« Fiasco II | Main | Markets in everything »
Fiasco, III
Don't be distracted by Alex's libertarian rhetoric on foreign
policy. It would not produce a very libertarian world. It would lead
to um...fiasco. Ask around in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, or for that
matter Honest Europe. That's most of the free world. Can anyone else protect Singapore or New Zealand?
Had Alex his way, the first Gulf War never would have happened. Saddam and his sons would rule Iraq, owning both Kuwaiti oil revenue and nuclear weapons, and probably itching for a rematch with Iran. Sound like fun?
It is palatable to oppose the second Gulf War only because we fought the first.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 5, 2006 at 01:19 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
Herr Cowen,
There was a Gulf War before the ‘first Gulf War”: That was the Iran-Iraq war. In that first Gulf War, we provided weaponry and technology to Mr. Hussein to create/sustain the monster…..reminds me of another gentleman we trained….Osama something.
The Kuwait invasion was bold and vulgar but Iraq’s claim to the emirate is not entirely unfounded.
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Aug 5, 2006 2:01:18 AM
I hope you realize how counterfactual this is.
You're supposing (I think; it is hard to judge your argument) that absent military intervention by the US, (1) Saddam would still be in power (very likely true), (2) he'd have nuclear weapons to bargain with (I frankly have no idea where this claim comes from, Tyler can prove me wrong) and (3) that somehow the Iraq we've made is better than what came before it (While I was no fan of the old ruler, I think it would take a carefully tuned eye to think that things have improved, or are going to soon).
Tyler, I grant you (1). Do you support (2) and (3)?
Posted by: fishbane at Aug 5, 2006 2:16:05 AM
Yes, because then we had the hearts and minds of the Shiites theren and suicide bombing was not in fashion then. I think the best chance was in the early 90s for the US to intervene. However, Bush Sr. decided not to and the window passed. The last adventure of Bush Jr. was a folly and everybody should see that by now...
Posted by: Max at Aug 5, 2006 7:06:23 AM
I'm of the old "power" school and the well being of the Iraq
population is besides the point. The only way to judge the
war is did it serve US interest and improve the US ability to
get the rest of the world to act in US interest.
We are seeing the answer to that in Lebanon and Israel right now
where our ablity to influence events is massive reduced from
what it was in the previous mideast conflicts.
The war is bad because it has hurt US interest and ability to
project our power over that and other parts of the world.
Posted by: spencer at Aug 5, 2006 8:15:30 AM
Actually, it does not follow that the first Gulf War would never have happened under a stricter interpretation of the Constitution. With the knowledge that the alternative to a declaration of war was doing nothing, Congress may well have voted for just such a declaration.
If you want to undermine that principle as a protection against unnecessary wars, remember that the latest Gulf War also passed a vote in Congress. So it might not be the barrier either of you think it is.
Posted by: Sandy Smith at Aug 5, 2006 9:08:21 AM
Tyler is still waiting for the WMD to be found.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 5, 2006 10:06:24 AM
That's a very shallow post from a such a smart guy.
I certainly caught that Alex did not say "no war" or "no government." He said "a high bar."
"the likelihood of disaster is so great that the bar needs to be set very high."
... I mean what does your rant mean Tyler, that a "low" bar is appropriate?
Posted by: odograph at Aug 5, 2006 10:13:10 AM
Tyler, why are you letting your alter-ego Tyrone post under your name? How embarrassing!
Posted by: Kevin B. O'Reilly at Aug 5, 2006 10:19:08 AM
Tyler, that seems like an unusually dismissive post from you. If Alex had his way, I'd assume the US would never had propped up Hussein in the first place, nor would it have engaged in extensive interference in the Middle East over the past fifty years. People will commonly object to libertarian views by saying, "How will this weak government deal with problem X?" But this question misses the point. The proper response is, at least sometimes, "It won't create problem X to begin with, so it won't have to deal with it." Of course, libertarians can be a little too optimistic about how many X's are the result solely of the US failing to follow more libertarian policies.
Posted by: Jason at Aug 5, 2006 10:31:23 AM
I think you should not talk so authoritatively about war from the comfort of your home when it is clear that you do not understand and feel the devastation that it engenders and the lives that it destroys.
Posted by: fsr at Aug 5, 2006 10:41:59 AM
Thank you, Tyler, for injecting a much-needed note of moderation into the discussion.
Kent Guida
Posted by: Kent Guida at Aug 5, 2006 10:51:05 AM
Alex wrote: "Tyler is still waiting for the WMD to be found."
You aren't watching enough TV: WMD were found; albeit degraded, but WMD
is WMD. Also as I understand it, once one has the human capital to
make some of these WMD, making more is a snap. Sadam's Manson-like
cult had the human capital, and had a record of using them (even on
civilians). Sadam interfered with UN inspections and violate "no fly"
zone restrictions, etc.
