Recently when Obama pulled combat troops out of Iraq, there was some talk that Bush should be given some credit because of his "surge." A few weeks ago, the Washington Post printed a letter to the editor espousing just such a view.
Needless to say, this didn't sit well with me. Objections to that line of reasoning arose with multiple, logical counterpoints. Any thinking person should be able to reason out why such a belief is nonsense.
Below is a letter-to-the-editor that I sent in response. The Post didn't print it, choosing to print another person's similar response (but not as good, if you ask me).
There are several problems with Christopher Coughlin's letter suggesting that George W. Bush be given credit for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq [Free for All, Aug. 21]. First, he suggests that the Bush surge made the exit possible, but we have no actual proof of that. For all we know, combat troops could have been withdrawn sooner if not for the surge. As logicians and scientists like to say, correlation does not imply causation. Just because the surge came before the withdrawal does not prove that it caused or made possible that withdrawal.
Mr. Coughlin asserts that this vindicates former President Bush, which is frankly even more ludicrous. President Bush lied us into an unnecessary and costly war; costly both in terms of money and lives lost. Even if Bush's surge was responsible for the withdrawal, suggesting that helping to fix a problem he caused vindicates him is exactly the same as suggesting that helping to put out a burning building vindicates the arsonist who started the fire.