Asymmetrical Information

See Jane, this is why I like your blog. The theory is flawless ad I entirely agree with you.

"But we should recognize that we are making a tradeoff. Coming away from the all-positive (imperialist occupation of the entire world) and all-negative (isolationist or pacifist) extremes, there is going to be some tradeoff. If we try to strike early, before things become very dangerous, we will invade some countries where it is unnecessary or counterproductive. If we wait until the threat is more certain, we will have fewer conflicts, but they will be bigger and more destructive."

So what we're all really talking about is not right and wrong, but opinion. You may be wrong, you may be right, only history can tell.

Oh boy do I hope history proves me wrong.

Jane wrote:

"If we wait until the threat is more certain, we will have fewer conflicts, but they will be bigger and more destructive."

Which is what I fear the President of the PRC will say about the invasion of Taiwan in 2026. Or the president of India about the nuking of Islamabad in 2018. Heck, the Indians have a better pre-emptive rationale to attack Pakistan to than we have to attack Iraq.

Putting a boot through 300 years of post-Westphalian diplomacy ain't no light undertaking. My fear is there is no way back; that, like with the 1980s deficits, the intent is to narrow the diplomatic options for succeeding administrations.

Beautiful, erudite, recontextualization of debate. Never realized could combine statistical testing and the war debate till I read Jane.

Thank You.

You bring up a great point that many don't think about in many aspects of public policy. Side note: for screening tests, it's often desirable to have a low false negative rate since you can follow up with another test when you do get a positive.

Tom: this invasion is a lot more ambiguous than you appear be making it out to be. Much more dangerous precedents in my mind (in descending order) were the intervention in Kosovo, the cruise missile attack on a factory in Somalia, the Panama invasion (Bush), and the bombing of Libya (Reagan).

Interesting analysis. But typical of the jingoists, it leaves out one major, moral consideration.

Unnecessarily invading (what you hilariously refer to as a Type II negative) a nation means unnecessarily killing civilians, including children. I have a two-year old boy, and it f*cking infuriates me to see a child's head emptied of its brains in order to prevent a purely theoretical threat., because every time I see a dead child on BBC I see my own son. (On a side note, relating to the prior post/debate, my wife is from India. She wanted our son to be born in Bombay, where her mother is. But I said no. I wanted my son to be born an American.)

We say that war is hell, but we don't understand it. Nothing is required of us. No war bonds to buy; no tin cans to recycle; no sugar to ration; no air raid drills. Nothing. That's why it's so easy to make the calculation Jane just did without even for a moment considering the cost to human life.

We suffered through 9/11, but that was a fluke. A once-in-a-lifetime event. Jane's calculations would be more valuable if she had to consider what it would be like for us if bombs were raining down all day, and we couldn't predict where they would land; whether it would safe to go to work or to the market; whether I should risk taking my elderly mother, filled with shrapnel, to the hospital, or just wait it out.

Factor that stuff in, Jane.

Good post. I made the same point weeks ago, but you've done a better job with it.

Good post. I made the same point weeks ago, but you've done a better job with it.

Amitava,

I have three kids, six or under, and the thought of seeing them hurt affects me just as thought of seeing your child hurt affects you.

But let's take a look at that Iraqi two-year-old's life under Saddam Hussein. In fact, let's look at all of the two-year-olds in Iraq--absent the war, how many would Saddam Hussein torture, murder, and feed to the shredders to keep himself in power? How many will live to a happy old age if he is removed?

And never, in any modern war, has such care been taken to avoid civilian casualties.

"Tom: this invasion is a lot more ambiguous than you appear be making it out to be."

I'm aware of the ambiguity; believe you me, I've vacillated on this more than I can think on any other issue. My position is critical support (like Josh Marshall); I dislike the way we got here, but will welcome the freeing of Iraq, but fear the damage it has done to our diplomatic standing and to the post-WW2 multilateral institutions.

I guess how you view the post-war situation depends on how strong you believe the US will be economically (and therefore, in the long run, militarily) compared to other powers. I think that the US will be eclipsed by China and India sometime in 2030-2050. When that happens, we'll all of a sudden rediscover the appeal of a system of international laws containing the actions of the hegemonic power.

"Much more dangerous precedents in my mind (in descending order) were the intervention in Kosovo, the cruise missile attack on a factory in Somalia, the Panama invasion (Bush), and the bombing of Libya (Reagan)."

Those were much more limited in scope (save maybe Kosovo). And Kosovo wasn't pre-emptive; there were approx. 800,000 refugees and internally displaced persons as a result of Serbia's Operation Horseshoe (for what it's worth, I actually personally lobbied Nancy Pelosi on the need for ground troops in Kosovo). Plus, Kosovo at least was under the aegis of NATO.

But I hope you're right. Joschka Fischer has stated his support of regime change, so maybe everyone will make nice and share after the war.

Well what an interesting view. To be or not to be, is that question. If it isn't the question what is?

How should we react to an act of war on our country? With the realization that from the Beka Valley to western Pakistan, there were regimes committed to the destruction of our country.

Jane you raise the issue:

"And in the case of war, although most of us have an emotional conviction that of course one is better -- pro-war people who feel that any mistakes are worth it if it increases our security, anti-war people who feel that pre-emptive war is of course always wrong -- there's no logical necessity to prefer one over the other."

The question is, is conflict inevitable? If it is, then you engage in conflict when it is to your advantage. If it is not inevitable, they you pursue all means to avoid the conflict.

In the first case, it is logical to prefer conflict. In the second case, if conflict occurs, your fucked; that is, more of your people die, your economy incurs greater damage and you may not survive.

Now, the cost benefit analysis of not engaging in conflict now as compare to later is never measured. I would have been more than happy to defer this conflict, if I was confident, that the next attack on this country, if it was to occur, would result in the unfetterd annihilation of our enemies (similar to the manner that the US and its allies pursued WWII). I would comfortable with the roll of that die.

Amitava Mazumdar pictures life under aerial bombardment - "Jane's calculations would be more valuable if she had to consider what it would be like for us if bombs were raining down all day, and we couldn't predict where they would land; whether it would safe to go to work or to the market; whether I should risk taking my elderly mother, filled with shrapnel, to the hospital, or just wait it out". Perhaps he/she (my apologies) has spent some time in Sarajevo. But there are worse places yet.