Posted by: jim at Aug 5, 2006 11:00:20 AM
I'll second Kent. Fishbane, the nuke claim comes from what I remember of how surprisingly advanced Iraq's circa GWI program was when they went in after the liberation of Kuwait. I don't recall exactly how far along it was, but it was much farther than anyone thought possible. Add fifteen years and the increased money and economic influence/protection of having Kuwait's oil added to Iraq's...
Whining about support for Iraq in the war against Iran is silly. We didn't want Iran to win! The best realistic outcome for the US would have been for eternal stalemate. Unfortunately Saddam got bored and decided to go after Kuwait and then dedicate himself to pissing us off. But letting/risking Khomeini have a big win wouldn't have been a better outcome.
fsr wins the dumbest comment award, however. I don't understand and feel the devasation that drugs or AIDS do to those who suffer them. Am I incompetent to hold policy opinions on whether and how the drug war should be fought, or whether my money should be taken and spent on AIDS research rather than other causes (or myself)? It is in fact those emotionally overwrought and too involved in an issue that are incompetent to judge an issue. We don't go to war to maximize the mental health of those involved or that their families.
Posted by: Dylan at Aug 5, 2006 11:05:38 AM
I don't understand Tyler's post. I can't even tell if it's serious. I was lost at "Ask around in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, or for that matter Honest Europe." Do they provide good case studies in the failure of libertarian foreign policy?
Spencer wrote: "I'm of the old "power" school and the well being of the Iraq
population is besides the point ... The war is bad because it has hurt US interest and ability to project our power over that and other parts of the world."
I think you'd have a stronger argument (as in, likely to convince more people) if you didn't divorce those issues. The war's having hurt our interests is one reason it's wrong. The war's fubarring Iraq is another. It's objectionable for a war-making population to not care about the well being of the warred-on population; that's the sort of logic that's used to justify outright invasions.
FSR wrote: "I think you should not talk so authoritatively about war from the comfort of your home ..." I don't think that objection makes sense. It's not like having a bomb dropped on your house makes you well-informed. In fact it probably does great damage to your rationality.
Posted by: Jeff Brown at Aug 5, 2006 11:19:49 AM
What could possibly have been wrong with a Saddam-Iran rematch? That 8 year war was the best one of the century. Two evil regimes duking it out instead of screwing with everyone else in the region. Everyone profited from that war except the participants. Its just too bad it didn't last longer.
Posted by: Dave Fobare at Aug 5, 2006 11:24:34 AM
Saddam and his sons ruling Iraq would be a faster path to moderate open government than what we chose. Seriously what makes Saddam so bad? That he was against Isreal? I hate to say it but the people of Iraq are not going to permit a government that does not oppose Isreal. That Saddam killed thousands of his own people? Iraq is not a united nation, the Sunnis hate the Shi'ites and the Arabs hate the Kurds. They hate each other enough that they are willing to kill US soldiers, women and children of their group, and themselves for the privelege of killing one of the other teams. The US has found in neccessary to kill maybe hundreds of thousands of people to try and keep them from killing us and each other, I am unwilling to hold Saddam Hussien to a higher standard.
Saddam initiated aggression against Iran but he did so with the blessing and aid of the United States and USSR. Saddam used chemical weapons, I know this is a taboo but chemical weapons are not in any significant way worse than conventional weapons. I don't have a huge preference when given the choice between being set on fire, blown up, or poisoned to death.
Saddam also did plenty of good things, he gave women more rights than almost any middle eastern "democracy", he abolished most Sharia law courts. He spearheaded a very successful literacy and education campaign, he improved infrastructure. If Hussien was born in 1957 he would likely be amoung the US's top choices to lead Iraq.
Posted by: M Foody at Aug 5, 2006 11:37:16 AM
Why does jim keep throwing around the phrase "Manson-like cult?" Where the heck is he getting that from? Saddam was a bad dude, but he sure wasn't a religious fanatic with a cult following--he was a very irreligious secularist with a lot of power that kept people in line. The fact that Saddam tortured and killed innocent people was bad, but I'm not so sure that the average person is any better off now with the chance to get killed not just by Saddam but by a Sunni or Shii death squad or some other random militia or by the US marines, or by corrupt Iraqi police, or by common criminals and thieves. Sure, the Kurds are better off, but the average Iraqi is probably not.
Posted by: JKC at Aug 5, 2006 11:43:23 AM
The key question, of course, is what WMD path Saddam was on right before the *first* Gulf War. It is now commonly recognized that he was quite close to building nuclear weapons. Of course Alex is free to raise his hand and say "I endorse the first Gulf War. It is above the bar I set." Or Alex could admit what kind of Middle East his foreign policy views would lead to. Saddam received support from the US, but we are hardly responsible for his becoming a monster; the libertarian move of "we created the problem in the first place" won't wash here. Alex, which is it? I am waiting...
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Aug 5, 2006 11:44:19 AM
Ask around in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, or for that matter Honest Europe. That's most of the free world. Can anyone else protect Singapore or New Zealand?
