

- There is ample evidence that killers are far more likely to land on Death Row if their victims are white than if they are black or Hispanic.

- You are 10 times more likely to get a death sentence in DuPage County than if you cross the border into Cook County.

There is also ample evidence that various medical interventions are unfairly applied. What's the thing to do when you become aware of that? Address the unfairness, or abolish the effective medical procedure? Same goes for capital punishment.

There will always be mistakes in the administration of capital punishment, and there will always be some degree of unfairness. It is an inescapable aspect of human nature. Perfection is an unachievable standard. But choosing to sacrifice hundreds of innocent lives per year because we cannot completely eliminate all faults within the system does not make sense to me.

After making the standard "fairness" argument, the editors next move on to the standard "shift in public sentiment" argument:

The most compelling evidence of a shift in public sentiment is that the number of death sentences handed out by judges and juries has plunged. There were 315 death sentences in 1995, but just 128 in 2005 and 102 in 2006. The number of executions has dropped nearly in half in the last eight years.

Well, as I have documented ad nauseum in the past, there is no shift in public sentiment on this issue even if the legal system has decided to execute fewer people. If we are executing fewer people, and if the death penalty has no deterrent effect whatsoever, then the murder rate in America should be staying about the same, right? In fact, according to the "brutalization hypothesis," the murder rate in America might actually be coming down now that the state is exhibiting its basic goodness and decency by not executing wretched murderers. So, what's happening to the murder rate in America these days now that executions are once again going down? It's going up (data on executions found here, and data on murders found here):


The blue line indicates the number of executions per year and is read off the right vertical axis; the magenta line is the number of murders per year and is read off the left vertical axis. Note that the murder rate for the last two years are estimates based on news stories reporting a 10% increase from 2004 to 2006 (because the DOJ web site only has figures through 2004). Basically, once again, as capital punishment goes out of style, murder comes back into style.

The editors of the Chicago Tribune become ridiculous when they finally do touch on the possible deterrent effect of the death penalty:

Research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment has produced conflicting results over the years. But with the small number of instances--less than one-half of one percent of all murderers are executed--it seems that if capital punishment ever did serve to stop violence, it does not do so now.

Good heavens. They are saying that since we have largely stopped using an effective deterrent to murder, the death penalty is not deterring murder anymore (and so should be permanently abolished). That takes the cake for the most nonsensical argument I have ever heard against the death penalty.

They conclude this way:

The evidence of mistakes, the evidence of arbitrary decisions, the sobering knowledge that government can't provide certainty that the innocent will not be put to death--all that prompts this call for an end to capital punishment. It is time to stop killing in the people's name.

I'd revise that last sentence to read like this:

"It is time to stop killing guilty murderers in the people's name even though we recognize that it might very well result in a substantial increase in the brutal murders of hundreds of innocent victims -- including children -- every year."

Put that way, you'd be less likely to thump your chest while taking your curious moral stand. And that's really all I ask.

The Troop Surge vs. al Qaeda in Iraq

Depressed about the suicide bombing in the Green Zone? Don't be. It is a shocking breach of security to be sure, but it seems that only one person was killed after all. Still, the same Washington Post article that reports that good news adds this helpful little quote to direct your thinking:

"The security plan is dead. If they are able to reach inside the parliament, then we should not talk about the security plan anymore," said Sunni legislator Saleh al-Mutlaq.

"Nowhere is safe," said Ridha Jawad Taqi, a Shiite member of parliament.

And the article adds an equally helpful preemptive strike to guard against the possibility that Bush's troop surge might be perceived as a success:

In a report to be issued Friday, military expert Anthony Cordesman concludes that even if the current U.S. troop increase is a success and creates some degree of stability and political unity, the perception of most Iraqis and others in the Middle East and Europe will be that the United States "lost" the war in Iraq.

So, the "security plan is dead," but just in case it isn't, a new report says it's dead anyway. Read the whole article see how analysis-free agenda journalism works, and then come back and read what I have to say. Reporters are right to be worried that the troop surge might succeed, so they are working overtime to do something about that. For example, here is a helpful "news analysis" of Iraq provided by an AP reporter:

Did Iraq ‘surge’ come too late?
Two blasts in Baghdad raise new questions about security

NEWS ANALYSIS
By Steven R. Hurst

BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iraqi officials have voiced cautious optimism that the 2-month-old security operation in Iraq might be working. A suicide bombing at parliament and another that sent a Baghdad bridge crashing into the Tigris River delivered a powerful message that the American-led crackdown may be too late.
...
Thursday’s bombings were emblematic of the struggle U.S. and Iraqi troops are fighting not only in Baghdad but in many areas throughout the country. Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen who’ve held power for months or years are fighting for their turf ferociously, resorting to classic guerrilla hit-and-run tactics.

Compounding the problems facing the U.S. and Iraqi security operation is al-Qaida in Iraq, the most violent organization in the larger Sunni insurgency and the most difficult to defend against because it has an apparently full stable of suicide bombers. Such attacks, like the ones Thursday, can be virtually impossible to stop.

As you can see, it's too late baby now. After all, if an AP reporter thinks so, who am I to argue? Well, I'm not a reporter, but I'm going to argue against this superficial analysis anyway. The reporter's analysis is rather light on details, but he seems to have processed all information from Iraq through a combined civil war/insurgency schema. As best I can tell, there are two basic components to this obsolete way of thinking:

1. there is a turf battle between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias (i.e., the "civil war")

2. there is a war against the "occupying" forces of America that mainly involves the Sunni insurgents allied with al Qaeda

It's the schema through which most Americans process information from Iraq, but it is completely wrong. To see why, try to process the following story through that schema:

Iraq Raises Death Toll in Tal Afar Bomb

Sunday April 1, 2007 12:46 AM

By BUSHRA JUHI
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) - The Iraqi Interior Ministry on Saturday raised the death toll in last week's suicide truck bombing against a Shiite market in Tal Afar to 152, which would make it the deadliest single strike since the war started four years ago.

Let's see, this is obviously not part 2 of the schema (Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda freedom fighters working to oust the imperialistic Americans), so it surely must be an example of part 1 (the civil war). And since the victims were Shiites, we should naturally assume that this attack was carried by Sunni insurgents as part of the turf war (or, perhaps, in retaliation for past attacks by Shiites or simply because they hate Shiites). Fine. It all makes sense. It fits with the schema.

Except that it doesn't, and this is precisely where everyone goes astray. This attack was carried by al Qaeda, not Sunni insurgents (look it up if you don't believe me). Why would al Qaeda do that? Are they in a civil war with the Shiites, too? No. This bombing in Tal Afar, like many such bombings, was definitely not part of the civil war. Instead, it was an act of terror designed to provoke the Shiite militias back into the battle against the Sunnis. Do you understand the difference? The bombing is not an example of a retaliatory attack carried out by Sunnis against Shiites (that's the civil war schema). It is, instead, an example of Sunni al Qaeda trying to get Shiite militias to kill more Sunnis. And al Qaeda is doing that to further its jihadist objectives -- objectives that Sunnni insurgents do not share. I am just amazed that these virtually indisputable facts are not more widely appreciated.

With all of that in mind, you might be able to understand this interesting story from Time, which would be incomprehensible if you tried to process it through the 2-part schema that dominates the thinking of most reporters (and all Democratic politicians save for Joe Lieberman):

Al Qaeda Sends a Message

In an assault apparently aimed at chilling negotiations between the Iraqi government and a faction of the insurgency, the Iraqi Parliament, located in Baghdad's high-security Green Zone, suffered a bomb attack.
...
Within an hour of the explosion, a message from the al-Qaeda-controlled Islamic State in Iraq was posted on a prominent militant website, muslm.net, calling the blast a "message" to anyone who cooperates with "the occupier and its agents." It said ominously, "We will reach you wherever you are"
...
The extremists want to stop efforts of reconciliation between the Iraqi government and an Iraqi-led, nationalist faction of the insurgency that has turned on al-Qaeda in recent weeks.
...
Recently, gunfights and tit-for-tat executions have erupted in west Baghdad between the nationalist Battalion of the 1920 Revolution and al-Qaeda-backed fighters. Last week, an influential nationalist group, the Islamic Army in Iraq, asked Osama bin Laden to rein in al-Qaeda in Iraq's more extreme tactics, such as targeting Iraqi civilians and brutally enforcing Sharia Law.

Now I need you to put your thinking caps on for just a moment here. Al Qaeda killed 152 Shiites in Tal Afar. If that atrocity is just part of a "civil war" (as everyone mistakenly believes), it should make the Sunni insurgents happy, not angry. But it is causing the Sunni insurgents to turn against al Qaeda instead. The Islamic Army in Iraq is the Sunni insurgency, and they are the ones asking Osama bin Laden to stop al Qaeda from committing these atrocities against Shiites. Why would they do that if al Qaeda is helping them fight their "civil war" against Shiites? It makes no sense from that point of view.

Here is a description of the Islamic Army in Iraq:

The Islamic Army in Iraq...is one of a number of underground Baathist, Islamist, militant, or mujaheddin, organizations formed in Iraq following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by United States and coalition military forces and the subsequent collapse of the Baathist government headed by Saddam Hussein. Although it carries an Islamic title, the group is thought to be the largest militant group that consists of former Baathists and has been labelled as "resistance" by Iraq's Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi despite regular attacks against Iraqi soldiers and policemen and Shi'ite militias such as the Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization.

The Battalion of the 1920 Revolution, which is now fighting against al Qaeda as well, is also a major part of the Sunni insurgency:

The Brigade first emerged in a July 16 statement in which it claimed that U.S. forces were sustaining higher casualties than were being reported.[1] Since then, it resurfaced periodically, including in graffiti in such insurgent strongholds as Fallujah. This group appears to concentrate on guerilla activity, rather than terrorism, and is sensitive to the opinions of the established Sunni Muslim clergy in Iraq.

Again, these Sunni insurgent groups are unhappy (not happy) with al Qaeda for indiscriminately slaughtering Shiite civilians in Iraq. How does that fit into the "civil war" schema? Answer: it doesn't. Think about the Tal Afar bombing again, the one that you thought was just part of the cycle of violence in a escalating civil war between Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. There is just one tiny little problem with that superficial analysis: the major Sunni insurgent groups are extremely displeased with bombings like that. That being the case, you should now be able to appreciate the fact that, contrary to the standard analysis, the Tal Afar bombing (like many similar bombings) was not carried out by Sunni insurgents in their civil war against Shiites. Instead, those bombings represent al Qaeda in action. They are, in effect, counterattacks in our war on terror, not retaliatory strikes in a civil war.

The Sunni insurgents have come to realize that al Qaeda is not helping them in their fight against American troops. Instead, al Qaeda is trying to provoke a civil war, which benefits al Qaeda alone. That is, al Qaeda is trying to get Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army to once again start executing Sunnis in Baghdad. That's why the Sunni insurgents are not happy. They have no interest in a civil war because it does not benefit them in any way. They want al Qaeda to help fight the Americans, and that's what al Qaeda was doing for a while. It's what George Bush wanted al Qaeda to do as well (at least I suspect as much). But al Qaeda came up with a fiendish alternative plan, and it has been amazingly effective up until now. Predictably, in response to al Qaeda's repeated atrocities against Shiite civilians, most Americans and all Democratic politicians think they are watching a civil war unfold in Iraq and have become demoralized as a result (just as al Qaeda knew they would -- it's always that way with the weak-willed America).

Note how radically different -- and well supported -- my analysis is compared to the one provided by that AP reporter. The American public gets its education from such reporters, and that's why they think that Iraq has just descended into a civil war that we have no business being in the middle of. The true situation is far different.

All of this should also serve to update your thinking about Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, which, contrary to what you might believe, was killing Sunnis in Baghdad in an effort to stop those atrocities being carried out by al Qaeda against Shiite civilians. But now the Mahdi Army is cooperating with the troop surge, so those executions have come way down. Perhaps Muqtada realized that he was just playing into al Qaeda's hands (and the truth is, he was).

Unfortunately, last month, al Qaeda successfully slaughtered many hundreds of Shiites, and that increase in violence offset the decrease in violence by the Mahdi Army, so overall civilian casualties in Iraq remained essentially unchanged. However, the fact that the Sunni insurgency is beginning to resist al Qaeda, and the fact that they have even implored Osama bin Laden to call off attacks against civilians by al Qaeda in Iraq could be highly significant. If the Mahdi Army continues to cooperate (and all signs suggest that they will despite the Tal Afar bombing) and if al Qaeda can be induced to stop slaughtering civilians, then the troop surge will be seen as a resounding success because civilian casualties will come way down.

And although it is too early to start celebrating (way too early), I'd like you to know that civilian casualties so far in the month of April are way down in Iraq. You haven't heard that reported anywhere, but if the trend continues, you definitely will. Here is what my next chart at the end of April will show if the trend through the first 12 days of April continues throughout the rest of the month (computational details here):


Al Qaeda would only need to conduct the equivalent of four extra Tal Afar bombings (killing about Shiite 600 civilians) in the next couple of weeks to keep the civilian count as high as it has been. That's what they did last month, and they might do it again this month. If they do, Americans will think that those bombings constitute individual battles in a larger civil war, but now you know better. However, if al Qaeda does do that to keep the troop surge from being perceived as a success (and to keep painfully predictable Americans thinking that it is all just a big ol' civil war), it is now clear that they will pay a steep price with the Sunni insurgency. Al Qaeda has already torpedoed its reputation in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world because of what they have done in Iraq (as I documented here), and now even the Sunni insurgents have turned on them. For al Qaeda in Iraq, it is a race against time, and, for the first time ever, it looks to me like they are beginning to lose that race.

