Burying the Lede

Poll Dancing

2004-09-27T21:59:00.000-07:00

I'm a "premium member" of Scott Rasmussen's tracking poll service, mostly because I'm a poll junky and he's a cheap date, so to speak. So I've watched with interest as users at Dkos (among other sites) have attempted to use the information on the spreads between candidates in each day of the tracking poll to estimate the daily sample. I've been guilty of trying to do this too, but it's a really bad practise. Allow me to demonstrate with some graphs drawn from a simulation of Rasmussen's data (see below...the x axis is the sample day and the y axis the spread between candidates). I generated random spreads between 2 hypothetical candidates for a period of 15 days by sampling an underlying normal distribution (seen in blue in graphs below). I used this raw data to calculate a 3-day moving average, which was used in the next step of the analysis.

I then attempted to "estimate" spreads for each day by guessing values for the first two days in the 15 day period (as these are not known to anyone save Rasmussen in the real world). The plots here show estimated results (green line) for 2 different pairs of guessed values:

Attempt 1

Attempt 2

As you can see, these results differ considerably not only with the actual values, but also from each other. So this sort of estimation is neither consistent nor accurate. In that the output depends rather sensitively on the input, one might wish to investigate this kind of estimation for some kind of chaotic behavior. But that falls beyond the purview of this simple example.

Estimate with caution, friends.

Loose Lips on Campaign Pink Slips

2004-08-31T20:57:00.000-07:00

One thing we are going to have to fix in the next 4 years, whether or not Kerry wins, is party discipline.

It is simply unacceptable, in the middle of a campaign, for senior party officials to leak to the press that they are pressuring the Kerry campaign to retool. Even if it is true...especially if it is true. It feeds an image of disarray that no campaign wants, and given the bias our media has toward the GOP, that this campaign can't afford.

Compare the ship the Democratic Party runs with that run by the RNC. It's one message all the time with them. Internal squabbles happen, but the press doesn't learn about them (or at least doesn't until its far to late to exploit them). This discipline is reflected in all aspects of the RNC's operations, from their superior (to ours) surrogate operation to their simple ability to stay "on message" individually and as a group.

I don't expect this problem to be fixed overnight, and I don't expect that a party as diverse as the Democratic party can ever clamp down on intra-party conflict as completely as does the authoritarian tilting GOP. But we've got to do better.

In the last 4 years, the blogosphere has been the key to reactivating Democrats and connecting them to the political process. We've got to move this revolution into the antiquated power structures of the DNC, reforming those structures so that the organization can present a united front to the enemy, and not simply act as a reward for loyal campaigners and turf over which various factions can fight fro control of a caroming party.

Psyops...While U Wait!

2004-08-17T08:38:00.000-07:00

Juan Cole gets it:

Likewise, CNN appears to have been the victim of a second-hand psy-ops campaign, insofar as it is referring to the guerrillas as "anti-Iraqi forces." The idea of characterizing them not as anti-American or anti-regime but "anti-Iraq" was, according to journalist Nir Rosen, come up with by a PR company contracting in Iraq. Nir says that they were told that no Iraqis would fall for it. So apparently it has now been retailed to major
American news programs, on the theory that the American public is congenitally stupid.

I noticed this the other day whilst reading a piece on CNN. "anti-Iraqi forces?" Whatever
happened to reporters actually reporting the news, as opposed to channeling talking points concatenated in the bowels of the American Enterprise Institute?

Oh man do I suck.

2004-08-17T08:32:00.000-07:00

I apologize for having been away for so long. I've been trying to enjoy a summer vacation, raise a son, and build a new website. But I'm still following Iraq, still learning Arabic, and I hope I still have some insights to bring to bear on the situation in our own little Raj.

TomfOILery

2004-06-21T12:48:00.000-07:00

It's been about a week since I posted. I know, I know. I'll never be Kevin Drum or Atrios with a schedule like that.

In other news, one notices that oil futures have plunged after the resumption of some oil exports from Iraq.

This is just foolishness. Apparently many commodities traders believe the rosy scenario that Iraqi "prime minister" Ayad Allawi has outlined for the "restoration" of security in Iraq:

1) Declare Martial Law

2) ???

3) Profit!!!

with apologies to the Underpants Gnomes.

Wire Disservice

2004-06-12T13:15:00.000-07:00

A few days ago the American press willfully and wildly misread a statement by as-Sistani on the new Iraqi "government."

Well, the Kool Kids have done it again.

