Reply #21: post hoc ergo propter hoc

[jrd1415]

The secular Sunni insurgency of Anbar came into conflict with the fundamentalist Sunni Al Quaeda forces, took them on, and sent them packing. This, even before the Americans backed off from attacking them. When the Americans finally figured it out, they stood down their attack. All of which preceded the surge and had absolutely nothing to do with it. The clueless American military leadership opened its eyes for once, discovered that something favorable was happening, and managed to get out out of its own way. So, is that the surge, a change in counterinsurgency tactics, or just dumb luck masquerading as good judgment?

Then the US started paying and arming the Sunni insurgency, their former enemies, who, seeing the rise of the Shia, decided that money and guns from the Americans was, at least for the moment, a good thing. Short term, that seems like a good thing for the US, but what about the longer term? Does anyone really think that the Sunnis of Anbar will be US allies long term? Of course not. This is short term expediency all around. And, to repeat myself, zippo, zero, nada to do with the surge.

Then you have the Baghdad situation. After the bombing of the Golden Mosque it was all out sectarian civil war for control of the city. The massive violence accompanying the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, and to a lesser extent Shias, from the city's mixed neighborhoods, like Tet in Vietnam, convinced the Americans back home that the war was a mistake, led to the Dem victory in the 2006 elections, and forced Bush et al to ***DO SOMETHING*** to stem the free fall of domestic confidence over the handling of the Iraq "war". That "something" was the totally phony-ass surge, which was clearly just a ploy to buy time. It worked in that it bought Bush/Petraeus another six months. Then, when the battle for Baghdad was over, the Sunnis out and the Shia in control of the city, the associated violence came to an end, JUST AS THE SURGE BEGAN. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the surge.

The Bush cabal and the media, despite four years of non-stop bullshit on all things Iraq/GWOT, were still able to spin the entire business as the success of the surge, when in fact it was a classic case of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

But Psephos asserts that:

"The surge has succeeded based on the objectives laid out at its onset. This didn't come from more boots on the ground so much as a change in counterinsurgency tactics. Petraeus deployed soldiers out of the fortified camps and onto the streets. Their new visibility made it obvious to the average Iraqi that US soldiers were helping defend against the bombers rather than retreating into their bunkers. With a choice between increasingly vicious fundy bombers, and soldiers obviously trying to solve the problem, Iraqis began to turn over information about the insurgents and their weapons and bomb caches. That's what turned the tide."

I would ask Psephos where he gets this stuff, except that I know whwere he gets it, we all know where he get it: from the administration-flunky Main Stream Media propaganda machine serving Kool-aid to the hoodwinked masses.

The American experiment is over, wecome to Chumplandia.