Obama's Evolution in Thinking about Iraq

History seems likely to regard January of 2007 as a critical turning point in the war in Iraq. At the time, Iraq had descended into a state of savage sectarian chaos (deliberately engineered by al Qaeda's relentless suicide bombing campaign against Shiite Muslims), 3000 civilians were dying every month (more than the current annual civilian casualty total in Afghanistan), and the American people had given up on the war and were ready to bring the troops home (troops who were dying at a rate of at least 70 per month). But instead of adopting the Vietnam-like abandonment of our allies that virtually all Democrats and many Republicans favored (despite knowing the genocidal slaughter that would have followed), Bush stood almost alone and ordered a troop surge to quell the violence, deliver a death blow the al Qaeda in Iraq, and set the stage for political reconciliation.

As you might imagine, Barack Obama has had much to say about all of this, and in this post, I trace the evolution in his thinking on the subject. In a nutshell, he initially predicted with high confidence that the surge wouldn't work. Later, after it had been underway for a short period of time, Obama announced with high confidence that it had failed. Still later, as the eventual drop in casualties could no longer be denied, he suggested that the "failure" in question concerned the effect of the surge on political compromise in Iraq (not its effect on violence in Iraq). At no point did he acknowledge the crucial role played by al Qaeda in Iraq, and rarely did he acknowledge the crushing defeat suffered by al Qaeda there. But times have changed. Now, Obama basically views Iraq as the fulfillment of the neocon dream. It is an amazing and welcome evolution of thinking.

Let's start with an audio address that Obama gave at the critical time (namely, as the troop surge was being announced), which I found using the wayback machine here:

January 3, 2007

...I couldn't help but follow the debate that has been taking place around the president's consideration of deploying additional troops to Iraq in the desperate hope of securing what is emerging as a fierce civil war there. I have to say that it is a chilling prospect -- the notion that we would send tens of thousands of additional American young men and women to compound the tragic mistake that has already been made over the last 4 years.
...
In the face of this quagmire, the notion that we would put tens of thousands more young Americans in harm's way without changing our fundamental strategy -- a strategy that has failed by almost every imaginable count(?) --- makes absolutely no sense.

This assessment is as liberal as it gets. In Obama's view, Iraq was a "quagmire," it had fallen into a "civil war," and al Qaeda was too insignificant to even be mentioned.

In that same critical month, Obama said this on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal.... I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he's wrong.

That is, he predicted that the troop surge would make sectarian violence worse, not better, because it would prevent (not set the stage for) political reconciliation. This is important because, in later months, it would be suggested that Obama only predicted that the surge would not facilitate political accommodation, not that he ever doubted the ability of our troops to reduce the violence. Obviously, he did doubt their ability to do that. That is, he predicted that the troop surge would not lead to political accommodation, and that's why sectarian violence would just get worse (not better).

Later in the year (in July of 2007), a mere one month after the surge became operational, Obama flatly declared that it had already failed:

July 20, 2007

Obama says there's no reason to give the president's troop surge more time.

"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."

Obama's high level of confidence in his own opinions is well known, and it is on display here. He does not think that the surge is failing; instead, he knows it. At the time, I found this attitude to be somewhat frustrating because his high confidence was not matched by the kind of detailed analysis that might support it. Instead, his analysis was invariably superficial. If you don't believe me, then look for the in-depth analysis; the one, for example, that explains his view of the role (if any) played by al Qaeda in Iraq. You won't find it, yet the man's confidence that the surge had failed one month after it started was amazingly high. Obama is obviously intelligent, but he does not always apply his intellect to a problem. Sometimes, he just goes with his liberal reflexes.

In the statement quoted above, Obama was referring to the upcoming appearance by General Petraeus, who was scheduled to testify to Congress in September 2007. During that testimony, Hillary Clinton implied that Petraeus was lying when he indicated that the troop surge was making progress in Iraq (she thought that one had to "suspend disbelief" to accept the general at his word). Ironically, it turns out that it was that exact month -- September of 2007 -- that causalities in Iraq plummeted (and they have stayed low ever since).

