Daily Kos

You don't know shit about Iraq

Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:10:47 PM PDT

Its about time that I sat down and told you this. I was hoping it wouldn't have to be me, but someone needed to finally do it. For quite some time now, you have been going off about what we "need" to do in Iraq. You have been telling us how "things are going" over there, and making suggestions and proclamations about what "we need to do" based on what you seem to believe is a wealth of knowledge about the situation.

Well, I'm here to finally tell you what you what no one else seems willing to say: you don't know shit about Iraq. In fact, you don't even know how much shit there is about Iraq that you don't know.

For starters, you don't speak Arabic. In fact, there's a pretty good chance you don't even know someone who speaks Arabic. Further, you probably don't even know what percentage of Iraqis speak Arabic. I know for damn certain that you don't speak Kurdish.

Second, you have never been to Iraq. You may have seen a few maps on TV, but you have never actually been there. There is even a reasonable chance that you could not identify Iraq on a blank map. Almost certainly you do not know which countries border Iraq, without looking at a map. Its very likely you have never met anyone from Iraq, even if you have seen a few on TV.

Third, you probably know fuck all about Islam. You don't know what the word means in Arabic. You don't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam. You don't know which type of Islam is more common in the region or in the world. you don't known when Ramadan is. You don't know when Muslims pray. You don't know where Mecca and Medina are. you don't know why those two cities are so important in the religion. You don't know when Mohammad lived. You have never read the Koran. You probably have even read part of it. You don't know what is forbidden by Islam, or what is permitted. You have maybe one Muslim friend.

Fourth, you have no clue about the history of the region. You have never heard of the Ottoman empire. You don't know about regional politics and the nineteenth century. You don't know what the British did in Iraq. You don't know about WWI in the region. You don't know when Iraq became independent. You don't know when Saddam Hussein took power. Even though you were alive the entire time, you don't know when the Iran-Iraq war took place. Before the war started, you only knew the same of one city in Iraq--Baghdad.

Fifth, you have no fucking idea what our military capability actually is. you couldn't even guess within 300,000 troops how many are available for active duty. You have no idea how many are deployed in different parts of the world. You don't know the location of more than three military bases. You don't know what type of weaponry, armor and vehicle the military currently uses. You don't even know the order of ranks among enlisted men in the Marines. Hell, you don't know if the Marines are part of the Army or if they are a separate branch of the armed services. You don't know what the military budget is. You don't know what congressional committees oversee military activities. You don't know how long a standard tour of duty lasts. You don't know the demographic composition of the armed forces.

Sixth, you don't know anything about the so-called "Iraqi resistance." You don't know what their motives are. You don't know what their goals are. you don't know how many of them there are. You don't know what groups they are affiliated with. You don't know how many are native Iraqis, how many are not from Iraq, or how many used to be part of Saddam's regime. You don't know what kind of tactics they use. You don't know how much public support they have. You don't know if they are one group or several groups. You don't know their political or religious beliefs. You don't know if they are losing strength or gaining strength.

Seventh, you don't have the slightest clue about the structure of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. You don't know where they operate from. You don't know where their funding comes from. You don't know their plans. You don't know their strengths or weaknesses. You don't know which organizations operate out of which countries. you don't know what their goals are. You don't know where they draw their recruits from. You don't know how many people hate them and how many people sympathize with them. You don't know what connections they have with each other or with current regimes. You don't know how these organizations are run, or if there are factional splits within them. You don't know the names of more than three of their leaders. You probably could not even write a definition of the word "terrorist."

Eighth, you probably have never been a civilian in a war zone. You saw the attacks of 9/11 on television, but you probably didn't experience them, or know anyone who did. Your town has probably never been bombed or invaded. You have never seen your country overthrown in a violent coup. You have probably never lived under a dictatorship. You almost certainly do not know what its like to face jail simply for speaking up for your beliefs.

Ninth, you know absolutely nothing about Iraqi public opinion. You don't know what people over there are thinking. You don't know what people are thinking in different regions of the country. You don't know what they would like to see in a government. You have no idea what their idea of justice and democracy is. You may have heard a snippet of a poll or two, but since you don't know how those polls were conducted, what the methodology is, and how scientific such a poll is in relation to other polls, you really have no fucking clue what even the so called "general" sentiment is. you don't know how many Iraqis welcome the presence of U. S. troops. You don't know how many Iraqis wish U.S. troops harm. You don't know what people there are thinking, and you probably never will.

Tenth, you almost certainly do not know what its like to face combat. There is a decent chance that you know someone how is facing combat, but you can't understand what they are going through.

Eleventh, what little you do know, or what little you think you know, comes entirely from the mass media. You might question the way the media presents its stories, but you make no real effort to find information from other sources. Hell, you don't even follow the events in the mass media that closely. Maybe a couple of times a week you will actually watch the news all the way through. You know more about "Friends" or the "American Idol," than you know bout recent events in Iraq. You certainly have never actually watched or read anything from Al-Jazeera, even though you often deride the way it covers the news.

Twelfth, you can't possibly have the slightest idea how things in Iraq will change as time progresses. No one knows that. you can not see into the future. You don't know how it all will end. You don't know what will happen next.

Thirteenth, you know jackshit about the United Nations and international diplomacy. You don't know which countries are in the "Arab League." You can't name even half of the members of the U.N. security council. You don't know when the U.N. was founded, and you have never read the U.N. charter. you don't know where U.N. troops are currently deployed. You don't know the budget of the U.N., and you don't know where that money comes from. You don't understand U.N. voting procedures. Maybe, just maybe you know what city the U.N. headquarters are in. you certainly don't know all the members of NATO, the EU, or the "non-aligned" movement.

Fourteenth, you definitely do not know "what the world thinks about the U. S." You do not have a clear understanding of the opinion of the U.S. in very many, if any, countries of the world. Hell, you probably don't even know the names of more than six heads of state throughout the world, much less what they think of the U.S. You don't even know why other countries think certain things about us. You may have a guess, but let me tell you right now, that guess is probably way off.

