Asymmetrical Information

I guess Howard Dean was right: capturing Saddam did not make Americans any safer.

I guess Howard Dean was right: capturing Saddam did not make Americans any safer.

I guess Howard Dean was right: capturing Saddam did not make Americans any safer.

No doubt the attacks will drop even further when Dean is defeated overwhelmingly in the general election. We might even see a few other rouge regimes (Syria, Iran) decide to adopt the new course of Libya rather than suffer the fate of the former Iraqi dictatorship.

Dean specifically said that soldiers in Iraq might be safer, but Americans - in the US, abroad, working at embassys - are not.

Seems correct to me.

The number of "incidents" seems to be an easy number to manipulate -- what defines an incident? But it's slightly harder to manipulate the number of dead and wounded soldiers, so I'll trust these numbers.

Unfortunately, using these numbers, things appear to be getting worse -- much worse. I calculate a 40 % increase in the number of dead U.S. soldiers. That is (31-22)/22 = 40.9 % increase in dead U.S. soldiers since Saddam was captured.

Moreover if is true that we are having fewer "incidents" the ones we have are obviously more serious -- as more soldiers are killed, and the same number wounded. I would interpret this as meaning the opposition is more effective, not less. Unfortunately it seems like the Iraqi opposition forces are learning how to kill U.S. soldiers more efficiently.

I personally feel less safe, particularly when I travel. And the number of dead U.S. soldiers compels me to conclude that they too are less safe after Saddam's capture.

Comparing deaths can be almost as deceptive. One lucky shot could take down a helicopter with 10 soldiers on it. This could be a single incident but since the numbers we are working with are so small it would represent a large % increase in deaths.

Certainly the higher number of deaths may represent statistical variance without indicating that things are really getting worse in Iraq.

But how does this justify Jane's headline "Finally, some good news"? It ain't really good news that 1) more Americans are dead, or 2) the Iraqi opposition is more efficiently killing U.S. Soldiers.

If you want to dismiss the data as a statistical anomaly, fine. This is the best possible way to spin the data. But Jane trumpets it as good news. A more accurate headline would read "No Good News, Possibly Some Very Bad News."

True but you are assuming 'incidents' are being redefined so as to achieve the desired results. If you are being somewhat objective measuring incidents they could be a good measure of whether or not the Iraqi 'resistance' is becoming more or less intense.

Let me be a little more clear.

IF there were more attacks, then this is not good news. More attacks is not good.

If there were fewer attacks, this too would not be good news. Why? Because more Americans died in these attacks, which means the attacks were more efficient, effective, deadly, etc....

There is no good news here regardless of what you assume about the number of attacks. The best case you can make is that the numbers measure meaningless statistical variance.

We might even see a few other rouge regimes (Syria, Iran) decide to adopt the new course of Libya rather than suffer the fate of the former Iraqi dictatorship.

Now there's a Freudian slip! Is Thorley implying that these rogue states are Red in some way? Or does he want to suggest that junior Assad, the Iranian mullahs, and Khadafi like to play dress-up when they're home alone?

Which, in turn, makes you wonder if maybe we could have caught Saddam in a much more embarrassing state than with just a scruffy beard and head lice...

It's not clear that attacks are becoming more efficient. When speaking of such small numbers, a 'lucky shot' could throw the numbers off dramatically. This doesn't mean the attacks are getting more or less efficient. If I play the slots 10 times and lose and then play them 10 times and win, I haven't gotten more efficient at anything.

Now there's a Freudian slip! Is Thorley implying that these rogue states are Red in some way? Or does he want to suggest that junior Assad, the Iranian mullahs, and Khadafi like to play dress-up when they're home alone?

Well I did once see a picture of Saddam Hussein and UBL wearing tutus in the supermarket. And in that South Park movie . . .well I won't go there . .

so,
what we appear to be saying is that we really can't make a judgement as to whether this is good news or not.
ok

It is certainly good news unless evidence can be presented that indicates:

1. The military redefined what constitutes an 'incident' in order to make it appear that there was a drop off in actual incidents after Saddam's capture.

2. There's been a dramatic increase in the attackers ability to inflict harm that offsets the decrease in attacks.

IMO, at least a portion of the attackers are nostalgic for a return of the Baathist regime. Probably because they had favored positions there. The capture of Saddam would certainly demoralize those people, which is good news.

Comments are Closed.