Global Warming: A Matter of Confidence

Let's be clear about one thing right up front, which is that these are not the only alternatives:

1. Mankind is primarily responsible for global warming

2. The idea that mankind is primarily responsible for global warming is a myth

Al Gore quite hysterically adopts the first position, whereas many conservatives reflexively adopt the second because they simply cannot stomach the obvious gamesmanship of environmental activists who are trying to exploit scientific research to advance their leftist agenda and to stifle debate. It is a typically liberal thing to do, which is why modern universities feel more like leftist re-education camps than enlightened academies.

Still, it would surely be wrong to suggest that there is no evidence whatsoever that mankind is a contributor to global warming. There obviously is such evidence, and the only question is this: how confident should one be that greenhouse gas emissions are substantially contributing to global warming? The mere fact that liberal academics have weighed in on a politically charged issue does not really help you to figure out the appropriate level of confidence to have. After all, if you are going to let that sort of thing determine your thinking, you might as well just adopt every liberal tenet as scientifically established fact right now.

A better approach might be to consider the opinion of the members of the National Registry of Environmental Professionals. It is described here like this:

The National Registry of Environmental Professionals is the official nonpartisan, not-for-profit, non-government accrediting organization of the nation’s environmental professionals. The Registry is currently made up of over 12,000 environmental practitioners in the United States, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
...
The mission of NREP is to promote legal and professional recognition of individuals possessing education, training and experience as environmental managers, engineers, technologists, scientists and technicians -- and to consolidate that recognition in one centralized source -- so the public, government, employers and insurers can justify the importance and acceptance of such individuals to carry out operation and management of environmental activities.

What's interesting is that they surveyed their membership about the causes of global warming. Here is a bit of information about that survey:

Survey responses were received from 793 environmental professionals in 47 states including Puerto Rico and Guam. A small number of our professionals trained in U.S. regulations, but practicing abroad, also responded from Canada, the Cayman Islands, England, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Japan. Respondents make up all sectors of the workforce including federal, state, and local government employees, non-profit organizations, as well as private industry. Company presidents, engineers, scientists, health & safety officers and departmental managers, just to name a few, all took part in the survey.

This is good. The organization seems credible and relevant, they surveyed their knowledgeable membership, and they reported important details about the responses they received. The response rate is typical for a membership survey, and 793 responses from environmental professionals are worth considering. The results of the survey are interesting, and I boiled them down to two points:

82 percent of environmental professionals think global warming is a real, measurable, climactic trend currently in effect;

59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.

To my way of thinking, these response rates provide a pretty good indication of how confident you should be that global warming is real (be 82% confident about that) and that mankind contributes to it in "large part" (be 59% confident).

If you are 59% confident that mankind contributes in large part to global warming, is that high enough confidence to warrant torpedoing the U.S. economy in an utterly fruitless but well-meaning gesture to save the planet? Not in my book. However, it is high enough that you have a pretty good excuse to engage in an utterly fruitless but well-meaning environmental gesture by living a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. It is utterly fruitless because, as I said before, we just are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to make any significant difference even 300 years from now, and that would be true even if every country that sanctimoniously signed on to the Kyoto Protocol lived up to all of its stipulations (which they are very definitely not doing). Here is one projected effect of the Kyoto Protocol on the expected rise in the earth's temperature:


Gee, 300 years from now, the rise in temperature will be slashed to 6 degrees from 7.5 degrees -- assuming that everyone complies with the Kyoto Protocol, which they are not doing:

Most of Europe set to miss Kyoto goals: study

AFP, 27 December 2005 - Most of Europe, which has criticized the United States over its stance on global warming, looks set to miss a set of goals to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol, a study revealed on Tuesday.

The findings by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) will make embarrassing reading for European governments that have berated Washington for its refusal to ratify the United Nations pact.

Of 15 countries in Europe signed up to Kyoto, only Britain and Sweden were on target to meet their commitments on reducing harmful gas emissions by 2012, said the IPPR, Britain's leading progressive think tank. In contrast, 10 nations -- including Ireland, Italy and Spain -- would fail to do so unless they took urgent action, it said.

And it's not just Europe. Canada and Japan are similarly ignoring the environmental protocol that they all triumphantly signed just a few short years ago. So that graph needs to be modified a bit. 300 years from now, I'm thinking the expected rise in temperature will be roughly the same whether or not we get together and sign on to meaningless agreements that we turn around and completely ignore. And it will be the exact same way with your carbon neutral lifestyle (if you have chosen to live that way). While the topic is hot, you'll be carbon neutral, and you will trumpet the fact that you are such a great friend of the earth. A few years from now, it will be a long forgotten phase of your life. That's just human nature, but if you are an idealistic 20 year old, you don't know that yet (and that's just human nature, too).

However, where environmental extremists and otherwise reasonable people can come together is on the need to reduce dependence on foreign oil. If we do that, we enhance our national security and make a tiny effect positive effect on global warming. And here I just cannot understand why the government does not mandate higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles (including SUVs). I'm not anti-SUV. I actually have one (and I call it my "global-warming-mobile"). And, generally speaking, I am against excessive government regulation and mandates. But it seems to me that our prior experience with mandating higher fuel efficiency standards worked out quite well. In theory, such regulation is bad. In practice, it turned out to be good in this one particular case.

Did anything negative come from our earlier requirement that automobiles meet increasingly strict fuel efficiency standards? Perhaps, but it all seemed positive to me, and then we slipped back and started using oil to excess once again. Here is an interesting web site that advocates higher fuel efficiency standards and makes a few good points as well:

The enactment of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975 resulted in a near doubling of cars' average fuel economy, measured in miles per gallon (mpg), over the ensuing decade and an increase for light trucks of over 50%.

The 1985 average fuel economy standard of 27.5 mpg for cars has not been raised in the intervening 16 years, and the light truck standard increased only about 1 mpg in the same period. Congressional action has frozen CAFE standards since fiscal year 1996, and the fuel economy of the combined light duty fleet has now dropped to 24 mpg from its 1986–87 high of 25.9 mpg. Because SUVs are held to the less stringent light truck standard, their growing popularity has led to the decline in average fuel economy for the entire passenger fleet.

Raising CAFE standards by 5% annually until 2012 and by 3% per year thereafter could save 1.5 million barrels of oil per day (MBD) by 2010, 4.7 MBD by 2020, and 67 billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years. This is 10–20 times greater than the potential oil supply from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Imports of crude oil and finished petroleum products are projected to rise 66% from 1999 to 2020. Energy savings from raising CAFE standards as above would amount to cutting that 1999 to 2020 increase to 19%.

Millions of inefficient light trucks (including SUVs) are used as passenger vehicles, yet are not subject to the "gas guzzler" tax (ranging from $1,000 to $7,700) that is imposed on inefficient cars. Applying the tax to new gas-guzzling passenger vehicles in all classes would "pull up"the bottom end of the vehicle fleet and generate tax revenue that could be used to offset the incentives offered to buyers of high-efficiency vehicles.

Now, personally, I'd increase fuel efficiency standards and drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The combination might really have an effect on our dependence on foreign oil. But you can join Al Gore in living like an obese sloth who sends a bit of money to feed starving children in order to make himself feel better about his conspicuously self-indulgent lifestyle (to use an analogy), but your brief, feel-good experiment with carbon neutrality is not going to do a thing about global warming (or about our dependence on foreign oil). The carbon-neutral stunt is all about you and your idealized self image. But increasing fuel efficiency standards is not like that. It's not a silly little game that will make me feel ultra-good about my own personal sense of environmental responsibility and give me a reason to look down my nose at everyone else. Instead of all that nonsense, it would actually be doing something about the problems we face. I'm not sure why we don't pursue that approach.

How to Explain Away the al Qaeda Threat

At long last, I found a liberal analysis of Iraq that (a) acknowledges al Qaeda in Iraq and (b) argues for withdrawal anyway. Do you realize how rare that combination is? Extremely rare. I know because I am always on the lookout for such an argument. I genuinely want to test my analysis of Iraq against the analysis of those who believe that we should withdraw, but I can never really do that because advocates of withdrawal almost invariably have their thinking enfeebled by an obsolete "civil war" schema that has no means to assimilate the al Qaeda factor (so that critical factor is simply ignored). It's hard to argue with an ostrich that will not pull its head out of the sand.

I came across the relevant link while reading an article by Fred Kaplan in Slate Magazine. Kaplan's article is a standard anti-Bush rant that discusses various proposed solutions for Iraq. As usual, he mentions not one single word about al Qaeda. Thus, he has decided to adopt the same eerie code of silence that characterizes the analyses provided by Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy and Chuck Hagel (among many other national-security liberals). The fact anyone, much less virtually everyone on the left, can discuss Iraq without considering the role played by al Qaeda simply boggles my mind. Equally surprising to me is the fact that almost no one ever calls them on it, as if one reasonable point of view holds that al Qaeda is so irrelevant or its role so transparently obvious that it makes perfect sense to not even mention that terrorist organization -- not even once -- when making a detailed case for withdrawal. But that's not a reasonable point of view. Instead, it's absurd. If you don't know that already, you will by the time you finish reading this post.

Although Kaplan offers a standard left wing analysis, he links to another article written by Steven Simon of the Council on Foreign Relations. Simon advocates withdrawal from Iraq and (amazingly) discusses the role of al Qaeda in Iraq as well. I give him a lot of credit for this, and I could hardly wait to evaluate the strength of his argument. As you may know, I have long argued that al Qaeda is a decisive force in Iraq's instability. Call me crazy, but articles like this seem to support my point of view:

Iraq Cites Arrest of a Top Local Insurgent
Officials Call Detainee No. 2 in Al-Qaeda Group

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 4, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Sept. 3 -- U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured a top al-Qaeda leader who ordered the bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra that triggered a wave of ferocious sectarian killings, Iraqi officials said Sunday.
...
In an attempt to thrust Iraq into a full-scale civil war, Saeidi supervised Haitham al-Badri, an operative under his command, in carrying out the Feb. 22 bombing of a revered golden-domed Shiite shrine in Samarra, officials said. That attack sparked brutal reprisal killings by both Shiites and Sunnis that have left thousands of people dead.
...
"Why did you kill hundreds of people?" Saeidi was asked during a recent interrogation, according to Ali al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman.

"What do you mean 'hundreds of people?' I've killed thousands," Dabbagh said Saeidi responded.

The fact that everyone agrees that this bombing was, by far, the most significant event in provoking Iraq's "civil war" seems to indicate that al Qaeda is at least worth mentioning whenever anyone analyzes Iraq. Liberals generally disagree without saying why. It's downright eerie.

But the Samarra bombing was then. This is now:

Deadliest bomb in Iraq war kills 152

By Mussab Al-Khairalla
Reuters
Saturday, March 31, 2007; 12:01 PM
...
Bombings blamed on Sunni Islamist al Qaeda have killed 400 people in Shi'ite areas across the country in the past week.

Note the date on that article. Obviously, al Qaeda is a decisive factor in Iraq's disorder to this very day. But here is what Simon says about that:

The emphasis on al-Qaeda as a decisive factor in Iraq’s disorder fails to account for the radicalization of the broader indigenous Sunni opposition and the increasingly blurry lines between al-Qaeda in Iraq and other segments of the Sunni insurgency. That there are Iraqis who espouse the jihadism of al-Qaeda is beyond doubt, just as there are hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq. As suggested earlier, the use of Islamist language and symbols has grown across the board. But the extent to which this signifies an umbilical link to an external al-Qaeda that can manipulate Iraqi politics is open to doubt.

It is open to doubt? Really? I could hardly wait to find out why. But if you read on (starting on page 20), you'll find no evidence whatsoever to support the doubt he expresses. Thus, the argument amounts to nothing more than a description of Simon's own internal psychological state. Because he, himself, is uncertain about al Qaeda's ability to influence the direction of Iraq, the reader is apparently supposed to share his doubts. That's not good enough for me. How can anyone doubt al Qaeda's ability to "manipulate Iraqi politics?" Doesn't he know that it was al Qaeda that intentionally plunged Iraq into the sectarian fighting we see today by bombing the Golden Mosque? Doesn't that count as an instance of influencing Iraqi politics? It has caused Muqtada al Sadr to threaten the very foundation of the Maliki government (e.g., by escalating sectarian violence in Baghdad to unprecedented levels, by pulling out of the government every now and again, etc.). The only time that Simon discusses that critical incident in Samarra, he oddly makes no mention at all of al Qaeda:

This evolution of the insurgency culminated in the bombing of the al-Askari shrine in the city of Samarra in February 2006. The fierce reaction of Shia groups to the attack showed that a third group using force, the sectarian militias formed by political parties, had begun to rival the insurgents as the dominant sources of violence driving Iraq deeper into civil war.

