Inputs vs. Outputs
Instapundit - Good news from Iraq
STRATEGYPAGE OFFERS A RATHER POSITIVE TAKE on what’s going on in Anbar province:
Coalition forces in Iraq have suddenly received the manpower equivalent of three light infantry divisions. They did not suffer any repercussions in domestic politics as a result, and now have a huge edge over al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. How did this happen? Tribal leaders in the largely Sunni province on the Syrian border got together and signed an agreement to raise a tribal force of 30,000 fighters to take on foreign fighters and terrorists.
These leaders have thrown in with the central government in Baghdad. This is a decisive blow to al Qaeda, which has been desperately trying to fight off an Iraqi government that is getting stronger by the week. Not only are the 30,000 fighters going to provide more manpower, but these tribal fighters know the province much better than American troops – or the foreign fighters fighting for al Qaeda. Also, this represents just over 80 percent of the tribes in al-Anbar province now backing the government.
This makes an interesting counterpoint to the Bill Roggio post I linked yesterday.
Once again, we’re being told that “it’s gonna happen. … The Iraqis are stepping up.” Anyone remember the Fallujah Brigade? Seriously, anyone who is not skeptical of this has really not been paying attention. The “turning the corner” news varies. It is not always the tribes in Anbar. Frequently, it has been elections. Or internecine fighting amongst the insurgents.
There is just something maddening about reading such reports, from undoubtedly intelligent people. Isn’t a famous definition of insanity, “doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results?” I’m sorry. I have read this story (or a variant) over and over again. “Oh, yeah, thus-and-such has happened. A really, really promising development. I read it on Instapundit.”
The pitfall with such “good news” is actually pretty easy to identify. These stories focus on “inputs,” events that supposedly will help reach the goal (let’s call the goal ‘a stable, secure, democratic Iraq’). Elections, more troops, troops being trained, Iraqi forces taking over another small province. All these things sound good, indeed, I presume they are good.
But, at some point, there has to be some improvement in the “outputs,” in the actual results. U.S. casualties should go down. Or Iraqi sectarian violence should go down. Or electricity production should go up. Or something.
There’s a related point here. I anticipate the “you’re impatient” meme. I am a very patient person. As a matter of fact, if I had been told before the war, “This thing is gonna go on for years, and we are going to need several hundred thousand troops for years before we see any real results.” Then, that would have been a different matter. But, we were told it was gonna be a cakewalk. And the statements since April 2003, from “Freedom’s untidy,” to “Mission Accomplished” to “a few dead-enders,” to “last throes,” have repeatedly sent the message … “it’s gonna happen.” Today, yet another “decisive blow” has been struck. And accompanying all those optimistic forecasts have been reports of better inputs.
Sorry. At this point, I would need to see some actual improved results before I could be persuaded of the validity of any good news. From here on, reports of more and better inputs don’t persuade me one bit.
No related posts