> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 1:49 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them" > > On 11/26/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > ... a critical part of this is > > accepting the consequences of one's own preferred path, as well as the > > consequences of the path one opposes. > > > Unfortunately, that's based in fantasy because God only knows what would > have happened if another course had been taken. Those who argue that > things would have been worse if... etc., are arguing from imagination, not > experience. Even experience is tainted by our inability to be objective; > fantasy far more so.
Indeed, nothing is known with certainty. We don't know that, if Lincoln didn't defend the Union, that the slaveholders wouldn't have all decided on January 14th, 1862 to free the slaves and to ask to be readmitted to the union as states which gave full civil rights to all. But, I certainly would have betted against it. We don't know that, if the US invaded China during the Korean war, that China wouldn't have immediately given up. But, the odds were long. What we do know is probability. Given the previous twelve years of history, given other historical precedents, one would have to consider it improbable that Hussein's government would fall within a few years. Just as right now, it is very likely that the genocide in the Sudan will continue and worsen without outside intervention. We don't know this, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't gauge the most likely outcome of inaction as well as action. > The knowledge that we'll never know what could have been is one source > from which I'm able to draw some compassion for the leaders who got > us into this mess. I cannot be certain that there was a better way. My >opinion is that there was, but that can never be more than just an opinion. >We will never know. There is something between certain knowledge and just opinion: there is likelihood. I'm familiar with the history of attempts to nail down certain knowledge...and they have not proven fruitful in the past. We place our bets, and take our chances. History isn't a science, but there are patterns and probabilities and general rules that can be developed. There seems to be evidence of the existence in talent in leadership; some leaders are better than others. Part of the study of history involves the analysis of the decision making process. This study typically includes both the information available to the decision maker at the time, and the information available to us now. One cannot make an assessment of the actions without determining the likelihood of outcomes for other choices. And, without such analysis, it becomes harder to use historical decisions and their aftermaths to inform the decisions one has to make oneself. If need be, I can make a general case that our decision making process is better informed when we do study pact actions and results in such a manner than when we don't. Indeed, arguing against such a case would reject a great deal of how we learn through empirical observations. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