The evolution of the "insurgency" culminated in that bombing? Actually, this bombing demonstrated the ability of al Qaeda (not the insurgency) to manipulate, at will, the politics of Iraq (the very thing Simon is unconcerned about). Al Qaeda decided that they wanted the Shiite militias to join the battle, and so they made it happen. This is a really critical detail to overlook when you are trying to claim that al Qaeda's influence is limited. Baathist insurgents didn't want Muqtada al Sadr's militia to start executing Sunni males in Baghdad by the hundreds every month. It is al Qaeda that wanted that to happen (for reasons Zarqawi himself explained in great detail), and it is al Qaeda that made that happen.

Also, contrary to what Simon asserts, the lines between al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency are not "increasingly blurry." Instead, they are becoming increasingly clear as the Sunni tribes of the Anbar province finally awaken to the fact that they made a deal with the devil in their efforts to oust American forces from Iraq:

Iraqi Sunnis set up fatwa body to combat al Qaeda

By Suleiman Al-Khalidi
REUTERS
10:33 a.m. April 9, 2007

AMMAN – Mainstream Sunni Muslim clerics in Iraq have formed a body to issue edicts aimed at curbing the influence of al Qaeda militants whose activities kill civilians, not only foreign troops, a leading cleric said on Monday.
...
Sunni Islamist al Qaeda in Iraq wields influence in several western and central provinces. Its militants are gaining support by their preaching in a country beset by U.S.-led foreign troops and sectarian fighting with Shi'ite militia.

But their indiscriminate killing of civilians and a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam have alienated traditionally minded tribal leaders and escalated a power struggle in Sunni ranks.
...
Samarrai said he believed Iraq's mainstream nationalist insurgent groups that focused their energies on fighting U.S troops, and not on fellow Iraqis, would regard the scholars' edicts as their sole religious authority.
...
'The authentic resistance considers the blood of Iraqis as sacrosanct. But those who masquerade as resistance and for whom the lives of Iraqis are cheap – this is not resistance against the occupier, this is terror...,' he added.

In other words, the Sunnis are starting to get it. The Sunni insurgents initially allied with al Qaeda to help them fight the American "occupiers," but al Qaeda turned out to have other ideas in mind. As Zarqawi explained in his infamous letter, al Qaeda (not the Baathist insurgents) decided that everything would be just grand if they could provoke the Shiite militias into killing Sunnis. That's what al Qaeda did, and that's why the lines between the insurgents and al Qaeda are now becoming decreasingly blurred (not increasingly blurred). The Sunnis are starting to realize that al Qaeda has a different objective, and all they got for their cooperation with al Qaeda is a fight with the Mahdi Army that they do not need and a troop surge from George Bush. Withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq just as the Sunni tribes of the Anbar Province are finally starting to shake off al Qaeda seems like a recipe for disaster.

Another reason not to withdraw was highlighted by the Iraq Study Group:

Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world.
...
Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

Simon, to his great credit, tries to dispute this notion as well:

Whether the United States stays or goes, global jihadis and their supporters will believe that they have already won twice over: first, by virtue of the intervention, which confirmed their narrative, and second, by creating the appearance of having thwarted Washington’s allegedly imperial designs. A U.S. decision to disengage militarily from Iraq will reaffirm these beliefs. However, given the size of the propaganda victory the United States has already conferred on Islamic extremists, and the way that U.S. military operations continue to confirm the jihadi worldview, a decision to remain in Iraq so as to avoid emboldening radicals is inevitably quixotic.

Again, I appreciate the fact the author actually acknowledges the problem posed by al Qaeda (which those on the left almost never do), but I find the evidence-free nature of his assertions to be less than compelling. He does not seem to know, for example, that al Qaeda's tactics in Iraq have greatly tarnished its standing throughout the Muslim world. This must be considered in light of Simon's completely unsupported assertion that we have already conferred a great propaganda victory on Islamic extremists. In truth, the evidence suggests that al Qaeda is losing the propaganda war, especially in Iraq:

It may be easy to assume that as the Iraqi people become more supportive of attacks on U.S.-led forces (see WPO main article), they may grow warmer toward al Qaeda—the probable source of a significant number of attacks on U.S. forces. However, this does not appear to be the case. Al Qaeda is exceedingly unpopular among the Iraqi people.

Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view.

Does that look like a propaganda victory to you? It doesn't to me. Well, perhaps the extremists are achieving a propaganda victory in Muslim nations outside of Iraq. After all, before the war, many opponents predicted precisely that outcome as the world watched American bombs rain down on Muslims in Iraq. What do the polls say about that? They say this:

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A13

Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some pivotal Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released yesterday.
...
"These are eye-catching results, but not surprising," said Augustus Richard Norton, a Middle East specialist at Boston University. "Muslims, like non-Muslims, are plugged into the world. . . . It is one thing to be caught up in the supposed glamour of attacking the superpower or global bully, but it is quite another to have to pay the consequences economically, politically -- not to mention personally. This is what has happened in places like Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, where many people now see extremist Islam as a threat to their lives, not a fantasy game of kick Uncle Sam."

Many liberal analysts predicted that the jihadist cause would be greatly advanced by our invasion of Iraq, so they merely assume that they were right. But merely assuming that you were right does not make it so. As you can see, al Qaeda is clearly losing the propaganda war, but Simon simply asserts the opposite (with no evidence whatsoever to back his claim) in an effort to bolster the case that we can withdraw from Iraq without bolstering al Qaeda's cause (contrary to what even the Iraq Study Group says).

Our invasion has drawn the most radicalized elements of the Muslim world to Iraq and so has created more terrorists, but al Qaeda has nonetheless lost the propaganda war (so far). Only we have the power to change that, and we can do it by starting to draw down our forces (in exact accordance with al Qaeda's instructions) before Iraqi security forces are ready. Think about the propaganda victory that al Qaeda will achieve on the very first day that we begin our withdrawal. CNN, MSNBC, CBS News and the NY Times will repeatedly present, in extra large boldface type, triumphant jihadist proclamations of victory over the Great Satan. That will go on for months on end, punctuated only by occasional mass-casualty bombings against Shiite civilians that al Qaeda will set off to further their civil-war agenda.

Al Qaeda has gambled everything to chase America out of Iraq. The propaganda victory that Simon believes al Qaeda has already won will only happen if we depart prematurely. Pretending otherwise is not in really our best interests. And it's not just a propaganda victory that al Qaeda would achieve. Instead, it would be an actual victory, one that would greatly advance al Qaeda's well-specified and (so far) well-executed plan for Iraq.

An Occasional Obsession With Polls

Some of you may already know that I am infatuated with polls (occasionally). I tracked them carefully before the last election, and I learned two things when I did:

1. polls tell you almost nothing

--and--

2. polls are dead-on accurate

The first point applies to individual polls; the second to averaged polls (e.g., the results of 10 polls averaged together). I assure you that I am right about this, so stick with me.

I was reminded of this point when I stumbled across this new poll, which is an individual poll that tells you next to nothing:

Approval of Congress Highest in Year

(WASHINGTON) — Public approval for Congress is at its highest level in a year as Democrats mark 100 days in power and step up their confrontation with President Bush over his handling of the Iraq War, the issue that overshadows all others.
...
Overall approval for Congress is 40 percent. The survey shows Bush's approval ratings remain in the mid-30 percent range, that a striking 39 percent strongly disapproves his handling of foreign policy and the war on terror, and that the public has scant hopes that the president and Congress can work together to solve the country's problems.
...
The poll relied on interviews with 1000 adults, including 819 registered voters, from April 2-4. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.

You might think, on the basis of this poll, that the approval rating for the new Democratic Congress exceeds Bush's low approval rating, but you'd be wrong. That's because the amount of error in individual polls based on 1000 adults is quite large. Also, this poll sampled the opinions of all adults, which is fine, but it biases the findings in the direction of Democrats (because most non-voters lean left). If you really want to know where the public stands, you need to average together a lot of polls to wash out the random error (i.e., the "noise") in polling data. They do that at pollster.com, and here are the results:


You can see that their current Congressional approval estimate based on all polls is 30.8%, though you can also see that an occasional poll (like the new one cited above) comes in above 40%. It will be interesting to see some new polls now that Nancy Pelosi has decided that she is the best person to negotiate with the Syrians. I'm thinking that her silly little trip is not going to help the poll numbers for Congress, but we'll see.

Meanwhile, Bush's popularity remains low, but it exceeds that of of Congress:


Look at the variability across the individual polls for any particular date. That's how unreliable individual polls are, but the media treats them as if they are exact (even though the margin of error is also supplied). People are not really sure what to do with the margin of error. To most, it's just a number, and not one person in a hundred could tell you what it means, exactly (but I could!). This chart gives you a graphical depiction of what it really means. And it means that individual polls are not very informative at all.

Bush's temporary increase in popularity that began back in the middle of 2006 is an intriguing phenomenon. At the time, there was no obvious reason for it to happen, but happen it did. It happened even though, at the time, violence in Iraq was on the rise following the bombing of the Golden Mosque. However, it was also not yet clear that the violence would keep increasing. Still, there was no obvious positive force pushing his numbers up, but they went up anyway. The only explanation I heard that made sense to me was that Tony Snow had just started his job as the White House spokesman, and he may have succeeded in getting somewhat more balanced coverage from the press. But then violence in Iraq really took off, and the Democrats seized the political opportunity to savage their president as he tries to fight a difficult war. In so doing, they successfully dragged his numbers back down to where they are today.

Bush's approval rating will climb if the troop surge is perceived as a success, but otherwise it won't. That's my guess anyway. If the troop surge is perceived as a failure, then Bush's rating will fall further and al Qaeda's tarnished reputation in the Muslim world will increase (because it will have been al Qaeda that thwarted our efforts in Iraq). So, if you find yourself hoping that Bush does not get credit for success in Iraq, keep in mind what you are also indirectly hoping for.

The point is that individual polls are too variable to really tell you anything, but that's precisely why the news media likes them. There seems to be a new piece of news every time a poll is taken, but it's mostly an illusion. That is, there is "news" to report even when the underlying reality does not change much at all. If you want to know the truth, look at averaged polls. Doing that allowed me (and others) to predict, with a fairly high degree of accuracy, how the last election was going to turn out. I did not want the news to be that way, but facts are facts, and you have let your thinking be guided by the empirical evidence. For example, back on November 1, I posted the following:

The Election Outcome Still Looks Pre-Ordained

No matter where I look, I come up with the same result: in the Senate, the Democrats pick up 5 plus-or-minus 1 seats (they need 6 to be in the majority), and in the House they pick up about 22 (they need 15 to be in the majority).
...
I don't want this to be true because my party is simply not ready for prime time. But I'm sticking with this prediction because I can't see the evidence that Instapundit readers see on this score. A poll on that site came out like this:

With over 5,000 votes in so far, 60% of InstaPundit readers think the GOP will keep both houses. 34% see a split decision and only 6% think the Dems will take both.

I am going to be shocked if the Republicans keep both houses, but Instapundit readers won't be!

I didn't want the Democrats to take control, but the evidence led me to believe that they had a very good shot at it. And the evidence was not any individual poll but the average of a large number of polls. Many otherwise excellent thinkers were thrown off by believing that they detected flaws in the efforts of pollsters (e.g., Michael Barone and Karl Rove). But, in the aggregate, the polls were not flawed.

Remember the rule: individual polls tell you very little, but averaged polls do not lie.

How I Calculate Casualty Statistics

A few days ago, as I do at the beginning of every month, I presented civilian casualty statistics from Iraq. As best I can tell, the numbers that I use (which are taken from Iraq Coalition Causality Count) provide the most accurate depiction of casualty trends in Iraq that you can find anywhere on the web. Ironically, my analysis of their numbers is even more accurate than the analysis they, themselves, provide on their web site. In this post, I'd like to explain why that is.

Before explaining where Iraq Coalition Causality Count goes wrong in the analysis of their own data, let me explain why I consider their database to be of such value. There are many sources of casualty statistics from Iraq, but it's a minefield, and several others who try to track casualties have gotten thrown way off course along the way. The Brookings Institute, for example, publishes the incredibly informative Iraq Index, in which they track many statistics about Iraq, including civilian casualties. Unfortunately, they have decided to use reports provided by the UN and other agencies that, I assume, do not provide timely information, which is why their numbers have not yet been updated for any month of this year. Thus, their otherwise fantastic report is not much help when it comes to tracking recent trends (such as tracking the impact of the troop surge).

Iraq Coalition Causality Count relies on counts of deaths reported by the media. You might immediately worry that many deaths occur that are not reported by the media, and that is almost certainly true. But the task of interest to me is to identify trends, not to tabulate every single death that occurs. For example, here is my chart showing civilian deaths in Iraq over the last two years using the numbers provided by Iraq Coalition Causality Count:


You can see some undeniable trends, such as the increase in violence that occurred after the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February of 2006 (following the the black bar). The blue bars represent the troops surge months. The troops strated arriving in February and have now built up to about half of their ultimate strength (which will be reached in May, I believe).

But what if only 75% of deaths are reported by the media? If so, then all of these numbers would be higher, and the chart would look like this:


The actual numbers change (e.g., now, the chart suggests that more than 2000 civilians are dying each month), but the trends remain the same. And it is the trends that we are interested in tracking. The media method used by Iraq Coalition Causality Count is sensitive to change. That's the key point. The trends evident in the chart invariably correspond to what the US military reports in their occasional verbal summaries of casualty trends. That's one reason why I have such high confidence in this method.

