When "Give Peace A Chance" Becomes "Killing Me Softly"

gerrymander.

Posted to Politics on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:05:22 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

Anti-war advocates have long insisted that vocally opposing the war was their way of supporting US troops. Conservatives, in contrast, argued that anti-war rhetoric does nothing but embolden the enemies of the United States. A new study appears to indicate that during the Iraq War, the conservatives were right.

The Harvard study (PDF) written by Radha Iyengar and Jonathan Monten, reveals a positive short-term correlation between insurgent attacks in Iraq after widely-publicized media criticism of the war effort. The rate of attacks against both civilians and soldiers rose about 7-10% above the mean for about two weeks after vocal anti-war reporting.

One interesting result present in the study but not discussed in the news report is the effect of media-disseminated statements of wartime resolve:

After the release of a poll or an increase in "resolve" mentions, there is an increase in attacks but a decrease in the total number of fatalities and an increase in U.S. military fatalities. Because U.S. targets are "hardened" and thus more difficult to kill, insurgents may not invest in doing so unless the returns are sufficiently high. The perceived increase in returns after poll releases or media mentions may increase the willingness of insurgents to try to target U.S. military personnel. One possible interpretation of the decrease in fatalities is that insurgent groups are shifting to increased attacks on U.S. military targets - which are harder and may necessitate more attacks - and thus produce less total fatalities. The trade-off in fatalities is not one-to-one, which is also consistent with the idea that U.S. targets are harder to successfully attack.

In other words, treating the war as just and necessary perceptibly altered the behavior of the insurgency, which for a short time conformed somewhat more closely to the Geneva Conventions.

To be sure, the study has its limitations: violence in Baghdad was excluded from the results, as was any discussion of long-term effects. Still, the analysis should be sobering to anti-war advocates, whose free speech now clearly carries a body count.

< Brotherly Love Is A Good Thing ... Unless It Gets Icky.

Kick Start Your Heart >

Tags: written by gerrymander, edited by 1fastdog, Iraq, media, insurgency, activists, anti-war, conservatives, Harvard study (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 26 comments (1 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

1	about gave me whiplash wetkarma. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:58:55 AM EST 5.00 (astute)

So I'm here nodding my head and thinking to myself "I'm going to have to print this study out and take it with for the train ride this afternono"...and then I come across the "violence in Baghdad was excluded from the results" line.

Sorry? What?

Isn't the overwhelming majority of the violence in Iraq occurring in Baghdad? Certainly the primary thrust of the 'surge' was to stem violence there. Whats the point of a study which maps correlation (already a tenuous modeling concept) between violence and news coverage when it ignores the center of violence?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

6 1	Re: about gave me whiplash gerrymander. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:58:59 AM EST 5.00

Whats the point of a study which maps correlation (already a tenuous modeling concept) between violence and news coverage when it ignores the center of violence?

I'll let the authors answer this one:

From column (3) in table 1, it is apparent that Baghdad is an extreme outlier on a host of characteristics, including population density, frequency of attacks, and various socioeconomic indicators. As such, we exclude Baghdad from subsequent analysis. While necessary on methodological grounds, excluding Baghdad might raise other concerns about the applicability of the subsequent analysis. Baghdad does represent a substantial fraction - approximately 35 percent - of overall violence in Iraq. However, there remains a large amount of violence (65%, or about 5 people killed per day) in the rest of the country. In terms of casualties confirmed by the Department of Defense, the non-Baghdad areas of Iraq account for 2,778 U.S. military deaths, still a substantial number. In addition, although Baghdad represents a major population center and a strategic target, our analysis does include other major population centers such as Mosul, Basrah, Kirkuk, and Najaf, and areas that were or continue to be at the center of the Sunni insurgency such as Tikrit, Ramadi, Samarra, and Fallujah. Our analysis also includes other strategically valuable areas such as the oil-producing regions in the South.

Obviously, it's your decision on whether to accept this reasoning or not, but they do acknowledge the concern the Baghdad exclusion causes.

7 6	Re: about gave me whiplash Shy Elf. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:02:02 AM EST 5.00 (funny)

In other words, Baghdad gave the wrong answer?