Our View:

Sadr says, 'I support the new government'

Their view:

Al-Sadr: Conditional support for government

What Sadr said is: if the new government commits to quickly kicking out the American's, I'll support them.
(For Backup, see Juan Cole):

The wire services are misinterpreting this statement as an about-face on Muqtada's part. It is not. It is a piece of bargaining. He is saying that he will swing the Sadrist movement around to support the transitional government if it will commit to throwing the Americans out of Iraq on a strict timetable. That is what Muqtada has wanted since the fall of Saddam. He started calling for a US withdrawal in April, 2003. It seems probable that one reason the Americans came after Muqtada in early April, intending to kill him, was fear that he will become powerful enough after June 30 to lobby effectively for the expulsion of the Americans. (It has now come out that the US military actually printed up broadsheets announcing thet Muqtada had been killed resisting arrest, and that some GI's jumped the gun and actually put some of those out in early April even though in fact, Muqtada eluded his American would-be murderers.) Paul Bremer's recent attempt to ensure that the major Sadrist leaders are not allowed to run for parliament has the same goal. The civilians in the Department of Defense such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz probably went to war against Iraq in part precisely to get bases there. The realization that they might be tossed out at the instance of a few million Shiite slum dwellers has so infuriated them that they attacked the movement without provocation, killed about a thousand of them, and are now trying to disenfranchise several million Iraqis by disallowing Sadrists from holding office.

Our headline and story is, of course, more optimistic than Al Jazeera's.

Why?

The first reason is boredom. Because the Kool Kids are tired of the "Iraq Bad News" meme, they will willfully misinterpret as-Sadr's statements just to change the media zeitgeist on Iraq.

The second reason is laziness. Some wire reporter puts up the original story and the rest just report it as fact, without any followup or interpretation. Leaving the Green Zone is scary. Who needs to talk to the principals of a story when you have a wire service, right?

Boredom and laziness, the wicked step-parents of our so-called liberal media.

In the pipeline...

2004-06-09T21:06:00.000-07:00

I apologize for not posting more often in the last few days. It's tough getting back in the swing of blogging, especially with a 3 month old boy. I hope to minimize absences of more than a day or two, but if subh absences do occur, please understand that I'm spending time with my son, more than likely.

Anyhoo, here's something interesting. I didn't even know there was an Iraqi Pipeline Watch.

That's about an attack every 6 days.

If Saudi Arabia ever gets this bad, we're screwed.

Uh, guys, that's why it's a guerrilla war...

2004-06-05T19:27:00.000-07:00

Apparently some of our commanders in Southern Iraq think they have defeated Moqtada as-Sadr because an apparent (sistani blessed) truce has led to his troops disappearing from the area.

Of course, they apparently just popped up back in Sadr City and have figured out that roadside bombs are the best way to kill us without getting killed in the process.

Reagan is Dead

2004-06-05T14:48:00.000-07:00

I actually don't think there will be a big boost for Bush from this. It's just as likely the public will compare the two president's and find Bush wanting.

Compare and Contrast

2004-06-03T07:23:00.000-07:00

Three Headlines. One Story:

Iraq's Top Cleric Gives Govt Conditional Approval

Iraq Violence Rages as Top Cleric Gives Timid Backing To Cabinet

New Iraq Leader's Get Cleric's Nod

If you actually read al-Sistani's statement, what he says is that the new government isn't really legitimate, but that he hopes it succeeds in establishing a truly legitimate electoral government.

The first two headlines capture the essence of his statement much better than do CNNs.

My guess is that this CNN headline was garnered from a CPA press release analogous to that famous (and mischaracterized) "pro-American fatwa" by al-Sistani during the invasion.

And now for something completely crazy

2004-05-31T20:01:00.000-07:00

Indulge me for a moment in a flight of tin-foil hattery.

Why is the United States, and particularly Paul Bremer, going to the mat over having their man Adnan Pachachi installed in the ceremonial post of Iraqi president? We already have our man in Baghdad, Ayad Allawi, safely ensconced in the powerful prime ministership. Why work so hard at denying the Governing Council's choice of Ghazi al-Yawer for the presidency?

My inner paranoid says that we're setting up a show confrontation with the Iraqi Governing Council. The loony in me says we may fight a bit over this post, but we'll eventually fold and make it look like we were backed down by the IGC. This will give (hopefully) instant anti-American credibility to the new government and hopefully make people forget our installation of Allawi in the really important post.

Of course, this is nothing but a conspiracy theory. And if the Bushies are, as usual, concerned about domestic politics, one would have to believe it to be impossible, because it would play badly on the home front. Losing another fight in Iraq will make the U.S. (and Bush) look even weaker to the all-important swing voter, and adds to that voting blocs already festering malaise.

