The magical mystery withdrawal plan

This lovely chart was a centerpiece of Gen. David Petraeus’ testimony this afternoon before the House Armed Services Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee. It purports to show the level of U.S. troops deployed in Iraq falling gradually over … some period of time. As withdrawal plans go, it not exactly encouraging.
drawdown

That bottom line — which would, in this kind of graph, presumably indicate some measurement of time — is a little tough to read. It says, “Leading to Partnering to Overwatch (Tactical to Operational to Strategic).” And in case you have no idea what that means, that’s the general name for the strategy Petraeus outlined today for the foreseeable future.

That’s a perfectly nice name for a strategy, of course, but this chart, while colorful, doesn’t actually tell us anything, except the fact that U.S. troops will eventually be in Iraq in much smaller numbers. Whether that’s in nine months, nine years, or nine decades remains a complete mystery.

As Matt Yglesias (from whom I stole borrowed this graph) said, “Basically, the idea is that about nine months from now, we’ll be back to the number of troops we had in Iraq about nine months ago. After that, more stuff is supposed to change . . . maybe . . . sometime . . . if all goes well . . . maybe . . . at some point.”

Now, to be fair, I should note that the chart, if you look closely, is not completely devoid of dates. It notes that by next summer, Petraeus is prepared to bring the overall deployment down to pre-surge levels, effectively ending the escalation, if the conditions meet with his satisfaction. Except, that’s not particularly encouraging, given that we’ll be out of troops by that point.

I’ll have plenty more about today’s joint hearing tomorrow, but it’s also worth noting that Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who was supposed to have something of a moderating influence on today’s discussion, was surprisingly ineffective and unpersuasive.

In this clip, via TPM, Crocker explains that the surge was intended to give Iraqis breathing room, and it succeeded — Iraqis now have “time and space to reflect on the kind of country they want.” It was, to my ears, the most breathtaking remark of the day.

We’re spilling blood and treasure to give Iraqis time — not to create some kind of political reconciliation, but so they can “reflect” on the kind of country they want? Please. Even Bush administration officials should be able to come up with something better than this.

The labels on that timeline might as well read “Now ………….. Later”

“…time and space to reflect on the kind of country they want.”

What is he? A marriage counselor? I want a divorce and an Order of Protection against the NeoCon Supremacists.

  • “Strategic Overwatch”… That sure looks a lot like “Guarding the oil wells”. Can I see that chart overlayed with the projected oil reserves please?

    And “Mission Shift”? More like Mission Shift.

    And let’s see a show of hands… Who actually believes that we won’t run out of troops before the Iraqis “stand up” in anything other than corrupt forces?

    Anyone? Can anyone do math around here?

    Unless they’re going to magically come up with the troops, we’re all done. Congress needs to pull the plug NOW.

  • This looks like a trick from Cyber Chase when hacker made his chart of bugs look better than ours because he left out his units.

    Once we went back to mother board and showed his tricks he was done for.

  • Whoa Stephen! I didn’t know we had 3rd graders on the board who were interested in politics! Nice Cyber Chase reference….

    I’ve updated stolen this chart from Royko on Yglesias’ site that more accurately reflects the awe-inspiring fantasy of what Petraeus is trying to convey!

  • Since the intervals are approximately equal and the first interval is nine to ten months, is the point of this chart to suggest at another four years will be required to “stabilize” Iraq? That would fit in nicely with a strategy to blame failure in Iraq on “defeatocrats” so that with banners flying and pipes blaring, the far right could march into power again with the 2012 elections. If nothing else, the war profiteers will do well for another four years. Who cares about troops?

  • The set of charts accompanying that one provide textbook examples of how to lie with statistics (actually, charts, since few statistics are computed).

    I particularly enjoyed chart 9. It’s fairly evident that, except for Anbar Province, you’re looking at more-or-less random wiggles, essentially constant across the chart. It takes “up” and “down” arrows to make you believe that the “surge” lessened the violence. In the case of Anbar I heard yesterday that there hasn’t been a surge — we had 30,000 troops there six months ago and only 25,000 now (the numbers may be off) — that the decline in violence was the result of co-opting Sunnis into an alliance with us against the Shiites. I’d love to know how the numbers on the Y-axis were computed, what they mean. At the bottom of the chart it simply says “Level of Violence = Attacks + Murders Events”. Huh?