As the military situation improved from that point on, the debate over Obama's judgment shifted more fully to the issue of political reconciliation. Here is what Obama had to say in an op-ed for the New York Times:

My Plan for Iraq

BARACK OBAMA
Published: July 14, 2008
...
In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.
...
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

At least he mentioned al Qaeda here (now that it seemed that they had been defeated), but he also emphasized that Iraq's political leaders "...have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge." As such, he was still keen on withdrawing our troops as quickly as possible. Despite the almost unbelievable military success that no one confidently predicted would happen (not even George Bush), many Democrats took their cue from Obama and were still perfectly happy to characterize our intervention in Iraq as a complete failure because political accommodation had not yet been achieved. In the standard liberal view at the time, peace between Shiites and Sunnis was a pipe dream (after all, they have been at it for centuries); by contrast, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians was the realistic goal that we should be concentrating on. The idea that peace between Shiite and Sunni Muslims is unachievable, whereas peace between Jews and Arabs is attainable, is not one that I ever understood.

In any event, at about this time, we had a CNN fact check that asked this question:

Fact Check: Did Obama say the Iraq troop 'surge' could not work?

The Facts
...
In Congress, Obama was one of many lawmakers who spoke against the plan. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," he said in a response to Bush's speech. On at least some occasions, Obama — who has campaigned on a promise to end the war in Iraq — said he wasn't questioning the ability of U.S. troops, but the long-term political impact the surge would have.
...
In a September 4 interview this year, Obama said the military surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," but that goals laid out by Bush, including turning over control of all Iraqi provinces to that nation's security forces, have not been achieved. "There's an underlying problem with what we've done," Obama said. "We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility."

The Verdict: True, but incomplete. While acknowledging the surge's military success, Obama says the political goals it was meant to secure have not been met.

This verdict should read like this: True, period. However, Obama later confused the issue by suggesting that the surge would fail to achieve political goals (as if that's what he was referring to when he said that the troop surge would worsen sectarian violence). I don't think that any honest person could disagree with this (revised) verdict.

Fast forward to the present. About a month ago, Obama weighed in with this assessment of the war in Iraq:

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Friday, February 27, 2009

To understand where we need to go in Iraq, it is important for the American people to understand where we now stand. Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's Security Forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process.
...
And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime - and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government - and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life - that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.

I'd just like to add what he doesn't say: in addition to our troops, George Bush also made that possible -- over the strong objections of our current commander-in-chief.

Our troops removed Saddam Hussein, they dramatically reduced violence from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007, al Qaeda has been dealt a serious blow, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. It's basically a neocon dream, and this how our liberal president assesses the current situation. A lot of conservative bloggers have suggested that Obama is a flip-flopper for his changing views on Iraq, but give the man credit for finally aligning his views with empirical reality. Better late than never.

The Enigma of America's Opinion of the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment

Gov. Bill Richardson's decision to abolish the death penalty in New Mexico reminded me of a mysterious trend in the answer Americans give to this question: Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent to murder? America's views on that question have changed dramatically over time according to Gallup polls:




In the 1980s, people strongly believed that the death penalty deters would-be murderers. During the 1990s, opinions reversed such that now Americans strongly believe otherwise. In fact, you probably believe otherwise, as I once did.

The reason why this is an enigma is that when opinions were shifting one way, "the science" was going the other way. Even the New York Times eventually reported this news:

Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: November 18, 2007

For the first time in a generation, the question of whether the death penalty deters murders has captured the attention of scholars in law and economics, setting off an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment.

According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.
...
The studies, performed by economists in the past decade...

What could possibly explain the wrong-way shift in the opinion of Americans about the deterrent effect of capital punishment?