Where's consideration of the three-decade reign of terror visited on the Iraquis and Iranians and Kuweitis by one Saddam Hussein and his cancerous Gestapo-like organization? Folks were dying by villages and towns and whole kinship structures, regularly, with nary a peace activist paying attention to the muted press coverage of it. And it was all intentional, ordered from the top, and except for the gassing of entire towns, those thousands of deaths were achieved by retail hand craftsmanship below the radar of evening TV news.

Is that sort of 'government' or political organization not worth taking some risks to end, before it metastasizes with really fearsome wholesale weapons to make that aerial bombardment seem paltry in scope?

I think Jane considered the moral balance well enough.

Will and Insufficiently Sensitive --

I agree about Saddam's cruelty. And I also respect your empathy for the Iraqi people. But I think we're overlooking the particular kind of trauma of war.

People hate repression, but the live in utter fear of war. The people of Panama, though technically liberated, don't appreciate America's action. The trauma of watching 7,000 innocents die (the US gov't says 2 to 3,000, but Panama and 60 minutes disagree), was too great for them. They would have rather stuck it out.

The people of Burma live under tremendous daily violence, having their children kidnapped by the gov't and kept in control by forced drug addiction and brutality. But ask them whether they want to be liberated by the cruise missile or the cluster bomb, and they may well think twice.

Liberation has it costs, often having whole swaths of land laid waste and left unlivable for the intermediate future.

It decades decades to recover from the trauma of war, and it's fair question to ask whether they would make the trade-off.

There are exceptions. Had the US acted, even alone, to prevent the murder of 100,000 Shia or 100,000 marsh Arabs in the 80s and 90s, then we would acting to save the lives of those who were facing immediate extinction (as in Rwanda). That is not the case here.

I am skeptical that the Iraqis are now willing to make the trade-off. But in the face of only a theoretical threat, I would rather not make the decision for them.

Having said that, I know that the US military has been bombing with amazing precision. I think, in contrast to the administration, our military is performing admirably and has shown a sense of commitment, honesty, and nobility that should make all Americans proud.

Tom, can you please explain the aspects of International Law, that is, is NATO an organization chartered to defend its European and North America members from external threat. As Kososvo wasn't a member of NATIO nothing in the charter would have justified its defense.

Or can we pick and choose, where the US is to obtain its authorization.

Finally, is the violation of a cease fire grounds, under International Law, for attack or the reengaging of the original conflict.

Puzzled and confused on the bank of the Housatonic.

I think you hit the nail on the head Megan. Beautifully expressed -- not at all "typical of jingoists" (who are, apparently, anyone who doesn't subscribe to hard left dogma).

To answer Jane's original question about whether it is possible to oppose the war but support the troops, I believe that Amitava's example demonstrates that it is. I still believe, however, that this kind of mature thinking is relatively rare among the antiwar forces, many of whom are motivated by the worst kind of posturing and class snobbery.

Amitava, I can see where you would interpret Jane's analysis as a kind of bloodless intellectualizing which ignores the moral dimension, but I don't think this is really the case. Just like the "costs" in the medical testing analogy are human ones (someone dies of cancer because you didn't catch it, *or* someone is unnecessarily panicked because of a false positive), so are the costs in the adoptation of this analogy to international relations. If we get a false positive (invade Iraq when it wasn't necessary), we cause human suffering like that you describe. If we get a false negative (fail to invade Iraq when they are developing WMD and putting them in the hands of terrorists), we cause other human suffering--like the deaths of children from radiation poisoning--and they didn't ask to be victims, either. It's a brutal choice. Use of analytical tools can help understand it, but you are right that we should never forget what the choices really mean-either way.

To the guy who worried Bush sets the precedent that allows PRC to attack Taiwan: they don't need Bush's precedent, they can use any excuse that anyone ever had. Bush isn't doing anything original, pre-emption was invented way back.

To the one who wrote: "it's easy to make the calculation Jane just did without even for a moment considering the cost to human life".

That's nonsense, pre-emption is done for the very reason that human lives are valued.... Obviously...(so why did I have to point it out?)

In that post, 2 back, I mean striking first was invented way back, but perhaps even pre-emption was too. In any event, somebody is inevitably first and people always have their reasons.

Type I Error - Assuming a relationship where none exists (you could also assume that the Bush administration assumes that disposing of the Iraqi regime will cause terrorism to go away). In fact that could be assuming a relationship that is not there and the error means, regime change causes more, not less terrorism.

Type II Error - Not assuming a relationship when, in fact, one exists. (you could also assume the Bush administration assumes there is a relationship between the Iraq regime and Al Quaeda, when in fact, none exists).

You can use your framework to either support or critique the current "preemptive war". It's one "model" for organizing your thinking.

Here's another I wrote about....


The Battered Bush Syndrome and Iraq
It starts...
Up until now, the Bush Administration has adopted a variation of the Battered Women's Syndrome as its justification for a potential war with Iraq.

or, here's another
Prisoner's Dilemma and the Bush Administration at the UN
it starts...
With a failed diplomatic strategy at the United Nations, Americans are now being treated to the spectacle of political protest based on the idea of renaming French Fries and French Toast. How did we get here? Simple rationality suggests the Bush Administration brought this failure onto themselves.

or here's another
Hawks, Doves, Owls and Loons: Making Sense of War with Iraq
it starts...
Notwithstanding the views of those currently leading the drum beat for war, it's important to note the existence of a myriad of policy voices other than those depicted by a simplistic hawk-dove characterization. The majority of those voices, situated in the middle of the potential policy spectrum, represent as many shades of gray as there are birds. Extending the avian analogy used to originally bifurcate the discussion, and bearing in mind the need for organizational simplicity when discussing potential policy options, it is reasonable to suggest that there are four different avian ways to characterize proponents of differing policy positions: hawks, doves, owls and loons.

So, there are many rational ways to organize one's thinking about the war. I do appreciate your offering one perspective.