Still, even if unlikely, keep this thought in the cobwebbed attics of your brains, folks. You may need to dust it off sooner than you think.

Making a bad situation worse

2004-05-31T06:17:00.000-07:00

Just to prove that they can take something FUBAR and make it more FUBAR, the Bushies have decided to forcibly install their own "strongman" prime minister in Iraq. Realizing that Ahmad Chalabi was no longer a workable candidate for puppet, what with spying for Iran and all, they've settled for the next best thing...one of Chalabi's cousins, Ayad Allawi. In keeping with family tradition, Allawi is a source of bad intelligence concerning WMD ("45 minutes Mr. Blair. 45 minutes and we'll all be breathing a green cloud.") He also heads an organizationof expatriates, the Iraqi National Accord (INA), which differs from Chalabi's INC primarily in its final letter. Ayad Allawi is also an ex-Baathist, and according to some, began his career as a hitman.

Allawi, a known CIA/MI6 intelligence asset does come with the added bonus of having no credibility with the Iraqi people, and being known for corruption. We were assured by the Bushies that, instead of the completely discredited and unpopular Iraqi Governing Council, the interim government we were set to establish would be drawn from new pools of people who would not draw popular ire. But what with the US deciding on Allawi, and either al-Yawer or Adnan Pachachi being selected for the ceremonial presidency, guess that idea is out the window.

Welcome to a world of shit.

Sistani comes through

2004-05-29T05:59:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I argued that Sistani needed to show some spine in the face of the escalating U.S. assault on Najaf, or he was through. It looks like he agreed with me. Sistani let the U.S. know that military operations within Najaf would no longer be tolerated and that they had better settle with Muqtada al-Sadr.

So, the consequences:

1) al-Sistani preserves his anti-American street cred

2) The authority of the Hawza (shi'ah religious establishment in Najaf) is unquestioned

3) Muqtada al-Sadr stays out of jail

4) al-Sadr gets to keep his militia

5) al-Sadr is now the second most popular figure in Iraq, due to his strong anti-americanism.

However, it seems like al-Sadr's orders for his "army" to withdraw from Najaf haven't percolated down to his followers yet.

Odds are these failures of the "truce" will not provoke the U.S. significantly. We've seen casualties in or around Fallujah almost daily for a month now, but that "strategic repositioning" remains intact. For anything else to happen would undermine the happy talk the U.S. wants to speak/hear until the June 30th "handover".

Calling Sistani's Bluff

2004-05-25T05:55:00.000-07:00

So someone's finally done some major damage to the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf:

Ahmad Shebani, Sadr's representative at the shrine, said five or six missiles had hit the building. There was no immediate comment from U.S. troops.
Witnesses said three people had been wounded in the attack, none seriously.

Sadr visited the shrine after the attack to personally inspect the damage, as crowds of supporters chanted.

For months now, many observers have comforted themselves over the ongoing disaster in Iraq by repeating the mantra: "At least the shi'ah aren't revolting". When a month ago, it looked like that we were seeing the long-feared shi'ah uprising, you could just hear the collective plotz from the Washington fools "running" this war. That fear was allayed, and was further rendered somnolent by Ayatollah al-Sistani's repeated redrawings of the "red line" around Najaf as American troops advanced. Here, clearly, are a people with no stomach for confrontation. That is the refrain echoing in the cavernous hallways of the neocon head right now. Don't doubt it.

And I don't know that they are wrong about this. Yet.

This, now, is the moment of truth. The unthinkable has happened. Imam Ali's mosque is damaged, and damaged badly. If al-Sistani does not act and act decisively, I cannot help but think his stature will be diminished amongst his followers. According to an interlocutor of Juan Cole's, Sistani has already discredited himself with many shi'ah.

But it may be that there will be no cries for revenge from the Iraqi shi'ah street. This is a people that was brutalized and suppressed by Saddam for decades. Their best and brightest had been slain or jailed. Their will may still be sapped from repeated instances of oppression seen throughout their history. Perhaps al-Sistani's quietism and it's relative popularity is the logical outgrowth of this history. Perhaps it is, simpy, a coping strategy.

Still, al-Sistani has put considerable pressure on the CPA by implying the possibility of a broad based shi'ah uprising. Several concessions have been made to him on the basis of this veiled threat. It may be, though, that al-Sistani was never willing, or perhaps even able, to marshall this kind of power. After today's events, we'll know the anser to this question a little more conclusively.

Welcome to Burying The Lede!

2004-05-21T08:38:00.000-07:00

I'm a lazy SOB. Tis true. So I won't be updating this blog as often as I should. But hopefully, I'll manage to post something of interest here nearly every day.