Asymmetrical Information

I disagree categorically.

We can't make any decision without a vision of the possible outcome. With small decisions like going out to dinner the process is somewhat simple. The only variables to consider are transportantion and financing and the possible satisfaction of hunger.

With politics and foreign affairs the variables are incedibly complex, but the methodology remains the same. We chose whether to go after Saddam based on visions of possible outcomes.

I am certainly sensitive to the complexities of international relations and the details of the future are impossible to predict, true. But I don't want to predict it...I want to influence its direction...ergo Buck's shot-in-the-dark reduction of history to chance is in effect an appeal for us to make no decisions at all.

I whole heartedly disagree with Stuart Buck. He seems to be something of a well meaning epistemological dolt. We have thoroughly looked at the likelihood of the Iraq situation---and the odds are quite favorable that the results of the war will be utterly fantastic. It is one thing to argue that we can never entirely know the future. What was that old Doris Day song? Still, there is also such a thing as reasonable expectations.

I understand your point, Mike, but what I took from Mr. Buck's post is the utter inanity of so many who confidently predict what the final result of a countless number of complex variable will be. If pundits were to frame their remarks along the lines of "It is very difficult to forsee the correct course of action, and what the outcome will be, but based on what can be seen, this strategy gives the best chance of a positive outcome", I don't think Buck would have written this post. Instead, most commentators intone pompously, with great ceritude, as to what the future holds, as if their visions have more accuracy than a prediction of the weather 6 months from now. Come to think of it, this is why so much commentary regarding economics is without value.....

As one who definitely makes more mistakes than not, I'm certainly not one to judge our government when it comes to making predictions about the possibility of future events.

That being said, the examples cited by Mr. Buck are interesting for one simple reason: all the information necessary to determine whether or not one of these events could occur existed in plain view prior to the event (such as the Japanese invading Pearl Harbor or even 9/11 itself).

All that was needed was someone asking the right questions.

Jeff Goldberg wrote an excellent peice in the New Yorker about how the Bush Administration has changed how it gathers and analyzes information by focusing on asking the right questions:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact

If pundits were to frame their remarks along the lines of "It is very difficult to forsee the correct course of action, and what the outcome will be, but based on what can be seen, this strategy gives the best chance of a positive outcome", I don't think Buck would have written this post. Instead, most commentators intone pompously, with great ceritude, as to what the future holds, as if their visions have more accuracy than a prediction of the weather 6 months from now.

True.

I guess many talk and predict that way because they really are full of themselves but many others do so because that's what's expected of them. People seem to prefer categorical statements, even if consistently wrong, to more nuanced views.

What if every time any of us posted anything we added "IMHO based on what I understand the facts to be today but I could be wrong"? It would be more honest.

Que Sera, Sera.
Whatever will be will be.
The future's not ours to see.
Que Sera, Sera.

The title could be either Spanish or French. I remember the debate in my high school French class in 1958.

In mathematical theory problems are classified as to their complexity. Some are reasonably simple: x = 1 + 2. Others are progressively more complex. The order is (from vague memory) power, exponential, polynomial, factorial... These refer to the number of computational steps required to arrive at a solution.

There are very, very, very few problems in this world that have solutions! All of the imaginable computing power we could bring to bear can not in the age of the universe accurately predict the whirlpool of our bathtub drain.

Engineering works because it confines itself to those problems that do have solutions. Some of the au courant problems that do NOT have solutions: Global Warming, the weather next week, the next election, evolution, what will happen in Iraq.

The only historically reliable guide to conduct of statecraft is adherence to principle. This is manifest in the overwhelming ascendancy of the United States - the most principled nation in the history of the world. Our adherence to principle has not been perfect. It must be Providence that provides principled leaders in our times of peril.

I am not worried. We will win the war because Republicans are running it.

FDR believed that only Republican’s could win wars. Right before WWII, he fired his Secretary of War, Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Navy who were Democrats. He replaced them with Republicans and their leadership won the war for him.

Jake, two wars come to mind where despite their best efforts, Republicans delivered a tie and a loss. The fog war and its aftermath is always a dynamic and fluid situation.

While many speculate (some wildly), our actions are tempered by our options. And there are many simmering conflicts in the world. Let's hope the pending conflict and its aftermath may cool some of those conflicts.

Sure the Bushies focus on the right questions, but you kinda wish they were better at the answers.

Q: What brutal dictator presents the Greatest National Security threat to the United States?

Bush A: Saddam Hussein

True A: Kim Jong Il.

Q: What is the most dangerous WMD out there?

Bush A: Saddam Hussein.

True A: Hatred of American arrogance.

Q: What country's leading citizens financed the terrorists that truly threaten to bring another 9/11 to America?

