Asymmetrical Information

What a bunch of jr apologist garbage. Both writers attempt to write about theoretical preemptive war, when what they are writing about is Iraq. The problem with Iraq isnt that it was a preemptive war, its that Wolfiwitz filtered any intelligence that said Iraq had no wmd. He never reported that A Chalibi was the lone source of the Iraqi wmd locations Powell reported to the UN. He never reported that every single Iraqi scientist interrogated prior to the invasion said there werent any Iraqi wmd programs, let alone wmd. He never reported that a single alcoholic informant was the lone source of the mobile wmd labs. I could go on and on, but the election made it clear that most dont care.

I would have no problem with a preemptive war, as long as ALL the intelligence is available to the Congress. The Senate report on the Iraqi intell proves this just wasn't the case prior to Iraq. Bush lied over and over that the Congress saw all the intell he did, but neither the media or dems called him on it. Its kinda funny that we are wasting all these military resources in Iraq, and are unable to preempt Irans slog towards nukes. Our military resources, and how we define the level of the threat in conjunction with those resources are factors the writers quoted didnt consider. No military preemption could have averted 911, its rather ridiculous to think military intervention will keep us safe from multinational terror groups using unconventional means of attack. And Beckers theory that democratic nations favor retaliation over preemption, and using MAD as the example is completely stupid. MAD itself is the reason we never threw down with the USSR, not some democratic aversion to first strike. He should consider Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq 1 prior to spouting his bs.

"The only really effective approach is to stop them before they engage in their attacks. This is accomplished by tracking them down and imprisoning or killing them based on evidence that they intend to engage in suicidal attacks."

Which, of course, never happened before invading Iraq.

Posner's position on pre-emption is one of absolute personal utility and cost-effectiveness. Judging from the blistering attacks in the commentary, one can only assume he meant the post as an exercise in provocation or perhaps a prank. The implementation of what he proposes would be so disastrous in a real world situation that one would have to suspect senility if he were serious. Oh wait, we did pre-emptively invade Iraq ...

Interesting that such big shots have a comment section (how often does that happen?) I wonder how long that will last.

Pretty unimpressive if Fafblog can poke holes in it. I wonder if it's a hoax or if they're not as smart as their credentials would indicate.

But the entire argument rests upon really knowing that you're going after the right people. It depends entirely upon having good intelligence and not filtering it through ideology. I don't see that happening any time soon.

To me this seems like a lot of logical stuff that doesn't apply to a given future situation. There are just too many factors in a given situation to try to figure out some rules for pre-emptive war in general in advance. No one knows the future and if the threat is felt and real enough, I think we are justified in a preemptive war.

If in fact this is Iraq, there were a lot of factors besides WMD to justify this. One big one is the unknown of how far terrorists would go and when, and how badly the situation in Israel had been deterioating. They are all connected together by the insanity of Islamofascism, and the violent anti-semitism of the "moderate" Arabs. Right now a war against both North Korea and Iran, maybe Syria too is justified by their behaviour. But is it the best way to deal with it? It may become so. But my point is that to try to isolate out whether that party is going to attack you as the basis for preemptive action is to ignore the synergy swirling around in the world now that amplifies all threats.

And Begbee, get off the looney tunes, no one believes you, we all read the news and know you are making things up.

I don't trust most "journalists" much less robots! Ye gods !

You can talk about "synergy" as much as you want, Napablogger, but it's irrelevant to the little fact that -- as a result of our being entangled in Iraq, which in turn is a result of the Bush Neocons' goofy wishful thinking about the ease with which Iraq could be occupied and reformed (plus this administration's frantic unwillingness to admit that it might have made a serious mistake) -- our ability to deal militarily with real and deadly nuclear-weapon problems and their consequences in Iran, North Korea and Pakistan has been crippled.

Well, if the posner/becker argument is logical, then the logical conclusion of the rest of the world would be to invade the US, before it is too late.

