9.11.2007: The Sixth Anniversary
It seems wrong to be talking about Iraq on the anniversary of 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack; the terrorists, mostly Saudis, got here via Afghanistan. However, the media's focus is on Iraq (Google News: 148,228 articles today) not Afghanistan (Google News: 64,747 articles today). Our military focus is also on Iraq, not Afghanistan.
About's Guide to Terrorism, Amy Zalman, writes tellingly about the illogical connection between our war on terrorism and our presence in Iraq. Read her article, with this in mind: our long term memories are "the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false information is true."
And the more we've heard the information -- even if it's a rumor or false -- the more likely we are to believe it.
[O]ne of the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are true.
[...]
[S]omeone trying to manipulate public opinion can take advantage of this aspect of brain functioning. In politics and elsewhere, this means that whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later.
Furthermore, a new experiment by Kimberlee Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and others shows that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people -- the brain gets tricked into thinking it has heard a piece of information from multiple, independent sources, even when it has not.
So much for "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me."
Iraq in 2007
Sometimes, though, the tide of opinion does turn -- as it has in the way Americans view our involvement in Iraq. About 1-in-4 of us approve of how President Bush is handling Iraq at the moment; this is a reversal of opinion from March 2003.
Thus, the Administration is fighting an uphill image battle. Its message (the surge is working) may be falling on deaf ears because it doesn't fit current beliefs, something known as confirmation bias.
Of course, it doesn't help the Administration's cause when conservatives like George Will say that the surge has failed.
But it's simply wrong that we are talking about Iraq in the context of and on the anniversary of 9-11.
Instead, we should be reflecting on the families directly and indirectly affected by that tragedy, including those who escaped death only to face lung disease. Discover Magazine has an in-depth analysis of "how the federal and city governments did not live up to their responsibility to protect the people in Lower Manhattan from air pollution."
Instead, we argue about whether or not a "surge" is working when there are no measurable goals that we can use to make an informed judgment.
It's wrong.