If you, yourself, go to Iraq Coalition Causality Count and try to plot up their numbers as I have done, you'll get a different result than I show in the first chart above. In fact, if you just use their raw numbers to make a chart, it will look like this:


Now this is a confusing picture. What are those 3 spikes in violence that clearly stand out in the graph? The first (in August of 05) occurred because of 1000 deaths that resulted from a stampede. Those tragic deaths were clearly an aberration and should not be included in a graph that tries to assess trends in the level of violence in Iraq. So I always subtract them out. The next two spikes occurred because, for two months only, Iraq Coalition Causality Count decided to include body counts provided by the Baghdad morgue (and one other morgue). They usually do not include these counts, and they have never done so again. Morgue reports have been available for a long time, but it is hard to say if they are reliable or if they double-count deaths already reported by the media. Still, if you are going to include them, you have to include them for every month (not just for those two months, which is what they did). So, when I analyze their data, I subtract out these aberrant morgue tallies as well. One needs to pay close attention to the details to appreciate this aberration, and I've been trying to pay close attention for a long time.

With the aberrations thus removed, trends in civilian casualties can be more readily identified. I believe that the first chart above provides the best depiction of those trends that you can get. And it is going to be interesting to see what the trend is in the coming months.

Looking ahead to the next report, I'll just say that I hope that violence for the rest of the month of April remains as low as it has been for the first 9 days. If current trends continue for the rest of the month, here is how my next chart would look:


A result like that would be dramatic, and I'd love to see how Democrats would react to it. But don't get your hopes up. This is about how things looked halfway through March as well. Then al Qaeda jumped into action in a big way by slaughtering hundreds of innocent Shiite civilians. On March 31, the Washington Post reported this:

Bombings blamed on Sunni Islamist al Qaeda have killed 400 people in Shi'ite areas across the country in the past week.

Got that? Al Qaeda killed 400 innocent Shiite civilians in one week at the end of last month. It could happen again. Ask your liberal friends why these bombings happen and then be amazed by what they say. They will say that these bombings represent the latest tit-for-tat attacks (i.e., Sunnis avenging the deaths of their own) that characterize this hopeless civil war. But that's not how it is. Al Qaeda is not avenging the deaths of other Sunnis; instead, they are intentionally provoking the Shiites to kill more Sunnis. Why? Because civil war is their goal, and they are doing everything in their power to make it happen. Civil war demoralizes Americans and makes the Sunnis fear Shiite militias, which, in turn, makes the Sunnis dependent on al Qaeda for protection.

I realize that I am a broken record on this issue, but it is only because I cannot comprehend why the evidence points so strongly in one direction, yet everyone else believes a different story. Liberals truly believe that al Qaeda is a minor side show in Iraq, one that will not be much of a problem when we leave. Those same liberals don't really appreciate the fact that it is al Qaeda that is successfully slaughtering Shiites by the hundreds even now. They (like most Americans) believe that the bombings that killed 400 Shiite civilians in one week were conducted by Sunni "insurgents" retaliating for what the Shiites have done to the Sunnis in the past. That's all wrong, and it is fascinating to watch how liberals react when you explain all of this to them. Those whose minds are not completely closed usually consider the possibility that what I have to say may be true. And then they ask a question: what should we do about it?

That's the only question.

UPDATE: The New York Times has a new story today on casualties in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, April 8 — Nearly two months into the new security push in Baghdad, there has been some success in reducing the number of death squad victims found crumpled in the streets each day.

And while the overall death rates for all of Iraq have not dropped significantly, largely because of devastating suicide bombings, a few parts of the capital have become calmer as some death squads have decided to lie low.
...
This snapshot of the early weeks of the operation, which officially began on Feb. 14, is drawn from American and Iraqi casualty data and interviews with military commanders and government officials.
...
“We’ve not seen the overall same significant amount of decline in the overall number of casualties” as in execution killings, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, spokesman for the American military command, said in a news conference last week.

Of course, if you read my blog, you already knew all that. Then we have this interesting note buried deep in the story:

At the same time, deaths and injuries nationwide from vehicle bombs, which are typically associated with Sunni insurgents, particularly Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, have continued at a rapid pace.

This brief mention of al Qaeda is a point in favor of this story, but the reporters do not ask the key question: why is al Qaeda conducting these bombings? Their incuriosity about that critical issue never ceases to amaze me.

But you don't have to be similarly incurious. Ask yourself that question (why is al Qaeda doing that?), and then ask what we should do about it.

Muqtada al Sadr, Our Effective Ally, Lashes Out

In a nutshell, my long-standing theory about Muqtada al Sadr is this: the Mahdi Army he commands stayed on the sidelines for a long time after initially trying to take on U.S. military forces in 2004 (about a year after the fall of Saddam Hussein). That confrontation turned out to be a disastrous and utterly lopsided annihilation of his incompetent foot soldiers at the hands of our professional military. Eventually, however, repeated provocations by al Qaeda -- culminating in the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in late February of 2006 -- brought the Mahdi Army back into the fight, this time against a less formidable foe (namely, Sunni civilians and militants in Baghdad). The Mahdi Army was responsible for thousands of execution-style killings of young Sunni males back in the fall of last year. This is just what al Qaeda had hoped for, but it's also true that the slaughter of Sunni males by the Mahdi Army made it harder for al Qaeda to conduct large scale suicide bombings and truck bombings against innocent men, women and children of the Shiite sect (so attacks of that nature came down a bit in Baghdad in December and January).

Does that sound like a civil war to you? It doesn't to me either, but all Democrats and a large proportion of the American population thinks that all the violence is just a bunch of Sunnis killing a bunch of Shiites, each engaging in tit-for-tat retaliatory strikes. In fact, and contrary to the standard analysis, mass-casualty suicide bombings against Shiite civilians targeted by al Qaeda are conducted not to avenge the deaths of Sunnis but to provoke the killing of even more Sunnis. In this way, al Qaeda demoralizes a weak-willed America and makes themselves needed by the Sunnis of Iraq. The Sunnis will need al Qaeda to help them stave off the enraged Shiite militias. And except for the troop surge, the plan has been working like a charm. It is working so well that Americans don't even realize that their loss of will has been engineered by the very terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. To Americans, it's just ancient sectarian rivalries that have spontaneously erupted into a civil war in the aftermath of our invasion of Iraq. That's all wrong, but that's what most Americans and all Democrats think.

I will never, ever underestimate the evil genius of al Qaeda, and you shouldn't either.

According to my analysis, Muqtada al Sadr, who obviously hates Americans in Iraq, was conducting his execution-style campaign against Sunni males in effort to prevent al Qaeda from indiscriminately slaughtering Shiite civilians. Because he was trying to subdue al Qaeda, I have referred to him as our "unintentional ally" in Iraq. Recently, he has cooperated with the troop surge to give American and Iraqi forces a second chance to do what they had previously not been able to do, namely, hold al Qaeda in check. That cooperation has resulted in a dramatic reduction in execution-style slayings in Baghdad even while al Qaeda has managed to indiscriminately slaughter Shiite civilians elsewhere in Iraq (in an effort to goad the Shiite militias to rejoin the fight, not to avenge the deaths of Sunnis at the hands of Shiite militias).

I have predicted all along that you are not going to see large-scale confrontations between the U.S. military and the Mahdi Army once the troop surge happens. Lately, though, there have been some (rare) clashes with the Mahdi Army involving U.S. military forces:

U.S. Fights Iraqi Militia in South
Clashes Aimed at Wresting Control of City From Mahdi Army

By Karin Brulliard and Saad Sarhan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page A18

BAGHDAD, April 7 -- American and Iraqi troops engaged in fierce fighting with Shiite militiamen in southern Iraq on Saturday, the second day of clashes that have raised the specter of a resurgence by the Mahdi Army after weeks of lying low.
...
Sadr has appeared to cooperate with U.S. and Iraqi troops as they carry out a U.S.-led plan to stabilize Baghdad and other parts of the country, even as he has continued to criticize the U.S. presence in Iraq and has called on his followers to resist it. As troops swept through his stronghold of Sadr City -- a Shiite district of Baghdad seen as crucial in the quest to temper violence in the capital -- his Mahdi Army has stood down on the orders of its leader.

U.S. military officials have said recently that Sadr's militia is splintering, which they said contributed to a pause in fighting but could make the group harder to defeat in the long run. It was unclear Saturday whether Sadr had ordered the Diwaniyah fighters to fight back or whether rogue elements were disobeying their leader.

"We have instructions from his eminence, Mr. President Moqtada, to defend ourselves in our houses, not in the streets," said Mounthir al-Quzueeni, 29, a taxi driver who identified himself as a member of the Mahdi Army.

All very interesting. It's hard to know exactly what to make of this skirmish with the Mahdi Army. Today, Muqtada al Sadr issued a new call to arms for his fighters:

Radical Cleric Calls on Iraqis to Halt Cooperation With U.S. Military
Sunday, April 08, 2007

BAGHDAD — The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate their attacks on American troops rather than Iraqis, according to a statement issued Sunday.
...
"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," the statement said. Its authenticity could not be verified.

In the statement, al-Sadr — who commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shiites and has close allies in the Shiite-dominated government — also encouraged his followers to attack only American forces, not fellow Iraqis.

Well, this new call does not sound a whole lot different from his prior calls, but perhaps we'll see more fighting between U.S. and Mahdi Army forces in the weeks to come. I still doubt we'll see a lot of it because it would just be another disaster for Muqtada al Sadr, and he must know that.

Note, though, that Muqtada is being clear that he does not want his rag-tag soldiers to attack Iraqi citizens. That is, he is not issuing a call to resume the execution of Sunni males in Baghdad. To me, that seems like the most significant aspect of his new call. It means that he is still cooperating with the troop surge and not cooperating with al Qaeda's plan to bring him back into the fight. Unfortunately, you can be sure that al Qaeda is taking notes and that they will soon send a suicide bomber to indiscriminately slaughter innocent Shiite civilians in an effort to get him to change his mind. Al Qaeda wants Muqtada to kill Sunnis, yet when their next attack happens (one that is designed to provoke that very outcome), Americans will mistakenly interpret it as tit-for-tat retaliation in a demoralizing civil war characterized by an ever-escalating cycle of violence. And, somehow, al Qaeda knew that's how Americans would react.

Quality of Life in America and Europe, Part II

A few days ago, I noted that "quality of life" indicators suggest that life in America is better than life in Europe. My interest in this topic stems only from the fact that many believe that it is the other way around. I am not trying to celebrate the superiority of America. Instead, I'm just trying to dispel a myth.

I have argued repeatedly that the appropriate comparison group for the U.S. is the large-population, major economies of Europe that make up the EU-4 (France, Germany, Italy and the U.K.). Compared to the EU-4, quality of life in America appears to exceed that in Europe. As sensible as it is to use the EU-4 as the comparison group, I know that people will insist on comparing the the 300-million-person U.S. with the tiny countries of Europe, so I'll take that route today as well.

The question I ask in today's post is this: in terms of quality of life, where does the U.S. stand in relation to the EU-27 (i.e., the 27 countries of the European Union)? Of course, if we are going to break up Europe into its tiny countries, then we should break up the U.S. into its individual states. Massachusetts, for example, with its 6.5 million people, would no doubt fair extremely well against the small countries of Europe, many of which have even smaller populations than that (e.g., Ireland, which comes in at about 4 million). But let's ignore all that and just pretend that it makes sense to compare the U.S. with the EU-27. How does quality of life in the U.S. compare against those nations?

The Quality of Life Index created by the Economist (which I described here) has the US coming in at 13th in the world. With that ranking, it does worse than than 8 countries of the EU-27 and better than 19 of them. Here are the 8 nations of the EU-27 that outperform the U.S. on this measure:

Ireland
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Sweden
Italy
Denmark
Spain
Finland

Another Quality of Life Index by InternationalLiving.com has 4 countries of the EU-27 doing better than the U.S. and 23 countries doing worse. The 4 that get a higher score than the U.S. are:

France
Switzerland
Denmark
Austria

I discussed both of these quality of life measures in relation to the EU-4 in my last post on this topic. The U.S. clearly outperforms the EU-4 on those measures, and now we can see that it does a pretty good job even when the comparison group is the EU-27. I just found another quality-of-life ranking by the United Nations, so I made the comparison using their measure as well. That measure is described this way:

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to determine and indicate whether a country is a developed, developing, or underdeveloped country and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.

The UN's latest rankings can be found here, and these are the top 10 nations:

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Australia
4 Ireland
5 Sweden
6 Canada
7 Japan
8 United States
9 Switzerland
10 Netherlands

Only 2 countries of the EU-27 beat out the U.S. on this list (Ireland and Sweden). The number climbs to 3 if you count Norway (which is not part of the EU).

As I said, it does not make a great deal of sense to compare a country of 300 million against countries whose populations would barely put them in the top 10 states of the U.S. (which is true of Sweden, for example -- Ireland would not even make the top 20). Any comparison involving the EU-27 should be made against the US-50 (i.e., the 50 states of the U.S.). Still, in looking around the internet, I often see the U.S. being compared against the small countries of Europe all the time, so I did it here as well.