Question to everyone who's ever wanted the administration to "admit that they've made a terrible mistake": what purpose would it serve, besides giving some the opportunity to say "I told you so"? Is there a foreign or domestic policy benefit that I'm missing? Do you contend that if the Bushies decided that Iraq really had been a big blunder (something I don't think they do believe, so this is purely hypothetical), and then threw themselves on the mercy of the world, that they - WE - would get anything out of it besides an "I told you so" in languages other than American English?

Let's suppose for a wild moment that Iraq really was a mistake. (Let no one construe this as my actual opinion, please.) What is the correct and prudent course of action? Is it to abandon Iraq to its fate, which we first led it to, and completely lose control and even influence over a white-hot spot in the general het-up-ness of the Middle East? What would be the consequences, both there and here, of washing our hands of it now? I am genuinely interested in what those who want to hear a Catholic-esque Bush confession would expect to see.

They must be dong something right if they have all the moonbats at crooked timber all stirred up.

Clearly there are many different opinions out there. Would Begbee or anyone else please lay out, calmly and rationally, an explanation of how Bush could have been expected to KNOW that there were no WMDs? Or is the argument that, if there's doubt as to whether or not we were in danger, we should have given someone with Saddam's track record the benefit of the doubt, regardless of the fact that our lives were at risk?

It's clear that the evidence at the time was inconclusive, as the administration admitted repeatedly. What Rumsfeld and others said was that 'we can't be sure, but there are strong indications that Saddam is stocking up on WMDs, and we don't want to take that chance' (a paraphrase, not a direct quote).

Given what we know now - that even those closest to Saddam believed that Iraq had WMDs and were ready to use them, and that every frontline commander believed that there were other frontline troops that had WMDs and were ready to use them - how could we have been sure without getting into Saddam's head?

Begbee says that the scientists denied that there were WMD programs (which we now know to be false - there didn't seem to be stockpiles, but there were programs). Aren't the scientists the same people who had been sent notices of their own deaths (so-and-so died yesterday in a car accident...) from the regime? Oh, but that doesn't count, because when the UN found out that Iraq had been intimidating scientists by sending them death notices, the UN told Iraq to stop, so the scientists couldn't possibly have been intimidated.

It's easy (and true) to say that our information was less than perfect, but how could we have been expected to know the true level of the stockpiles? I genuiunely want to know if there is a case for this, because liberals talk as if it's obvious, but I can't see it.

And furthermore (building on Ann's post), there's the Duelfer report, which makes it abundantly clear that Saddam Hussein was still not just highly motivated to resume his WMD programs but was ready and able to do so as soon as sanctions were lifted (or fell apart, as they were increasingly appearing to be doing). Those who emphasize Duelfer's "no WMD stockpiles" statement often choose to overlook its conclusions that support preemptive war in Iraq.

Interesting that you yourself are overlooking the part of the Duelfer report that concluded that Saddam wanted WMDs for deterrence purposes.

Not overlooking it, but thanks for bringing it up; it is important. Have you seen the post on another thread (I'm sorry, I can't remember which one at present) that suggested that bin Laden's true motive for 9/11 was to bring down the House of Saud? It's an intriguing theory that might have a lot of merit, but it's not to be overlooked that the tactic involved resulted in the instant death of 3000. In other words, while Saddam Hussein was surely trying to deter Iran, it's already well established that he was willing to use WMD, not just sabre-rattle with them. Could we afford to take the chance that his sole motive was deterrence?

Re: Peter's post a ways up: If the invasion of the US had followed on the heels of Nagasaki, I'd probably have to agree - we'd clearly demonstrated our willingness to use the most horrific weapon in the world against not just an empty stretch of desert but two population centers. What was the estimate, a million civilan casualties if we'd have had to invade Japan to end the war? Shudder... I should daily thank God that a decision like that will never rest with me; I don't have the guts to make it.

But we have a record now of having long possessed almost unimaginable military might - not just nuclear but conventional too, and probably "other" - but showing a great deal of restraint in actually wielding it, plus we have a cultural and constitutional base that predisposes us to restraint. (Hush up, Begbee, we do indeed show restraint, or we'd have a REAL empire like the one the sun never set on. No offense to our British friends and allies - it was a different time and we've come a long way since then.)