Bush A: Iraq.

True A: Saudi Arabia.

Q: What Middle Eastern country has nuclear weapons, oppresses its people, hates the United States, and has known military ties to terrorists?

Bush A: Iraq.

True A: Iran.

How stupid do you have to be to be a neocon, anyway?

Thumper:

Well, it's nice to see that you've got all the answers.

However, in the case of your last one, one could easily make the following rejoinder:

1. Iran is NOT known to have nuclear weapons, although recent reporting suggests that it is very interested in obtaining them.
2. Iran, while a repressive country, is far less repressive than Iraq, beginning with the fact that it has multi-party elections. In those elections, moreover, women are allowed to stand (which actually makes them arguably more progressive than, say, Saudi Arabia). Indeed, the whole fight between Khameini and Khatemi revolves around the issue of bowing to popular will.
3. Which country hates the United States more? I'd be curious what your metric is based upon. Certainly, the leadership in Tehran and Baghdad BOTH hate us. In the streets? Less clear.
4. Military ties to terrorists? I think that there's not a single Arab country in that part of the world that doesn't have SOME ties to SOME terrorist organization. And since you didn't specify al-Qaeda, you don't even get the benefit of that one (since Baghdad HAS ties to some of the nastier Kurdish groups, and pays suicide bomber families).

I'm sure you're aware of all this, and simply left these items out of your answers. I think it might be more useful and accurate, however, in the future if you included some of these facts, as they might be pertinent.

This is to Timmy,

If you are refering to the Korean War and Vietnam War, please know this that the Korean war lasted 3 years. Started in June 1950 (Truman-D, was president) and lasted till July 1953 (Eisenhower-R; was president) Eisenhower was took office on January 20th, 1953. Vietnam War really did not heat up until Lyndon B. Johnson was president. In fact one of the main points of Nixon's '68 election was to withdrew the troops from Vietnam. Yes I am aware that we really did not begin to do that until 1970 (or thereabouts).
So by saying that the Republicans were responsible for the results of these two wars is misleading and actually I am surprised that someone as intelligent as you would make that statement.

Thumper,

I disagree with your statement of that Kim Jong II is more of a greater threat than Saddam. Remember that North Korea came forth and said that they did have nuclear technology. If there were such a threat why did they say that? Why didnt they just keep quit?

North Korea is not hiding its intent, it is rather loudly proclaiming it. This is not the action of an aggressor thinking about an attack, but rather that of North Korea wanting to force the USA into negotiating with it and having some force behind that demand. It's a very real threat and a dangerous one. But it is not the ending of the situation, it's the beginning. It's a signal for diplomacy to intensify, not a signal for a smackdown.

Can you say that if Saddam had nuclear technology, he would be acting in a similar way or would he wait and surprise the world with a bomb blast?

Sure the Bushies focus on the right questions, but you kinda wish they were better at the answers.

I have an inkling you're about to make me feel a similar wish...

Q: What brutal dictator presents the Greatest National Security threat to the United States?
Bush A: Saddam Hussein
True A: Kim Jong Il.

Which national leader does NOT have a famine-imperiled populace from which a larger army could be drawn if needed to further his objectives, has sufficient mineral wealth to fund expensive WMD research indefinitely, and has NOT publicly announced a specific WMD capability, which would thereby make him Target #1 if a product of said capability were to inexplicably detonate somewhere in the world?

Thumper A: Uhm...Kim Jong-Il? No, wait, let me see...two plus two makes four, carry the one...

True A: Saddam Hussein.

Q: What is the most dangerous WMD out there?
Bush A: Saddam Hussein.
True A: Hatred of American arrogance.

Thumper A: Hatred of American arrogance.

True A: The terrorists who planned out most of 9-11 while the US was being led by international-savy WJ Clinton.

Q: What country's leading citizens financed the terrorists that truly threaten to bring another 9/11 to America?
Bush A: Iraq.
True A: Saudi Arabia.

What country's national leader is most likely to pursue a campaign of WMD development that could likely be used in world terrorism acts that would make the scope of 9-11 look like an unfortunate auto accident by comparison?

True A: Iraq's.

Thumper A: Uh...no hablo ingles, señor.

Q: What Middle Eastern country has nuclear weapons, oppresses its people, hates the United States, and has known military ties to terrorists?
Bush A: Iraq.
True A: Iran.

What participant on this message board just botched up his recent-day historical knowledge of Iran?

Thumper A: Not me.

True A: Yes, you.

How stupid do you have to be to be a neocon, anyway?

Apparently, not as stupid as you have to be to sneer at the neocons. Thankfully we have several leftists here who keep their reason reasonable and tone civil, so your case is merely anecdotal.