I don't really know, so I have to speculate. For starters, the media has rarely mentioned "the science" when it comes to this issue. This New York Times article -- published only in 2007 -- is the exception, not the rule. Against a smattering of articles like this is a veritable tsunami of articles on, for example, how lethal injections constitute cruel and unusual punishment, how certain people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence, how countries in Europe need to abolish the death penalty if they want to be part of the EU, how eliminating the death penalty just reflects "an evolving standard of decency," and so on. Compared to all of that, "the science" of capital punishment is just not very interesting to reporters (though I congratulate the New York Times for finally breaking the news to people in a single article).

I just searched google news using the phrase "death penalty." I turned up articles on restricting the use of the death penalty in Maryland, on repealing the death penalty in New Hampshire, on Nevada lawmakers hearing arguments on ending executions, on the fact that the Governor of Illinois is refusing to lift the death penalty moratorium there, and on how Montana is considering ending capital punishment. In addition, I spotted at least 6 editorials on the subject -- all urging an end to the practice.

From this brief survey, it's pretty clear what the media finds intensely interesting. I assume that the media's passionate and relentless coverage of the negative side of this issue is what explains why, as "the science" went one way, American opinion went the other way.

New Mexico Abolishes the Death Penalty

I was interested in this news from the other day:

New Mexico governor repeals death penalty in state

March 18, 2009

(CNN) -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson signed a bill Wednesday repealing the death penalty in his state, his office confirmed.

"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said in a statement Wednesday.

He noted that more than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years, including four in New Mexico.

"Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe," he said.
...
New Mexico currently has two men on death row and has executed one person -- convicted child killer Terry Clark, in 2001 -- since the United States reinstated the death penalty in 1976. As the legislation is written, it will not affect current death row inmates.

"Throughout my adult life, I have been a firm believer in the death penalty as a just punishment -- in very rare instances, and only for the most heinous crimes. I still believe that," Richardson, a Democrat, said.
...
Local and state law enforcement associations opposed the bill. Richardson agreed the death penalty is a tool to deter crime, but said it was not the only tool.

"For some would-be criminals, the death penalty may be a deterrent," he said. "But it's not, and never will be, for many, many others."

The logic of death penalty opponents always fascinates me. Richardson is far more honest than most in that he acknowledges that capital punishment may serve as a deterrent to murder (as both common sense and all recent evidence suggests is the case). But since it only deters only some would-be murderers (not all), Richardson is not terribly impressed. The overriding issue for him is that the state may inadvertently execute an innocent person. I assume that he'd favor the death penalty if it deterred 100% of would-be murderers, but since it only deters some, it's not worth it given the risk of occasionally executing an innocent person.

I learned a little more about his reasoning in this story:

Richardson said he has long believed — and still does — that the death penalty was a "just punishment" in rare cases for the worst crimes. But he said he decided to sign the repeal legislation because of flaws in how the death penalty was applied.

"More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans — a fact I cannot ignore," he said.

"Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can't be 100 percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes."

I agree that the fact that 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years cannot be ignored. However, refusing to ignore that fact and abolishing the death penalty are not one and the same. In any case, if I understand his position, the justice system must be 100% accurate, and the death penalty must deter all (or virtually all) would-be murderers for capital punishment to be warranted.

Fine. That's one view. A problem with that view is that the justice system simply cannot be 100% accurate. This is so obvious one wonders why he ever supported the death penalty in the first place. Another problem is that even if the death penalty deters only some would-be murderers, it would save many, many innocent lives. That is the key point that is overlooked by many who feel a sense of moral superiority in their opposition to the death penalty.

About 16,000 people are murdered every year in the United States. If a mere 2% of murderers were deterred by the death penalty, that would translate into 320 innocent lives saved every year. Only about 60 convicted murderers are executed each year in the United States. Of those, probably fewer than 1 per year, on average, is innocent. Thus, one way to summarize Richardson's position is like this: it is better to sacrifice perhaps 320 innocent lives (every year) than it is to tolerate perhaps 1 innocent person being executed by the state every few years. Viewed in that light, it is not so obvious that a death penalty opponent is a paragon of moral virtue. That being the case, what do you suppose explains this?

Europe’s human rights watchdog today hailed the decision as "a victory for civilization."