And the results show that the US stacks up quite well against the EU-27. Here is a chart that summarizes the results for the 3 quality of life measures:


As you can see, no matter how you measure it, quality of life in the U.S. is better than the large majority of the nations in the EU-27. Again, my only reason for investigating this issue is that there appears to be a widespread belief out there that this is not true. I'm not sure where that belief comes from.

Finally, you may have noticed that Sweden came out pretty well on these quality-of-life measures (outranking the U.S. in two out of three cases), so this new column caught my eye:

Jobless migrants and women boxers rock the cradle of the nanny state

If there is a revolution coming to Sweden you would not want to be on the wrong side of Josefin. Watched by open-mouthed sparring partners, she thunders her fists against a punchball as if to say: “Some iron has entered the Swedish soul.”

And so it has. Sweden, renowned for decades as the model of cosy womb-to-tomb welfare socialism, has suddenly become a much rawer place.

The centre-right governing coalition of Fredrik Reinfeldt, which came to power last autumn, is seen by David Cameron as a potential template for Tory fortunes. Since the election they have seemed determined to roll back the nanny state after many decades of Social Democratic feather-bedding.

On the agenda is abolition of wealth tax, cuts in income tax and a privatisation programme that is already starting to excite foreign investors.
...
Sweden’s social welfare model, so admired by Gordon Brown, was ripe for overhaul. Indeed, so ripe that the Social Democrats grudgingly started their own reforms, cutting down, for example, on Europe’s most generous sick-leave arrangements, which were blamed for turning a healthy nation into a society of work-dodgers.
...
But the sums, even with the current strong economic growth, do not add up. Swedes are afraid of losing their privileges. But they are even more afraid that they will slip down the prosperity league. In 1970 they had the fourth-highest per capita income in the world. Now, as the sociologist Johan Norberg says: “If Sweden was one of the states of America, it would be the fifth poorest.”
...
Some 23 per cent of the population of Malmö, Sweden’s third city, were born abroad; if their children, born in Sweden, are taken into account, over 35 per cent have foreign connections. Somalis, Afghans, Turks, Iraqis and Palestinians are all wedged into the state-sponsored estates in Malmö’s Rosengard district and almost all live on welfare.

I've heard that claim about Sweden's GDP standing in relation to US states before, and I know many have disputed it (because it is based solely on income figures without including other benefits). Still, that big drop in Sweden's GDP standing in relation to the other countries of the world over the years seems telling. It is still a propserous nation, but it started near the very top back in 1970, so it will take a long time for the social welfare state model they adopted to turn it into a second-rate economy. Unfortunately, though, they need those immigrants mentioned in the article because, like almost all of the liberal nations of Europe, Swedes have decided not to replace themselves. Their fertility rate consistently falls well below the replacement rate of 2.1:


Sweden remains a prosperous nation with a high quality of life, and its economic decline in relation to the rest of the world is not necessarily destined to continue. After all, it sounds like they are making moves away from the social welfare state model and toward the American model (which can only help). That will probably happen elsewhere in Europe as well as they wake up to the unsustainable Ponzi scheme that selectively benefits the current generation at the expense of the next. When they do, it will be interesting to see if they decide that it is worth having babies again.

Juan Cole's Prescription for Iraq

I rarely find myself in agreement with those who purport to know how to deal with Iraq better than George Bush does, but I am always interested in what they have to say. The problem, usually, is that prescriptions for Iraq simply overlook the fact that al Qaeda is slaughtering hundreds of innocent Shiites every month in an effort to provoke a civil war. So far, we've been unable to stop them even with 140,000 troops on the ground. If we leave, their ability to wreak havoc will be greater that it is today, and wreak havoc they will. Why? Because they are not just trying to drive America out of Iraq. They are also trying to sew the seeds of chaos because it suits their jihadist objectives.

Anyway, writing in the Nation magazine, Juan Cole thinks he knows How to Get Out of Iraq (via RealClearPolitics):

The key to preventing an intensified civil war is US withdrawal from the equation so as to force the parties to an accommodation. Therefore, the United States should announce its intention to withdraw its military forces from Iraq, which will bring Sunnis to the negotiating table and put pressure on Kurds and Shiites to seek a compromise with them. But a simple US departure would not be enough; the civil war must be negotiated to a settlement, on the model of the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Lebanon.
...
And by ending its occupation, the United States would go a long way toward repairing its relations with the Arab and Muslim world and thus eliminate one of Al Qaeda's chief recruiting tools. A withdrawal is risky, but on the evidence so far, for the US military to remain in Iraq is a sure recipe for disaster.

There is just one tiny problem with this plan, and the Iraq Study Group nailed it:

Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world.
...
Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

That is, Juan Cole's plan to "...eliminate one of Al Qaeda's chief recruiting tools" by withdrawing from Iraq is likely to have the exact opposite effect because al Qaeda will have achieved a glorious victory over the Great Satan. The same point was made in that gleefully leaked National Intelligence Estimate from last summer. That report had two important messages, the one that Democrats were giddy about:

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

and the one that Democrats did not want to hear about (so this part of the report not leaked):

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Juan Cole looks at that first point and, as best I can tell, thinks like this: "well, if our presence there has become the cause celebre for jihadists, our departure will eliminate that problem." The problem with that reasoning was contained right there in the same NIE report and in the report issued by the Iraq Study Group. Specifically, if we leave on a timetable, the jihadists will (rightly) perceive themselves to have won "a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world." But if we remain until the Iraqis can manage security on their own, then al Qaeda will have failed. And if the "...jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves...to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Sounds about right to me.

Calling for withdrawal while ignoring this issue does not make for a compelling case. If you disagree, you should explain why. Unfortunately, those on the left never do. Iraq has, indeed, become a cause celebre for jihadists (note that I am not ignoring that fact), and now the jihadists are either going to win or they are going to lose. That's the issue. How it turns out in Iraq will determine the status of the jihadist movement around the world for a very long time to come. And if we withdraw before Iraq can provide for its own security, the jihadists win.

Another NIE report released a couple of months ago -- one that the Democrats did not leak to the press for some odd reason -- had this to say:

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI [i.e., al Qaeda in Iraq] would attempt to use parts of the country—particularly al-Anbar province—to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.

Got the picture? Proposed solutions for Iraq that simply ignore all of this cannot be taken seriously. That's why I do not regard Juan Cole's analysis as a serious one. I don't regard any analyses offered by the left to be serious because they just pretend that these concerns don't exist. The left construes the situation in Iraq mainly as a civil war, one that can be resolved diplomatically by bringing the Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds to the bargaining table. Fine, but what's al Qaeda going to do when our troops leave and everyone else is at the bargaining table? Cole doesn't say.

And don't forget another key detail that can't be simply ignored in this debate (but always is anyway):

Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A13

Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some pivotal Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released yesterday.

Predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries share to a "considerable degree" Western concerns about Islamic extremism, according to the poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted by the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization.
...
"These are eye-catching results, but not surprising," said Augustus Richard Norton, a Middle East specialist at Boston University. "Muslims, like non-Muslims, are plugged into the world. . . . It is one thing to be caught up in the supposed glamour of attacking the superpower or global bully, but it is quite another to have to pay the consequences economically, politically -- not to mention personally. This is what has happened in places like Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, where many people now see extremist Islam as a threat to their lives, not a fantasy game of kick Uncle Sam."

Yes, the invasion of Iraq has drawn some deranged jihadists out of the woodwork -- that's what liberals always emphasize -- but it is also true that support for al Qaeda has plummeted throughout the Muslim world because of what they have done in Iraq. If those same jihadists succeed in forcing America out of Iraq, al Qaeda's standing in the world is likely to regain its once exalted status. If you don't think so for some odd reason, you should say why (if you want to be taken seriously, that is).

But let's get back to the main point, which is the glaringly obvious fact that everyone on the left eerily ignores: al Qaeda is intentionally provoking civil war in Iraq, and they are not going to stop when we leave. This, more than any other fact, needs to be absorbed by the liberal mind. But it is a point that does not fit their cherished civil-war schema. In terms of that schema, it does not compute, therefore, the issue does not exist. Unfortunately, ignoring the issue is not going to make it go away.

Why won't al Qaeda stop when we leave? Zarqawi spelled it out:

I say again, the only solution is to strike the religious, military, and other cadres of the Shi'a so that they revolt against the Sunnis.
...
This is what we want. Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions. When the Mujahidin would have secured a land they can use as a base to hit the Shi'a inside their own lands...there will be a continuation between the Mujahidin inside and outside of Iraq.

Hmmm. He wanted a civil war so the Sunnis would ally themselves with al Qaeda. And he wants a "continuation" of Mujahidin inside and outside of Iraq. What does Mujahidin mean? It means "Muslim guerrilla warriors engaged in a jihad." Zarqawi wants a civil war so that Muslim guerrilla warriors engaged in a jihad will be able to extend their operations to include Iraq. That's al Qaeda's very clear plan, and we are having trouble stopping them even with 140,000 troops on the ground. Juan Cole says not one word about al Qaeda's plan or about how they are going to be stopped when we leave. And that's how all liberals are when discussing Iraq. I don't know why.

Perhaps you agree with Juan Cole, who seems to think like this: "our presence in Iraq is drawing al Qaeda like flies; if we leave, al Qaeda will stop their efforts in Iraq."

But you really must come to appreciate how ridiculous this way of thinking is. Such reasoning basically amounts to this: "we are making al Qaeda really, really mad at America because we have troops in Iraq. There are so mad, in fact, that they are indiscriminately slaughtering hundreds of innocent Shiite civilians every month. If we leave, they'll just stop slaughtering those poor Shiites."

Does that make any sense to you? Well, that's what you have to believe if you really think that withdrawing from Iraq will help to calm things down. Al Qaeda is slaughtering Shiites to induce a civil war, both to defeat America and to create the conditions in Iraq that will serve their global jihadist objectives. If they succeed in driving us out of Iraq, the idea that they will simultaneously surrender those objectives and simply stop killing Shiites is really difficult to believe. More likely, with those pesky 140,000 troops out of the way, their attacks against innocent Shiites will increase enormously, and Muqtada al Sadr's Shiite militia will reenter the fight in full force. That's what will happen while everyone (except for al Qaeda) is at the bargaining table. Those who disagree should explain why they disagree. That is, they should explain why al Qaeda, which is currently devastatingly effective in Iraq, will just sit tight while various negotiations drag on for the next year or two. The fact that they never say anything about that suggests that their minds are simply unable to process information that does not fit neatly into the cherished civil-war schema.

Even 140,000 Troops Cannot (Yet) Suppress al Qaeda in Iraq

As I noted here in my analysis of the effect of the troop surge on casualties in Iraq, violence in Baghdad is down, but violence elsewhere in the country is up, so the overall number of civilian causalities has not changed very much. Here is the chart I showed that illustrates the situation in Baghdad (where the troop surge is mainly concentrated):


I labeled the month of February as Feb' to indicate that I've adjusted the numbers upward a bit to show how many casualties would have occurred had there been 31 days in that month. Although Baghdad is still a violent place, the substantial drop in violence since the beginning of the troop surge is clearly good news. And here is a new chart showing civilian casualties elsewhere in Iraq:


That's the bad news. Clearly, the violence shifted away from Baghdad.

I've noticed that reporters are completely lost when it comes to analyzing casualty statistics provided by various ministries of the Iraqi government, but media reports tend to get the story right anyway because reporters have the good sense to listen to what our military commanders have to say:

Iraqi and U.S. military commanders have warned that militants are shifting the focus of their attacks to outside Baghdad, where thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops have taken to the streets to crack down on sectarian bloodletting.

Still, I'd like to emphasize again that these are not "militants" who are taking the killing elsewhere. This is absolutely critical to understand, which is why I feel the need to harp on this issue again. If the killers were Sunnis who were retaliating against Shiites because of their prior attacks against Sunnis, then the new attacks outside of Baghdad could be properly called "sectarian violence." Moreover, it would be the kind of violence that could reasonably be thought of as being part of a tit-for-tat "civil war." That's one way to conceptualize what is happening in Iraq, and that's the conceptualization that dominates the thinking of Democrats and mainstream media reporters. I would not be surprised if most readers of my blog react to each new suicide bombing in Iraq that way as well.

But if this extra violence is actually caused by al Qaeda and their affiliated jihadists, then it is utterly wrong to call this sectarian violence and to conceptualize it as being part of a civil war. Attacks by al Qaeda terrorists do not constitute examples of tit-for-tat sectarian hostility because they are not killing Shiites to avenge the deaths of Sunnis at the hands of Shiite militias (contrary to what you probably believe). Instead, they are killing Shiites so that they will go out and kill more Sunnis. That's they key point to appreciate.

Here are the competing conceptualizations and, more to the point, how they bear on proposals to withdraw our troops from Iraq:

Conceptualization #1: George Bush removed a strongman (Saddam Hussein) who, although he was a bad guy and everything, was keeping Sunni-vs.-Shiite animosity from erupting out of control. With the strongman gone, the civil war that was long held in abeyance has finally erupted. Now it's just a huge mess, with sectarian violence emerging in the form of mass-casualty suicide bombings and execution-style killings. The Shiites execute Sunnis in Baghdad by the hundreds, and the Sunnis retaliate by sending suicide bombers to slaughter Shiites in their marketplaces. And the cycle of violence continues. Withdrawing our troops on a timetable means getting them out of the middle of a civil war by a date certain. Only the Iraqis can decide whether they are going to have a civil war or live in peace. There is no military solution to ethnic hatred.