Bush wanted this war for his 2004 election. If he gets oil, that appears a plus.

http://www.stolenelectioncoin.com

I did a game theory analysis of this a couple months ago, including a "regret" formulation, rather than a simple minimax cost.

Unfortunately, I only did it from the perspective of the US--not from that of the Iraqi people. I suppose I should sit down and try to do a complementary analyis for them.

"Having said that, I know that the US military has been bombing with amazing precision. I think, in contrast to the administration, our military is performing admirably and has shown a sense of commitment, honesty, and nobility that should make all Americans proud."

With all due respect, those troops (who I *am* very proud of) are doing the job that the administration you are deriding ordered them to do, as is their duty under the United States Constitution. If they were ordered to carry out this war in a manner that shed far more innocent blood in the effort to destroy the Iraqi regime (as, indeed, the last war against that regime did shed), they would do so, and the carnage would be horrible to behold. I would suggest that a lot of people who have opposed this war should take a moment to be silently grateful that George W. Bush and the men and women of his Administration are not the cartoon-like monsters that they have been made out to be by those opponents, for the actions that the United States military has undertaken with such breathtaking efficiency and precision have occurred in accordance with their will and in the manner they have designated.

Good point, and this is what the pacifists fail to realize.

A factor you didn't directly (overtly) state.

Let's take cancer. If caner is treated early enough, the recovery rate is good. If it is treated later, death is the primary result. So initial cancer tests are biased for positives, to make sure we find everyone with cancer.

How does that relate to the current situation?

This is where pacifists fail to realize the significance if 9-11. The costs of a false negative suddenly went through the roof. Dirty bombs, biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. Suddenly Americans were looking at millions of deaths. This dramatically changed the calculations that go into the decision about what type of test to use.

Suddenly false negatives became much worse than false postives. We are currently seeing the result of that.

Byna, refuses to accept the deaths of millions of New Yorkers, even if they do vote against him in elections.

Murph says:
"Now, the cost benefit analysis of not engaging in conflict now as compare to later is never measured. I would have been more than happy to defer this conflict, if I was confident, that the next attack on this country, if it was to occur, would result in the unfetterd annihilation of our enemies (similar to the manner that the US and its allies pursued WWII). I would comfortable with the roll of that die."

So, what you're saying is, 'I'm not bothered by the thought hundreds of thousand of innocent USAmericans being murdered because if it happens, we will get to murder tens of millions of innocent foreign bystanders in retaliation?'

I don't quite see the logic there. Do I misunderstand you?

Following up on Mr. St.Onge's comments:

1. One wonders whether Amitava and Tom would therefore have sided w/ Chamberlain over Churchill? After all, in 1938 (or 1937, during the Anschluss, or 1936, in the German march into the Rhineland), the horrors of war were fresh in people's minds. Less than 20 years previously, there'd been the bloodletting of the Western Front. Surely, surely, a corporal who'd been decorated for bravery would know not to plunge the world again into such horror?

And if Churchill had had his way, what would've been the justification? A mere broken treaty? Some ethnic injustice (the Sudeten Germans, supposedly) rectified? Really worth revisiting the Western Front on another generation?

The problem w/ both Type I and Type II errors in the course of major events is that, unlike experiments, you get only one chance. If you're wrong, EITHER WAY, the consequences can be dire.

2. On the issue of attacking other states, Westphalia, etc., it should be noted:

A. Few countries have actually sought UN sanction when conducting attacks. China, which was cited, has attacked EVERY ONE OF ITS NEIGHBORS and never bothered w/ the UN. (Korean intervention, 1951; India invasion, 1962; islands on the Soviet border, 1969; Vietnam, 1979). To expect that, somehow, they'd be constrained by the UN Charter flies in the face of history.

As for Indian restraint viz. Pakistan, the history of Indo-Pakistani conflict since 1971 clearly suggests that it is fear of Pakistani nuclear retaliation, and NOT the UN/Westphalia, that constrains New Delhi. See, for example, Indian restraint during the "Brass Tacks" exercises, or the more recent escalating tensions in Kashmir (1999).

Indeed, there was a recent NYT op-ed, a few months ago, which argued that, from an international law perspective, the UN Charter has been violated SO many times, as to no longer represent a binding law. Similar to ordnances requiring you get out w/ a lantern before entering city limits in a car (instituted when horses were king), the UNC, by being ignored in the main, is simply null.

Stephen, I know you have heard of MAD, well what I discussed was AD (assured destruction).

We find ourselves in world where:

1. Europe is pacifistic, through pacifism they may avoid conflict (terrorism) and if the conflict becomes too difficult, they can then depend on America through NATO to protect them. They are in a no loose situation.

2. The countries, that support asymmetric warfare, are generating a sound return on their armament dollar. The support of terrorists is cheap and maybe an effect delivery system; the development of WMD is inexpensive (relative to a standing army); and the repercussions of attack are minimal. It is a favorable cost-benefit situation.

America is the primary target. Defense against asymmetric warfare is expensive. The pursuit of armed conflict is expensive and maybe politically damaging (particularly as 1 and 2 are currently in favorable positions). What I proposed was to change the cost relationship to America’s advantage.

You shouldn't be schocked. In the 1991 Gulf War we advised Saddam if he used WMD, we might go nuclear. America used the same strategy in the Korean War as well as in the Cold War. I see no reason why it should not to consider now, as I see it, it gives you some additional leverage in your pursuit of diplomacy.

Rights are attributes of individuals. Individual human beings. Collectives, including nation-states, have no rights, except insofar as they proxy for their citizens.

With that in mind, let's examine Jane's framework where it matters: for individuals, and physical violence used against each other to effect our ends.

Now paraphrasing from Jane:

"I don't know how we should weight false positives and false negatives in a pregnancy test. My point is that it's not a simple question of one being better than the other.

"So in strongarming others. We will not correctly judge the need for every conflict... But we should recognize that we are making a tradeoff. Coming away from the all-positive (trying to beat up everyone we meet) and all-negative (never aggressing against other individuals) extremes, there is going to be some tradeoff. If we try to strike early, hopefully when the other person's back is turned, before things become very dangerous, we will beat some people to a pulp, where it is unnecessary or counterproductive. If we wait until the threat is more certain, we will have fewer conflicts, but they will be bigger and more destructive."