8 7	Re: about gave me whiplash Shy Elf. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:19:42 AM EST 5.00

The point is that this is a good reason to report results for Baghdad separately, but as a result for not reporting results for Baghdad at all, it is bullshit. The same can be said about the non-reporting of results for areas with "low" prevalence of satellite dishes. Even in these areas, there are plenty of satellite dishes around, and anyone planning an attack can easily find out what the US news is talking about. Excluding data which disagrees with your conclusion without an adequate explanation is one of the hallmarks of junk science in which you've made up your mind before looking at the data and are looking only for evidence to support your preconceptions.

3 1	Re: about gave me whiplash port1080. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:35:39 AM EST none

The only reason I can think of to exclude Baghdad is that perhaps there is simply so much violence in Baghdad that it serves as background noise which wipes out any statistical meaning when the other violence is considered in. I think it's quite reasonable to think that violence in Baghdad is simply so endemic that there just isn't as much room for increase as there is in the provinces. For example, if there are 4,000 incidences of violence in Baghdad every month, and 5,400 in the rest of the country, if the next month (after some anti-war protests in the US, for example) there are 5,800 attacks in the rest of the country, and a small increase to 4,100 in Baghdad, then we are seeing a 7% increase in violence in the rest of the country, but only a 6.5% increase overall. That 7% increase may be above their statistical margin of error, but that 5% increase might not be (or, maybe not - I don't know what their methodology is). Since (according to the US Today article) 65% of violent attacks are outside of Baghdad, even if we're only explaining variation in those attacks this is still important.

5 3	Re: about gave me whiplash Shy Elf. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54:46 AM EST 5.00 (interesting, brilliant)

The violence in Baghdad is of a different type. In Baghdad, it's been more sectarian violence with little response to news. The more "insurgent" type of attacks have until recently been concentrated elsewhere, and the satellite dish test does a good job of picking out the Sunni areas which were better off under Saddam and where the majority of these attacks are occurring.

It's a real effect. The foreign jihadis and people setting IEDs like to time their attacks for when they think they have press attention. On the other hand, at a 5%-10% change, it's very small compared to the very large long term changes in violence. What they don't show is any kind of long term effect, or in fact much of any effect after two weeks.

All of this proves nothing we didn't know before. They build explosives at an constant rate, and take some out of storage to use when they see some good press.

If you raise the bar from a one standard deviation increase in stories to the three obvious peaks on their graph, you get a very different story. The Nov 05 peak was after the a violence peak, and as violence decreased. The Nov 06 peak was in a lull between violence peaks in Oct and Dec. The peak around April 07 came as US casualties spiked as a result of a tactics change which sharply reduced attacks. What this says is the obvious, that these stories are much more a response to US casualties than a cause of them.

If you look at the long term violence level graphs, the overall shape is clear. It's a continuous rise until the Democrats won control of Congress, followed by a continuous decrease, and recently has stabilized at a low level for Iraq which is still very high by any reasonable standard. The effort of this paper to explain this with a function which gives increased violence levels when Democrats are in power is telling, in that it is the exact opposite of reality. What they are doing is ignoring the mountain of the violence graph and seeing only small high frequency noise. Of course, the drop in violence has little to do with the takeover of Congress, and is due to throwing out Rumsfeld and company and putting Petraeus in charge, but that they would include a term like this which is the opposite of reality shows their motivations clearly.

12	unanswered questions DEMachina. Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:43:08 PM EST 5.00 (brilliant)

First, as those upthread have pointed out, removing Baghdad from the calculations is disingenuous at best.

Second, as Shy Elf said above, some of this might have to do with media attention. If the insurgents really are paying attention to U.S. media coverage (and I don't think it's unreasonable to think that they are at least at higher levels), it makes sense to time things when media coverage is high. That's not to say it has anything to do with the tone of that media coverage. When people get killed in Iraq these days it's relegated to the ticker at the bottom of CNN, whereas large-scale protests or even a new poll gets talked about a lot more.

So leaving aside the other issues with this study's methodology, it is a serious leap, I think, to say it has to do with only anti-war news.

Still, the analysis should be sobering to anti-war advocates, whose free speech now clearly carries a body count.

Give me a break, gerrymander. First there's nothing "clear" about your conclusion. Second, how can you presume to put those deaths on the people who are saying we never should have gone there in the first place and not where they belong, on those who ignored all intelligence (in both senses of the word) and reason to invade a country without cause?

