Iraq and the Scientific Method
Rumsfeld (Brought up by Wretchard):
The divergence in opinion on Iraq flows from a divergence in standards of observation (this only applies to honest observers--many care nothing for truth). Those who measure backwards, using history as the control group, are divided into two camps: those who use Iraq's history (either written or experienced), and those who use their personal history (either ideological or experienced). Those who use Iraq's past as the comparative standard are generally optimistic about what they see on the ground. As Rumsfeld notes, when one has knowledge of both Iraq's past and Iraq's present (e.g. Iraqis and our troops), the present looks miraculous by comparison.
On the other hand are those who choose to be less rigorous in their measurements. For these observers any standard will do, and snap-judgments abound. A misremembered past becomes the standard by which to measure a misperceived present (e.g. Snowcroft's "50 years of peace"). As has been shown, these non-Iraqis who calibrate their judgment from ego are vulnerable to the pessimism of privilege (an affliction of the affluent) and the inaccurate intuition of the ignorant.
Of course, there are those who eschew looking backwards at all, judging everything by that which has not yet arrived. These chronic discontents, whose control group is possibility, will forever be disappointed and sceptical. Untethered by amnesia and distracted by perfection, these men know nothing at all.
This is true for more issues than Iraq.
For starters, it must be jarring for reporters to leave the United States, arrive in a country that is so different, where they have to worry about their personal safety, and then being rushed to a scene of a bomb, car bomb or a shooting and have little opportunity to see the rest of the country.
By contrast, the Iraqi people see things probably somewhat differently. They can compare Iraq as it is today to what it was three years ago: a brutal dictatorship, where the secret police would murder or mutilate a family member, sometimes in front of their children, and where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis disappeared into mass graves...
The situation in Iraq is terrible...and it's never been better.
The divergence in opinion on Iraq flows from a divergence in standards of observation (this only applies to honest observers--many care nothing for truth). Those who measure backwards, using history as the control group, are divided into two camps: those who use Iraq's history (either written or experienced), and those who use their personal history (either ideological or experienced). Those who use Iraq's past as the comparative standard are generally optimistic about what they see on the ground. As Rumsfeld notes, when one has knowledge of both Iraq's past and Iraq's present (e.g. Iraqis and our troops), the present looks miraculous by comparison.
On the other hand are those who choose to be less rigorous in their measurements. For these observers any standard will do, and snap-judgments abound. A misremembered past becomes the standard by which to measure a misperceived present (e.g. Snowcroft's "50 years of peace"). As has been shown, these non-Iraqis who calibrate their judgment from ego are vulnerable to the pessimism of privilege (an affliction of the affluent) and the inaccurate intuition of the ignorant.
Of course, there are those who eschew looking backwards at all, judging everything by that which has not yet arrived. These chronic discontents, whose control group is possibility, will forever be disappointed and sceptical. Untethered by amnesia and distracted by perfection, these men know nothing at all.
This is true for more issues than Iraq.
posted by John Aristides at 11:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home