The analogy works, well enough. It tells us that we should often strike first against other people, and beat them down, hopefully when they are weak. Children, especially, should be good targets, because they are both physically weak, and likely to grow up to be able to challenge us. We should intimidate them using physical force while they are still easy to prevail against.

If the conclusion is repellant to you, congratulations. You're a good person, or at least... how to put it best... civilized. For, if you think about it, Jane's utilitarian calculus for when to aggress against others does make a lot of sense - if we assume we are living in the jungle, that is in Locke's state of nature.

We have norms in our society (as well as laws), against aggression. Why? Because civilization requires it. People who aggress threaten not just their victims, but the whole fabric of society. If they get away with it, they are effectively disowning the social "contract" which is nonaggression. So over time the common law, and common norms, have evolved rules about fighting. Being armed is not wrong. Saying things is not wrong. But starting a fight - actually throwing the first punch, or being the first to draw a weapon and threaten - is usually viewed as wrong. Only if the other party was "asking for it", intentionally agreeing to the possibility of a fight, are we likely to justify it (and then only for less dangerous forms of fighting). Furthermore, we have rules about imbalanced fighting. It is almost never acceptable to start a fight against a weaker person, even if they are asking for it. Children, in particular, and (to men) women are viewed as off-limits even when they provoke.

These norms are irreconcilable to a calculus of utilitarian aggression. Indeed, they are often calculated exactly to oppose it; to make the most desirable actions in the aggression calculus (beating up kids) the most stigmatized. This is not coincidence. It's the raw fabric of civilization.

Of course, in a sense we are in the state of nature; civilization supervenes it, but it is always there underneath. But rules for when to aggress clearly change depending on what sort of social context we think we are embedded in. I suggest that Jane's mindset is appropriate to the savage. Our mindset, as civilized people, is appropriate to civilized people.

Now let's step back out analogy land. I have been talking about relations between individuals, though of course keeping in mind the analogy up to states. I think the analogy works well enough to be useful, but others will differ.

So here's another way to think about pro and anti war. If you think that "civilization" can work between nations in some manner analogous to how it works between individuals - then you are likely to be against aggressive war. For these folks, including me, a utilitarian calculus is besides the point. The point is to inculcate civilization. This will never happen without the best and strongest acting civilized.

If, on the other hand, you see the relations between nations as equivalent to the law of the jungle - then Jane's formulation will probably appeal to you.

Jane,

Who is the "the guy you hate at work with the simplistic arguments?" That looks like a Freudian slip.

You're at one extreme, Leonard. I don't mean that perjoratively, but just to point out that most people aren't effective isolationists, and that the argument between those people is about the calculus of danger, not whether or not we have to wait for imminent attack. Most people, for example, believe that Britain and France did the right thing to declare war on Hitler for invading Poland, even though doing so posed no imminent threat to them. This is not the same situation, obviously, but that declaration of war is in a different place on the spectrum from waiting until someone is massing troops on your borders.

As an aside, I find your position untenable for two reasons: first, civilized interaction presupposes an enforcement mechanism for violent offenders, which the world doesn't have, except for the one it's using now, which is us; and second, the strict Westphalia model, which has been honored more in the breach than in practice, sanctifies the state to a level rather odd in a libertarian/anarchist. But those are different questions from the ones that most people are concerning themselves with in arguing over this war, which focus on moral relatives, not absolutes.

Ahh...could we define a Type III error? Defined, perhaps, as a total failure of logic circuits in those who insist that the war is for oooooiiiilll, despite the fact that cheap oil is absolutely the last thing a Texas oil baron would want.

Another way to frame the debate:
On one side you have: "We suffered through 9/11, but that was a fluke. A once-in-a-lifetime event."
People on this side would also describe 9/11 as a crime rather than an act of war. (So there is no preventive benefit to military action; better policing, along with making ourselves less appealing as targets, will prevent future terrorist crimes.)

On the other side you have those who believe 9/11 was the most recent in a series acts of war committed by Islamist fanatics and/or Arab nationalists, escalating in devastating effect.

Similarly, those who oppose this war tend to think of it as a new war in Iraq; those in favor tend to think of it as a contiuation of the 1991 action.

We suffered through 9/11, but that was a fluke. A once-in-a-lifetime event.

are you a prophet, that you know this? can you tell me what next week's lottery numbers will be?

i'm sorry, i don't mean to be flippant, but how can you say there will never be another 9/11?

there is a group of people in the world who spend all their time planning attacks on other countries. sooner or later, they will succeed again.

you could say something was a "once in a life time event" if it were an accident -- like, say, the columbia disaster. no one was working toward making the space shuttle explode.

plenty of people are working to attack other countries as suicide bombers, hijackers, etc etc etc.

-----

So, what you're saying is, 'I'm not bothered by the thought hundreds of thousand of innocent USAmericans being murdered because if it happens, we will get to murder tens of millions of innocent foreign bystanders in retaliation?'

I don't quite see the logic there. Do I misunderstand you?

i think you do misunderstand his point; it's not about how many people are murdered. it's about -- to continue the medical analogy -- completely excising a tumor, as opposed to treating it and perhaps letting it remain quiescent -- perhaps to erupt vigorously and uncontrollably at a later date.

one could argue that this is what happened in the early 90s -- that saddam was not removed then, which makes it so much harder to remove him now.

-----

Children, especially, should be good targets, because they are both physically weak, and likely to grow up to be able to challenge us. We should intimidate them using physical force while they are still easy to prevail against.

to me, this sounds like discipline. [grin]

Saying things is not wrong. But starting a fight - actually throwing the first punch, or being the first to draw a weapon and threaten - is usually viewed as wrong. Only if the other party was "asking for it", intentionally agreeing to the possibility of a fight, are we likely to justify it (and then only for less dangerous forms of fighting).

what if the weaker person has a gun? or a canister of anthrax? or a nuke? what if the weaker person has stated, categorically, that he wishes you dead? do you still wait for him to hit first, just to maintain the moral high ground?

