Burnt Orange Report

Here comes da judge

By Jim Dallas

I've been asked to judge in the first ever Iron Blog blogathon, attended by Rosemary Esmay (a.k.a. Queen of All Evil, a.k.a Iron Blogger Republican) and Ara Rubyan, the challenger.

My judging comments are posted below (the Iron Blog uses haloscan, which limits comments to 1000 characters, and I am far wordier than that!)

GENERAL COMMENTS

First, I would like to thank Ara and Rosemary for taking the time to give us this first Iron Blog blogathon. As pioneers, they deserve a certain amount of recognition from all of us.

Second, I would like to ask the Chairman to state topics of debate a bit more clearly in the future. I think a lot of bytes were wasted in arguments about what was topical. Now, it is true lots of debates will go down to "T-circle" (wink nod to the high school debate nerds out there), but frankly I think it ought to be minimized.

OPENING STATEMENTS

There is some discussion as to what the topic really is; are we constrained to Abu Ghraib or is Rumsfeld's total record valid? The Chairman informs me it is the latter. Moreover, it seems to me that there is a certain method to Rosemary's madness: (1) This debate is only about one incident ("Never mind that this debate is about the Abu Gharib scandal, the Challenger has decided that he has a better topic to debate." - First Rebuttal) and (2) one incident isn't enough to fire somebody over ("It would be irresponsible for Bush to fire a proven, competent leader simply over some photographs."). By those terms, Rumsfeld cannot logically be fired!

Accordingly, this seems to be an abusive limitation of argumentation on Rosemary's part (it essentially defines the debate out of existance). Now of course, I won't mark off for that -- in the future I expect challengers to argue technical points, so now you know my expectations.

Now, onward bloggin' soldiers:

ARA

Ara's opening statement goes point by point. It is well structured. I quibble over a few points, however.

First, since in later posts he is intent on using the "poor planning" and "Rumsfeld set the tone" arguments as specific reasons why the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse occurred, I think he probably should have been just a tad more clear about those arguments from the get-go. BEAT ME OVER THE HEAD WITH IT. CONNECT THE DOTS. Tell me that, the poor planning and lack of sufficient troops created stress, resulting in the troops to go totally insane.

I think with your sourcing, you kind of hint around it. All the pieces of the puzzle are laying on the table. It's your responsibility to put them together for idiot judges like me.

Second, a link to the studies regarding the need for more troops (particularly the RAND study) would have totally devastated Rosemary's contention that this was all just opinion. Frankly, I think the evidence you present is good but it doesn't lay out an irrefutable case that more troops were needed, and that the planning was lacking. A good logical argument ("We need this many troops because of x; this many because of y; this many because of z; we need x+y+z troops to be effective.") involving lots of military theory would, I think, essentially be "fact." And the whole "fact vs. opinion" argument would have died right there, with just a good solid link to the RAND study, or another fully-reasoned document. For example the Fareed Zakaria article here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4711931/) that explores the contents of a 2003 RAND study in depth:

"Over the course of the 1990s, a bipartisan consensus, shared by policymakers, diplomats and the uniformed military, concluded that troop strength was the key to postwar military operations. It is best summarized by a 2003 RAND Corp. report noting that you need about 20 security personnel (troops and police) per thousand inhabitants 'not to destroy an enemy but to provide security for residents so that they have enough confidence to manage their daily affairs and to support a government authority of its own.'".

See how the justification for 500,000 troops is laid out using logic and strategery? I mean, honestly, despite my deep respect for Mrs. Esmay, I value the opinion of the bipartisan consensus ahead of the Queen of All Evil.

But it's your job to find that, not me (and accordingly, I will now wipe my mind clean of all that Zakaria said in that article, since it never was brought up in debate). Do better in the future.