Fifteenth, you don't know crap about economics. you don't know how the federal reserve system works. you don't know how OPEC works. You don't know how the unemployment rate is defined. You don't understand currency or gold markets. There is absolutely no way you understand you these structures are connected to the building of a functioning nation-state. Trade agreements? Please. you have never read one in your entire life.

Sixteenth, even though you always talk about Democracy, I bet you couldn't even define what you mean by that. Go ahead and try. Define it in three sentences or less. Now, try to explain how that was achieved in this country. Goooood luck.

Seventeenth, if you actually managed to come up with something about what you mean by Democracy and how it was achieved in America, try to come up with a way that "we" can go about accomplishing the same thing in Iraq in just a matter of a year or two, if ever. When making this calculation, don't forget to take into account of the things I have pointed out to you that you don't know.

I'm only saying this so that you will stop pretending that you know the solution to "the situation in Iraq." You don't have a clue. Even if you did know all of the things I listed, you still would only have a cursory understanding of how to help "the situation." Even then, the best you could do was offer a semi-demi-psuedo educated guess about the best course of action that would be rife with sweeping generalizations and the lacking in significant evidence. Even then, you might as well use a dartboard.

However, you don't even have close to that cursory understanding of what is taking place, and neither do I. Just about the only thing you and I can know for certain is that over 800 coalition troops have lost their lives in Iraq, and over 10,000 Iraqi civilians have also died. These numbers can be proven. Not much else can be.

Considering all of this, I would appreciate it if you stopped telling everyone what should be done over there. You don't know what needs to be done, and I don't either. This is something you need to remember in the future whenever another one of our "elected" officials tells us that a nation that has not attacked us is a "threat to our security" and that we need to engage in "regime change" to fix the situation. When they say this, tell them bullshit. when they say it will be a clean and easy procress, them htem bull fucking shit. Please remember how messed up things are in reality, no matter how they sound in a neatly prepared speech. Please remember how little you actually know about these situations, and beg "our leaders" to remember the same thing about themselves, because the last thing we need is to get into another situation like this that no one knows how to fix.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 120 comments

  •  um (none / 0)

    who is the "you" that YOU are referring to?
    •  Same here (none / 1)

      Because frankly, you don't know shit about me, either.
    •  i believe... (none / 0)

      "You" in this context is George W. Bush.

      We win when people think.

      by jbrians on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:33:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe this was directed at... (none / 1)

      ... Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of their ill-informed, dumbf*ck PNAC friends.

      I don't want to speak for Chris, but that's my guess.

    •  Its everyone (4.00 / 23)

      Its me, its you, its Bush, its the neo-cons, its the "experts" you see on TV, its your family, its your friends, its people you listen to Limbaugh, its people you read the NY Post and people you read the NY times.

      Its everyone. Its the whole damn country. We don't know dhit about Iraq, and its time we fess up to it.

      •  and it's time (4.00 / 15)

        we let the experts - the Iraqis - sort it out.  Did anyone fucking teach us Democracy?  We made it up as we went.  It ain't patented, it ain't perfect, it ain't complete.  Why are we so obscenely insistent that we should teach it.
        If we don't stand up for the kooks, who will? - Dean McCoppin

        by PSoTD on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:40:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow (4.00 / 3)

          Brilliantly said. I wish there was a way to update my own diary entry, because this is exactly how I should have ended it.
          •  excellent (none / 0)

            One of the best entries I've read in a long time, Chris. As for me, all I know is that there were too many unknowns last year, even for experts that study this stuff all the time, to justify an invasion. But we did, and we are in crapshoot-land now, my friend.

            By the way, your essay amounts to a pretty good argument against democracy in general. How are we to vote well if we do not know the things we need to know to make informed decisions?

            Of course, we can use experience...this type of candidate has usually yielded this type of result --- that kind of candidate has usually yielded another type of result. I usually go with candidates that seem the most honest, are reluctant but not afraid to use military force, try to use the U.N. for its stated purpose, have no interest in legislating biblical morality, is not beholden to corporate interests and would expect to be treated as he or she would expect to be treated by others.

            Usually when you get those kinds of leaders, you never end up having to figure out what the hell we're doing in a place like Iraq and how the hell we're going to get out of it.

            Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass. - Barry Goldwater, 1981

            by Doug in SF on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:51:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  argument *for* democracy (4.00 / 3)

              I see the diary less as an argument against democracy than as a call to renewed democratic conversation. All of the items that Chris lists are things that we, our neighbors, and our elected officials know nothing, little, some, a lot about; so I see this as a reminder that we all have a lot to learn. And we can learn from each other. It seems to me that the essence of a truly democratic society is found in just such conversations, in which each of us shares her knowledge, admits to having wide gaps in knowledge, and opens up to learning. Not only is this how we can come to vote well, it is how we can come to live well.

              "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." -- Walter Benjamin

              by Damo on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:03:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  sort of... (none / 0)

                ...I shouldn't have said the "argument against democracy" thing, it was really a sidebar. We don't live in a true democracy, nor would we want to, because then each of us would actually have to amass the wealth of knowledge described above, not just about Iraq, but about everything, in order to live and vote well. And frankly, it isn't efficient nor are most of us up to the task. It takes a lifetime to learn those things, then we need another lifetime to learn about Medicare, and another about Israel, etc.

                So, in order to improve efficiencies, we live in a representative democracy. We must trust those we elect to hire equally trustworthy experts, who must focus on their little areas, then advise the executive, who must be wise enough to figure out what the experts are talking about, and then communicate to the public why any particular action is being taken.

                Where our knowledge must absolutely be "up to the task" is not on the intricacies of any particular issue, but on whether and how our leaders are doing their jobs. Some of this does indeed require a modicum of knowledge and curiosity about important issues and the sensibilities to figure out what various outcomes might be. Even this requires a fair amount of discipline, but not nearly what Chris is asking for. But it's beyond what most of our fat, dumb and happy public are willing to do these days.