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

12

Re: unanswered questions

JimmyHavok.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:20:10 AM EST

4.33 (brilliant, brilliant, brilliant)

Second, how can you presume to put those deaths on the people who are saying we never should have gone there in the first place and not where they belong, on those who ignored all intelligence (in both senses of the word) and reason to invade a country without cause?

Come on, you know that the first principle of personal responsibility is that nothing is the personal responsibility of a Republican.

14	Sloppy. Very sloppy. PenitenziAgite. Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:07:24 AM EST 5.00 (astute, astute, interesting)

First of all, this paper "confirms" nothing.

To be critical, I can point out a few methodological hitches. Their rational model of insurgent behavior is entirely speculative. It is actually based on criminal violence models based on U.S. society. I would certainly want to ask the authors why they thought a criminal justice model was most appropriate here.

I have trouble with their definitions as well. This whole concept they introduce, 'resolve', is interesting. The authors characterize media statements critical of any aspect of the war as 'anti-resolve', and positions the only 'pro-resolve' source as the Bush administration. They do not define an 'anti-resolve' message. Are statements questioning the policy 'anti-resolve'? What about questions about tactics, or political considerations? None of this is very well documented.

Something that really raises a question in my mind about how serious this piece of research is, is an element in their equation 2, the dems element, which is described only as "an indicator for the Democrat control of Congress", footnoted there as "We treat the Democrat control of Congress as increasing opposition to remaining Iraq."[sic]. If there was ever a flashing red light of flawed assumptions, this is one. Any good social scientist of any political leaning knows to avoid using loaded or pejorative language. I thought this was about media coverage of anti-war, or 'anti-resolve' statements in the media, so what Democratic control of the legislature has to do with that is tangential. Democrats could always criticize the war, what does their being in the majority have to do with anything? If I was trying to help these two researchers out, I would have them either define this variable better, or have them chuck this whole section altogether. It doesn't seem to serve any methodological purpose.

I should also point out that this paper has many usage errors. Pretty sloppy. I mean, is there any excuse for not proofreading your work?

Citations from 'The Daily Show' and the White House are not good sources. Popular entertainment television shows and position papers from the White House do not strengthen the methodology or findings here.

I think this is a seriously flawed piece of work, mainly because it applies a criminal behavior model, which I think is inappropriate, and it also fails to consider that periods of greater anti-war statements may also be happening at the same time as changes in tactical or other events that can more adequately explain peaks and valleys in insurgent activity. Their 'insurgency-as-marketing-campaign' theory is just too hard to take with the flimsiness of their evidence.

The conclusion of the paper is... "First, the
findings suggest that there is an explicit and quantifiable cost to public debate during wartime in
the form of increased attacks" That's interesting. It's not 'anti-resolve' statements that embolden the insurgents, it's public debate itself!

I don't think this is a very serious piece of research at all. It observes some correlated events, but it does not at all demonstrate a link. It points out that insurgents are media-savvy, in the sense that they watch TV. The first conclusion of the paper really takes the cake, though. This conclusion is so completely out the scope of the observed data, that I can't see how they can make that conclusion.

The paper also makes many references to "intuited" interpretations or other empirical leaps of faith. Sorry, but you just don't get to use that stuff. You can say that it's what led you to ask the question of the hypothesis, but you don't get to cite it as evidence in the findings.

Is this thing real? I dunno, Harvard, these two should have to take Quantitative Research Methods again.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

14

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

Lou.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:27:37 AM EST

none

Citations from 'The Daily Show'

I'll have to go back and read the paper more carefully...but I still have to ask...Did they really cite the Daily Show? Jon Stewart...parody..."Mess-o-tomania"...Comedy Central?

Don't get me wrong...I love the Daily Show and Jon Stewart is one of my Shordurpersavs. But citing it in a scholarly paper that isn't about comedy?