Furthermore, we have rules about imbalanced fighting. It is almost never acceptable to start a fight against a weaker person, even if they are asking for it. Children, in particular, and (to men) women are viewed as off-limits even when they provoke.

you have rules for attacks on the weaker person? damn, wish i had those rules when i was growing up. i, a minority growing up in the midwest, was constantly getting harrassed by kids that were bigger than me. hell, just about everyone was bigger than i was. didn't seem to make a difference. perhaps if their parents had brutalized them more when they were younger, and instilled a sense of decency in them, it wouldn't've been an issue. [grin]

I suggest that Jane's mindset is appropriate to the savage. Our mindset, as civilized people, is appropriate to civilized people.

what happens when a "civilized" society clashes with an "uncivilized" society? whose rules and "moral right" come into play at that point?

If, on the other hand, you see the relations between nations as equivalent to the law of the jungle - then Jane's formulation will probably appeal to you.

i would argue that relations between nations does adhere to the law of the jungle -- what uberlaw or ubercivilization governs the contact between nations? what social contract is there?

i would argue that between the USA and USSR there was a certain understanding -- perhaps the idea of "mutual preservation" : "you don't destroy the world, we won't destroy the world. let's go get lunch."

i would also argue that there is no such distinction between terrorists, terrorist states, and the rest of the world.

thank you, leonard, for a thoughtful, intellectual argument. my criticism of it is that your precepts do not survive contact with the "real world." at least, the world i perceive i live in. yours sounds like a much better place.

argh, i previewed this damn entry twice, and i still missed this:

second to last paragraph should read:

i would also argue that there is no such understanding between terrorists, terrorist states, and the rest of the world.

sorry, sorry.

murph:
Sorry, I'm still not getting something.

I'm familiar with the theory of Assured Destruction. I would argue that basicly it was a psychological crutch for people who couldn't adjust to the world after 1945, but that's another subject.

The logic, such as it was, went: the other guys want to live, and we can guarantee that they will die if they do X. So they'll tremble in fear and never do X.

The problem is, mistakes happen, accidents happen, and some people are willing to die to achieve their goals (cf. 'September 11, 2001').

You then tell us the Europeans are pacifists. So what? I'm not really worried that France will supply nukes to terrorists (though the day may come when they are stolen from France).

And the statement that Europeans can depend on the United States to protect them has no relevence that I can see to protecting the United States, which was what I thought we were discussing. (The statement is also false, since I and many others would not lift a finger to help out France or Germany).

I agree, "The countries, that support asymmetric warfare, are generating a sound return on their armament dollar." They are getting that return because we don't retaliate for them sponsoring terrorism.

So suppose a nuke goes off in Manhattan one day. Do we investigate and hope that we can find the state that sponsored them, then nuke its capital? Or do we pick one of the seven state sponsors of terrorism at random and destroy it? Or nuke all seven, thereby ensuring that we destroy six countries that are innocent?

Another issue is credibility. The U.S. came close to war with the Soviet Union several times, over Berlin and Cuba. Our response to terrorism has been far weaker, e.g. we let Ghaddafi live after Lockerbie, and Saddam after he tried to assassinate Bush Sr. So how do we convince all these dictators that we're serious, especially when many of them are surrounded by sycophants who will tell them what they wish to hear? And especially how do we convince them when, if we'd followed your scenario, we told
Saddam he couldn't have nukes, then did nothing while he acquired them?

Then you mention costs of defense. The cost of a major terrorist attack is quite high. Of course, you do have to multiply said cost by the guessed probability of such an act occuring. Still, even really low values for nuclear loss of life and probability of occurance yield deaths in the hundreds to thousands, and billions to tens of billions of dollars. This doesn't seem very cheap to me.

Finally, there is at least a small moral issue involved in killing millions of residents of Iraq or Libya or Sudan because they're dictatorial ruler attacked us withouth their knowledge or consent.

So I'm really having trouble seeing the advantages in this proposal, as opposed to simply conquering Iraq, which reduces the number of state supporters of terrorism by one, and increases our credibility when making future threats.

bkw:
murph was arguing against attacking Iraq and overthrowing its regime. I don't see how your analogy applies. There soon won't be any Iraqi 'tumor', because it's being excised by war.

no stephen, murph was presenting an alternative to the iraqi war. it is an alternative that we have used effectively in previous conflicts, both military and political.

i've used the alternative in conversations about the war with those who oppose it. it usually moves the conversation into a realistic framework, although they somtimes worry about my sanity. i solely worry about america being percieved as a paper tiger, as i am of the opinion it invites attack on this country.

Murph,

This approach was tried in the 1950s. It was called "the New Look," and relied primarily (but not exclusively) on nukes (under the rubric "Massive Retaliation"). The reality was that it was simply not credible---thus, even before JFK came to office, the idea of relying on nukes as the first and primary line of defense had faded.

If not, imagine how the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out---LeMay's recommendation to blast Cuba would've been the ONLY option.

Amitava, I respect your view, and I also agree that the loss of innocent life is a huge consideration in fighting any war, be it purely defensive, pre-emptive, or preventative.

However, what rattled me was your statement that 9/11 was a "fluke". Heh? It may be true that the maniacs on that terrible morning got lucky, but the idea of it being an isolated one-off event like Oklahoma or a big train-wreck is dangerously naive. This act of horror was the product of decades of hatred directed at the West, of Western appeasement and naivety in the face of a new and threatening ideology.

9/11 was the culmination of many things. Fluke it wasn't.

Once is a fluke.

Twice is happenstance.

Thrice is coincidence.

Four times is purely a three-sigma event.

Somewhere in between once and twice we stopped believing in chance.

Ben - you ask about the norms for the "weak", but armed, fighting. Well, you know 'em as well as I do - what do TV and the movies say? They say that if you draw on someone who is unarmed, that's aggression. Our visual media do certainly feature the analog of preventative wars - people ambushing each other in various ways. But this is, typically, seen as reprehensible. The good-guy always gives the criminal a chance to submit peacefully before they get in a fight and he ends up throwing him off a cliff or whatever.

