In light of the recent to-do about Jonah Goldberg's proposed wager with Juan Cole(which he would have lost, badly), I was struck with an idea: an "opinion" wager.
My "rough draft" of this idea is as follows: talk with a conservative acquaintance, particularly one of the "we'll stay as long as it takes/we're making progress" variety. Propose the following wager:
"On March 19th, 2008, the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I predict that 'progress' in iraq, as measured by the following criteria:
Average monthly Coalition KIA
Average monthly Iraqi Civilian KIA
Average hours of electricity in Baghdad
% of combat/security operations in the Triangle/Al Anbar handled entirely by the Iraqi security forces with minimal American assistance
Projected expenses for FY 2009(based on CBO estimates, not administration figures)
will NOT be significant, as compared to the previous 2 years, 2006 and 2007. By 'significant' I mean to say, in the first two cases, roughly a 50% or greater reduction. In the 3rd instance, let's say at least a 50% improvement. In the 4th, let's say "one-third" of all ops, and in the final case, at least a one-third reduction.
I wager my opinion vis a vis troop redeployment. If there is significant progress, then I will change my opinion in favor of continuing our presence there. If there is not, then you will change your opinion in favor of a phased redeployment."
I would hope that I would either lose the bet, or that the wager would be rendered superfluous by an announced redeployment prior to the due date.
But I do think it would put some conservatives' sense of integrity and intellectual honesty to the test.
feedback, ideas, flames welcome...