Underlying Prof. Cowen's argument is the unspoken idea that totalitarianism is efficient and easy, and that totalitarian regimes don't suffer political pressure or economic destruction from imperial policies. This idea is at odds with almost everything else written on this site, and, once said, certainly isn't what Prof. Cowen actually believes.
Imperialism rots the core of the country, destroys it utterly, and terror can only prop up the center for so long. Eventually it collapses on itself. There's no reason to think that wide-ranging "free world" intervention is needed to protect countries from imperialism. Indeed, by containing imperialism instead of letting it flame out, the suffering of the people under the empire may be prolonged.
Of course, fundamentally, libertarianism is about individuals, not states. At the heart is this one truth: no one has the right to tax me. Period. Not to defend Kuwait, not to build highways, not to pay for medical care.
- Josh
Posted by: Wild Pegasus at Aug 5, 2006 11:46:08 AM
Q: how many comments above are based on the false dichotomy that the only choices were (a) let Saddam do what he wants, or (b) invade with boots on ground?
Posted by: odograph at Aug 5, 2006 12:37:20 PM
Hindsight is always 20/20. Hindsight bias causes people to ignore the totality of the circumstances in the past. Many of the comments provide a good illustration of this.
Chairman Mao and Jason forget that there for much of the past fifty years there was a small entity called the soviet union active in the mideast. The choice was not iran or iraq the decision was how to juggle iran, iraq and the soviet union. By the way Mao bonus points of the not good kind for your "Herr cowen" crack at the start of your comment.
Posted by: TJIT at Aug 5, 2006 12:48:34 PM
Fishbane,
You said,
"(While I was no fan of the old ruler, I think it would take a carefully tuned eye to think that things have improved, or are going to soon)."
Which conveniently ignores the fact that hussein started two wars that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, substantial destabilization of the area, and probable strengthening of the hardline elements within iran.
The fact that hussein is no longer in power means there is little chance that he will be able to start a third war in the region. This by itself is a substantial improvement of conditions in the mideast.
Posted by: TJIT at Aug 5, 2006 12:55:10 PM
M Foody,
You win the entertainingly crazy comment award with your statement below.
"Saddam and his sons ruling Iraq would be a faster path to moderate open government than what we chose. Seriously what makes Saddam so bad?"
The fact that saddam started two wars in the region as mentioned in a previous comment is part of what made him bad for iraq and bad for the region, there are many others. Furthermore, the idea that saddam and his two ex sons would provide a faster path to moderate open government is simply laughable.
Posted by: TJIT at Aug 5, 2006 1:05:56 PM
Tyler and Alex,
In asking whether we should have a libertarian foreign policy, there is some difficulty in answering the question by an appeal to counterfactual consequences. I'm sure you're aware of that.
But the difficulty is that every time you say, "Yes, but if we hadn't intervened in X, given circumstances Y, a non-libertarian outcome would have occurred." Alex can usually reply, "Yeah, but Y was caused by intervention X-1, and so if intervention X-1 hadn't occurred, then Y would not have obtained, and so intervention X would not be necessary."
And then Tyler comes back with, "Yeah, but intervention X-1 occurred due to circumstances Y-1! And we could have stopped circumstances Y-1!"
Ya'll can travel on back for awhile, I bet.
The question I think you should both ask is this: What is a reasonable circumstance Y-N (for a reasonably small N) and a reasonable intervention X-N (for a reasonably small N) to start from? Otherwise, I don't see how to resolve the conflict one way or the other.
I also have a small bone to pick with Tyler: Your argument seems to be that if the United States hadn't fought the first Gulf War we'd have a less libertarian *world*. But it's not the job of the United States government to promote liberty abroad, is it? I sure hope it isn't. I mean, isn't the point of a libertarian foreign policy be to promote liberty *for the United States* and not *for the entire world*?
You might think the goal of a foreign policy is to promote global liberty and not national liberty (at least in circumstances where increasing the former doesn't involve decreasing the latter, right?), but I'd like to see that defended. Perhaps in a post!
Posted by: Rhadamanthus at Aug 5, 2006 1:55:54 PM
'Saddam received support from the US...'
Very little, actually. Saddam was a Soviet client, he had MIGs, T series Soviet tanks, and probably chemical weapons assistance. His Mirages and artillery came from France.
Reagan reluctantly shared intelligence with Saddam when it was obvious Iran was going to defeat him. We gave him almost nothing in the way of weaponry. Our stance was that we wanted neither Iran or Iraq to win their war.
Btw, in Norman Schwarzkopf's book, he details the meeting in which the King of Saudi Arabia gave Dick Cheney permission to bring in American troops to confront Saddam in 1990. He astonished Schwarzkopf by the speed with which he made the decision once Cheney showed the King satellite photos of Saddam's tanks being readied for a push into Saudi Arabia from Kuwait.
With Saudi's oil, Saddam would definitely been able to get nuclear weapons. He nearly had them anyway.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Aug 5, 2006 2:00:46 PM