Jamie: Have you seen the post on another thread... that suggested that bin Laden's true motive for 9/11 was to bring down the House of Saud?

No, but I've heard that theory before. Doesn't really matter either way, though.

Jamie: Could we afford to take the chance that his sole motive was deterrence?

I don't doubt that Saddam was a threat. The only question is that of degree and priority, and I personally prioritized Iraq below North Korea, Iran, and Al Qaeda (probably below Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as well). Since we don't have a military that is capable of dealing with all threats simultaneously, threat prioritization is a necessity.

Every choice involves taking a chance. I would argue that war is almost always the riskier choice, as the consequences of it are irreversible and are generally less predictable. In Iraq's case, the need for a lengthy and difficult occupation increased this risk, as it ties up military and economic resources that could instead have been used to track down Al Qaeda and/or be used as leverage against more dangerous states like Iran, which, unlike Iraq, had its own nuclear program, not to mention closer ties to terrorism.

So in my mind, the burden of proof lay with pro-war folks to justify that the invasion was worth the risks and costs, and to demonstrate that Iraq was the gravest threat facing our country. As the Bush administration made little attempt to calculate such risks and costs, and to this day continues to say very little about Iran, I was less than convinced. The Duelfer report merely confirmed this.

Iran is/was the harder target, no? And the less egregious offender in that Iran hasn't actually invaded a neighbor in recent history, gassed an ethnic minority within its borders, or engaged in open defiance of UN resolutions? I too am troubled by Iran's nuke program, but what can be said about or inferred from Mahdi Obeidi's claim that he wasn't the only Iraqi scientist ordered to conceal parts and plans for an Iraqi nuke program on his own property?

If a strategic decision had to be made about which "second front" to open in a two-front war (Afghanistan being the first), Iraq still looks like a good choice to me: it isolates Iran, it chops through a supply route down the peninsula, it removes a proximate statist threat to Israel, it deposes a tyrant responsible for many tens of thousands of deaths of his country's own citizens, it addresses decade-long defiance of the world's (OK, the UN's, but it's supposed to be the same thing) requirements, it ends sanctions that, if they were having an effect at all, were not having the desired effect of ending that defiance and opens the door to better access to humanitarian aid and trade for Iraqis, and, in contrast to North Korea, it keeps the second front relatively close to the first, such that troop and materiel transport time between fronts, if appropriate, is minimized. Finally, there are the many tenuous but not absent links to al Qaeda spelled out by Hayes and others. True, Saudi Arabia is more closely linked in that so many of the 9/11 hijackers were from there (as well as its un-favored son OBL), but (ahem) I'd venture that the administration didn't strongly consider attacking an ally, however expedient the alliance might be.

You assert that the Bushies "made little attempt to calculate such risks and costs"; do you have a source? I'd like to read it if you do, because I've never seen anything from the administration or anyone in a position to comment knowledgeably about their decision-making process to that effect. Consequently I tend to dismiss statements like that as "They didn't reach the same conclusion I did, so obviously they didn't do the analysis." If I'm wrong in my assumption, I want to know about it so I can stop shooting my mouth off. (Stop me before I post again!)

Jamie: Iran is/was the harder target, no? And the less egregious offender

None of these are primary determinants of threat. Numerous countries in Africa invade each other all the time and massacre their own people. But none of this has no bearing on their threat to us. Israel defies UN resolutions by continuing to build settlements. This has no bearing on their threat to us.

In my mind, the two most important factors for threat assessment are 1) how advanced their nuclear weapons program is and 2) how likely they are to attack us. I think both Iran and North Korea score well above Iraq on both counts. That they are more difficult to deal with is less important to the fact that they will get a lot more difficult if we procrastinate dealing with them.

what can be said about or inferred from Mahdi Obeidi's claim that he wasn't the only Iraqi scientist ordered to conceal parts and plans for an Iraqi nuke program on his own property?

