No Surprise: Unbalanced reporting by the Washington Post

A story bylined by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks of the Washington Post pretends to assess what would happen if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq. See the story as printed in the Seattle Times here.

The story is unbalanced and unjust. Here's why.

DeYoung and Ricks start off summarizing the result of some war gaming:

f U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold:

• Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province.

• Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups.

• The Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there.

In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

These authors then go on to suggest that the President's statements on the issue lack merit:

In making the case for a continued U.S. troop presence, President Bush has offered far more dire forecasts, arguing that al-Qaida or Iran — or both — would take over Iraq after a "precipitous withdrawal" of U.S. forces. ... What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaida sanctuary in Iraq. ... Bush, however, sees that as the primary risk of withdrawal.

The principle that should be applied is this: ALL GUESSES ABOUT THE FUTURE ARE WRONG!

That's right -- Wrong. If humans were able to predict the future accurately we'd all be rich. The fact is, no one has figured out how to reasonably predict the future -- NOT EVEN RON PAUL. Estimates from military war games are valuable, but they are often wrong. In this case, what are the chances that U.S. military officers understand the thinking among the Ayatollahs in Tehran to accurately guess the actions that regime might take? (my answer -- slim to none).

The authors do cite a White House official. They should have payed more attention to what that official told them:

However, there are no firm conclusions regarding the consequences of a reduction in U.S. troops. A senior administration official closely involved in Iraq policy cautions that "we've got to be very modest about our predictive capabilities."

The theses of this article should have been that there is no consensus on what would happen in Iraq post-withdrawal. There are many opinions... let me see, what is that old saw about opinions?