I’ve written a little on Times columnist and blogger Oliver Kamm in the past – a commentator whose tireless efforts to defend the indefensible always make for, let us say, interesting reading. One point which he made on his blog recently, and which I was anxious to explore further, was the following claim, in the context of an argument supporting Bush’s current Iraq policy:

It is flatly untrue … that US troops are a cause of violence. There is a great deal of evidence that they are trusted by Iraqis to provide impartial security against rival terrorist groups.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/foreign_policy_.html

A strong claim indeed, naturally requiring strong supporting evidence. I wrote to Kamm to enquire exactly what his evidence was – as it transpired, it was:

Anecdotal evidence from journalists stationed in Baghdad.

And that appears to be it – on the basis of these (unnamed) journalists’ “anecdotal” evidence, Kamm concludes that US troops are trusted to provide security among the Iraqi population – and, even more remarkable, that it the claim of US troops’ causing violence is “flatly untrue”.

Even assuming that these journalists are in fact real, Kamm seems to make three extraordinary assumptions about them: firstly, that their “anecdotal” evidence is in any way representative; secondly that their evidence is representative of Iraqis outside Baghdad (and, indeed, across the country); and thirdly, that their evidence is strong enough to refute the appraisals of other significant sources – surely the most significant being the latest evidence gleaned from polls of Iraqi public opinion - which flatly contradict the line Kamm is spinning.

The latest polling data from the respected Program on International Policy Attitudes (Sept. 2006), for instance, report that “An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing”. Moreover, “A large majority of Iraqis — 71% — say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less”; and “As compared to January 2006, there has been, overall, a growing sense of urgency for withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.”

“Support for a U.S. withdrawal,” according to PIPA, “appears to be derived from a widespread perception that the presence of U.S.-led forces is having a net negative effect on the situation in Iraq. Large numbers say that the United States' military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.” Indeed “79 percent of Iraqis say that the United States is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.”

On confidence in the US military, the data are at least as stark: “Eighty-four percent say they have little (22%) or no (62%) confidence in the U.S. military. An extraordinary 98 percent of Sunnis take this view (no confidence 85%, a little 13%) as do 91 percent of Shias (no confidence 66%, a little 25%).”

In other words, not only does the evidence seem to contradict Kamm’s claim, but to contradict it to a quite extraordinary degree.

In light of this, I wondered what he would have to say about this evidence, and wrote to ask him. His reaction was startling to say the least. He promptly wrote back:

I don't object to having public debates with people - indeed I'm often paid to do it - but the usual procedure if you solicit someone's opinions with the intention of publishing them is to state this openly, thereby leaving it up to your intended interlocutor whether to fit in with your plan. I consider your behaviour to be underhand, and I take exception to it.

Oliver Kamm

In essence: an evasion – with no attempt to justify his claims in the light of the available evidence. What this said about his true level of concern for the opinions and judgments of the Iraqi public, or indeed the standards of reasonable debate, is quite easy to discern. I replied:

Fine, that’s your prerogative. Some might say there were rather more important issues to worry about, but since you obviously don't care about them I guess we shall have to end this brief correspondence. Cheerio.

I received this in response:

There are many weightier issues than abusing the confidentiality of private correspondence, but that truism does not render your behaviour any less dishonest, or absolve you from the conventions of common courtesy. If you do feel the need to write to me in future, please remind me of this episode in the first line of your letter, so that I may make an informed judgement on whether to reply to it.

If anyone considers this even a legitimate – let alone adequate – response to my enquiries, it should be noted that Kamm is a public commentator who has a platform in the British media, is read by many, and who writes on matters of very great importance. Even assuming that I shared his standards of “common courtesy”, or that I had given any kind of statement of my intention not to publish this correspondence such that my “behaviour” could appropriately be called “dishonest” (I had not), the obligation on public figures like Kamm to be held to account for what they say and write outweighs such trivial concerns.

In summary, a major plank of Kamm’s argument in support of Bush’s policies in occupied Iraq is not only untrue, but the very opposite of the truth. When challenged, Kamm evaded the issue. So who is really worthy of the epithet “dishonest”?

Answers on a postcard, please …