A recent column in National Review credited President Trump with the defeat of ISIS' stronghold in Iraq. The writer was also critical of a New York Times piece that was critical of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, seemingly at the hands of Trump.
I think it's important to synthesize these two views because they essentially tell the same story. Unlike Obama, Trump decided to give more control to his generals to do what was necessary to win the war. Obama was reluctant to do so because he wanted to minimize civilian casualties. Trump was okay with that, and thus, ISIS is now very close to being wiped out.
This brings up my new fascination with viewing the world as a continuum of Type I or Type II errors. Civilian casualties are Type I errors, false positives. They were thought to be terrorists, killed, and later identified as innocent civilians. It's a pretty impersonal way to talk about murder but it helps illustrate a larger point.
By using more caution, Obama was more comfortable with Type II errors. However, withholding a drone strike due to uncertainty about the target's innocence can lead to false negatives, identifying someone as innocent who is, in fact, a terrorist.
It's a really tough decision to make and I don't think there is an easy answer. The more you drag out the war, the more American soldiers you lose. However, the more civilians you kill, the more unpopular you become abroad and the harder nation-building becomes.
I think any praise heaped upon either leader's choice should come with an admission of the flaws that come with Type I or Type II errors in the war on terror.
No comments:
Post a Comment