                Going back to the main point --- a good decision on Iraq at this point really requires that someone or a small group of people know all the information requested in the diary entry, and must be equally adept at coming up with related policy. And we have to trust our leaders (and also independent sources) to do so. Thus I wrote the short description of what I think is important in a leader.

                Unfortunately, finding out whether our leaders are doing their jobs is more difficult than ever, as our major news sources merge into a few conglomerates and our leaders become more secretive. Deregulation of the media is one of the worst things Clinton ever agreed to. Bush actively making the government less and less transparent is criminal. The Internet is a godsend, and probably the only reason there is anyone standing up to Bush at this point.

                I guess what it comes down to is, yeah, I don't know all that stuff about Iraq, or even half of it. I never pretended to (like certain administration officials). On the other hand I have never offered an opinion here about what we need to do in Iraq (except I was pretty damn sure we shouldn't have gone in). But fortunately I have been diligent enough to figure out that our leaders have betrayed our trust, are constantly hiding from us, and are selling us out. Iraq is merely a symptom of that --- one of many.

                Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass. - Barry Goldwater, 1981

                by Doug in SF on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 05:42:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re: sort of... (none / 0)

                  I'm not really talking here about democracy as a particular system of state political organization. For the purpose of this diary, I'm thinking of it more as a form of social behavior involving learning and sharing and decision making and creating, which I happen to prefer to approach as a set of interrelated, discursive, and radically participatory processes. In that sense, I believe the diary highlights the inevitable incompleteness of knowledge and, thus, the need for individuals to rely on each other collectively to achieve any given societal goal. I don't think this precludes or even has much to do with whether we organize our political system along "representative" lines. I do think it precludes justifications of authority of the type that the diary reacts against (for example, imposing our will on others, etc.). I also don't think it's useful to see Chris's list as a finite set of knowledge to be "amassed" by experts. As I wrote in my previous comment, each of us has his or her own kind of familiarity/expertise with these and other issues, and each of must rely on others to access and generate new knowledge and make and re-make decisions.

                  "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." -- Walter Benjamin

                  by Damo on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 08:46:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I really am starting to enjoy your stuff (none / 0)

            This is your second one that I read. The first one was "The Democratic party doesn't stand for anything"

            Your good, man!

            They (the Republicans) remind me of teenagers who got their inheritance too soon and couldn't wait to blow it. -- Bill Clinton Democratic Unity Dinner 3/25/04

            by brooklyndem on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:52:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  wishful thinking (none / 0)

          They will "sort it out" via civil war.  Democracy will most likely not arise naturally, at least not in the next century.  The unfortunate fact is that we are affected by how Iraq turns out.  It isn't acceptable for Iraq to become a well-funded Afghanistan.  Only in your rose-colored fantasy-world do we walk away from Iraq and it becomes a well-behaved nation citizen.

          We win when people think.

          by jbrians on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:49:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We invaded... (none / 0)

            We took it over...

            We killed their leaders...

            We disbanded their army...

            We have tanks in their streets...

            We gave them $87 billion...

            What more do we need to do (if leaving is too rose-colored a notion) before Iraq becomes a "well-behaved nation citizen"?

            What further behavior modifaction methods would you propose?

          •  Yes, it's a mess (3.66 / 3)

            And no, I don't think it's going to be easy for the Iraqis to work it out - but what are they going to be better invested in as a nation, something they create, or something we force upon them?

            I'm not saying run away.  I'm saying they self-determine, we help them implement if we can.  

            If we don't stand up for the kooks, who will? - Dean McCoppin

            by PSoTD on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:56:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Re: wishful thinking (3.66 / 3)

            It's too easy to discuss this as if the only options are continued military occupation on the one hand and "walking away" on the other. We have spent the past several years destroying Iraq, so we certainly have obligations there. That doesn't mean we carry out those obligations our way and our way alone. The course of the Iraqi recovery must be directed by the Iraqi people. Our job is to support Iraqi initiatives to build sustainable political and physical infrastructures, not hold the place hostage while selling it out to corporate interests.

            "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." -- Walter Benjamin

            by Damo on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:13:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We don't know that "civil" war (none / 0)

            is inevitable; certainly some violence is likely to break out especially if the transfer of power is handed over to an illegitimate representative. But that's actually something we could control.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:23:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Budget for 190+ nation-citizens? (none / 0)

            This is the kind of liberal fantasyland that the neocons have bastardized into the pre-emptive nation building yarn.

            Let's go around the world and count how many of the 190+ "nations" around the world are not well-behaved nation citizens.

            Then subtract from the US national budget and find out how far in the negative we go.

            One year+ of Iraq already has us down by what quarter of a trillion, half a trillion?

            •  well... (none / 0)

              I opposed the invasion to begin with because Iraq wasn't a real problem for us then.  I am just saying that, given the situation today, it will be a problem for us if we leave.  Unlike some African nations, a failed state in Iraq isn't just bad for Iraq's citizens.  It's bad for us too.

              We win when people think.

              by jbrians on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:27:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  well technically (none / 0)

          The Founders did have a lot of "learning" at their disposal in the tomes of the philosophers of the Enlightenment, the Greeks, etc.

          Today we could provide Iraq with a model of democracy presented by those philosophers and which proved quite helpful to us, and we could show them a little bit of how our "democracy" works (or better, how it's supposed to work) and then definitely, let them figure shit out themselves.

          •  People in Iraq (4.00 / 2)

            are equally as educated as the folks here; many of them are probably more informed about the writings of the Enlightenment and the Greeks then we here are.  We could help the Iraqis the most, it seems to me, if we'd go back and learn something from those people who supposedly "helped us".  And if we learned something from our own long history of mistakes with democracy, rather than assuming we own the franchise.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:35:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Learning versus teaching (none / 0)

            I agree, we can show how a democracy works.  That's a lot different than saying here's your constitution, here's your government structure, here's your unelected representatives handpicked by us.
            If we don't stand up for the kooks, who will? - Dean McCoppin

            by PSoTD on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:34:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I liked this post ... (none / 1)

        Even I, who likes to think I'm smarter than the average bear, had to admit ignorance on quite a few of these.  In fact a good many of them -- especially those regarding "public sentiment" -- no human alive could possibly know.