That's fucked up.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

19

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

port1080.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:06:05 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

I can be acceptable to cite popular TV shows in academic papers, but it depends on the context - for example, if you want to make the point that a certain topic is getting wide spread coverage, it would be acceptable to say something like "Subject X was covered on all three of the major network's nightly news shows and was interviewed by popular comic Jon Stewart (Daily Show, March 17)". It would not, on the other hand, be acceptable to say something like "The Iranians are planning to invade Iraq" (Daily Show, March 17). It's all about context. In this case (citation 12, page 7) I'd say it's more or less acceptable - they're citing an interview Stewart did with former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow to help explain the popular conception of the "enboldenment hypothesis". This is actually a pretty well accepted tactic - quoting from a "popular" news show to give an example of what the popular understanding of a certain subject is. I'd say it's made even more acceptable by the fact that it was done in an interview format. If it had been a quote from a Jon Stewart monologue, I might have more problems with this. Here's the footnote, in full:

12
The essential difference between the "emboldenment" and "playing dead" hypotheses was captured in exchange
between comedian Jon Stewart and former Press Secretary Tony Snow on the Daily Show:
Stewart: How do [Bush administration officials] know what emboldens the terrorists so well? They seem to always
know what emboldens the terrorists. For instance, when we have an argument about his policies, that's very
emboldening, apparently, to the terrorists.
Snow: Well, let me put it this way: if you're Al Qaeda, and you think you're going to be able to chase the United
States out, when we have clear military superiority, we've got the ability to win on the battlefield, and you end up
leaving because of political pressure that in some ways have been fomented by their ability to stick it out, you look at
yourself as a winner!
Stewart: But the President says we'll leave when there's an acceptable level of violence. So, if I'm Al Qaeda, and I
want the U.S. to leave, don't I just lay low until they leave?
Snow: Yeah, but apparently they're not smart enough to figure that out...

In that context I don't have too much of a problem with it.

20

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

PenitenziAgite.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST

none

Once again, if i was trying to help the authors out, I would encourage them to leave it out. It doesn't add anything, but it does hurt the author's case.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

20

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

Shy Elf.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST

none

This quote I thought (even on first reading) was the best part of the paper. It destroys the main arguments of the paper, and the paper makes no reply. To quote the paper (I had a bit of a laugh at this line)

In this model, both the US and the Iraqi insurgents are assumed to be rational.

Jon Stewart points out that the US has said that it will leave when terrorism decreases. Assuming that this statement is true (as Jon Stewart and Tony Snow do) and that terrorists are rational, the only possible conclusion is that a rational terrorist must do nothing. John Snow not only agrees with this, but claims that the only reason terrorists attack is that they aren't rational in the first place.

Let us for a moment adopt the assumptions of this paper and for a moment take a look at their marginal utility function for terrorism. So long as the US is definitely going to leave soon, the marginal utility of terrorism is very small; with terrorism or without, the paper's assumed terrorist objective will soon be accomplished. It is only when we have resolve to stay the course that the marginal utility of terrorism rises, since it cuts long periods of time off of US occupation length. If we have even more resolve, and resolve to occupy Iraq forever no matter what the casualties, the marginal utility of terrorism drops to zero.

So let us look at how the Sunnis viewed probability of the US staying a long time during this study period in June 2005.

“The Americans won’t be out in less than ten years.” Is how the argument often begins with the friend who has entered the Green Republic[Green Zone]. “How can you say that?” Is usually my answer- and I begin to throw around numbers- 2007, 2008 maximum… Could they possibly want to be here longer? Can they afford to be here longer? At this, T. shakes his head- if you could see the bases they are planning to build- if you could see what already has been built- you’d know that they are going to be here for quite a while.
The Green Zone is a source of consternation and aggravation for the typical Iraqi. It makes us anxious because it symbolises the heart of the occupation and if fortifications and barricades are any indicator- the occupation is going to be here for a long time. It is a provocation because no matter how anyone tries to explain or justify it, it is like a slap in the face. It tells us that while we are citizens in our own country, our comings and goings are restricted because portions of the country no longer belong to its people. They belong to the people living in the Green Republic

This is in the long-term but not permanent range which provides the maximum marginal return to terrorism. While their paper assumes that a decrease in US resolve results in a decreased margin of return to terrorism, logic would suggest the reverse, and this is confirmed by the long term trends of steadily rising violence until the Democrats won Congress and steadily falling violence afterward.

The odd thing is that while I don't believe getting the US out of Iraq is at the top of the goal list for either foreign insurgents or normal Sunni, I'm convinced that the insurgents actually irrationally think about it much like this paper suggests they do, while at the same time the bulk of the Sunnis are thinking as I have suggested above. This would mean that decreased perceived US resolve would both make terrorists bolder and more active and reduce their ability to recruit and hide among Sunnis.