Do you have a source for that? From what I could find, Obeidi disputed the Bush administration's claims:

The White House, for instance, has cited the case of nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi, who recently dug up plans and components for a gas centrifuge that he said he buried in 1991 at the end of the Persian Gulf War. The White House has pointed to the discovery as a sign of Hussein's continuing nuclear ambitions, but Obeidi told his interrogators that Iraq's nuclear program was dormant in the years before war began in March.

The sources said Obeidi also disputed evidence cited by the administration — namely Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes that various officials said were for a new centrifuge program to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs. Obeidi said the tubes were for rockets, as Iraq had claimed before the war.

Both of his claims were later confirmed by the Duelfer report. The Bush administration was cherry-picking evidence and picking interpretations to help their case. Indeed, the New York Times has a long story detailing how the inter-departmental debate over the centrifuges and the aluminum tubes was stifled.

Of course, the most effective use of intelligence and information is to determine the best course of action -- not to defend a pre-selected course of action.

If a strategic decision had to be made about which "second front" to open in a two-front war (Afghanistan being the first), Iraq still looks like a good choice to me: it isolates Iran

Since Iran, unlike Iraq, can manufacture their own nuclear fissile material, isolating them doesn't really acccomplish all that much.

it removes a proximate statist threat to Israel

I think Israel is more than capable of defending itself against Iraq. Unlike Iraq, they actually have an air force... and the nuke. Besides, threat to Israel is not the same as a threat to us, or else we'd be the ones occupying the West Bank.

Finally, there are the many tenuous but not absent links to al Qaeda spelled out by Hayes and others. True, Saudi Arabia is more closely linked

Who is Hayes? Is he an expert on terrorism or a high-ranking intelligence official? Or is he one of those partisan hacks?

As for Saudi Arabia, this brings up the question, why are we such close allies with Saudi Arabia? Why haven't we taken any steps towards distancing ourselves from them? Why no gas tax or oil import fee proposals to provide economic incentives for weaning our country off of Saudi oil?

But I wasn't talking about Saudi Arabia so much as Iran, which has even closer links with Al Qaeda. And did you ever hear anyone in the Bush administration explain exactly how Iraq was a bigger threat than Iran? Or North Korea?

You assert that the Bushies "made little attempt to calculate such risks and costs"; do you have a source?

Before the war, the Bush administration evaded questions about the possible cost of the invasion. As you know, Lawrence Lindsey broke ranks and suffered for it:

The administration's top budget official estimated Monday that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.

In an interview, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier projections of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, President Bush's former chief economic adviser, were too high.
...
Lindsey said in September that a war with Iraq might amount to 1 percent to 2 percent of the national gross domestic product, or $100 billion to $200 billion.

Lindsey was criticized inside and outside the administration for putting forth such a large number, which helped pave the way for his ouster earlier this month.

Of course, Lindsey's numbers were also too low.

As for the risks, I think James Fallows paints a pretty illuminating picture of the planning process (subscribers only, but you can find a copy here). In a nutshell, “The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge.” This includes Shinseki's troop estimate.

Not surprisingly, all of this kinda fits with the cherry-picking that was going on with the WMD intelligence.

Funny you should mention cherry-picking.... This idea that there were memos that perfectly predicted everything that would happen in Iraq, and thus that we should have been fully prepared for all of it, is nothing but cherry-picking. You wait until afterwards, see what happened, then dig up matching predictions out of the many, many predictions available.

People say that we weren't prepared because we expected the Iraqis to greet us with flowers, but the U.S. spent a lot of time and energy preparing refugee camps. Suppose the Bush administration hadn't bothered with that, and then there had been many Iraqi refugees without shelter or drinking water, dying of disease? Someone would have dug up a plan predicting a vast refugee crisis, and you would have been saying the exact same things - that they were warned, but that they tragically ignored the clear and obvious warnings.

It would be one thing if the Bush administration at the time had pointed out why Shinseki or Lindsey's predictions were wrong and offered a better prediction along with an explanation of why their prediction was better.

Instead, they just ignored them. That speaks volumes.

Comments are Closed.