The problem with Friedman Units

By Swopa
Sep 10 2007 - 8:25am

After all this time, you have to figure that Michael Gordon of the New York Times knows this lead paragraph reads like self-parody:

The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.

This got the obvious response from Markos and Atrios -- Petraeus was literally asking for another "Friedman Unit," the eternal "crucial next six months" that Iraq war supporters have substituted for honestly facing the failure of the U.S. occupation for four years now.

Something more than the obvious response, though, might be more appropriate. Because what the general is really asking for isn't another six months... it's another 400-500 U.S. soldiers' lives, more or less. This is a point that Matthew Yglesias has started to hit on repeatedly:

... the "surge" strategy specifically contemplated risking higher American death rates (and having Americans kill more people) in order to accomplish some larger political goals. Unfortunately, those goals weren't achieved so we just have more dead people.

It's also a hill I tried to charge up in May, noting that at the then-current triple-digit monthly casualty rates, "2,000 more Americans will have died by the end of January, 2009":

What will have been accomplished by the loss of those 2,000 lives? Will Iraq be any more stable or secure, or will those lives have just been sacrificed at the altar of wishful thinking and a President who's too weak and paralyzed to admit a mistake?

Any politician who won't support an exit strategy needs to be made personally accountable for those 2,000 additional deaths -- and to the 2,000 families who will bear the burden. And every Democrat or other progressive with access to a microphone, TV camera, or keyboard can help by reminding people that those 2,000 lives are the price we're going to pay for not putting an end to the war.

Since we're assessing the "surge" this week, though, let's shift the numbers, looking backward for a moment instead of forward. If I were on Capitol Hill to question Gen. Petraeus, here's what I would ask him:

"Was the essentially non-existent political progress in Iraq the last six months worth 700 American lives? What progress can you guarantee during the next six months that will be worth another several hundred American lives?"

Seen in this light, the surge/escalation hasn't just been a failure; it's been a moral failure.

Dereliction of Duty | Iraqi Quicksand | Swopa's blog | add new comment

Vietnam

Well don't hold your breath - scholars still argue over the 'final total' from Vietnam.

By greenboy at September 11, 2007 - 12:26pm | reply to this comment

E-mails to . . .

I try to send e-mails with pictures (when I can find them)of the dead Americans for the previous number of days. I started this when Harry Reed passed a bill he had described as "weak tea" 10 days before. This bill he called a "Democratic triumph". I send him pictures of the so-called triumphant. His office got hip and bounces my e-mails. No problem; set up new accounts.

Try it with your favorite PoppinJay on the Hill. Three e-mails addys are the most I've managed so far. Top that!

By Anonymous at September 11, 2007 - 9:07am | reply to this comment

No you wouldn't :-(

Maybe it's a small mercy that the numbers are only estimates. I suspect after the last bullet fires the final total will leave everyone stunned.

By Peanut at September 11, 2007 - 4:16am | reply to this comment

Troop withdrawal numbers are irrelevant until ...

The discussion includes (a) permanent bases and (b) private contractors AKA mercenaries. (What's that about a permanent base right on the Iranian border?)

By Peanut at September 11, 2007 - 4:13am | reply to this comment

How do you measure failure?

In Friedman units.

By greenboy at September 10, 2007 - 5:28pm | reply to this comment

Nothing

Just like the separate peace we've negotiated with Sunni insurgents has nothing to do with the surge.

I hear that later in the week, Petraeus will explain how under his strategy, the sun will rise every morning in the east and set in the west.

By Swopa at September 10, 2007 - 2:35pm | reply to this comment

30,000 By Summer COme Home Anyway

A point well made by others the other day is that Sec Def Robt Gates promised those who had done extended tours of duty (up to 4 or 5 tours in succession) would rotate out for up to a year anyway by summer 2008. That is about 30,000 troops. What distinguishes them from the draw-down Petraeus is promising?

By Anonymous at September 10, 2007 - 2:26pm | reply to this comment

Do the republics consider the

Do the republics consider the lives of their own children as expendable as they consider the lives of the American soldiers and the Iraqi's?

By Anonymous at September 10, 2007 - 2:00pm | reply to this comment

it is a rhetorical question,

it is a rhetorical question, sad to say. note how there is no outrage from the loyal opposition just yet? note there are no cries of "resign you incompetent fool" or, "how dare you come here and tell us that all you told us before were lies", and; "why don't you have the author of that drivel come on down and explain the lack of truth" (please add those appropriate additions as required) oldtree

By Anonymous at September 10, 2007 - 1:50pm | reply to this comment

Excellent analogy

I would like to see an executive style 'dashboard' with dials and gauges indicating the 'burn rate' in lives, dollars & credibility.

By greenboy at September 10, 2007 - 12:14pm | reply to this comment

Great Question!

Here's another question that I'd like to ask:

"You have described "mixed results" during the last six months in Iraq. Considering both the positives and negatives, and based on the net yield rate in terms of improvement during that time, how many more years would you estimate that we will need to keep spending $177 million per day in order to reach our goals there?"

I'm thinking that nearly all of the folks who actually value human lives have already realized the war is a losing proposition!

The fact is that it's a loser from a pure investment point of view as well (unless, of course, you're a war profiteer!) I mean, how long would you keep investing in a mutual fund hoping to reach your retirement goals if the net progress toward your goal suggests that you will never be able to retire?

By seenos at September 10, 2007 - 8:46am | reply to this comment

--Comment viewing options

--Post new comment