23

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

stogie.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:52:24 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

Not at all. You're confusing rationality with truthful rhetoric. There is a strong tradition of using deception, disinformation and outright lies in both foreign and domestic politics by rational actors; it's an integral part of realpolitik. Molotov and Ribbentrop were, by their lights, acting rationally, after all, when they signed the Soviet-Nazi Germany non-aggression pact, seemingly refuting decades of mutually threatening rhetoric from their two "irrevocably" opposed totalitarian systems. The sham agreement lasted less than two years, and it was broken for what Hitler felt were rational reasons. For further comment, see Machiavelli:

Everyone understands how praiseworthy it is for a prince to remain true to his word and to live with complete integrity without any scheming. However, we've seen through experience how many princes in our time have achieved great things who have little cared about keeping their word and have shrewdly known the skill of tricking the minds of men; these princes have overcome those whose actions were founded on honesty and integrity.

I don't pretend to know with complete certainty what the goals of either the insurgents or the Bush Administration are; I do know that they are large groups of strongly motivated people who are waging a low-intensity war. This is an environment where rhetoric can go over the brink, and everyone would be better served if they would examine the disconnect between words and deeds.

In summation, when confronting the disconnect between rhetoric, it's OK to assume that the actors are rational. Just don't assume that their rhetoric is always truthful.

19

To be fair.

MayorBob.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:24:56 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

They did put the Onion cites in the footnotes and they did try to limit the number of Chortler cites in the report.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

17	...somewhat more closely to the Geneva... 3fingerspointback. Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:13:28 AM EST 5.00 (astute, astute)

The authors of the study took their data for civilian deaths in Iraq from the Iraq Body Count website, which tracks media reports. It seems more likely to me that what is really being measured in that block quote is the propensity of American deaths to override Iraqi deaths when it comes down to allocating column inches of the daily dispatch. Iraq has very poor press coverage outside Baghdad, so the website is being used in its least accurate manner.

Whenever something horrible that we've done comes out in the US press, I've heard this refrain from conservative blowhards: That reporting the horrors of Abu Ghraib/Blackwater/Haditha/etc serves to embolden the Enemy. And every time I've heard it, it never fails to sound completely stupid. The insurgents don't need the New York Times to tell them about what Blackwater does. They heard it all from their family/neighbors/mosque months ago, and no doubt with plenty of embellishment. I posit that the real reason the blowhards get mad is not because the insurgents are reading about it--it's because Americans are reading about it.

(is 3fingerspointback)

17

Re: ...somewhat more closely to the Geneva...

Shy Elf.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:37:53 AM EST

none

As bad as the Iraq Body Count website is as a statistical source of civilian casualties, it's the best information out there because the Iraqi government deliberately stopped releasing statistics so as to avoid drawing media attention. It's accuracy really isn't all that bad because it includes deaths on the back pages of the newswires that never see the light of day in the US media headlines, and we aren't in danger of running out of internets.

26	...denounce the pacifists...etcetera... WMK. Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:35:00 AM EST 4.00 (funny)

Hi Gerrymander! (and all Neocon stalwarts out there dreaming of the perfect world made safe for fee markets and 'muscular' capitalism if only those crybaby anti-war bitches would STFU!!!)

Herman Goering and Joseph Goebbels called - they want their ideas back.

I am happy to crap out a well deserved Godwinism on this thread and state that I really don't think Gerrymander believes this horseshit, he just hates a lot of people and likes to start flinging whenever anyone passes him a juicy turd like this study. This is certainly not the last time some dishonest propaganda piece will be trotted out as 'scholarship' or 'science' published under the banner of a big named establishment university like Harvard. Just like the NYT has lent the authority and integrity of its brand to William Kristol so he has an imprimatur above his words that suggests 'paper of record' instead of 'PNAC crazy shit' so has Harvard bent over in public for the neocons to rape and soil their 'honor' while wearing a Harvard sweatshirt.

I applaud other posters in this thread who bothered to make the meticulous slog through yet another right wing conservative think tank & publishing machine turd (the semblance of complexity makes it TRUE! right?) in order to expose the whys and wherefores of how it is WRONG. The study and this post was just another intellectual tar-baby intended to provoke an exhausting argument with one side knowing full well they are a bunch of liars.

Have a nice day.