Conceptualization #2: Al Qaeda -- the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11 -- saw an opportunity in Iraq, and they took full advantage of it. Their calculated plan is to indiscriminately slaughter Shiite civilians to incite a civil war that was not happening on its own, and they are doing that, in part, to drive demoralized Americans out of Iraq. When Shiite militias respond to these attacks by killing Sunnis, al Qaeda is happy (even though they are Sunni as well) because it means their plan is working. According to this conceptualization, withdrawing our troops on a timetable means cooperating with al Qaeda's plan for Iraq. We have not been able to suppress al Qaeda's suicide bombers even with 140,000 troops on the ground, so there is not even the slightest chance that we can suppress such activities if we leave only a small number of troops in Iraq to selectively target terrorists (which is the plan that Democrats have advanced). Al Qaeda has been devastatingly effective in destabilizing Iraq over the last year even with our forces there in large numbers. When we leave, al Qaeda will be vastly more effective than they already have been and will be able to spread the chaos they have in mind to the entire region (which is their goal). After all, who is going to stop them?

There is a world of difference between these two conceptualizations, and which conceptualization prevails in the minds of the American people is largely determined by what is construed as "sectarian violence" (a phrase that causes people to think in terms of "civil war"). When al Qaeda succeeds in bringing the Shiite militias into the fight, it seems fair enough to characterize what those militias do as "sectarian violence." After all, they basically track down Sunni males and kill them in cold blood in their efforts to stop al Qaeda from committing further atrocities. But it is not reasonable to characterize what al Qaeda is doing as sectarian violence, and that's the critical mistake that reporters make all the time. I believe what confuses them is the fact that al Qaeda is made up of Sunnis. So, when al Qaeda sends a truck bomber to kill 150 Shiite civilians, it is -- objectively -- an instance of Sunnis killing Shiites. As such, calling it "sectarian violence" might seem perfectly valid. But it is not valid, and I cannot think of a more critical issue to be clear about in the current battle of ideas. It is not valid to call this "sectarian violence" because al Qaeda is not bombing Shiites to stop Shiite militias from killing Sunnis (or to punish them for having done so in the past). Instead, al Qaeda commits these atrocities to provoke Shiites into killing even more Sunnis. That's al Qaeda's goal, and when then set off a bomb to advance that goal, it is improper to call it sectarian violence.

So, which conceptualization is closer to the truth? Well, if you just pay attention to what our military commanders are saying, it all becomes pretty clear:

"All of us face a savage and determined enemy," U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell told a news briefing in Baghdad, blaming Sunni Islamist al Qaeda for "trying to ignite a cycle of tit-for-tat violence".
...The security crackdown in Baghdad has succeeded in reducing the murder rate, although car bombings still plague the capital and there has been an explosion of violence in towns and markets outside the city, mainly blamed on al Qaeda.

"What al Qaeda has done, they have deliberately gone against very soft areas where they can get to a larger number of innocent Iraqis," Caldwell said.

Is that clear enough for you? It's right there in news stories that quote our military officials. Yet here is how other stories often report the news:

A senior Iraqi military spokesman said a deadly spike in sectarian attacks in provincial cities and towns in recent days was partly a consequence of tighter security in the capital. Last week saw what the government said was the single deadliest attack of the 4-year-old war, a double truck bombing in the northern town of Tal Afar that killed 152 people, according to Iraqi officials.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have blamed recent attacks aimed mainly at Shiite Muslims on Sunni Arab insurgents of al Qaeda.

Wrong. Calling al Qaeda terrorists "Sunni Arab insurgents" fails to distinguish them from actual Sunni Arab insurgents (e.g., former Baathists) who are fighting the American presence and the new government (but who are not slaughtering Shiite civilians as part of a civil war). Al Qaeda, by contrast, is a terrorist organization (not an insurgent organization), and they are slaughtering innocent Shiites by the hundreds. Not because they are Sunnis who are retaliating against the hated Shiites in a tit-for-tat civil war. Far from it. Al Qaeda is happy -- not angry -- when Shiites kill Sunnis because that is what they are trying to make happen. The recent mass-casualty bombing of Shiites in Tal Afar was not to avenge the prior killing of Sunnis by Shiites but was designed to provoke the future killing of Sunnis by Shiites.

America wants a peaceful democracy in Iraq and is doing everything it can to achieve that goal. Al Qaeda wants a civil war in Iraq and is doing everything in its power to achieve that alternative goal. And reporters are confusing the issue by lumping all violence in Iraq into the category of "sectarian violence." Democrats, who show no understanding of what is happening in Iraq at all, read what reporters have to say and then formulate plans to withdraw from Iraq's "civil war." But it is not a civil war. It is an uncivil war involving the al Qaeda savages who attacked us on 9/11. We have not been able to suppress them even with 140,000 troops on the ground, so one wonders how we will do it with 15,000 troops on the ground (if Democrats get their way). How would that be fighting a smarter war? Actually, it would be fighting a dumber war because it fails to recognize the problem of al Qaeda in Iraq (and al Qaeda in Iraq is the main problem).

Somehow, the American people have got to come around to the understanding that the civil war they think they see spontaneously erupting is actually al Qaeda's war against America. We have not yet been able to suppress al Qaeda in Iraq. How can anyone believe that we will be able to suppress them if we withdraw our forces before Iraqi security forces can handle that job on their own? That's a question that no Democrat can answer, and that's why they adopt conceptualization #1 above. Unfortunately for everyone (except al Qaeda), conceptualization #2 is much closer to the truth.

Quality of Life in America and Europe

In the past, I've compared America's economic performance to that of Europe's quite often. I was initially motivated to do so by frequent claims from my liberal friends that Europe is an economic paradise, unlike America, which had a floundering economy under the leadership, such as it is, of the incompetent George Bush. To check this claim, I did what I usually do, which is to grab the data and take a look for myself. What I have found (as you know if you read my blog) is that America's economy is easily the strongest in the world and has been performing extremely well under Bush (as it also did under Clinton).

An important point to keep in mind when making the comparison is that it only make sense to compare the major, advanced economies of Europe (Britain, Germany, France and Italy -- the EU-4) with America's economy. Comparing America to Luxembourg, for example, would be absurd. America has a population of 300 million people, whereas Luxembourg has fewer than 500,000 (which is about how many people live in Albuquerque, New Mexico). By contrast, the populations of the EU-4 add up to about 250 million, which is roughly comparable to the population of the U.S. Also, those 4 countries are members of the G-7 (i.e., they are in the club that makes up the major industrialized nations of the world). Thus, it is meaningful to compare America's economy with that of the EU-4 if you want to compare the American model to the European model. And as I have noted before, it is no contest. America's fabulous economy is unrivaled anywhere in the world. For example, on the most basic measure of economic well being, GDP per capita, here is the story for the last 4 years (which are all Bush years):


You might think, as people often do, "oh sure, America leads on this measure, but that's only because the super rich are doing great, which pulls up the average value." Many just reflexively adopt that belief, but I searched for evidence, and what I found suggests that it is not true. As I have shown many times before, here is a breakdown of incomes for various economic echelons in the U.S. and Europe:


Details on how I computed these numbers can be found in prior posts (e.g., here). The measures for Europe include only 2 of of the EU-4 countries, but these were the only values I could find. In any case, the available evidence clearly suggest that it is not just the super rich who are doing better (though they are doing quite well, one must admit). Instead, virtually everyone in America is doing better, except that it's a tie at the bottom of the scale.

Fine, but many would say that economic performance is not everything. What about quality of life? How do America and Europe compare when you factor in health care, culture, leisure, family life, etc. -- that is, how do they compare when you consider all of the variables that determine quality of life? Surely, Europe outperforms America in this regard. At least that's the fallback position I encounter when I overwhelm my liberal friends and acquaintances with the statistics that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, economically speaking, America has no equal.

Well, maybe Europe has achieved a higher overall quality of life, but, then again, maybe it hasn't. I was curious, so I went looking for the answer. What I found was one serious attempt to measure overall quality of life conducted by the Economist (a respected British publication). Their Quality of Life Index is quite interesting. No measure is perfect, but these people obviously put a lot of serious thought into the measure they use. It includes ratings along these 9 dimensions:


As you can see, material well being makes up only one of the 9 dimensions. The US comes in second in the entire world on this measure (trailing only tiny Luxembourg), but material well being is not everything. How does the U.S. compare in overall quality of life to the comparable nations of EU-4 according to this quality-of-life measure? Like this:


As you can see, Italy comes out on top in this group, but the U.S. beats the other 3 nations of the EU-4. Here is what the results look like when you compare the U.S. to the EU-4 as a whole:


In other words, on this measure, quality of life in the U.S. exceeds that in the EU-4.

Some small individual countries score very high on this measure (Ireland, Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg are the top 4), but I am sure that if you broke the US down into individual states, some of our states would top the list as well. These four countries added together have a population about half that of California, so comparing them to the U.S. is not really sensible (though people do it all the time). For the major economies of Europe, however, when you take into account Material Well-Being, Health, Political Freedom, Job security, Family Life, Climate and Geography, Political Stability, Gender Equality and Community Life, the U.S. stands above the EU-4.

I found another Quality of Life Index here at InternationalLiving.com, one that seems a lot less rigorous than the one developed buy the Economist, but it is worth considering anyway (because they appear to be serious about measuring quality of life). The U.S. has long dominated the top spot on their list, but in 2006, France took the top honors, whereas the US came in 6th. Here are the quality-of-life scores received by the U.S. and the 4 countries of the EU-4:


Their index takes into account Cost of Living, Leisure and Culture (France and Italy score very high on this dimension), Economy, Environment, Freedom, Health, Infrastructure, Risk & Safety, and Climate. And here is the U.S. vs. the average score of the EU-4:


Again, in terms of overall quality of life, the U.S. comes out on top.

Don't get me wrong. I am not trumpeting the greatness and superiority of the U.S. even though it might seem like I am. My motivation for conducting these analyses is that my liberal friends constantly argue that the Europeans, in their liberal enlightenment, have achieved a much better way of life. But I don't see the evidence no matter where I look. Instead, the results keep coming out the other way.

You can, of course, find particular measures which reflect badly on the U.S. For example, we have a really high murder rate in America because, I assume, we have over 200 million guns, many of which are in the hands of gang members who have a bad habit of killing each other. Given the increasing population of Muslims in Europe who are not well integrated into Western society, and given the proven tendency of radicalized elements of that population to indiscriminately slaughter unarmed, unsuspecting, and completely innocent civilians, I'd recommend that Europe not emulate America in this regard (i.e., keep the people unarmed). Also, infant mortality is a bit higher in the US than it is in the EU, and why that is I don't know.

My point is not that America is superior to Europe in every single respect. Obviously, it isn't. And I am not saying that the American people are superior to the people of Europe. They aren't. Still, it is important to understand that an experiment is being performed. America's free market model is being tested against Europe's social welfare model. And the results, whether you look at overall economic performance (as I have done here) or overall fertility rates (as I have done here) or overall quality of life (as I have finally done in this post) consistently support the American model over the European model. It's the American model that emerges as being superior, not the American people.

The results could have turned out otherwise. After all, no one knows in advance which economic system works best. You have competing theories, and then you run the experiment to settle the issue. That's how we figured out that communism was an ineffective approach. We ran what amounts to a controlled experiment by comparing East Germany with West Germany, and then we replicated the experiment by comparing North Korea with South Korea. The results are not debatable. Obviously, communism is a failure relative to capitalism. Now we are running an experiment comparing the high-tax social welfare state version of capitalism vs. the low-tax, free market version that prevails in America. It's obviously a much closer contest, but the results seem to suggest that the American model is the better one. That's worth keeping in mind the next time you hear someone suggest otherwise.

Perception Matters (a lot)

Yet another pullout plan has been offered by the Democrats:

Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is joining Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, in sponsoring a new Iraq bill that would end the majority of Iraq war funding after March 31, 2008, the day Senate Democrats originally proposed pulling troops out of the war-ravaged nation.

The bill would permit spending in only three areas: fighting al Qaeda, training Iraqis and protecting the U.S. Embassy and personnel.

I'm not sure how this one differs from bills recently passed by the House and Senate, but at least Democrat-sponsored bills are mentioning al Qaeda these days, which is good. My problem with the plan is this: neither author of this bill ever presents his analysis of al Qaeda in Iraq. Even so, out of the blue, a clause is included about leaving some money to fight that terrorist organization in Iraq. One wonders why they included that provision, exactly. That is, what is Harry Reid's conceptualization of the role of al Qaeda in Iraq? In his view, what has al Qaeda been up to, what's their plan for the near-term future, and who will be perceived as the victor if we withdraw according to the bill's schedule? Democrats never, ever offer any analysis of al Qaeda in Iraq because they are too busy ignoring the issue (as glaring as it is) and suggesting that we go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan (which is a really weird thing to suggest given that al Qaeda has come to Iraq to fight us there). It reminds me a lot of this very old joke:

Late one night, a drunk guy is crawling around under a lamppost. A cop comes up and asks him what he's doing.

"I'm looking for my keys," the drunk says. "I lost them about three blocks away."

"So why aren't you looking for them where you dropped them?" the cop asks.