"I am not worried. We will win the war because Republicans are running it."

The Democrat Party is dominated by childishly immature individuals. I'm confident that the war with Iraq will go off smoothly--and engender more pro-American attitudes throughout the world. Americans should treat the Democrat Party with the unmitigated contempt that it so richly deserves. Jonathan Rauch perspicaciously says that free nations do not censor their incompetents. Instead, we marginalize them. It's time to do this with the morally and intellectually bankrupt Democrats.

Re: Iraq v. Saudi Arabia

I think that our government is looking forward enough to see that having an established presence in an Arab Democracy in Iraq will allow them to put a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia to shape up. Just having a successful liberal demoracy in the Middle East will most likely make life more difficult for the existing tyrants.

We have a great justification for attacking Saddam. He started a war by invading a neighbor and has failed to live up to the conditions of his surrender. While we are getting some flak for attacking him, if we attacked Saudi Arabia out of the blue, the international diplomatic repercussions would be much worse.

Bolie IV

Thumper obviously hasn't been paying attention.

Whose nuclear reactor was blown up by Israel in 1981?

Who began attempting to develop nuclear capability to the extent that their reactor was flattened by the Israelis within a couple of years of grabbing office?

Who has had UN-documented (on video, no less) possession of nuclear fuel refining machinery, which has not been accounted for?

Who has, according to one of their defected scientists, sufficient nuclear material to construct a weapon? Note that it's not clear at the time that it was full refined, but it was made very clear that the only real obstruction to using it was that it was far too massive to be placed on top of any of their missiles.

Hint: none of the answers is in Korean.

You people are absolutely incredible. You have the imagination of preschool children.

Iran is less oppressive than Iraq... Does that mean that the Ayatollah does not oppress his people and deny them liberty? Does that mean that the theocrats in Iran do not commit gross human rights abuses and torture/rape political prisoners? Does that mean that religious minorities are not persecuted in Iran?

Somehow, me thinks not.

Iran and nuclear weapons. Well, if you believe their story that they are only building uranium enrichment facilities for peaceful purposes... hmmm...

I liked best the rationale that Kim Jong Il is less of a threat because he declared his nuclear program openly.

Even though we had to confront him with it first.

Even though he's saber rattling and testing ballistic missiles over the sea...

And I also like the complete denial about the role of the UN Weapons Inspectors. Mohamed ElBaradei's report could not have exonerated Iraq and its nuclear ambitions any more.

A defector scientist? Come on, how ignorant do you have to be to believe one defector scientist? Really, do I have to explain? Draw a picture perhaps?

David Perron: You are right that the Osirak reactor is in Iraq, and not in North Korea, and that our evidence against North Korea is not so flimsy as what we claim to have againts Iraq.

But, no it is you whose head is clearly buried up his own ass.

Who has a currently operating reprocessing facility which has not been destroyed for over 22 years? North Korea.

Who began developing nuclear weapons within a couple years of taking office and has not had his program stopped by Israel? Kim Jong Il.

Who has UN documented video of nuclear refining equipment? I fail to see your point on this one... What video do we have of Iraq? How old is it? How does that possibly compare to the ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE we have about North Korea's currently operating nuclear program?

Who, according to their own statements, verifiable evidence, more than one defector scientist, and the world community at large, has sufficient material to develop a nuclear weapon? And who has the capability to actually place a warhead on a missile and hit US soil?

Why are you so bad at this game?

That's right, Thumper. When you're losing, it's always best to substitute name-calling for logic. But I'm a forgiving guy, up to a point.

Who has UN documented video of nuclear refining equipment? I fail to see your point on this one... What video do we have of Iraq? How old is it? How does that possibly compare to the ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE we have about North Korea's currently operating nuclear program?

Why, PBS, that's who. There's another PBS interview, here that discusses nuclear weapons development in Iraq under Hussein, with emphasis on post-Desert Storm work.

I've seen far, far more evidence that Iraq has had and continues to pursue nuclear and biological weapons than I have evidence that NK has anything of the sort (although I believe fas.org assertions to that effect). However, your assertion to the effect that NK has a missile that can place a nuclear warhead on U.S. soil lacks foundation. They have not yet tested a missile in that configuration, and I haven't seen any evidence that they've even constructed one.

Personally, I'm not afraid of strikes against US citizens or soil that originate in North Korea. We do know, though, that Saddam is working with terrorists who have attacked the US. So Saddam is the greater threat to the US. Iraq is not in imminent danger of collapse like North Korea is. North Korea will fall on it's own if we just wait. In addition, Iraq is only stage 1 of a long term plan to reform the Middle East, or at least have enough military power stationed in a location that we control to handle any further threats.