MRS. ESMAY

First, stop the gratuitous Pelosi-bashing specifically. Generally, ascribing negative motives to your opponents (in essence, your argument that this is a partisan witch-hunt) is not the strongest avenue of attack. You're the Queen, damnit, don't go pulling a Hillary by talking about vast x-wing conspiracies.

On the flip side, though, I think you are doing well in arguing that there was no "cover-up" per se, and I think that helps to add moral clarity to the debate. On one level, though, I think it opens you up to the charge that you're missing the forest for the trees (or that you're burning a straw man). But I think, again, that you are right to talk about the facts about cover-ups and not the hype.

Second, be careful about what you say; in your opening statement you provide enough rope to hang yourself with (had Ara decided to pick up the football and run with it; alas, I am mixing metaphors).

You say --

"Should Rummy resign? No. Absolutely not. He stood up and took his spanking like a man. He apologized and he accepted responsibility for what happened. According to many of my liberal friends, saying that you accept responsibility is good enough. Just like it was good enough for Janet Reno and her many, many failures."

Why, Mrs. Esmay, would Rumsfeld apologize for something he didn't do? And if he didn't do anything, then why aren't you vocal about Rumsfeld caving in to those damn liberals? Either Rumsfeld did screw up (which you seem to be conceding here; he apologized and accepted responsibility for something, did he not? An apology by its nature is a declaration of moral fault.) or he did not (and he is falling on his sword). Moreover, by likening this to Reno-isms, you're basically saying their were failures.

And then you go on to say that it would be irresponsible for Bush to fire a "proven, competent leader," the contrapositive (if Rumsfeld is a proven competent leader then firing him would be inappropriate; if Rumsfeld is not a proven, competent leader, then firing him would be appropriate) of which strongly implies that competence is the gold standard for this debate.

So we seem to agree here that there (1) were failures and (2) failures may warrant removal. These little things grant a whole lot to Ara, and essentially turn the debate into a contest to see who can draw the line.

Finally, by bringing up the question about "what's the alternative," you are doing some fine rhetorical ju-jit-su. Kudos!



FIRST REBUTTALS


ARA

First off, your contention that personnel (e.g. the Secretary of Defense) are fungible reminds me of someone... but then again, that's my word, not yours.

Second, your contention that "failing to get the job done" goes a long way in clarifying where you are drawing the line as to what merits removal. See my previous commentary on Mrs. Esmay's opening.

Your response to Mrs. Esmay regarding alternatives - specifically that Rumsfeld is specifically and uniquely a net negative - paints you into a bit of a corner, though. And it doesn't entirely jibe with the "failing to get the job done" standard. We could go through a dozen secretaries before we find the right one. Edge to Mrs. Esmay on this question.


MRS. ESMAY

I'm not sure there's a bait-and-switch going on. As I said before, I think considering the entire context of Rumsfeld's record is legitmate. Although I appreciate your candor in expressing what you think is wrong with your opponent's argument.

Quite honestly, I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to go and check all of Ara's sources and find the entire context; unfortunately, this doesn't work here, because I judge the context to support Ara's interpretation that we are in danger of losing the war (which the officers all but say explicitly) more than your interpretation that things are going "just fine." In this context, the quotes assert the existance of a brink (e.g. losing the war) and that there is a good chance that we are getting close to that brink (e.g. we may lose the war). That's pretty serious stuff.

Let me talk figuratively for a moment. A couple days ago I got into a car wreck; I hydroplaned and swerved off the road, hitting some water barrels (I'm OK, my car needs a few thousand in body repairs).

For you to say the situation in Iraq is "just fine" would be, I think, like me screaming "I'm just fine" as my Jeep is fish-tailing all over Interstate 10. After all, at that point I haven't hit the water barrels -- yet!

Now back to the subject at hand --

The retort about invading California was witty but a bit of a red herring. The question is not so much overcrowding as it is torture. And the question is not whether torture alone is proof but whether it is symptomatic of a larger failure - which Ara attributes to bad planning. So it was funny, but kind of pointless. Sort of like a duck-billed platypus.