The drunk looks at the cop, amazed that he'd ask so obvious a question. "Because the light is better here."

Well, the light might be better in Afghanistan, but al Qaeda is in Iraq where they have launched an all out effort to incite civil war and, by so doing, to defeat America (who they believe will withdraw in a demoralized funk in the face of such violence). What's more, their plan has been working like a charm for the last year or so. What does Harry Reid think about that, and how does his analysis fit in with his decision to include a reference to al Qaeda in his new bill with Russ Feingold? I don't know because he never says. The Democrats have adopted an eerie code of silence on the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq. It is a very strange phenomenon, one that is strikingly bizarre and that, paradoxically, goes completely unnoticed (except on my blog, where I harp on the issue relentlessly).

Let's go to Harry Reid's web site to get a better understanding of his detailed views on the subject of al Qaeda in Iraq:

The new Congress will confront many difficult issues in 2007, but none more important than keeping America safe. We live in a dangerous world. We face many threats. There are critical challenges around the world America must confront:

In Afghanistan, where the Taliban and al Qaeda are resurgent.

Excuse me? Al Qaeda is resurgent in Afghanistan? I've got news for you Senator Reid: al Qaeda decided to wage jihad in Iraq, not Afghanistan, and they have been devastatingly effective. Who do you think has been carrying out all of those mass-casualty suicide bombings against innocent Shiite civilians? Sunni "insurgents" engaging in "sectarian violence" as part of a tit-for-tat "civil war?" Wrong. Dead wrong. That's the clueless media template. Such bombings represent al Qaeda trying to incite a civil war (and doing a pretty good job of it). This is not even a debatable point. In Afghanistan, by contrast, al Qaeda has barely made any noise at all. This is why I say that Democrats are simply not serious about national security. Reid goes on to say this:

For over a year, Democrats have been proposing a better plan for Iraq: a plan based on what is in the best interest of our country now and in the long-term fight against terror and a plan embraced by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Our plan for Iraq begins by transforming the military mission. The mission of our troops should be transitioned away from combat to training, force protection, logistics and counter-terror. U.S. forces have been given an impossible mission - - policing a civil war. It’s Iraqis – not our troops – who should be walking the streets of Baghdad, trying to sort friend from foe.

Next, we should begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces within the next four to six months, so Iraqis understand they must lead the fight and take responsibility for their future.

Only Iraqis can ultimately secure Iraq.

A phased redeployment will allow our country to rebuild the military force here at home, and increase the number of troops available to hunt for Osama bin Laden and stabilize Afghanistan.

This drives me crazy. Does he not know anything about what is happening in Iraq, which is where Osama bin Laden sent his jihadist minions to wage war against the Great Satan? Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and they are there in a big way. You know, the al Qaeda that fills your TV screens and computer screens with the blood of hundreds of innocent Shiite civilians every month. Wouldn't you prefer that one of the leading architects of withdrawal exhibit just the slightest understanding of these issues? Wouldn't that give you more confidence that the withdrawal plan is well thought out? Here is more from his web site:

"As we enter the fifth year of the war, the core question Americans should be asking themselves today is whether the Administration's approach in Iraq has made America more secure. The answer is clearly no. By diverting attention from Al Qaeda and stretching our troops to the breaking point, the Iraq war has made America less safe, not more.

Diverting attention from al Qaeda? This from a man who has diverted his attention from al Qaeda to such an extreme degree that he refuses to acknowledge that al Qaeda's central objective right now is to achieve victory in Iraq by forcing Americans out on a timetable? The mind simply boggles. Reid's failure to acknowledge al Qaeda's strategic objectives in Iraq makes me think that his inclusion of an "al Qaeda clause" in his latest bill is just a non-serious attempt to deflect criticism that might otherwise be leveled against it.

Contrast Harry Reid's understanding of al Qaeda in Iraq with President Bush's understanding:

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, now, one of the concerns might be that you have – the gunmen were trying to assassinate clerics and pilgrims – Shia pilgrims. So I'm wondering if that's an indication of a civil war – a term that, you know, you've been reluctant to use.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think it's an indication that there are murderers who will kill innocent people to stop the advance of a form of government that is the opposite of what they believe. You know, we can debate terms, but what can't be debated is the fact that Iraq is violent, and the violence is caused by Sunni Arabs like al-Qaida, who have made it clear that they want to create chaos and drive the United States out so they can have safe haven, and then they could launch attacks against America. No question the attack on the Golden Mosque of Samarra, which is a Shia holy site, caused Shia extremists to retaliate.

Well, there you go. From these few words, I have a clear indication that Bush has done his homework. He understands the basics, and he seems determined not to allow al Qaeda to achieve its goal in Iraq. Thank goodness.

Does Harry Reid understand the basics? Does any Democrat (except for Joe Lieberman)? If they do, why do they never, ever mention any of these details? They appear not to know the details, but then they propose a bill that includes a provision to fight al Qaeda in Iraq. This does not inspire confidence that they have a clear plan of attack. It is not as if they analyzed the problem of al Qaeda in Iraq and them formulated a proposed solution. Instead, they appear to have thrown in a few words about al Qaeda because they heard somewhere that people think the Democrats are not tough on terrorism. I still think that.

Perception matters, and it matters a lot. When this is over, either al Qaeda or America will be perceived to have won in Iraq. Which one of those two perceptions wins the day is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, Democrats seem to cherish yet another perception, the one that says that Bush's "folly" in Iraq was a "misbegotten adventure" that failed to turn up WMDs and just unleashed a "civil war" because you can't "impose democracy by force." The Democrats are pro-America, but they want Bush's actions to be perceived as a huge failure so that, next time, perhaps diplomacy will be given more of a chance to work. And maybe next time, we won't go around launching "illegal wars" against "sovereign nations."

Is that a lesson you'd like to see America learn? That's understandable, but here's the problem: if you to get your wish, then al Qaeda gets its wish. The reason is that the civil war Bush supposedly started was actually started by al Qaeda (on purpose and with a clear strategic objective in mind). If that civil war ultimately chases us out of Iraq, then we will have been chased out by al Qaeda. There will be no escaping that perception (or that reality), and, as I said, perception matters. Read these words again from the Iraq Study Group, which even Harry Reid referred to favorably:

Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread “the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.”
...
Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

In other words, if you hope that the liberal perception of George Bush's "misbegotten adventure in Iraq" prevails, then you are unwittingly hoping for an outcome that al Qaeda will surely use to depict themselves as having won a historic victory over America. And al Qaeda will be right about that. They started the so-called civil war that makes you want to withdraw from Iraq on a timetable. And they knew that's how you'd react.

UPDATE: Here is an even better interview with President Bush in which he demonstrates a command of the facts that Democrats are frighteningly ignorant of:

MR. LEHRER: Just today, another 35 people were killed in bombings; 80 over the weekend.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah, there is a difference between - look, death is terrible - but remember, some of these bombings are done by al-Qaida and their affiliates, all trying to create doubt and concern and create these death squads or encourage these death squads to roam neighborhoods.
...
MR. LEHRER: And you're an optimist - you're optimistic about it all at this point?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I am. No question there's a - look, a year ago if we'd been having this discussion prior to the Samarra bombing, I'd have been - look what happened. And then the enemy responded. And by the way, it was al-Qaida that bombed the Samarra mosque. It was al-Qaida that said, we're losing; democracy is something we can't stand, so let us kill innocent lives and bomb a holy site in order to try to provoke sectarian violence. And they were successful. This guy, Zarqawi, did a good job.

It's important for the American people to understand it is al-Qaida that is doing a lot of these spectacular bombings. Why? Because they want a safe haven. They still have ambitions about hurting America. The very same guys - type of guys that flew those airplanes on September 11th are still the ones that are battling against a young democracy in Iraq. And we've got to defeat them, we got to defeat them there.

That guy sounds just like me! How is it possible that Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can have such a following when they neither agree nor disagree with this analysis? Instead, they simply ignore it, as if they are completely unaware of the relevant details. It's eerie.

It's an Uncivil War

I've been surprised lately by the incredulous response that I've received from several people concerning the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq's so-called "civil war." If you are incredulous about that, then I assume you simply do not know the basics, so it's time for a refresher course.

What's happening in Iraq is not a civil war. To appreciate why, consider an analogy. Imagine that Mexican drug lords decided that law enforcement on the U.S. side of the border had too much time on its hands to interdict illicit drug trade. Further imagine that, to deal with this problem, the drug lords decided to incite a race war between Hispanics and blacks living in Southern California and Texas. If they could engineer such a war, U.S. law enforcement would have its hands full, and the drug trade could proceed unfettered.

To incite the race war, the Mexican drug lords might start bombing black Baptist churches and assassinating prominent members of the black community, paying Mexican gang members in the U.S. to do the dirty deeds. At first, blacks might not respond, but, eventually, with relentless provocation of this nature, black gangs might start attacking Mexicans living in the US.

If that happened, would it seem like a civil war to you? What would you take to be the root cause of the conflict? Long-standing ethnic rivalries, or the malicious activities of the Mexican drug lords? The latter, obviously.

In Iraq, al Qaeda plays the role of the Mexican drug lords. No one anticipated that they would hatch their nefarious but remarkably effective plan to deliberately incite sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. Al Qaeda chose this path because the civil war that many thought would happen was not happening on its own (except at a low level), and this was bad news for al Qaeda. It meant that the long-term prospects for a democratic Iraq were looking far too favorable, and that meant that al Qaeda's efforts in Iraq were ultimately doomed to failure. Something had to be done about that, and something was done.

This is basic, Iraq-101 information, but most Americans don't know about it. They don't know, for example, that we intercepted a letter in 2004 written by al Qaeda's leader in Iraq (Zarqawi -- remember him?) which said:

The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi'a.
...
So i say again, the only solution is to strike the religious, military, and other cadres of the Shi'a so that they revolt against the Sunnis.
...
As far as the Shi'a, we will undertake suicide operations and use car bombs to harm them.

Notice anything happening in Iraq that looks like that? Most Americans also don't know that the bombing of the Shiite Golden Mosque in Samarra in February of 2006 -- the event that triggered the heightened level of violence we see today -- was carried out by al Qaeda in exact accordance with Zarqawi's evil plan. We even captured the al Qaeda operative who organized that attack:

Iraq Cites Arrest of a Top Local Insurgent
Officials Call Detainee No. 2 in Al-Qaeda Group

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 4, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Sept. 3 -- U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured a top al-Qaeda leader who ordered the bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra that triggered a wave of ferocious sectarian killings, Iraqi officials said Sunday.

The arrest of Hamed Jumaa Faris Juri al-Saeidi, described by Iraqi officials as the No. 2 leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was the latest in a series of blows to the Sunni Arab insurgent group, believed responsible for numerous suicide attacks on civilians and other deadly violence. The group's former leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed by U.S. forces in June and replaced by Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

To this very day, al Qaeda continues to carry out Zarqawi's ingenious plan. But mainstream media reporters do not get the picture. That's why they say silly things like this:

While the capital has seen a recent dip in violence as extra U.S. and Iraqi troops have flooded the streets, an Iraqi military spokesman said that militants fleeing the crackdown have made areas outside the capital "breeding grounds for violence," spreading deadly bombings and sectarian attacks to areas once relatively untouched.

First of all, it it is not "militants" who fled the capital, it is al Qaeda terrorists. A terrorist is someone who intentionally slaughters innocent civilians, and that's what al Qaeda does. Reporters who cannot use the word "terrorist" to describe these people have a serious tolerance problem. Second, when al Qaeda strikes, it is wrong to refer to that as an example of "sectarian violence." Here, again, is an example of an attack that is often characterized that way:

BAGHDAD (AP) - The Iraqi Interior Ministry on Saturday raised the death toll in last week's suicide truck bombing against a Shiite market in Tal Afar to 152, which would make it the deadliest single strike since the war started four years ago.
...
More than 600 Iraqis have been killed in sectarian violence since March 25, most in a series of high-profile suicide bombings. Among them were at least 152 people killed in a suicide truck bombing in Tal Afar - the deadliest single strike since the war began four years ago. Shiites, including police, went on a revenge shooting rampage afterward, killing at least 45 Sunni men.

Think about Zarqawi's letter as you think about this story, and then ask yourself: "is this an act of terrorism by al Qaeda designed to incite civil war and demoralize America, or is it an example of tit-for-tat sectarian conflict?" The answer is obvious but, even so, most people get it wrong. That's because they, like most mainstream media reporters, process the news from Iraq through an obsolete "civil war" schema. Suicide bombings and car bombings that indiscriminately slaughter Shiite civilians so that they will attack Sunnis in response reflect al Qaeda in action. Those events do not reflect the actions of Sunni "insurgents" and they are not examples of "sectarian violence."

Iraq is experiencing an uncivil war between al Qaeda on the one hand, and Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis on the other. In fact, here is more on the Sunni-al Qaeda divide:

BAGHDAD, Iraq: Iraqi security forces, backed by Sunni tribesmen, clashed Sunday with a united of al-Qaida fighters near the Syrian border, killing at least 21 members of the terrorist organization, police said.

The fighting, near the border town of Qaim in Anbar province began after midnight and lasted several hours, said Col. Tariq Youssef, a police official in the city, 320 kilometers (200 miles) west of Baghdad.