How does that celebration go, exactly? "Hallelujah! Instead of the state mistakenly executing 0 or 1 innocent people per year, 320 innocent people -- including children -- will suffer violent and painful deaths at the hands of murderers!" It's hard for me to get similarly excited about that. Both outcomes are clearly tragic, and taking a firm position on this matter is a hard call.

Let's make this a little more concrete. In one of the stories cited above, it was noted that the last person executed in New Mexico was convicted child killer Terry Clark, in 2001. I looked him up in Wikipedia, and this is what I found:

Terry Doug Clark (May 17, 1956 – November 6, 2001) was convicted of the murder of nine-year-old Dena Lynn Gore. He was executed by the State of New Mexico by means of lethal injection. He became the first and (as of 2009) only person to be executed in New Mexico since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated. In fact, it would remain until March 18, 2009, when Governor Bill Richardson signed the death penalty abolition bill into law.

Terry Clark was convicted of kidnapping and raping a six-year-old girl from Roswell in 1984. Pending appeals in that case, he was released on bond. While out on bond, Clark drove to Artesia on July 17, 1986 and kidnapped Dena Lynn Gore. He then raped her and finally killed her by shooting her in the back of her head three times. A few days later, Clark was taken into custody and, while in jail, he confessed to a minister.

This is what you are saying should be allowed to happen more often if you oppose the death penalty and if you accept that it deters "some murderers" (as Bill Richardson does). It's something to keep in mind if you, like human rights "watchdogs" in Europe, find yourself celebrating Bill Richardson's decision as a victory for "civilization."

The Spiraling Cost of Higher Education

As a professor working at a public institution, you'd think I'd have a pretty clear understanding of this phenomenon:


Part of the explanation for the increased cost of a college degree at public institutions is that states have steadily reduced the percentage of their budgets devoted to higher education as they seek to accommodate demands for more spending in other areas (e.g., to cover expanding prison populations):

In California, the percentage of general funds going to higher education declined from nearly 18 percent in 1978 to slightly more than 12 percent in 1998, and from 1970-71 to 2004-05, the portion of California’s general fund going to UC shrank from 7 percent to 3.5 percent.

So, the share of California's budget devoted to higher education was down to 12% in 1998. If I am reading the correct chart from the California state budget web site, that percentage will be down to 9.7% next year:


As state support for higher education drops, student fees go up. That provides at least part of the explanation for increased fees at public institutions, but what explains the big increase at private institutions? You'd think I'd know, but I honestly don't.

57% of Americans Believe that it was Right to Depose Saddam Hussein

A new CBS poll considers how Americans view our intervention in Iraq:

March 19, 2009

Poll: Americans Come Full Circle On Iraq

Six years after the start of U.S. military operations in Iraq, American optimism about the situation in Iraq has returned to levels last seen in 2003, according to a new CBS News poll.

Still, most Americans continue to believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place. And Americans are now far more pessimistic about the situation in Afghanistan than they are the war in Iraq.

Sixty-four percent of Americans now say U.S. efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq are going at least somewhat well. That’s the highest percentage since December 2003, shortly after the U.S. capture of Saddam Hussein.

Just one year ago, only 43 percent described things in Iraq as going well. In June 2007, the percentage who said as much was just 22 percent. Americans began feeling more positive about the situation in Iraq last fall.

Despite the increased optimism, more than half of those surveyed – 55 percent – maintain the U.S. should not have entered the country.

On this last point, the reporter has it wrong because the truth is that more than half of those surveyed believe that the U.S. should have deposed Saddam Hussein. To appreciate this, consider how the respondents answered another, more specific question (detailed pdf of poll results can be found here):


That is, 29% + 28% (which comes to 57%) believe that we should have deposed Saddam Hussein, whereas only 42% believe that we never should have invaded in the first place. Even so, the reporter says "...most Americans continue to believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place." Not really. Only 42% fall into that category.