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

2	Give me a break Lou. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:10:21 AM EST none

Funny how the neocons practically ignored every piece of informed data that said we shouldn't go to war in Iraq...but one small and possible flawed (as Wetkarma pointed out) study comes out and all of a sudden it's treated as Moses and the Tablet.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

4 2	Yep uncarved block. Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:52:46 AM EST 5.00 (astute)

It will be interesting to research the reception the methodology of this report in contrast to the reception given that report a year or so ago trying to measure the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. I have a hunch that there will be a high correlation between the degree of skepticism and the politics of the receiver.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

9	whiplash indeed JimmyHavok. Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:55:42 PM EST none

Suddenly correlation equals causation. I can't keep up, is there an RSS feed somewhere that can help?

10 9	Re: whiplash indeed gerrymander. Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:05:08 PM EST 5.00 (interesting)

Suddenly correlation equals causation.

Nope. Correlation is still correlation. Speaking in the United States about the war does not force non-US agents in Iraq to act. Speaking, however, apparently can create a short-horizon chance for third parties to repurpose said speech for their own ends -- to perform propaganda jujutsu, as it were.

In other words, it's exactly the same kind of relationship as occurs between fast-food restaurants and the poor. McDonald's (e.g.) will swear up and down that their primary objective is to serve the population with tasty, quickly-served meals. But that creates the opportunity for the poor to "cheat" and not eat healthier options. When an opportunity is offered, it should be no surprise to have the opportunity taken.

10

Re: whiplash indeed

JimmyHavok.

Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:38:44 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

You are claiming a causal link between anti-war speech in the US and violence in Iraq. I find it doubtful that Iraqi insurgents pay any significant attention to the US news media...however, I'm willing to be persuaded by actual evidence. Statistical correlation doesn't rise to the level of evidence.

Your simile with nutrition in the US doesn't work, because we can clearly observe eating behavior and their link to nutrition is obvious.

11

Re: whiplash indeed

Shy Elf.

Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:19:25 PM EST

none

CNN at least was rather ubiquitously viewed by at least those Iraqis with satellite dishes for much of the study period. The strict censorship in Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast left only CNN and Al Jazeera as reasonably trustworthy sources of news. Nowadays it is much less so, with many more Arabic language news sources available.

13

Re: whiplash indeed

JimmyHavok.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:24:59 AM EST

none

CNN at least was rather ubiquitously viewed

So...the Iraqi insurgents would watch CNN, and say "Hmm, not much opposition to the war this week...perhaps I won't kill anyone today." Now we're getting a causal chain going.

11

Re: whiplash indeed

PenitenziAgite.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM EST

none

Yes, but the paper itself claims in its first conclusion that public debate itself directs insurgent operations. That could be something like: "Iraq: Should we stay for 100 years, or 150?".

This paper is just junk. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation should ask for its money back, since it seems that most of it was probably spent partying in Cambridge.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

This story: 26 comments (1 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

gerrymander.

Posted to Politics on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:05:22 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

about gave me whiplash

wetkarma.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:58:55 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

1

Re: about gave me whiplash

gerrymander.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:58:59 AM EST

6

Re: about gave me whiplash

Shy Elf.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:02:02 AM EST

5.00 (funny)

7

Re: about gave me whiplash

Shy Elf.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:19:42 AM EST

1

Re: about gave me whiplash

port1080.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:35:39 AM EST

3

Re: about gave me whiplash

Shy Elf.

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:54:46 AM EST

5.00 (interesting, brilliant)

unanswered questions

DEMachina.

Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:43:08 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

12

Re: unanswered questions

JimmyHavok.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:20:10 AM EST

4.33 (brilliant, brilliant, brilliant)

Sloppy. Very sloppy.

PenitenziAgite.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:07:24 AM EST

5.00 (astute, astute, interesting)

14

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

Lou.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:27:37 AM EST

19

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

port1080.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:06:05 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

20

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

PenitenziAgite.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST

20

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

Shy Elf.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST

23

Re: Sloppy. Very sloppy.

stogie.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:52:24 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

19

To be fair.

MayorBob.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:24:56 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

...somewhat more closely to the Geneva...

3fingerspointback.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:13:28 AM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

17

Re: ...somewhat more closely to the Geneva...

Shy Elf.

Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:37:53 AM EST

...denounce the pacifists...etcetera...

WMK.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:35:00 AM EST

4.00 (funny)