Now, another semantics/grammar thing. When you discuss Rumsfeld's conduct of the war, you seem to be talking about the war in past tense ("It was not without loss of life but it was still brilliant."). You are clearly talking about something other than what Ara is talking about; for him, and for me, it appears the war is not yet over as there are still lots of people with guns running around taking pot-shots at grunts. Given that, it seems that you're arguing part of the war, which could easily be dismissed as a speck of brilliance in a sea of mediocrity. As for not leveling Fallujah, I'm glad that Rumsfeld isn't as bad as Hitler, but I don't think that's the issue at hand.

I believe the issue about the investigations into Abu Ghraib is again, a bit of a red herring, since you're getting caught up in legalisms. The question isn't "is Rumsfeld a crook" but "is he incompetent." Certainly, had Rumsfeld gone to Abu Ghraib and sodomized a few prisoners personally, that would be both criminal and incompetent (and I think you and Ara agree on this point). But criminality does not appear to be relevant to Ara's point, which is why he is so easy to dismiss it as a maybe. Or, as you said, "pulled a Pelosi." It's not because Ara's being frivolous, but because he's looking at another issue. Hence, red herring.

Again, the issue of "what's the alternative" is golden. It's fairly effective at showing that Rumsfeld getting the axe wouldn't, by itself, be a silver-bullet solution.

SECOND REBUTTALS

ARA

Ara, as a friend, blogger, and fellow Democrat, let me start off by saying you're overstretching your ground by making "someone better than Rumsfeld" your alternative (answering Mrs. Esmay's queries). Yes, it's true, someone better than Rumsfeld is highly desirable. But I think once we start speculating about hypothetical Rummy replacements, you're being abusive. You've got to stick with what is the most likely scenario upon Rumsfeld's termination, otherwise you're simply killing the debate.

Try this alternative on for size -- I want Rumsfeld gone, I want a newer, better, Secretary of Defense, and... I WANT A PONY, TWO GIRLS AT THE SAME TIME, AND WORLD PEACE! Arguably, this is better than either plan. But ponies, chicks, and hippies and are not relevant to this discussion, nor is the issue of who would succeed Rumsfeld unless you can tell me who, by "normal means" would be. And, my friend, Rumsfeld's successor would almost certainly be his lieutenant - PAUL WOLFOWITZ, the Prince of Darkness himself (of no relation to the Queen of All Evil, I presume). Now, you don't bring this up, but it is a serious weakness in your argument. Consider this thought.

Moreover, since Mrs. Esmay discusses this (see reference to the "war gods"), this technical debate item is going to cost.

Don't do it again.

Now --

I think your "litany of failures" is strong, and it works. Mrs. Esmay may dismiss them as opinions, but let's be honest, that'd be like dismissing all the complaints the Founding Fathers had in the Declaration of Independence (raising taxes, burning cities, coddling the Injuns) as just opinions. It's a gray area, but I'm leaning to you on this one. It's where you really riff on Rumsfeld hurting the country, which seems to be your standard of "how incompetent is too incompetent" which as discussed earlier is the golden key to the debate. And, my friend, that makes you the keymaster.



MRS. ESMAY

Uh, I'm not sure the whole discussion about Rumsfeld-working-for-the-President-therefore-we-should-fire-the-President is really relevant here. Moreover, Ara is laying the failures at Rumsfeld's doorstep, not the President's, and I thought that's what we're talking about.

We're talking about "should," the moral rightness-or-wrongness of canning the man. Ipso facto, the audience is George W. Bush, or whoever it would be that would do the firing.

(Yes,I believe in the policymaker paradigm of debate!)

You question Ara's facts, but provide only a few specific refutations.

The first questions Shinseki's motives. Probably appropriate given the high-stakes game of military paradigm-shifting that was the buzz in DC back before, uhh, 9/11 "changed everything." (Trivia question -- were women's skirt lengths longer or shorter before everything was changed by 9/11? I can't remember.)