The story does not attempt to hide this news because it later includes this paragraph:

Asked what the U.S. should have done about Iraq, just 29 percent say the U.S. strategy of removing Saddam and rebuilding Iraq was the best plan. A nearly identical percentage – 28 percent – say the U.S. should have removed the Iraqi leader and then left; another 40 percent say the U.S. should not have gotten involved at all.

Thus, the story contradicts itself. If only "40 percent say the U.S. should not have gotten involved at all" (the number is actually 42%), how could it be that "...most Americans continue to believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place?" Only 42% believe the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place.

Of the 57% who believe that we should have deposed Saddam Hussein, about half think we should have left the country at that point, but that does not mean that they think it was wrong to invade. Why, then, do 55% of Americans say "no" when asked "Did the U.S. do the right thing going to war in Iraq?" Apparently, it's because people are unsure whether "going to war in Iraq" means "going to war in Iraq and then leaving after deposing Saddam Hussein" or "going to war in Iraq and then staying to rebuild the country." If you are someone who believes that we should have deposed Saddam but who also hates the fact that we stayed to rebuild the country, you might say "no" to this question, and your "no" would mean "no, the U.S. did not do the right thing going to war in Iraq and then sticking around to quell their civil war." But when you ask the question in a way that removes the ambiguity, it turns out that 57% of Americans believe that deposing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, whereas only 42% believe otherwise. That's newsworthy, and I only wish that this reporter (whose job it is to report the news) had been clearer about this.

The Geneva Convention and al Qaeda Terrorists

In recent years, there was a raging controversy over the issue of whether or not the provisions of the Geneva Convention apply to captured al Qaeda terrorists. My own, possibly incomplete, understanding of the issue is that the Geneva Convention basically holds that soldiers who conduct themselves in such a way as to protect innocent noncombatants (e.g., by wearing uniforms to set themselves apart, by engaging in combat away from civilian populations so far as possible, etc.) deserve to be treated humanely when they are captured by enemy forces. Article 4 makes this clear:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In other words, those who fight by the rules are protected by the Convention when they become prisoners of war. It follows that those who don't play by the rules are not covered. Obviously, al Qaeda terrorists are dedicated to behaving in a way that is the exact opposite of what was intended. They deliberately target innocent noncombatants; they dress like noncombatants so they can hide among the innocent; and they deliberately place themselves among innocent noncombatants so as to maximize casualties among them when civilized forces attack.

Why, then, would anyone ever suggest that al Qaeda terrorists should be protected by the Geneva Convention? It makes no sense. My speculation is that people who believe that the Geneva Convention should apply to al Qaeda terrorists believe that al Qaeda terrorists should be treated humanely no matter what the Geneva Convention says. That is, they believe that the U.S. should take the "high road" and set an example for all the world to see (and to emulate). They further imagine that this what lies at the heart of the Geneva Convention, so they simply assume that its provisions apply to terrorists and that those who think otherwise have no intellectual case to make but are simply morally depraved.

But how do those on the left, including our Supreme Court, actually convince themselves that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists? It has to do with Article 3:

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

It seems obvious to me that this provision was included to protect captured members of a militia that has taken up arms against their own government. That's a conflict "not of an international character." But how does this provision lead to al Qaeda terrorists being protected by the Geneva Convention even though they so obviously and intentionally flaunt the rules of combat that the Convention specifies? After all, al Qaeda terrorists are clealy engaged in armed conflict of an international character. For example, this chart from the New York Times shows where the suicide bombers of Iraq came from:


Al Qaeda's leaders in Pakistan orchestrating the movement of suicide bombers from all over the Muslim world into to Iraq in order to provoke a civil war there is conflict of an international character in my book.

Unless, that is, you need the Geneva Convention to apply to terrorists. In that case, you will (as the Supreme Court did) define "armed conflict of an international character" to mean "armed conflict between recognized nations." Since al Qaeda is not a recognized nation, the provisions of the Convention apply to them after all. American soldiers have to wear uniforms and avoid civilian casualties because they come from a recognized nation (yet are tortured with far worse then waterboarding when captured by al Qaeda terrorists), but al Qaeda terrorists can flaunt the rules by not just endangering but actually targeting innocent civilians, yet they are to be treated humanely merely because they don't come from a recognized nation (as if that should be a special protected class). To me, this looks like a prime example of judges making up a story to fit their preconceived notions regardless of what the original document intended.