The colonel said "a small number of the tribal fighters suffered minor wounds" and all 21 al-Qaida members in the unit were killed.

"The operation was launched by police forces backed by the Abu Faraj and Abu Shaaban tribes against members of al-Qaida," he said. "We believe that they were trying to flee the country because they are surrounded now in Anbar by the growing number of tribes that reject al-Qaida."

There is a real war against al Qaeda going on Iraq, and you should not stick your head in the sand in the way that virtually every prominent Democrat (plus Chuck Hagel) have done. They don't present arguments against this conceptualization. Instead, they misleading refer to Iraq's "civil war" and then they make up a story about how we have to go to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda. But like it or not, al Qaeda is in Iraq and is working to defeat America. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

Now, perhaps you will console yourself by adopting the belief -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- that the al Qaeda in Iraq is different from the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. Perhaps this new version of al Qaeda is not interested in launching jihadist attacks outside of Iraq's borders, or perhaps they will leave Iraq once we leave. Well, al Qaeda has surely changed a lot since 9/11, so you might wonder if the global leaders of that terrorist organization really have Iraq at the top of their priority list. Here is what Charles Krauthammer recently said about that:

Al-Qaeda has provided the answer many times. Osama bin Laden, the one whose presence in Afghanistan (or some cave on the border) presumably makes it the central front in the war on terror, has been explicit that "the most . . . serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq." Al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri, has declared that Iraq "is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

And it's not just what al-Qaeda says, it's what al-Qaeda does. Where are they funneling the worldwide recruits for jihad? Where do all the deranged suicidists who want to die for Allah gravitate? It's no longer Afghanistan but Iraq. That's because they recognize the greater prize.

And consider what Zarqawi said in the letter we captured when he was extolling the virtues of civil war in Iraq. Why does al Qaeda want civil war? This is why:

This is what we want. Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions. When the Mujahidin would have secured a land they can use as a base to hit the Shi'a inside their own lands, with a directed media and a strategic action, there will be a continuation between the Mujahidin inside and outside of Iraq.

All of this suggests that the "real" al Qaeda is the enemy we are fighting in Iraq, and they plan to use Iraq as a base of operations. Blame Bush all you want, but when you are finished doing that, think about the problem at hand. Some have suggested that Bush had in mind an irresistible magnet for global jihadists when he invaded Iraq. It's called the "flypaper theory:"

And what he said surprised me. If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. "Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Ryadh and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born.

Bush added a more direct invitation when he used his infamous phrase "bring it on."

I don't really know if Bush secretly wanted al Qaeda to come fight us in Iraq, but that's what happened, and it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend otherwise (unless, of course, you are a Democrat seeking political advantage). It is an epic confrontation. On the one had, more terrorists have been created, and they may be learning to ply their trade effectively outside of Iraq. On the other hand, many of these terrorists have been killed or captured, and al Qaeda's reputation throughout the Muslim world has plummeted. Nowhere is this more true than in Iraq itself:

A new poll of Iraqis shows that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are rejected by overwhelming majorities of Shias and Kurds and large majorities of Sunnis.
...
The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Ltd. / D3 Systems, Inc. A nationwide representative sample of 1,150 Iraqi adults was surveyed September 1-4. [2006]

It may be easy to assume that as the Iraqi people become more supportive of attacks on U.S.-led forces (see WPO main article), they may grow warmer toward al Qaeda—the probable source of a significant number of attacks on U.S. forces. However, this does not appear to be the case. Al Qaeda is exceedingly unpopular among the Iraqi people.

Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view.
...
Views of Osama bin Laden are only slightly less negative. Overall 93 percent have an unfavorable view, with 77 percent very unfavorable. Very unfavorable views are expressed by 87 percent of Kurds and 94 percent of Shias. Here again, the Sunnis are negative, but less unequivocally—71 percent have an unfavorable view (23% very), and 29 percent a favorable view (3% very).

In the long term, this change in thinking is what is critical. Muslim countries breed terrorists because, once upon a time, they glorified the practice, and it became part of their culture. Now they are horrified by what they see as al Qaeda slaughters innocent Muslim civilians by the hundreds every few weeks in Iraq. If Muslim countries turn against al Qaeda, as they have for the time being, it will wither on the vine. There is only one outcome that will restore al Qaeda's once vaunted reputation, and that is if Zarqawi's evil plan comes to fruition and a demoralized America withdraws from Iraq on a timetable -- their timetable.

The Effect of the Troop Surge on Casualties in Iraq (So Far)

I track casualties in Iraq using the reports at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, and I have do so for a long time. There is no better way to get a sense of how things are going in Iraq, though you have to be careful because they occasionally throw in casualty reports that don't belong there. When I analyze their data, I try to be careful.

My latest analysis shows that there is good news and bad news from Iraq concerning the troop surge. The good news is that casualties in Baghdad have come down very substantially. The bad news is that casualties elsewhere in Iraq have increased substantially. And, no, it's not because the civil war spilled over to the rest of the country. It's because al Qaeda started targeting innocent Shiite civilians where it was easier to do so. And, no, such attacks do not represent "sectarian violence" between Shiites and Sunnis. Only Democratic Senators and Representatives and mainstream media reporters believe that nonsense. The violence expanded beyond Baghdad because Sunni al Qaeda jihadists are doing everything in their power to get Shiites to kill Sunnis. Civil war is al Qaeda's goal (because it suits their jihadist objectives), and that's how this differs from the civil war schema that Democrats and reporters simply cannot get out of their heads.

Anyway, let's take a look at casualty figures for the just-completed month of March relative to prior months. First, I'll examine civilian casualties in all of Iraq. I show this first because it is the bad news, and you should know the bad news as well as the good. Here it is:


This reflects the situation over the last two years. The black bar represents the month in which al Qaeda terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which everyone (except, as I said, for Democratic Senators and Representatives) knows was the intentional trigger for the current "civil war" we see now. The two blue bars represent the two months since the troop surge began. The number of casualties for February has been adjusted upward to reflect the number of casualties that would have occurred had there been 31 days in that month (because I don't want anyone to think I am trying to put a happy face on a tough situation). As you can see, the upward spiral in casualties has abated, and things have even improved slightly (but only slightly).

Next, let's look at Baghdad in particular, which is where violence has really been out of control lately:


As you can see, casualties there have come down dramatically since the beginning of troop surge two months ago. That's important because the troop surge is concentrated in Baghdad. Had there been no effect there, the results so far would have been extremely disappointing. But the effect is quite large. Don't get me wrong; causalities are still very high, but a 40% reduction from the peak in January cannot be taken lightly. The troop surge in Baghdad is clearly working even though al Qaeda has taken the opportunity to slaughter Shiites elsewhere in Iraq (which is why casualties in Iraq as a whole have not dropped very much).

One of the reasons why the surge is working is that Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army has decided to cooperate with our efforts. I've known this for a long time, but it appears to be news to some:

Sunday, 1 April 2007
Iraq's Shia militia 'stood down

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani says the Shia militia known as the Mahdi Army has stopped its activities on the orders of its leader, Moqtada Sadr.

The president described this as a new phenomenon, and a positive response to the new Iraqi-US security plan.

His militia was responsible for a huge number of executions in Baghdad prior to the surge. Those executions -- the victims of which were largely young Sunni males -- were designed to stop al Qaeda's malicious offensive against innocent Shiite civilians. In that sense, the actions of the Mahdi Army were not part of a "civil war" either. Al Qaeda is trying to start a civil war by indiscriminately slaughtering Shiite civilians. Muqtada al Sadr was trying to stop them from doing that by executing young Sunni males (the potential al Qaeda foot soldiers and supporters) in Baghdad.

Executions carried out by Shiite militias are always reported like this:

BAGHDAD - The bodies of 32 people were found shot dead on Tuesday in different districts of Baghdad, police said.

Executions of this nature have come way down in Baghdad:


There are still way too many, but Muqtada al Sadr's cooperation with the troop surge has clearly helped a lot. Last month, that cooperation resulted in an increase in attacks by al Qaeda in Baghdad (because, I assume, al Qaeda suddenly had a freer hand with the Mahdi Army out of the way), but this month, our troops appear to have gotten more of a handle on that. Here are the number of deaths in Baghdad due to causes other than executions:


By the grim standards of Baghdad, it was a pretty good month, all thanks to the troop surge. But that doesn't mean you should underestimate al Qaeda. I don't. Back on January 12, I said:

However, al Qaeda proved my predictions for 2006 to be quite wrong, and one would have to be crazy to rule out the possibility that they could do it again. That terrorist organization -- the one that attacked us on 9/11 -- knows that if they can keep the carnage going, the Democrats will push even harder to bring our troops home. And if we do that, al Qadea will have achieved an unprecedented victory over America.

Subsequent events seem to have proven me right as the Democrats passed bills in both the House and the Senate demanding that we effectively surrender to al Qaeda by March of next year. And on February 12, I said:

I sincerely hope the troop surge works, but al Qaeda has a strong hand to play. The more they bomb, the more the media misleadingly talks about "insurgents" and "militias" fighting a "civil war" (as if al Qaeda does not exist), and the more Americans savage their own president and start calling for withdrawal. As such, you can be sure that al Qaeda is lining up the suicide bombers in preparation for the troop surge.

And sure enough, al Qaeda has pulled out all the stops, but now they are doing so in places other than Baghdad:

Tal Afar bomb toll hits 152, deadliest of Iraq war
Tally arrives during week in which more than 500 died in sectarian violence

March 31, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi government raised the death toll on Saturday from a truck bomb in the town of Tal Afar to 152, making it the deadliest single bombing of the four-year-old war.
...
Bombings blamed on Sunni Islamist al-Qaida have killed 400 people in Shiite areas across the country in the past week.

Note the little reminder that al Qaeda is a Sunni organization, as if the reporter is trying to say "don't worry, these are Sunni reprisal attacks against Shiites in the tit-for-tat civil war that we all predicted would happen."

I am sorry to inform this clueless reporter that this bombing was not a reprisal attack in a tit-for-tat civil war. Instead, it was al Qaeda deliberately trying to get Shiite militias to start killing Sunni civilians. I am simply amazed that this is not more widely understood. Thanks to a clueless media (and an equally clueless Democratic leadership), Americans see these bombings as the latest episodes in a demoralizing civil war. But that's not what they are at all.

It is not a civil war. Instead, it is al Qaeda fighting against the people of Iraq. Yes, the Sunni insurgents initially allied themselves with al Qaeda in their fight against the hated Americans, but even they are finally coming to realize that the civil war that al Qaeda is trying to provoke is not helpful to them in any way:

April 1, 2007

Sunnis try to blast Al-Qaeda out of Iraq

Sunni insurgent groups that were previously allied with Al-Qaeda in Iraq have turned against it, killing its leaders, attacking its supporters and vowing to drive it out of the country.

At least two Al-Qaeda commanders have been killed by Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad. Others have been forced to flee after insurgents passed their details to US and Iraqi commanders. Fierce fighting has broken out between insurgent groups and Al-Qaeda in Anbar province, west of Baghdad.

Until the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in a US airstrike last summer, the groups cooperated with it in their bloody struggle with the coalition forces. But the insurgents have come to believe that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is destabilising the country by the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, often with truck bombs.

I know how much liberals treasure the idea that this is just a civil war in Iraq, the very civil war they predicted would happen if George Bush launched his "misbegotten adventure" in Iraq. Because they predicted civil war, all information from Iraq is processed through that obsolete schema. That's why Democrats have adopted an eerie code of silence about al Qaeda in Iraq. In terms of their sacred schema, al Qaeda in Iraq does not compute, therefore it does not exist.

But it does exist, and it killed nearly 400 innocent Iraqis in the last two weeks alone. In Iraq, it has become a war between al Qaeda on the one hand, and the Shiites and Sunnis on the other. Al Qaeda has killed more innocent people in Iraq in the last few days than it has killed elsewhere in the world in the last year (including Afghanistan, which is where leading Democrats preposterously want to go to fight al Qaeda). If more Americans understood this, their interest in seeing us withdraw from Iraq -- thereby effectively surrendering to the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11 -- would diminish considerably. I think that might be why Democrats refuse to discuss al Qaeda in Iraq even as it slaughters hundreds of innocent civilians there every month. It is downright surreal that al Qaeda can fill your TV and computer screens with the blood of hundreds of innocent Iraqis every other week, yet Democrats act as if they are not there and are wreaking havoc in Afghanistan instead (where al Qaeda is largely dormant).

Americans don't realize that we are in a fight with al Qaeda and their affiliated jihadists in Iraq. And they don't know because the media equates attacks by al Qaeda with the phrase "sectarian violence." Look at this MSNBC headline again:

Tal Afar bomb toll hits 152, deadliest of Iraq war

Tally arrives during week in which more than 500 died in sectarian violence

Wrong. More than 400 of those deaths were caused by al Qaeda, not because they are Sunnis who hate Shiites but because they want Shiites to start killing Sunnis. It is wrong to call that "sectarian violence," and doing so just reinforces the obsolete schema that governs the thinking of Democratic leaders and mainstream media reporters, all of whom are sure they see a civil war spontaneously erupting before their very eyes. What they are seeing instead is al Qaeda fighting against Iraq and, more to the point, against America. We either stay in Iraq and defeat them, or we leave on a timetable and lose to them. That's your choice, take your pick. There are no other choices.