    Can anybody make any sense at all of the hodge-podge passing itself off as Chart 11? It looks like an organization chart on speed (or valvoline). No wonder the Pentagon is so screwed up.

    In Chart 14, what the hell are those little stars with unidentified numbers (or maybe they’re ranges)? And what do the question marks signify … doubt? There’s a suggested temporal metric accompanying the first several colorful columns, but further on there isn’t. The X-axis is simply labeled “time”, but without a metric that could be nanosecond or millennia. Perhaps this was drawn by someone studying Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

    You’ve no doubt already heard of the problems of defining “death” in Chart 4 — if he’s shot in the forehead, it’s murder; shot in the back of the head, it’s whatever. Sunni-on-Shiite isn’t the same a Shiite-on-Sunni or man-on-dog except for odd-numbered Tuesdays. That sort of thing. Such charts are a load of crap from the outset.

    I know from conversations I had several years ago with a Pentagon graphic artist that generals, even lowly brigadiers, can command fantastic work on short notice (and can demand that such pains-taking work be torn up and done all over again if someone they fear expresses caution), but they’ve had months to prepare these and all they deliver is shit like this

    They must think we’ll buy anything they dish out, and judging by the Democrats’ reaction so far, they’re correct.

    Students in my stat classes would’ve gotten Fs for work like this.

  • So—bringing the troops out of Iraq and deploying them head-on against the Pakistani mountains (which, if I’m not mistaken, is where Al Cuckoo and the Tali-Bland is located) is playing into the hands of Al Cuckoo and the Tali-Bland. But leaving a gradually-decimated force in a fixed, urban location, where they’re basically fodder for the IEDs, and slowly becoming easier to pick off (simply due to the mathematics of becoming an inferior force that can’t shield its own perimeter) is NOT what the terrorists want?

    I’m waiting to see how the Reich noise machine will spin what’s likely to be the eventual over-running of the whole blasted Green Zone by “the bad guys.”

    Should make Tet look like a walk in the park, eh?

  • What if, after the ““time and space to reflect on the kind of country they want”, the Iraqis say they want the country they had under Saddam because, bad as it was, it was a damn sight better than what they have now? Will Bush Almighty fix it for them? He believes in miracles, doesn’t he? And God is on his side, no? Interesting to watch it will be, I don’t think. Bastards.

  • “…the surge was intended to give Iraqis breathing room, and it succeeded — Iraqis now have “time and space to reflect on the kind of country they want.”

    Totally changed the idea of reconciliation huh? I guess now the Iraq parliament can even take a longer vacation if they want since now they have the time and space to reflect on what kind of country they want. Is Petraeus providing the drinks.

    Our country hasn’t even had the time and space to reflect that this occupation has changed every aspect of our government in one way or another from voting to surveillance to operation of our consumer protection agencies. Bush will have them say anything to keep Iraq going till he can push it off on the next guy and then blame them for any problems incurred for ending it. It’s called stealing home isn’t it with 2 outs and no score?

  • Reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes on an old South Park, and their charts for success.

    Phase 1: Steal Underpants.
    Phase 2: ??????
    Phase 3: Profit [or, in our case, Troops Come Home]

    Did any Dem step up to the plate and manage to challenge this guy?

  • “Bush will have them say anything to keep Iraq going till he can push it off on the next guy and then blame them for any problems incurred for ending it.”

    True. But the biggest reason he wants to push it off is so that he will not be in office when the al qaeda types start claiming “we drove the infidel off our lands.” It is all ego for this man.

  • Well, that chart is awfully pretty, but isn’t it terribly silly to continue the surge on the basis of a chart? That’s like trying to determine if your child will be a genius by reading a generic growth-chart while it’s still in the womb.

    I, for one, really believe the violence will decrease if US military and contractor forces leave within six months, though I don’t think peace will reign without a Saddam-like strongman — or strongmen, if the country is breaking into three pieces.