In any case, regardless of what the Geneva Convention means, there is the separate question of whether or not we should be obliged to treat captured al Qaeda terrorists in the same way that we treat captured prisoners who fought for armies that followed the rules (e.g., by wearing uniforms, by not targeting innocent noncombatants, etc.). To me, it's an easy call. Terrorists who hide among and deliberately target innocent noncombatants simply do not deserve the same treatment when they are captured as those who do follow the rules (which is not to say that the captured terrorists should be tortured). In this regard, I was pleased (and quite surprised) that the editors of New York Times agreed with my position not so very long ago (note the date):

Denied: A Shield for Terrorists

Published: Tuesday, February 17, 1987

President Reagan has faced more important but probably no tougher decisions than whether to seek ratification of revisions to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. If he said yes, that would improve protection for prisoners of war and civilians in wartime, but at the price of new legal protection for guerrillas and possible terrorists. He decided to say no, a judgment that deserves support.

The 1949 Geneva Convention on laws of war needs updating. The lines have blurred separating civilians and combatants and regular and irregular troops. In 1977, a protocol packed with valuable additions was signed by a hundred nations, including the United States, pending Senate ratification. The new provisions strengthen procedures for extraditing and prosecuting terrorists, make it easier to punish the taking of hostages and the indiscriminate use of force, enhance rights to check on troops missing in action and prisoners of war, and add protection for medical personnel.

Article 1 of the protocol, however, says that the provisions apply to nations and ''peoples'' who ''are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination.'' Nice words, but also possible grounds for giving terrorists the legal status of P.O.W.'s. The protocol also provides that regional groups like the Organization for African Unity and the League of Arab States could decide which ''peoples'' constituted a legitimate party in armed conflict.

Nowadays, I feel sure that the editors of the New York Times would, indeed, favor giving terrorists the legal status of P.O.W.'s. But it's nice to know that they once understood that there was another side to the argument and that those on the other side are not morally reprehensible.

Iraqi Public Opinion, Then and Now

1. Here are some results from a BBC Poll conducted back in September of 2007:

US surge has failed - Iraqi poll

10 September 2007

About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.
...
Between 67% and 70% of the Iraqis polled believe the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development, according to the August 2007 findings.

Only 29% think things will get better in the next year, compared to 64% two years ago.

2. And here are some results from the latest poll:

Iraqis 'more upbeat about future'

16 March 2009

Violence and insecurity are no longer the main concern of most Iraqis, for the first time since the 2003 US-led invasion, an opinion poll suggests.
...
Its findings show striking shifts in opinion since the last poll in March 2008.

On security, 85% of all respondents described the current situation as very good or quite good - up 23% on a year ago

I guess the title of this story could have been "US surge has succeeded - Iraqi poll," but I'm not sure that the BBC readership would appreciate that very much.

Are the Iraqis ready for democracy? Many argued strenuously that they are not. Here is what the Iraqis themselves have to say about it:


I only wish that these pollsters had retained an extremely informative question that they dropped from their survey a while ago. That question asked about life now compared to life under Saddam Hussein. The results from that question were getting worse over time as Iraq descended into sectarian fighting, but, amazingly, the Iraqis never said that life was better under Saddam:


The 2007 results shown here come from a BBC poll conducted in March of 2007 (back when violence in Iraq was still completely out of control), and I've combined the "somewhat better" and "much better" numbers into a single "better" category (same for "worse"). Even then, more people considered life to be better compared to the Hussein era than thought it was worse. That gives you some indication of how bad things really were under Saddam Hussein. If the pollsters asked that question again today, I suspect that the results would be overwhelmingly in favor of life being better today. To many, that might not matter, but to me it does.