An incredible analysis and history of the surge by Juan Cole, in which he describes the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that McCain (and most of the media) are pushing these days.
I’d suggest some comparisons. The Sri Lankan civil war between Sinhalese and Tamils has killed an average of 233 persons a month since 1983 and is considered one of the world’s major ongoing trouble spots. That is half the average monthly casualties in Iraq recently. In 2007, the conflict in Afghanistan killed an average of 550 persons a month. That is about the rate recently according to official statistics for Iraq. The death rate in 2006-2007 in Somalia was probably about 300 a month, or about half this year’s average monthly rate in Iraq. Does anybody think Afghanistan or Somalia is calm? Thirty years of North Ireland troubles left about 3,000 dead, a toll still racked up in Iraq every five months on average.
…
So did the “surge” “work”?
The troop escalation in and of itself was probably not that consequential. That the troops were used in new ways by Gen. Petraeus was more important….
It is Obama who has the better argument in this debate, not Senator McCain, who knows almost nothing about Iraq and Iraqis, and overestimates what can be expected of 30,000 US troops in an enormous, complex country.
What is McCain’s strength supposed to be, again? I don’t think he has any, except maybe free trade which is a loser in the battleground states.