        Good science has error bars.  Punditry should have them too.

        Bush: Irresponsible and Reckless. Pass it on!

        by Captain Obvious on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:43:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  cocky bas-turds (none / 1)

          We're all implicated here true.  but --  only the Bush side claimed it KNEW what would happen. The side that opposed the war was saying it did NOT know:  we did NOT know Iraq posed an "imminent threat;" we did NOT know if there were WMD; we did NOT know what would happen when our troops rolled into town expecting to be greeted with flowers, etc;  we did not know exactly what the world public reaction would be.

          The cocky-overconfidence was overwhelmingly with the Bush administration and its supporters.

          Still, whenever I see a know-it-all pundit on TV who's never left the United States talking about Shii and Sunnis like they have any CLUE what they're talking about all so CNN or FOX can sell their viewers some pepsi, I'm pretty disgusted.  

          great diary!

        •  Punditry (none / 0)

          IS an error bar.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:25:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  we know something (none / 0)

        We're learning.  We know a hell of lot more today than we did a year ago.  Sure, we have a long way to go, but we will never know everything there is to know about every issue that affects our lives.  This sort of unproductive nihilism is silly.  We will continue to learn more, and always try and make the best, most well-informed decision that we can.

        If your point is that we all have a duty to learn and become the most well-informed citizens that we can be, then I say bravo.  If your point is that we should throw up our hands in disgust and quit caring about public policy alltogether, I say you are wasting my time.

        We win when people think.

        by jbrians on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:44:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We are learning (none / 1)

          is true, but we don't have a very good record in this regard.  We also have a habit of learning "the wrong lessons", so even our "learning" is not necessarily an incidence for optimism.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:27:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  conceit is a problem (none / 1)

          since not-knowing and pretending they do know is such a huge problem for the Bush administration when they waltzed into iraq, surely this is cause for some self-reflection on our part as well?

          i think this is less about democracy than mediocrity

      •  I can empathize (none / 0)

        with frustration hearing the so-called "experts" on either side who somehow are able to announce the only "right" path with regards to Iraq (or religion or anything else for that matter).

        But who meets your criteria? Surely some in the U.S. come close, and a few may even posess all of the knowledge that ou require. But do you really expect to find someone who knows everything about every situation that we come across to be at hand? I think that's naive. I do wish more people would take their ignorance into account when considering such a massive scenario as transplanting democracy (or oil companies, whatever you happen to believe) to the middle east.

        I don't expect a leader, whether it be our President or my boss at work, to be an expert on everything. What I do look for is a capability to act decisively based on limited information. The wiser leaders will have better track records while holding themselves accountable when they act incorrectly.

        Nobody can know everything about any given situation. But the ones with an ability to see the big picture and minimize the impact of unknown variables are people I look to for leadership.

      •  We know it's got Oil ... (none / 1)

        And we like Oil, a lot.  

        Plus our favorite not so little buddy was lonesome.

        "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." - Thomas Jefferson

        by Wally on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:59:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As Bill Maher would say, New Rule: (none / 1)

      From now on, anyone who uses the term "we" in supporting the United States presence in Iraq, has to either volunteer to go there or send a family member. All this bullshit about what "we" should do, whether "we" can afford to look weak in the world's eyes, whether "we" should send more troops - "we" are sitting here in our comfy chairs while real human beings (mostly kids) are being sacrificed on the altar of this or that geopolitical theory. If Bush wants to keep fighting, he should put on his flyboy suit and go over there and lead the way. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, and all the other chickenhawks who are so enthusiastic about bringing democracy to the Middle East, ought to go lend a fucking hand. If Joe Biden and John Kerry want to send more troops, let them send their own sons and daughters.

      Is there even one Washington politician with a kid in harm's way over there? Just ONE? If so, I'd like to hear what he or she has to say about the situation. If not, let them all shut the fuck up. They have no right to sacrifice other people's loved ones for their fantasies of empire.

      Interestingness.org "Politics is the entertainment arm of Industry." - Zappa

      by CheeseMoose on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 05:22:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You Forgot One (4.00 / 3)

    We are so damned ignorent we don't have a computer or know what the internet is, much less a blog. We get all our news from Tom Brokaw because he seems nice, and Rush Limbaugh because he cares about people like us. And what the preacher tells us on Sunday. And the monthly NRA magazine.

    We are dumber than Bush.

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:15:33 PM PDT

    •  Actually, now that I reread it (3.80 / 10)

      I can think of a lot more shit that we don't know about Iraq.

      But thanks for pointing that one out.

      •  Leftist Rumsfeld (none / 1)

        So what? You sound like Donald Rumsfeld with his "the future is unknowable" doctrine of no planning and therefore no responsibility. Should we never enter into any circumstance where complete knowlege is absent? Isn't that paralysis? Couldn't I have written the same diary about Rwanda in 1994 to justify inaction? I'm not suggesting this administration is correct in Iraq. I am suggesting good policy can be made absent perfect knowledge.

        Most of the items you name ARE KNOWABLE and I would venture that most people have some knowledge of at least something substanative about one or two of the issues you listed. Wisdom is making the best decision with the LEAST information, not hiding your head in the sand because of "the unknowable future". Read James Fallows "Blind into Baghdad". Many of the problems you suggest nobody knows about were predicted and preventable with responsible policy. A UN sanctioned action to depose Saddam Hussein may well have been justified and successful. Suggesting the ignorance on display in Iraq was somehow unavoidable forgives the poor planning and decision making of specific individuals (Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, etc.) and suggest others could not have acted more reasonably.

        "Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers

        by joejoejoe on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:46:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  interesting counter-argument (none / 0)

          saying things "are" knowable is very different than saying they were actually known in 2003. not to mention that i see no recommendation to monkey rumsfeld in the diary.
        •  There Are Things... (none / 0)

          There are things that we know that we know that we don't know that we know that we know, and there are things that we know that we don't know that we don't know that we know, but the scariest thing is that there are things that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know.