Perhaps you, as a kid, did not benefit from civilized norms. That's too bad for you; I can only report the norms that I had. And certainly we were kids, who were being socialized. Bigger kids sometimes bullied smaller ones. But this was seen as bullying (bad), not a fair fight.

You ask, what happens when a "civilized" society clashes with an "uncivilized" society? Well, what happens when a bully meets a good person? The bully might get a low blow in to start the fight. What a bad guy! In real life, this might well decide the fight - most real fights feature only a few blows. In the moviews, the hero prevails. In the movies, that's because he is the Good Guy, and the Plot is with him. In the analog up to states, the USA wins, because the USA is far wealthier(== stronger) than any other nation in the world.

But all that, you already knew, no?

The real question is why do you think a bully would attack a guy that is several times his size? The answer is: he wouldn't. 60 pound first grade bullies do not seriously attack Hells Angels. (The disproportion between Iraq and America is larger than that, but nevermind.) Bullies may be mean, but they are not irrational.

And this, too is in concordance with our analogy: Iraq in fact did not attack America, nor have any connection whatsoever with 9/11. Americans think the opposite to rationalize the actions of the state which would otherwise appear, well, uncivilized.

Why? Because of international norms. You ask what social contract there is among nations? Just war theory: preventative war is unjust. We are violating that norm; that is, we are acting in an uncivilized way. I regret this very much.

Some states are not civilized, it is true. The question is how you deal with that: do you descend to their level, or do you try to raise them up? It seems to me that unless the threat they pose is severe, you try to raise them up. This is leadership, and it befits a state with our moral stature to lead others to a more moral world. If that means turning the other cheek once in while, well, I seem to recall some dead white guy said that was a good idea.

Tom and others:

You are correct. I should not have described 9/11 as a fluke. (Although its stunning success might be difficult to repeat.)

What I was trying to do was make a distinction between the the singularity of 9/11 as opposed to suffering through a constant barrage of bombing during a war. I was trying to preempt the reponse: "What do you mean we don't know about suffering in a war? Did you forget 9/11?" I just didn't do it well.

Tom and others:

You are correct. I should not have described 9/11 as a fluke. (Although its stunning success might be difficult to repeat.)

What I was trying to do was make a distinction between the the singularity of 9/11 as opposed to suffering through a constant barrage of bombing during a war. I was trying to preempt the reponse: "What do you mean we don't know about suffering in a war? Did you forget 9/11?" I just didn't do it well.

Anyway, I guess the point is moot because the debate has progressed nicely beyond my fit of outrage.

Dean and Steph, if i remember correctly our defense of europe was predicated on a "first use" policy, as we didn't have sufficient troops to match the soviets. i believe that we won the cold war but i could be wrong on all counts.

But this was seen as bullying (bad), not a fair fight.

i'm not certain what moral condemnation has to do with the actual outcome of said drubbing. and perhaps in your world said bullies are seen as bad and unfair, but not in mine.

let's drop the personal anecdotes; this discussion is not about my happy childhood, save i wished to illustrate that your talk of moral "good" and moral "bad" doesn't necessairly have that much of an impact on actions taken in the real world.

In real life, this might well decide the fight - most real fights feature only a few blows.

nowadays it's a couple gun shots. well, in some parts of the world. not at all uncommon in los angeles. and those couple gun shots do tend to end the fight pretty quickly.

The real question is why do you think a bully would attack a guy that is several times his size?

for a couple reasons:

1. the smaller guy thinks the bigger guy is a paper tiger, and can attack with impunity
   
2. the smaller guy thinks he is destined to prevail because "god is on his side"
   
3. the smaller guy thinks he will prevail due to his tactics or methods of operation
   
4. the smaller guy may not be all that interested in beating the big guy -- all he wants to do is "take him down a couple notches."
   

Bullies may be mean, but they are not irrational.

would you argue that terrorists are rational men? or a subset of terrorists -- that suicide bombers are rational men?

Iraq in fact did not attack America, nor have any connection whatsoever with 9/11.

this point is somewhat still open for debate. there continues to be emerging intelligence about the ties between al qaida and iraq; i admit to a healthy amount of skepticism on my part.

which is beside the point: i don't think the us is at war solely because of 9/11. i do think we are at war to remove a regime which we believe to be ... irrational ... and has a strong desire to see americans killed and is willing to arm ... irrational ... men willing to kill themselves as long as they can kill americans or austrailians or jews at the same time.

are we acting uncivilized? perhaps. would you rather be civilized and dead? some people would, no doubt. i know a number of pacifists that claim they wouldn't raise a hand to save their own lives or the lives of their families. i'm not willing to have them make the same decisions for my life or my family.

You ask what social contract there is among nations? Just war theory: preventative war is unjust.

again, i'd argue that "justice" exists only within a framework consisting of laws and law enforcement. in the absence of these laws AND enforcement of these laws, there is no moral stricture from which to judge the "just" and "unjust".

as far as the concept of "preventive" war:

there are those that would argue that we are already at war. that war has already been declared on us. that 9/11, the cole, the bombing of the barracks, the previous bombing at the WTC, the resort bombing in bali -- have all been skirmishes in a war we hadn't realized we were were embroiled in.

The question is how you deal with that: do you descend to their level, or do you try to raise them up?

what if the uncivilized society shows absolutely no interest in being "raised up"? what if that society views all your attempts to bring the "good stuff" we enjoy as cultural imperialism, rejects it outright, and calls for your blood?

It seems to me that unless the threat they pose is severe, you try to raise them up.

in the best of worlds, this would always be possible and always the best course. it worked well enough with japan. perhaps it will work well in iraq -- someday iraqi automobiles may outsell fords.

but, as in the case with japan, i don't see that possible without removing certain elements that actively work against being "raised up".

This is leadership, and it befits a state with our moral stature to lead others to a more moral world.

again, i would agree with you -- in the best of worlds.

If that means turning the other cheek once in while, well, I seem to recall some dead white guy said that was a good idea.

actually i think the phrase originated with a jewish guy, news of whose state of death may or may not be highly exaggerated.

[g]

thanks for the thoughtful response.