Bolie IV

Bolie:

We know that Saddam is working with terrorists who have attacked the United State? Come on, the deception and delusion is not from Saddam, but the Bush Administration, if you're so eager to believe such a lie. There is no proof that Saddam is working with Al Qaeda. None.

David:

Please. Stop spreading disinformation. The "video" you discuss is 12 years old. That's why I asked how old it was. If in 12 years, they have not been able to build a bomb the north koreans were able to build in 2, then how can we be so afraid of this incompetent regime?

Tell me what's wrong with Kamel's declaration that the Iraqis destroyed all their weapons of mass destruction. Tell me why he would lie. Please.

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

As to Dr. Khidir Hamza, I ask one question: if this program is as advanced as he claims (and he has every reason to claim, after having written his book), why are there not more defectors telling the same story? Why did Kamel contradict him? Why did the UN inspectors turn up nothing (and don't even say that Iraq was "hiding" its nuclear enrichment faciliities)?

Please.

Odd. I posted this earlier, and it didn't take.

Thumper:

Video, not "video". Just because all you can access is the transcript doesn't mean the video doesn't exist. It has. I've seen it. You can also see it on PBS, if you have access to it. And the date was not and could not have been 12 years ago, as Dr. Hamza was still in Iraq at the time. There's no date on the interview, but seeing as he didn't escape from Iraq until 1994, that's the earliest date you can place on it.

As to your questions about Hussein Kamel and his motivations, I can't say why he might lie, or even for certain that he did. At least one of his statements, though, is verifiably false. "All missiles were destroyed" has been shown to be untrue. And if he truly did destroy all nuclear materials, it should be no problem at all for him to lead UNSCOM to the site where they were "destroyed" so that they can verify their "destruction" via radioisotope analysis. But that's probably not going to happen, because you can't destroy nuclear materials. Iraq agreed to hand over or destroy all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, facilities and delivery means, and do so in a way that the destruction could be verified. They did none of that. And if you have so much faith in Hussein Kamel, why does nothing he says explain the tons of biological growth media imported into Iraq, far in excess of any medical need? Where is that?

I'm not saying he lied. I'm saying his version of reality doesn't appear to match up with the version the rest of us are familiar with.

You referred to "disinformation". Which part of what I said do you think is untrue? And why?

Thumper:

Even if we accept your Q&A as accurate, what are your solutions? Are you implying that America should invade North Korea, Saudi Arabia and/or Iran? That all these countries need to be dealt with (whatever that might entail) before any action is taken against Saddam? That America would be best served by ignoring anything that occurs outside its borders so no one has any reason to hate them (or would isolationism be arrogant as well?)?

I agree that the nations you named will need to be addressed in some manner sooner or later, but how is that relevant to a debate on Iraq? Do you have any real alternatives in mind, or were you just taking cheap shots at Bush?

Thumper:

You assume that if someone says one thing, and another is true, that the first person must be lying. Yet, is it not possible, especially in a totalitarian state like Iraq, that even Kemal did not now EVERY program underway?

And, no, before you assume that somehow these are "rogue agents" and Saddam is clean, be aware that, at some point, you enter David Irving territory.

It is conceivable that a lower ranking person does not know all. It is NOT reasonable that Saddam would not be aware of the state of his own WMD programs.

As to why the Iraqis have not yet achieved a nuclear weapon, one might presume the following:

A. They may actually have one. An enriched uranium, gun-type weapon does not require testing to work, since the principles are sufficiently basic that any physics PhDs can, in fact, assemble one.
B. The sanctions have worked. You know, the same sanctions that have killed, by Left estimates, millions and millions of Iraqi children. Fair exchange?
C. We stopped them in time, twice, actually, the Israelis in '81, and us in '91. I suppose we could keep doing it---in fact, maybe that's how you should look at this war?
D. Critical mass. Perhaps key scientists and material have been removed from the circuit. The problem w/ this is that there's little to keep them from coming back again (which brings us to "2" above).
E. Apples and oranges. Simply because North Korea can build a bomb in 2 years does not mean that ANYONE can build a bomb in 2 years (Btw, where in the world did you come up w/ 2 years for NK? They've had a nuclear program underway since AT LEAST 1989.) If you really believed that, the apes would've evolved to humans, and every nation would be as developed as the US (or Singapore).

You wait...time passes.

I wonder if we can interpret silence as capitulation on Thumper's part? Still, some acknowledgement would have been the courteous thing.

You wait...time passes.

Time continues to pass, and this item scrolls off the front page.

Time keeps on tickin', tickin', tickin'...into the future.

Comments are Closed.