Moron Dubya's 'logic'

More on the point at the top of my previous post where I quoted Dubya's nonsense and said the following:

Commander Codpiece on the five-year anniversary, showing his stellar 'logic':

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq [and I sure ain't admittin' to any, yaknow...], the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone."

<*BZZZZT!!!*> Wrong. The worst mistake would be if we don't pull out -- after 2670 dead soldiers and counting, and $300B down the drain -- and the terrorists won't leave us alone. That means we've squandered a sh*tload of money and the blood of our sons and daughters for nothing.

Here's the payoff matrix below (I guess one might quibble about the exact numbers, but the idea is the same no matter what the numbers):

	Terrorists decide to attack:	Terrorists decide not to attack:
We stay in Iraq:	Another 2600 troops dead Another $300B Terrorist attack	Another 2600 troops dead Another $300B No terrorist attack
We pull out of Iraq:	No more troops dead $0B more Terrorist attack	No more troops dead $0B more No terrorist attack

What Dubya's essentially saying is that bottom right outcome is impossible, and that if we're hoping for this one -- and act as we need to in order to achieve it -- we will instead get the bottom left outcome. Dubya of course provides no proof that the bottom right outcome is impossible (albeit we have no assurance that it will occur -- but that doesn't matter; see below).

What I said would be the worst mistake is if we don't pull out (putting us on the top line of the chart) and the terrorists still attack (giving us the upper left outcome).

I think I'm right and Dubya's wrong, and just a simple perusal of this game theory chart shows this.

Even if we assume for purposes of argument that the bottom right outcome is "wishful thinking" and could never happen, it's still pretty obvious what the worst outcome would be in terms of costs to us (listed in the boxes): We could continue losing soldiers, perhaps even another 2600, we could continue to haemorrhage money to the tune of another $300 billion, and the terrorists might still attack us and cause other monetary damage and casualties. That's what I said last post.

Dubya would have us believe that we have only two actual choices out of the four here: That we stay, and the terrorists don't attack, or we leave and the terrorists attack (top right and lower left, respectively). But this assumes that our staying actually will prevent another terrorist attack that would otherwise occur (and thus that the upper left outcome is impossible as well). Hardly supported by the evidence; we were attacked the first time when Saddam Hussein had an iron hand over Iraq. Maybe once we bollixed it up, it may now be more likely that we get attacked by terrorists operating from a lawless Iraq if we leave (but whose fault is that, anyway? Hardly Saddam's. Hint: Starts with "D" and ends in "ubya"). But I'd note that even if continued occupation of Iraq was successful in preventing terrorist attacks, we'd still just be trading lives and money for less terrorist attacks, and that might well be a wash in terms of costs.

But there's not only the question of capability, there's the question of intent. Both sides have the ability to choose what their intended action is, even if they won't necessarily achieve it. This is elementary game theory -- related, I think, to the "Prisoner's Dilemma". Both sides should choose their own course of action in a way that gives them the best expected payoff. For us, just looking at the matrix, it's clear that whatever the terrorists do, we're better off (considering only our own interests) to leave Iraq; if we don't leave, at best we might prevent a terrorist attack (if they decide to attack us anyway), but at a price. But looking at their "payoff", if they want to hurt us as much as possible, they'll attack anyway, putting us in the top left box (the worst for us) unless we leave (where we at least save the money and troops' lives). And if at least the terrorists in Iraq just want us the hell out of Iraq, they may not want to attack us if we just leave them be, so we might end up in the bottom right corner despite Dubya's protestations that this is impossible.

As I said, Dubya is wrong, and I am right. He dismisses, contrary to the evidence, two of the four possibilities, and one of them -- which he may be heading for -- is a real disaster. Doubt he'll listen to me ... or to reason ... though.

It's been FIVE YEARS!

All right, Mr. President. You've had five years. You promised "dead or alive". Now where the f^$#! is Osama bin Laden?!?!?

Commander Codpiece on the five-year anniversary, showing his stellar 'logic':

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq [and I sure ain't admittin' to any, yaknow...], the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone."

<*BZZZZT!!!*> Wrong. The worst mistake would be if we don't pull out -- after 2670 dead soldiers and counting, and $300B down the drain -- and the terrorists won't leave us alone. That means we've squandered a sh*tload of money and the blood of our sons and daughters for nothing. And, sadly, that seems to be what happened. Maybe we'd have been better off if we never went in; we'll never know ... but we could hardly be any worse off.

Now, once again, Mr. President: Where the f^$#! is Osama bin Laden?!?!?

Update (thanks to Think Progress):

Dubya answered my question. From the Weekly Standard column linked by Think Progress (I won't link them directly; go click through if you're interested), here's Fred Barnes:

WE NOW KNOW WHY the Bush administration hasn't made the capture of Osama bin Laden a paramount goal of the war on terror. Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism. Here's how President Bush explained this Tuesday: "This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work."

Rather, Bush says there's a better way to stay on offense against terrorists. "The way you win the war on terror," Bush said, "is to find people [who are terrorists] and get them to give you information about what their buddies are fixing to do."

Ummm, wouldn't that "find people [who are terrorists]" include bin Laden?!?!? And while we have him, we can also try him for what he and his buddies did do. Added little bonus on this particular 'head'....

It gets worse....

Fred Barnes continues:

Bush talked about his strategy in the fight against Islamic jihadists in a 95-minute session in the Oval Office with seven journalists. At the outset of the interview, which occurred the morning after his speech to the nation on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Bush declared: "I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."

Can we impeach him now? Or should we just invoke the 25th Amendment....