But Shinseki (as Ara points out) was not the only authority predicting that Rumsfeld's troop allocations were insufficient.

You were very wise to question the Powell doctrine as an absolute rule; I recall reading a similar TNR article (not the Foreign Policy article you cite) and found it interesting at the time. It helps to make the case that the Powell doctrine was no longer seen as the consensus opinion in Washington; if it was not the consensus opinion, it is hard to hold Rumsfeld responsible for violating it. So this was a great idea to bring up. Too bad it comes out so late; I'd like to have seen this argument develop better.

I am not well pleased with your argument regarding the responsibility of the troops. Of course, I don't question that those immediately involved were immediately to blame; but as I noted in an earlier missive on your opening, this clashes with other statements. And Ara really rips these arguments in his closing.

As silly as it may be, you're still on the right track with the Underpants gnomes.


CLOSINGS

ARA

You're use of Lindsey Graham is brilliant and moving. I think it helps to re-establish your argument, and subtly answers Mrs. Esmay's "it's just fine" talk.

I think continuing the discussion on the Powell doctrine is important; it shows that the lessons of history after Kosovo could have been interpreted in a way supportive of the Powell doctrine. Earlier I say that Mrs. Esmay's point shows what consensus opinion was in the late 1990s; this makes the case as to what consensus opinion *should have been*. I'm not yet sure which I will consider more heavily in scoring yet. But I think it's certainly going to be close on this point.

Again, the alternate policy outline goes a bit beyond the topic at hand.

Your summation ("And if you exercise your authority and you fail to achieve the results that you are responsible for, then you should be relieved of duty.") is masterful.

And of course kudos for reminding us at the end that your position is that Rumsfeld must go.


MRS. ESMAY

I'd say a more than a couple of his facts go unrefuted; on the other hand, I think bringing up Kosovo -- while very late (and it's bad form to bring stuff up so late that people cannot answer them!) -- would have been fully appropriate a couple posts ago, and is appropriate (save the thing about Ara not being able to, umm, answer it) here. I think the beauty of this point, had you developed it, would be that many of the things considered failures in Iraq were overlooked or seen as successes elsewhere. Good catch.

I'm not at all sure why it is you are returning to the issue of Abu Ghraib in your closing. You seem to be repeating what you said earlier, except for the time line, which is nice, and would have been even better two or three posts ago.

(Although I did catch you referring to CNN as unbiased. I encourage all potential challengers to Mrs. Esmay to bookmark this statement for future use!)

The mailman analogy is good (perhaps a little offensive to mail carriers, though). Although it seems to be referring to Abu Ghraib, which is NOT the only issue relevant to this discussion.

Again, going back to the practical implications of Rumsfeld's departure is an effective tool. Although frankly, "not bending to political pressure lest we appear weak" seems like a recipe for authoritarianism (if it were the health and human services secretary failing to provide a hypothetical AIDS vaccine, would be "bending into the germs" to fire Secty. HHS?)


CONCLUDING REMARKS

Again, I think there was substantial confusion about what the debate was supposed to be about, and the result was that there was a lot of talking past each other.

I think in terms of "who won" the argument itself (which is DIFFERENT than "who won the contest" since style and sourcing count seperately), I would have to walk away with the following conclusions:

1. Things are going really bad in Iraq

2. Rumsfeld's judgement was questionable, indeed, it may be a net negative.

3. Rumsfeld does not dispute his personal responsibility for stuff he was in charge of (hence the apology).

4. Firing Rumsfeld may improve the situation, but we don't really know since there's not exactly an alternative. We're stuck either with the devil we know, since praying ain't gonna get us the angel we want.

(Incidentally, this was George H.W. Bush's reasoning in not removing Saddam Hussein in 1991).

I will ponder over these issues as well as style/substance/etc. and return a point scoring to the chairman post haste.