          The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

          by easong on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:57:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  what we don't know (none / 0)

    is about equal to our power to do anything about Iraq, so our relative ignorance can't change the situation much one way or another. The problem is that the same can't be said about dear leader et al.

    Barack Obama will only become president if enough people pay attention, so pay attention, dammit!

    by JMS on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:18:52 PM PDT

  •  What the hell is this Iraq thing? (none / 0)

    and where can I get one?
  •  Ouch. (none / 0)

    I think, that for someone my age, I actually "DO" a respectable number of those "you don'ts."

    However, I generally try to keep my mouth shut and just listen, occasionally correcting others where I may know for sure they are wrong, because I know that there are a lot of known unknowns, and even more unknown unknowns, to steal a phrase from Rummy.

    That said, thank you for bringing up so many things that will make those who read it all just a bit more humble in the voicing of their opinions. I think most of us needed it.

  •  You are writing to GWB (none / 0)

    I assume you meant to put "Dear Mr. Bush" at the start of this missive.

    "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused..." - Elvis

    by Gearhead on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:22:24 PM PDT

  •  All true. (none / 0)

    Except for the one about not reading a trade agreement, but if you haven't, don't bother. And the one about not knowing people who experienced 9/11, but all you have to do is be from New Jersey for that one not to be true.

    Anyway, for the most part it's all true.

    And sadly, the decision about which clueless American you'd like to lead us in the next phase of the war is still up to you.

  •  Radical Agnosticism, and then what? (3.87 / 8)

    We live in a world full of situations that we don't fully understand and don't know how to fix, and therefore ...

    We should refrain from forming opinions?

    We should refrain from acting?

    We should refrain from voting?

    We shouldn't even bother trying to become better informed?

    We should hang out here and blog pointlessly?

    We should just go shoot ourselves?

    This post needed a poll.

    The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

    by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:23:18 PM PDT

    •  well actually (3.50 / 4)

      we do hang out here and blog pointlessly for the most part. Once in a while things happen that have import in the outside world, but not very often. Sorry...it's the truth.

      If this bothers people, they should find something else to do. It doesn't bother me much though :)

      Barack Obama will only become president if enough people pay attention, so pay attention, dammit!

      by JMS on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:25:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the piece has larger implications (none / 0)

        ... including wholesale rejection of popular democracy -- here, there, and everywhere.

        The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:49:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read it the other way around (4.00 / 4)

          its an embrace of popular democracy; just spelling out to people the necessity of humility and self-reflection in order for a functioning popular democracy to actually function.

          Self-reflection on an individual and a collective level: a requirement for popular democracy.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:32:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unprincipled arguments up and down this thread (3.50 / 2)

            It says no such thing. It says quite baldly (and hyperbolically) that we can't know anything about the results of any coure of action.

            Yes, there's much we don't know, and yes, it's good to be humble ... but this embraces no limits to the Ignorance Principle.

            That leaves us a poor set of options: pure paralysis, pure recklessness, or abandonment of policy to "the experts".

            But nobody in present company makes this leap. Everybody cheats in their own favor. Everybody reserves the right to sound off, and to slap everybody else with the Ignorance Principle.

            In the end, these are begged arguments. If you're going to adopt a form of argument that applies only where you find its conclusions agreeable, then by all means beat me over the head with your conclusions ... but kindly spare me the whereas's. You don't mean them.

            The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

            by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:00:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree, What I took from this post is (none / 0)

          kinda like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  We can know Iraq very well, some, or not at all, but when we add the interactions of foreign troops, violence and subjugation, we can't know anything.  Reading some of the better-known Iraqi bloggers (Allah keep them safe and whole) tells me that this is true of them, as well. They now live in a country not their own.

          "My whole world lies waiting behind door number three"

          by wozzle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:50:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That was what I took from this (4.00 / 5)

      It sounded like "you don't know shit so sit down, shut the fuck up and let the adults talk." Chris, if your point was "don't speak authoritatively about things you are not an authority on," I can agree with you. If your point was just to browbeat everyone on this entire site, that's ridiculous. (And I'm not going to sit here and go through every "you don't" that I do.)

      Americans are expected to know everything about every country. It's retarded. I have not been abroad, I don't speak anything other than English, and I don't have fucking degree in poli sci or history or whatever, so I should just keep my thoughts to myself? The way I understand it, democracy means everyone's supposed to, you know, participate.

      •  disagree (none / 1)

        if he's saying you shouldn't have an opinion or a vote then he's wrong,

        but my take-away point here is this: most americans know very little about iraq and the rest of the world, and make all sorts of dumb-assed assumptions about how easily we can dominate the globe.  maybe instead we need to practice some humility, unlike the Bush administration -- cocky bas-turds

      •  Funny I took it exactly the other way (none / 1)

        not a plea to do nothing, but a plea to eliminate the incredibly dangerous CERTAINTY with which we Americans travel through the contemporary world.  That's what's so damned dangerous about us.

        There was in no way a call to inaction in the diary, just a call to some introspection.  

        Are Americans the most defensive folks on the planet or what? Any even slight suggestion that they might ponder their own limitations or mistakes and geez.... a hair-trigger on the rationalization scale...

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:39:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  For starters, (3.40 / 5)

      don't trust a democratic vote to invade another country for the supposed benefit of its inhabitants.

      More generally, don't build empires.  Don't go abroad searching for monsters to destroy.  You won't recognize the monster if you see him, and chances are good that you'll be the monster.

      Chris didn't say we don't know shit about ourselves; he said we don't know shit about this country we decided to flatten, or enlighten, or punish, or all three.

      •  don't trust a democratic vote ... (none / 0)

        ... meaning "don't take a vote"?

        Or "don't honor such a vote if taken" (boundaries of "such" T.B.D.)

        Or set US foreign policy via some non-democratic mechanism?

        Don't build empires. Aye. Don't go abroad ... whoa.

        OK, when do we start name-calling?

        The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:46:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about (none / 0)

          don't accept all votes so labeled as "democratic" votes: we rarely if ever have any of those anymore (if we ever did).

