It's Just a Matter of Probabilities
So this NYTimes story - the one about how Saddam Hussein was a year away from building a nuke - has resurrected the whole war justification debate (as opposed to the war status debate, which apparently the coming election is about).
What irked me throughout the whole debate regarding Iraqi WMDs was the terrible black/white framework in which the debate was conducted. Did/does Saddam have WMDs, yes or no? This was not the right question. The right question was "what is the probability that Saddam has WMDs?" Certainly it wasn't 100%, but it sure as hell wasn't 0%. Similarly with the probability that Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Maybe it wasn't 100%, but definitely not 0%. Of course the next question for purposes of policy was what level of probability for these issues are the American people willing to live with? 5%? 20%? 50%? Of course, estimates of costs and benefits will vary and the value ascribed to each this can be a highly subjective matter, but at least this would have been at better way to view the debate and to analyze where we are today. If I told you that the probability that Saddam had both ties to terrorists and WMD was 25%, you may or may not have supported the war. You also may or may not be upset about the current state of the war. At some level of probability the current situation in Iraq has to be considered preferrable to having Saddam, situated as the Times says he was situated, in power. No Saddam, US boots on the ground, albeit with Sunnis and Shiites killing each other vs. a Saddam a year away from having a nuke? Where's the tipping point? I would say that what the NY Times has reported has raised the probability that Saddam was a real threat, making the decision to oust him more justified and the current situation more tolerable. It is mind-boggling to me that they didn't see it that way.
What irked me throughout the whole debate regarding Iraqi WMDs was the terrible black/white framework in which the debate was conducted. Did/does Saddam have WMDs, yes or no? This was not the right question. The right question was "what is the probability that Saddam has WMDs?" Certainly it wasn't 100%, but it sure as hell wasn't 0%. Similarly with the probability that Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Maybe it wasn't 100%, but definitely not 0%. Of course the next question for purposes of policy was what level of probability for these issues are the American people willing to live with? 5%? 20%? 50%? Of course, estimates of costs and benefits will vary and the value ascribed to each this can be a highly subjective matter, but at least this would have been at better way to view the debate and to analyze where we are today. If I told you that the probability that Saddam had both ties to terrorists and WMD was 25%, you may or may not have supported the war. You also may or may not be upset about the current state of the war. At some level of probability the current situation in Iraq has to be considered preferrable to having Saddam, situated as the Times says he was situated, in power. No Saddam, US boots on the ground, albeit with Sunnis and Shiites killing each other vs. a Saddam a year away from having a nuke? Where's the tipping point? I would say that what the NY Times has reported has raised the probability that Saddam was a real threat, making the decision to oust him more justified and the current situation more tolerable. It is mind-boggling to me that they didn't see it that way.
posted by Donny Baseball at 2:15 PM
5 Comments:
Whether Iraq had, or could have had, WMD is really not important. The issue of WMD was used to gather public support for war on Iraq, and that was its only purpose.
Here is my take on the real driver behind our decision to invade Iraq: a shift in our foreign policy from seeking stability through tolerance, to regime change via force. Afghanistan was first, Iraq next, and so on. We would always takeout the weakest regime at the time. I believe Syria and Iran came to the same conclusion.
If the pentagon had planned better for postwar Iraq, we probably would have invaded Syria already. Syria and Iran also sensed the shift in our policy. You can see this in their current activities in Iraq. Obviously it is in their best interest to make our occupation of Iraq a living hell, or risk being invaded by US. The current situation in Iraq reflects activities from three countries: the US, Iran, and Syria. Iran and Syria are winning at the moment, and would win in the end if the US continues its soft stands toward violence and armed militias are allowed to exist.
The problem, I think, with the new foreign policy is that it is internally inconsistent. After a regime was changed via force, you have to be willing to use force to consolidate power. This means a period of bloody crack down. The Bush administration obviously doesn't not want to do that. So the new policy is a half baked one, in my opinion. Hence our current trouble in Iraq.
To me, the real questions are whether our old foreign policy was better than the current one? If not, then is the current policy sustainable?
I agree it is half-baked, we should be consolidating and running raids into Syria and Iran. But I do not think it is a loss or a failure to have boots on the ground in that neck of woods. THose boots are supporting a fledgling democracy (albiet much more fledglig than most people's taste despite all histotical evidence that democracies are hard to build), keeping an eye on Iran and Syria, and picking off al-Qaeda types. To sum it up, we are in their kitchen, occupying the time and resources of the Iranians, al-qaeda, et al. and that is a good position to be in. Keeping those guys in a state of low level hot war is alot better than a low level cold war, because we'd lose that one.
Just comment on your assertion that the justification for war wasn't WMD. I agree and disagree. It was a sufficient justification but a necessary one. I believe the concern over WMD was real and justified (our intelligence sucked but the Israelis doesn't and we used a good chunk of that). But there were other justifications as well that created critical mass. There are many things that we as individuals do that require multiple things to be in place and have multiple reasons arguing for them before we embark on them. Why do we hold the administration to this crazy standard that the justification for war had to be driven by only one thing and that the "intersection" theory is BS?
WMD was just a veil, in my opinion. Look at the facts and assess the risk for yourself:
North Korea has nuke, has a history of selling advanced weapons to rogue regimes, and most likely would not hesitate selling nukes to terrorists.
Pakistan has nuke, is a nest for terrorists, was the main backer of the Taliban, its chief nuclear scientist was caught red handed exporting the technology but was pardoned by the government.
Iran, another terrorist nest, is working on nuke, and should have nukes pretty soon.
Syria, a known heaven for terrorists, no doubt has chemical weapons and perhaps biological weapons.
Russia was reportedly "lost" many suitcase nuclear bombs, probably to rogue regimes like Iran and Syria.
Compare the above to Iraq, where we had virtually unrestricted inspection access to everywhere, could track almost every advanced weapon, unquestioned air supremacy over its airspace, and could takeout any facility anywhere in the country within 5 minutes. I ask you, was Iraqi WMD really a serious threat to the world? If we are really worried about WMD, then would it make more sense to take out some of the countries mentioned above instead?
I agree with your basic argument that Iraq was not #1 on the list. But my view is that we don't necessarily have to take out threats in priority order. They were in the top 5, good riddance. To wit:
North Korea is China. We have no pretext or interest in war with China. Also we have leverage with China - we ban import of their goods and the government will collapse or be seriously challenged. So while we have reason to fear, we have an outlet in getting China to help. Also, Japan and SK have a stake.
I think the thinkers thought that Iran would self-destruct, implode or otherwise fix itself given the unpopularity of the mullahs. Maybe, maybe not. I agree we should be extremely concerned about them, but having boots on teh ground in Iraq makes that easy and gives the mullahs fits.
Syria is a punk and Israel has got them in its sites.
Russia is stranger. I think we are realist with them. They are so damn big it is best to just try and be friends and urge them to be a force for stability. We can't trust Putin to be a noble actor in the world at large but we can trust him to keep tight tabs on what goes on in his country.
Pakistan same. Give the strongman aid and make him root out some really bad dudes.
We can't do everything all at once my friend...baby steps!
Post a Comment
<< Home