It seems to me that unless the threat they pose is severe, you try to raise them up.

a comment regarding the severity of the threat: the president decided the cost of inaction far outweighed the cost of action. i tend to agree with him in his address on 3/19/02. the key point:

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Leonard;

Speaking based on experience with players in large multiplayer sim/wargames like Atlantis...

If I'm a small player, and I want to become a big player, one way to do that is to pick a fight with someone I identify as large and impressive but weak... a glass-jawed giant, if you will.

When the little guy fights the big guy, a tie is as good as a win. For even forcing a stalemate draws others and their resources to my side, because I appear to be a brave and notable success. Hell, even just surviving while you publicly flail around trying to find me is a win in some circumstances.

To Osama, the US was just such a glass-jawed giant.

There's plenty of rational explanations for little'uns to attack people ten or a hundred times their size. It all depends on the motives and beliefs.

Murph,

No, our defense of Europe was NOT predicated on "first use." We retained first-use of nuclear weapons as an OPTION, but that was NOT the policy after, oh, probably the late 1950s-early 1960s.

In the wake of the Berlin crises, it was clear that there were contingencies that might arise that would fall below a nuclear release threshold (embodied in what became known as the "Hamburg grab" scenario). So, US/NATO policy moved towards conventional ability to deter Soviet aggression.

'Course, the fact that the Soviets developed tactical nuclear weapons ALSO had something to do w/ it (i.e., they were now deterring us). This became part of what was termed "escalation dominance," i.e., the ability to deter ANY opponent action, on the spectrum of violence, from limited conventional war, to all-out conventional war, to limited and all-out nuclear war. (Yes, at one point, the fear was that it would be the SOVIETS who would use nukes first.)

This was part of the INF debate. The Soviet introduction of SS-20 intermediate range missiles allowed them to hold Europe at risk in a different way than they had before. We introduced Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles in response (over the loud protests of peace protestors who were pretty much making the same arguments that today's do). Move; counter-move.

A different Tom (confusingly, also from the UK) wrote

"This act of horror [9/11] was the product of decades of hatred directed at the West, of Western appeasement and naivety in the face of a new and threatening ideology."

"New and Threatening ideology" is dignifying radical Islam a bit, I think. I don't think it is anywhere near as coherent as, well, communism or fascism as a rival to liberal Western mixed-economy capitalism. It's more akin to Branch-Davidian millenialism than a well-thought out ideology.

On economics it has zip, zilch nada to offer; based on articles interviewing the Taliban in "Foreign Affairs" the Taliban's economic thinking went along the lines of "when we create pure Islam, God will provide". Err, yes. So I think Bin Laden is more a symptom of the death throes of radical Islam, than a symbol of its resurging strength.

I'm not sure about appeasement, either: Western policy on the Middle East seems more about divide-and-keep-weak rather than appeasement: backing whoever was perceived as being opposed to whoever else we saw as the larger threat. But overall, I'd say the West has backed more secular nationalists over Islamists (e.g. nobody got too upset when the FLN canceled the second round of elections in Algeria in the early 1990s when it became evident that the Islamic coalition was going to win).

Geez, Jane, I usually find your comments bright, if wrong-headed, but this posting is just... well, wrong. It deserves to be enshrined in a Museum of Why People Hate MBAs (no, this much-needed institution is not yet in existence, but all donations will be gratefully accepted).

As far as I can see, you're trying to schematize the war debate into a form that fits inside the classic two-by-two chart. As every consultant knows, such charts have the great virtue of making messy, multi-branched situations look neat. In this case, you reduce the war debate to a choice between two imperfect alternatives. As you say, "If we try to strike early.. we will invade some countries where it is unnecessary or counterproductive. If we wait until the threat is more certain, we will have fewer wars, but they will be bigger and more destructive."

Pardon me, but sez who?

You ignore the possibility that fighting a lot of "unnecessary" or "counterproductive" conflicts may actually increase animosity and result in bigger problems down the road. Witness Iran, where the 1953 CIA-backed coup and Washington's subsequent support of the odious Shah has left a residue of hatred that may contribute to a much bigger conflict sometime soon.

Your analysis is really just another version of that hoary old bugger, the domino theory---the idea that we have to fight small wars now to avoid bigger wars down the road. Remember how well that piece of brilliance worked in Vietnam? Sixty-thousand U.S. lives lost, probably six times as many Vietnamese dead, and yet, when the Vietnamese finally won, their victory didn't lead to any domino-like collapse of the free world. In retrospect it seems that the Pentagon confused nationalism and communism. Sorry about that.

The domino theory or, as we can now call it, the Galt theory (I hope you don't mind the attribution?) attempt to make small wars look more palatable by dressing them up as reasonable alternatives to larger conflicts. That's a nifty piece of salesmanship, but it's also a big lie.

That's theoretically possible, Ian, but since it's also theoretically possible that it would reduce the possibility of such wars by convincing other countries that if they stepped out of line, they'd get smacked against the wall, I didn't include it. It's pretty clear, for example, that the Cold War made countries extremely leery of their traditional territorial conflicts, because they knew that such a war would inevitably cause them to be overrun by US and Soviet forces fighting proxy wars; thus the proxy wars we did fight in fact increased the peacefulness of the rest of the world, rather than decreasing it. The one area where both sides largely stayed out of proxy wars -- the Middle East -- was also the most unstable over the time period. Most of the conflicts we fought were thus in-country proxies, where one of the parties had nothing to lose because they weren't in power anywhere. By fighting only two inter-country proxy conflicts, we probably forestalled a large number of other conflicts, as we're seeing now, especially in Africa.

It's a model. No model is perfectly descriptive, and this one is very simple, as befits a thousand word article, but I think it's nonetheless useful as a starting off point for thought.

Mmmmm... I know that no model is perfectly descriptive and I can sympathize with the need to condense and simplify in a short article, but I guess what I'm trying to say---and please remember that I usually adore your writing, even when I disagree with it---is that, in this case, I think you're dead wrong.