    What would Iraq “look like” if the US military left?

    Well, what does it look like now? Think about it.

    There are insurgent conflicts between tribes, religions, and the US-backed government and these groups. A few foreign nationals have joined in the conflicts. These “conflicts” are not occurring country-wide but fluidly exist in regions where there is little to no US presence. When US troops “calm” a region, it’s quiet as long as they’re there. When they move on, the violent conflicts start again. It’s kind of like trying to still roiling waters or squash a bead of mercury with your thumb.

    If US troops left, why wouldn’t all of Iraq look like the regions where there’s no US presence anyway? Will the conflicts continue? Yes!

    Will they be worse than they are now? I don’t think so.

    It’s up to the Iraqis to deal with those conflicts, and when people must, they will. One of the reasons the Iraqi forces have been so ineffectual is because the US is hated in Iraq and those Iraqi forces under the command of the US are also hated as their representatives. They’re operating with US interests at the heart of the command, and it has to affect their energy and motivation to do what has to be done.

    As for what the surrounding countries might do about Iraq, that’s anybody’s guess. Iran might gain a strong hold on portions of Iraq, but I think that would happen anyway, no matter when the US leaves. The middle east will NEVER love America but will certainly appreciate support from its strong neighbors.

    This is why Bush won’t leave, and it’s predicated on the energy situation in the world. It’s really past time for the US to develop new energy technologies, and there are some interesting ones being publicized lately. Look up “jatropha fuel” or see this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/world/africa/09biofuel.html?_r=1&oref=login

    “…a plant called jatropha is being hailed by scientists and policy makers as a potentially ideal source of biofuel, a plant that can grow in marginal soil or beside food crops, that does not require a lot of fertilizer and yields many times as much biofuel per acre planted as corn and many other potential biofuels.”

    Anyway, presenting Prediction-by-Chart is a ridiculous substitute for actual thought and planning. The outcome depends on factors that nobody will talk about.

  • As we are inundated with reasons, selling points, calls to patriotism, duty and so on in attempts to convince us to stay on in Iraq, there are only two facts to always keep in mind:
    1) The original invasion was immoral and illegal as Germany’s invasion of Poland and the USSR.
    2) The reason we are still In Iraq is that the Iraqis have not signed off on the Oil Treaty giving control about 80% of their oil and profits to foreign companies.
    David Chisholm

  • From teh Matt Yglesias site:
    ==========

    …the x-axis does not have a constant scale. The length taken up on the x-axis from Sep 07 to Dec 07 (3 months) is more than the length taken up on the x-axis from Dec 07 to Jul 08 (7 months). This is impossible for a constant scale.

    … The numbers are brigades, not troop numbers.
    On the y-axis? Isn’t that troop numbers (x10k)? It doesn’t appear to correspond to the brigade numbers in the Happy Pentagon Stars.

    But as joejoejoe says, it’s not to scale, and it’s utter bullshit. Could someone ask Tufte to comment on it, just in presentational terms, on his site?

    end summary
    ===========

    I did some measurements.
    The My Little Pony multi-flavor popsicle bars come in at 19. By end of term (not yet end of occupation, mind you) the bar is down to 5.
    One would expect the bar to have shrunk to 1/4 the height of the first, but through the amazing leadership of the General, the troops levels are represented as being 1/7 as high. The numbers say troops are down 75%, the bars say they’re down 86%. They used just enough exponential scale to go unnoticed. Apparently, they chose well, no one here or on Yglesias brought it up. This suggests to me that the administration is taking public opinion very seriously but doesn’t want them to know it.

    Is “cooking the books” an accurate term for this deceptive practice? Did MoveOn nail it?

    and my favorite comment:
    =======================
    Of course, a smart politician might take the deception of this figure at it’s word and schedule a 75% reduction in force levels over the next 9 months (rather than just a 75% reduction in “surge” levels).

    They could stamp it the Petraeus plan and then let him come back and explain why what everyone thought he said isn’t really what he said.

    It’s a Kennedy-esque master stroke! Accept the proposal they didn’t mean to make!

  • Comments are closed.