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:52:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  don't trust (4.00 / 2)

          meaning, be very skeptical that a vote in favor of such action could be well-advised.  Consider the high probability that it's wrong.  It's a separate question what to do if such a vote is taken and the interventionists win.  The usual options when one's government is wrong spring to mind.

          John Quincy Adams said it better:

          [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

          She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

          She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

          She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

          She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

          She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

          She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....  

          Adams

           

          •  Was JQA then inconsistent ... (none / 0)

            ... in developing and promoting the Monroe Doctrine a couple years later (as JM's Sec of State)?

            We are all isolationists, we are all interventionists, we are all neutrals except where we choose sides.

            To his credit, if he'd had his way we'd have left Texas out of the map.

            The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

            by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:19:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think that he was right.... (none / 0)

              ...in the quoted statement of general principles, to the extent that a statement of principles this general can be right, and that he was wrong in promoting the Monroe Doctrine.  Was he inconsistent?  I'd want to look again at the history, but I suspect that there's at best a lawyer's consistency between the two.  An advocate for JQA could plead the Clarke defense: "As a member of Madison's cabinet, it was part of my job to put the best face on the President's policy or resign.  I chose the former."

              In your second sentence you invite a generalization from JQA's apparent, how you say it, flip-flop to the claim that all talk about principles in foreign policy is opportunistic cover.  Declined.

              •  In my second sentence ... (none / 1)

                ... I merely reflect that principles are often invoked in an unprincipled manner -- embraced or abandoned depending on whether they serve a particular objective in a particular context.

                The particular context of your Adams quote might be instructive. JQA's high-minded neutrality of July 1821 arose in context of putting off any diplomatically inconvenient recognition of Spain's rebel colonies while cutting a deal with Spain for Florida. His (not Monroe's) Monroe Doctrine of December 1823 arose in the same context.

                Likewise the Argument from Ignorance can be stretched and trimmed to suit almost any pre-selected objective -- or its antithesis.

                The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

                by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 06:55:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  You are the one asking "therefore" (4.00 / 3)

      I'm just applying it to Iraq.

      The frequency with which people on the many sides of the Iraq discussion talk with absolute certainty about what needs to be done has left me exhausted. It needed to be pushed in the opposite direction.

      This isn't a piece about epistemology or a general comment on the current geo-politcal situation and the role of individual agency within that system. I'm just tired of the lack of skepticism to be found in discussions on this subject. Extrapolate as you will.

      •  But we could post an equally imposing piece on (none / 1)

        ... mercury emissions, or Social Security, or education policy, or anything else under the small-d sun.

        Actually, I liked your piece (though I didn't read much of it), but narrowly it's a case for isolationism, and broadly it's a model case for nihilism.

        It's not the sort of body of argument you can set in motion with the proviso "and it stays in motion only so far as the my range of interest dictates".

        The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

        by RonK Seattle on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:31:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Respectfully (none / 0)

          maybe its your reading of the piece that's narrow?  There's nothing isolationist in it; it is equally a cry for engaged internationalism if you think about it.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:43:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  On the dot (none / 1)

        We don't know enough about 190+ nations to make them all well-behaved all the time, neither do we have the money (and lives of soldiers) to do so.
    •  Raises a good point about blogging (4.00 / 4)

      Sometimes I get totally frustrated by endless pontificating on the blogs that is clearly ill-informed. I'm no smarty-pants, but I'll see commentary on issues that I happen to have studied for 10 years or whatever, and it's clear the person is just blowing it out their ass. And, more often than not, they're writing in this really cock-sure, arrogant way that's just suffocating.

      My first reaction is, god what an idiot. Give 'em a low ranking, write a harsh response, whatever.

      Then I chill out and think -- hey, this blog is like a big town meeting. There are some in the know, and some less-in-the-know. But democracy is messy, and everybody should get a chance to say their piece, ill-informed or not. Hopefully the masses will be able to detect fact from BS and posturing.

      Only on a few occasions do I lose my faith in the process, and feel the need to haul off.

      Blogs are full of people who "don't know shit" about things, but feel free to comment prodigiously on every topic under the sun. But I still think, on balance, it's better that they amble forward and try to participate in the discussion.

      It's better than apathy.

      Reality-based progressive.

      by Pops on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:11:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, fine. (none / 1)

    We're all ignorant, in one way or another, of the situation in the Middle East.  I know nothing of the language, for example, but I know more about the history of Islam than the average American.  Someone else may know more about that history than I, but know nothing about our military strength, or lack thereof.  And on down the line.  Everybody is ignorant in some way.

    But one thing remains true:  even the tiniest infant can recognize when something is not going well, and that infant will respond by crying out.  In many ways, the response of those who oppose this war may be no different from the cries of an infant to "make it stop", but then that would hold true for any situation.  That does not mean that one should stop crying out simply because one is ignorant.

    As long as we're on the same page about that, we're okay.

  •  What Wolfie knows (3.88 / 9)

    The other day I heard a Fresh Aire interview with Juan Cole (who knows a heck of a lot about Iraq). I'm sure many of you read his blog.

    Cole mentioned that about a year ago, on the eve of the invasion, he had heard an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, explaining why the post-war occupation would be so trouble-free.  Wolfowitz claimed that it was unlikely that the American occupation forces would run into any trouble with Iraqi Shiites. Iraqi Shiites, he claimed, were 'secularists,' unlike their Iranian counterparts. Wolfowitz forther stated that Iraq doesn't have any Muslim holy cities, like Saudi Arabia does -- and thus American troops would not be perceived as 'desecrating' holy sites.  For both these reasons, Wolfowitz argued that Shiites would be solidly behind the US invastion and occupation.

    Karbala and Najaf, anyone? Wolfie doesn't know sh**. Not to mention Shiite.

  •  maybe I don't (none / 0)

    but either does George W.

