Epistemic Humility is Essential When Assessing Ongoing Wars
Source: Eliot A. Cohen. "I Don’t Know How the War Is Going - The Atlantic." March 6, 2026. www.theatlantic.com
The Gist
Cohen argues that we should admit we don't really know how the Iran war is going and stop making confident predictions. People use bad shortcuts like comparing everything to Iraq or judging success by casualty counts, but every war is different and the real answers only come years later.
Conclusion
We should embrace epistemic humility and avoid premature judgments when evaluating the progress and outcomes of ongoing wars, particularly the current Iran war
Premises
- Hard data about war outcomes only becomes available years or decades after conflicts end, making real-time assessment unreliable
- People rely on cognitive shortcuts like historical analogies (e.g., 'This is Iraq all over again') that are often misleading and oversimplified
- Judging war success requires asking complex, nuanced questions rather than making snap judgments based on immediate events like casualty counts
- Each war is unique with its own context, technology, and circumstances that make historical comparisons problematic
- Wars are filled with contingent events, accidents, and personal quirks that make outcomes unpredictable
- The most important questions about war's impact (geopolitical effects, long-term consequences) cannot be answered definitively in real-time
- Personal feelings about political leaders can impair objective assessment of military effectiveness
Assumptions
- Accurate assessment of war progress is both possible and important for informed public discourse
- Historical analogies are commonly used but generally unreliable for understanding current conflicts
- Military effectiveness can be separated from political competence
- Long-term strategic questions are more important than immediate tactical outcomes
- Public and expert opinion about ongoing wars tends to be premature and overconfident