And dangerously so. Much current U.S. foreign policy seems to be based on the notion that small wars are somehow a prophylactic against big ones. The Pentagon likes to talk about conflicts as if they were problem in hydraulics---well, you see, ma'am, we got this build-up of pressure in the Middle East, and we have to let 'er out a bit at a time or take a chance on the whole durn thing blowing.

There's no evidence to suggest this is the case. The numerous small colonial skirmishes before the First World War didn't prevent the larger conflict. Nor, for that matter, did the First World War prevent the Second. In fact, I would argue that what history suggests is that war leads to war. Period. End of story.

Consider some of the corollaries to your theory. If you're right, it would seem that the loss of a small war (Vietnam, say) would be expected to lead to a larger conflict. It didn't. It would also seem that a country that refuses to fight small wars would be doomed to a big one. Tell that to Switzerland.

To be perfectly honest, I strongly suspect that any attempt to link small wars to big wars in either direction is necessarily flawed. The problem, of course, is that it's an untestable hypothesis. You can say small wars do lead to peace, I can say small wars don't, but since neither of us can hope to know with certainty how events would have proceeded if things had been done differently, we can never hope to convince one another.

This leaves me in my preferred philosophical position---professing my ignorance and acknowledging that any answers are tentative and hedged with doubts. I suspect that's not far different, in some ways, than your own position. Which is why I'm bothered and mystified by your depiction of small wars as a preventative against big wars. Such a line of argument quickly turns into an alibi for any small war, anywhere.

“Witness Iran, where the 1953 CIA-backed coup and Washington's subsequent support of the odious Shah has left a residue of hatred that may contribute to a much bigger conflict sometime soon.”

This is patently false. It’s obvious that someone needs to spend more time reading Bernard Lewis. Our support of the Shah has virtually nothing to do with the Islamic rage towards the West. If it wasn’t one damn thing---it would have been another! This envy and bitterness is due to the cultural impotency felt by many inhabitants of the Arab Muslim world. Modernity challenges their standard existential manner of dealing with the universe. Our very existence is the cause of this intense anger. Savyid Qutb, for instance, hated the United States long before the shah ever became an issue.

I strongly recommend everyone read Lewis’ new work, “The Crisis of Islam.” This book is of value for the generalist who is trying to get their feet a little wet concerning the Islamic totalitarian threat. Bernard Lewis will also be on TV for three hours tomorrow afternoon. Here's some information on the program:

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segID=3421&schedID=185

Jesus.

Do you really think that some meta-analysis of the argument for war in Iraq on this high level of logical/statistical inference proves any damn thing at all?

I mean, is the idea that if people understood what a false positive and false negative were, the scales would fall from their eyes and we'd all get along?

The way people come to their views of the war mainly derive from sources and impulses and world views that can hardly be accounted for by this prissy kind of analysis.

I mean, nearly half the American people believe that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. Now, at this point in the war, well over 60% think IT DOESN'T MATTER IF NO WMD EXIST IN IRAQ THE WAR IS STILL JUSTIFIED. How does statistical inference deal with THAT?

I end as I began: Jesus.

One example of a preventative war was the US war in Europe during WWII. Germany declared war on us, but there was no need to take that seriously. Finland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria all declared war but we did not do much fighting against them. The US identified Germany as the greatest threat before Pearl Harbor and determined that the major US effort would be made in Europe despite the Japanese having attacked us. This was to destroy Nazi Germany before it became so powerful it could threaten the US in the Western Hemisphere after disposing of any powers in the Old World, so that the US would be alone in facing a victorious Nazi German Empire.

Do not tell me preemptive wars are necessarily immoral or unwise. The US war in WWII in Europe was neither immoral nor unwise.

Ian,
There's a difference between a skirmish and a "small" war, and a "large" war and a widening of a war. It's not so much a case of "small" versus "large" as it is "fewer deaths" versus "more deaths". Take Vietnam. Look at the results of the North Vietnamese invasion in 1975. It's estimated they killed 1 million in the year after they won. The Vietnamese didn't start leaving in fishing boats until after '75. If we had won, would Vietnam have invaded Cambodia in '79? (I'll leave aside the fact that both Cambodia and Laos both went communist in '75, since it doesn't exactly correlate to the domino theory.)

The classic example is the remilitarization of the Rhineland. The German soldiers only had one clip of ammo and orders to retreat if challenged. France might have ended WWII early and more easily right there. But we'll never know.

I think your mention of Switzerland hurts your argument. They didn't stop the Nazis. The Swiss policy might have been good for the Swiss, but not the rest of humanity. It's not a foreign policy I'd want America to follow. I wonder how long they would've lasted if the Allies had lost.

Ahh...could we define a Type III error? Defined, perhaps, as a total failure of logic circuits in those who insist that the war is for oooooiiiilll, despite the fact that cheap oil is absolutely the last thing a Texas oil baron would want.

What is a total failure of logical circuits your simplistic misunderstanding of the significance of what proxy control of the flow of oil out of the Middle East means to our economy. Its not that we want the oil itself, we will happily buy it form our new found friends the Iraqi's. It that the Saudi's will be stripped of their ability to set prices by virtue of the fact that they have the largest reserve production capacity of only three countries that have any reserve production capacity at all.

Currently they Saudi Arabia raise prices, with world demand running at about 3% per year and non-big three (Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ) oil production falling against the rising demand, you don't have to be a Nobel prize winning economist to understand the danger our economy is in from what goes on in the Middle East.

When the war is over we will have a sufficient hedge against Saudi mischief on the world market, or an overthrow of the US friendly dictatorship by Islamic fundamentalists, not to mention the elimination of the threat that Hussein might invade Saudi Arabia or just start a war that interferes with production. Also the Texas oil barons will get millions in development contracts, and a stable oil market (Meaning prices steadie and slightly north of 25$ after everything settles down). While the profits from the actual oil will go, transparently, to Iraq, the Saudi's will be prevented from rising prices by cutting production. If they do I'm sure our new found friends will increase production to counter it.

It's a big win for the US economy for the next ten years. And exactly the kind of solution that James Baker's CFR report on energy said was critical to energy stability in the summer of 2001. (not to mention the RAND corperation)And it will stay that way until the Saudi oil fields peak, and all hell breaks lose.

Comments are Closed.