    Support Rules: Don't count my vote! (FL voter)

    by gregonthe28th on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:33:08 PM PDT

  •  Together "We" get a lot closer (3.80 / 5)

    To having knowledge and understanding of all the issues you mentioned.  Some of us have some of the criteria you mentioned.

    This community is learning together by sharing their knowledge/opinions/perspectives.

    Just out of curiousity, "who" does fit your criteria?

    "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." - Thomas Jefferson

    by Wally on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:34:28 PM PDT

  •  Well I do speak Arabic. (none / 0)

    I know quite a bit about Islam.  And I know quite a bit about Shi'ah and Sunni politics.

    I'm well versed in economics, specifically economic modelling.

    And I have been a civilian in a war zone, albeit in one that had calmed considerably (Peru...shining path...)

    Hand me down my walking cane, hand me down my hat...

    by Cheez Whiz on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:35:46 PM PDT

  •  Oh sure (3.50 / 2)

    Let's just leave the dialogue about Iraq to the people who "know what's going on over there."  We're not experts, so we shouldn't be commenting.

    Yeah, that approach has worked really fucking well so far.

    I think they all think that their guy will do a better job, but I think they make dishonest arguments. In their eyes, the ends justify the means. -Jon Stewart

    by Slade on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:44:17 PM PDT

  •  I think this post was absolutely awesome. (4.00 / 6)

    But what the hell do I know.
  •  Like alot of good diaries (none / 0)

    you made me stop for a moment and examine. i liked the fact that i didn't know who the diary was addressed to, it made it that much more intriguing to read. it didn't make me feel defensive, it just made me think.

    Liberal Streetfighter: Left-wing served al dente.

    by wilfred on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:48:22 PM PDT

  •  This post (none / 0)

    reminds me of that song What A Wonderful World by Herman's Hermits. You know, the one that goes

    Don't know much about history
    Don't know much biology
    Don't know much about science books
    Don't know much about the French I took

    someone with a nack for these things should put together a parody....

    •  don't know bush (none / 1)

      Don't know Bush about History,
      Don't know Bush about Biology,
      Don't know Bush about Science Trips,
      Don't know Bush about the French I Skipped,
      But I do know that I'm corrupt,
      And if you vote for me we'll go bankrupt
      Oh What a Horrible World it will be.

      Liberal Streetfighter: Left-wing served al dente.

      by wilfred on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:24:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The reason that Iraqis (4.00 / 9)

    should run their own country.  We take ours back and they get theirs.  I call it a bargain.
  •  Excellent Post (4.00 / 3)

    And an excellent point made.  Fascinating, too, how many commenters here chose to take it personally/literally.

    Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

    by cerebrocrat on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 01:55:02 PM PDT

  •  You don't know shit about democracy or America (none / 1)

    Traditional conservatives tend to say, 'the rest of the world is complicated and we don't understand it so we should tread carefully'.  

    That's a valid opinion, and fuck you for stomping on people's right to have it, you elitist dipshit.

  •  Great diatribe (none / 1)

    Now if we can just give the keys to someone who does know shit about Iraq maybe we could get the world to give a fuck about Iraq then maybe we could get our own shit together finally. Fuck (for balance)

    Now, people had lost their fear. From that moment I knew we would win. - Oscar Olivera

    by Josh Prophet on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:02:08 PM PDT

    •  Respectfully again (none / 0)

      I don't think the appropriate response is to seek out some"one" who DOES have the knowledge and book, since the answer is, of course, no one individual (or even nation) does have it. That's why democractic conversation (as Damo coined it above) is so vital.  (And why its one of the foundations of the scientific method, too).  

      The Age of Enlightenment has been replaced by the Age of Intellectual Property Rights Holders, and science, creativity, democracy and even foreign policy is the worse for wear.  

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:12:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  rush (none / 0)

    remember, you have to take all the meds every day
  •  Thank you (none / 1)

    A very thought-provoking post.

    You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye Who cheer when soldier lads march by, Sneak home and pray you'll never know The hell where youth and laughter go.

    by Oregon guy on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:08:18 PM PDT

  •  So, um, who does? (none / 0)

    So, you saying that unless somebody knows everything about a subject, they're not allowed to express an opinion on it? Your argument can be applied to any subject (political or non-) whatsoever. I don't know everything about George W. Bush or John Kerry, does that mean I shouldn't vote in November's election?

    The solution to ignorance isn't to sit down and shut up and let the experts take care of things, it's to become better-educated. One way to do that is through discussion.

  •  kudos (3.50 / 2)

    I think this is perhaps the best diary I've ever seen on KOS.

    congratulations -- i look forward to reading more.

  •  Why don't we do something constructive... (none / 0)

    I propose Chris start another diary, listing some of the questions that we CAN answer...

    Then we come up with those answers so we are all more educated on some of the topics addressed.

    Tim

  •  Overall observation (4.00 / 3)

    I'm really struck in reading through the comments how easily people read a critique of ignorance/lack of knowledge into a call for inaction.  Has our political and intellectual imagination so whithered that these two -- not even opposing options -- become the only way we can accept that we don't know something? Why must recognizing your don't know something necessarily translate into isoloationism, refusal to speak or engage? Why doesn't seeing how limited our knowledge is automatically motivate people into greater engagement, increased communication and exchange, more multi-lateral and broad-based involvement rather than a retreat into silence and apathy?

    There is nothing in the diary that suggests this is the path to take, yet so many people immediately read that as the underlying thesis.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 02:59:10 PM PDT

    •  agree (4.00 / 2)

      Where have I heard this before? everyone is entitled to their "opinion" no matter how poorly framed or conceived and to say otherwise is "elitist"?  sigh. relativist mediocrity.  This seems to be the conservative rallying cry these days.

      on the other hand, relativism has it's merits so perhaps the diary needed to put the shoe on the other foot:  

      Like, would a resident of Fallujah know who's going to win at the Presidential level in ex-urban Philly or in your town or city in November?   How about the Iraqi information minister  -- at least he speaks English?  Surely he knows the details of the ethnic conflicts, religious and class divisions in a city like Philadelphia, not to mention all over the US.  

      Or, even if he's no "expert" he's entitled to his opinion -- that residents in Philly ought to convert to Islam because secularism is obviously making them terribly unhappy. Perhaps dropping cheese steaks over the city with little Koran fortune cookies would help?

    •  Well... (none / 1)

      After listing all the things "you" don't know, he says, "Considering all of this, I would appreciate it if you stopped telling everyone what should be done over there."

      Not so much a call to inaction as an admonition to refrain from expressing opinions in the absence of perfect knowledge.

      This is, I'll add, completely antithetical to his other admonition, to not trust our so-called leaders when they do claim to know all the answers. (A conclusion I heartily agree with.) If we're all so ignorant, how can we say that they're not telling the truth?

      But, then again, we don't come here to argue epistemology, so whatever.

      •  There are planets worth of space (none / 0)

        between "some" knowledge and "perfect" knowledge (which doesn't exist anyway).

        Your response is again, more of an exercise in seeking out (or building) straw men, rather than engaging in good faith in the message.

        There's absolutely nothing in that post that suggests "admonition to refrain from expressing opinions in the absence of perfect knowledge."

        What is it about humility and self-reflection that is frightening enough to lead people into an interpretation of something that just isn't there?  The lengths people will go not to examine themselves is breathtaking.

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 04:19:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (none / 0)

          He does say that, given that you don't know these things, you should refrain from telling people what to do in Iraq as YT quotes. You ignored that completely. It does seem to me that he is saying that people who don't know a lot (not necesarilly everything but a lot) about a topic shouldn't make recomendations...

          "Together we must rise to ever higher and higher platitudes" - Daley the Elder chanelling dubya

          by samiam on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 05:59:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't ignore it (none / 0)

            I just don't take that to be a claim that people should refrain from action until they have perfect knowledge, which is what the interpretation posits.  Perhaps listening to people rather than talking or telling them what to do.

            With some good faith its possible to understand that comment as call for folks to suspend with the arrogant certainty that's all; A lack of good faith some resentment and an absolute insistence on parsing for a word for word literal interpretation is pretty much what marks the right wing propaganda machine, from Rush all the way down to Condaleeza.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 08:07:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  perfect, no but the claim is still objectionable (none / 0)

              I'm not saying, as others have, that the diary is claiming that people should refrain from making recomendations until they have perfect information.

              I just don't see the optimistic interpretation you do. If it was just a caution against certainty I wouldn't have a problem with. That may be what he meant to say but it isn't what he said. He said that the "you" who doesn't know these things "stop... telling everyone what should be done over there."

              If we're going to compare eachother to Republicans I can note that ignoring actualities in favour of what you wish something said is a very Bush-like trait.

              "Together we must rise to ever higher and higher platitudes" - Daley the Elder chanelling dubya

              by samiam on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 08:24:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Wait... (none / 0)

        The diary doesn't ask us to "refrain from expressing opinions in the absence of perfect knowledge." It says, taking for granted that knowledge is imperfect, that we shouldn't be "telling everybody what should be done." Expressing an opinion and telling people what to do are not the same thing. In general, it would seem that his kind of questioning of arbitrary justification of authority is a good thing. Opinions are great; categorical demands generally are not.

        "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." -- Walter Benjamin

        by Damo on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 08:59:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  who is the "you" ? (none / 0)

    I assuming you're talking to the U.S. media holed up inside the CPA in Baghdad ? It would be nice if they spoke Arabic.. but they don't .
    One of the few Western journalist who does know Arabic, Robert Fisk, basically says that the Iraqi's hate our guts and want us to leave.

    But he doesn't know shit either , I guess...

  •  This should be moved to the front page (4.00 / 2)

    This is one of the best diary entries I've ever read.  Nicely done!
  •  Good Diary (4.00 / 2)

    IMHO this is a good diary..it raises interesting points. Good comments are not the same thing...a bunch of people clapping like it's Family Feud "Good answer! Good answer" is not commentary.

    Chris Bowers writes:You don't know what needs to be done, and I don't either.

    The first half of the argument parallels Rumsfeld's "the future is unknowable" theory. The I don't either half of the argument is bogus to me...many of the items listed in the diary are knowable to some extent and policy makers are obligated to try and know them if they are responsible. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, in this case perfect knowledge, is a recommendation for inaction in all cases.

    "Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers

    by joejoejoe on Tue Apr 20, 2004 at 03:30:03 PM PDT

  •  Staying there is worse (none / 1)

    I understand that an exit from such chaos makes people shaky. But if one year of occupation produces the results that we see, why would each more year be better?

    The whole mideast is a cauldron waiting to tip over right now. See statements by Mubarak and Jordan's Abdullah that talk about unprecedented hatred in the Mideast for America. Yes, us kowtowing to Sharon's plans plays a part in this, but images of Iraqi mosques getting bombed and civilians torn up by American military action are going to turn many fence-sitting Muslims into supporters of extremism. A global Muslim backlash is not what America wants to run into, unless this is something that has been explained to the "American public" and they understand the risks.

  •  Guess what. (4.00 / 2)

    First of all, there happen to be a lot of knowledgeable people out there.  I, for example, happen to know quite a bit about Islam, certainly know the maps of the area, know a fair amount about the history of the region, certainly everything you identify about the military and quite a bit more, at least as much as most senior policy makers in the U.S. do about the demographics of Iraq and the groups that make up the resistance and al-Queda which is admitted incomplete, often from non-mass media sources, a great deal about the UN and international organizations, quite a bit of a sense of foreign perception of the U.S. much from conversations with non-Americans who live abroad and from time spent abroad, a lot about economics (federal reserve, international oil, gold and currency markets) and trade agreements (including having read them right down to the appendixes), and a nuanced understanding of different definitions of democracies and a historical understanding of how most of the leading ones came about.

    No, I don't speak Arabic or Farsi or Kurdish.  No, I haven't been to Iraq.  No, I've never been bombed or shot at as a civilian or a soldier.  And, my knowledge of Iraqi public opinion is limited to second hand sources and intuition.  Certainly, I don't have a