« Does blogging improve our lives? | Main | Fiasco, III »
Fiasco II
Henry at Crooked Timber challenges me to provide more background on why the fiasco in Iraq is another instance of government failure. I do so in the comments to his post and expand somewhat here.
Government founders on problems of incentives and information. On incentives: Should we be surprised that delays, errors and incompetence are more prevalent at the INS than at bureaucracies which must deal with citizens or which face competition from the private sector?
Of course not - but then what incentives does our government have to prevent abuse of foreign citizens? Democracy in this case provides no checks and balances because of anti-foreign bias, the ease with which the public can ignore the deaths of innocents abroad, and the fact that foreigners lack representation in our legislatures or the courts. Thus, Abu Ghraib and the routine shooting of innocents is no surprise - this is what happens when government is unconstrained.
What about the incentives to start wars? Government is bad enough when we all have access to information. What are we going to do when the major source of information is the government itself and they ask us to trust but not verify?
Is it a surprise that wars are much more likely to be started when the economy is doing badly and the President is low in the polls? Not to me but I am dismayed that people continue to be surprised when Presidents lie to make war, as if this had never happened before.
We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." Lyndon Baines Johnson, October 1964.)
It's naive to only blame particular people (Bush, Cheney et al.) and depressing when people at CT claim that if only "our guys" had been in power everything would have been ok. When you see the same behaviour again and again you ought to look to systematic factors. And even if you do believe that it is all due to Bush, Cheney et al. it's not as if these guys came to power randomly, they won twice. The worst get on top for a reason. As a result, government ought to be designed (on which see further below) so it works when the knaves are in power and not just when the angels govern.
One response in several comments at CT is that these are arguments against democracy and not against government. If only we had followed the experts at the Pentagon we would have been ok. Frankly this response, which is an argument for Fascism, sickens me. Factually the argument is incorrect, the Pentagon and not just the civilian leaders share much of the blame for our current fiasco. Moreover, had we listened to the experts in the past, Curtis LeMay and his type would probably have sent us to nuclear hell by now. I believe in democracy but I believe in it as a constraint on government.
Governments also founder on problems of information. Whereas the market makes use of highly dispersed information in the minds of millions of individuals thousands of miles apart the government bases its information on curveball and the musings of a cabal of neo-conservatives busy counting the chapters of The Prince for gnosis. Yes, this case is especially ridiculous but have people not heard of the Gulf of Tonkin? More generally, an economy cannot be centrally planned and neither can a society (let alone can a society be centrally planned from another country by people who don't even speak the language). The idea that our government, however competently run, can export democracy is simply the fatal conceit applied to foreign affairs.
Am I arguing that the market could have done it better? No, believe it or not, my goal is not to efficiently kick the shit out of foreigners. If something can't be done well that's an argument for not doing it - or at least not doing it often. I will take the unusual opportunity to agree with John Quiggan who writes at CT that in war "the likelihood of disaster is so great that the bar needs to be set very high." How high should the bar be set? Well we could begin by taking the Constitution seriously when it states that Congress alone has the power to declare war. (I know, the Constitution is a dead letter.) And, if we really get ambitious, how about making the Department of Defense live up to its name?
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 4, 2006 at 07:12 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
During the Abu Ghraib uproar someone pointed out that torture to obtaine information when lives were at stake was natural, and only training and discipline in the military kept it from happening as a common pratice. Likewise the urge to kill the outsider preceived as a threat does not need a government i.e. hezbolla is a private voluntary organization. I agree the that US government use our fear and lack of information to gain support for both the vietnam and iraq wars, but it is the imperfection in the human condition that makes it possible. At least in a democracy people eventually catch on and it is stopped. I would also note the economy was very good during the vietnam war and until the war blew up Johnson was very popular.
PS I like the post office.
Posted by: joan at Aug 4, 2006 8:23:49 AM
This is my favorite post in the history of Marginal Revolution. nicely done!
It annoys me to no end that so many people claim that if only their side had won the election (Katrina |Unemployment |Iraq |Vietnam |Bosnia |Somalia | Energy policy) would have been easily solved, but I don't have the words to state it as clearly as you have.
Douglas Adams also did a good job when he wrote "If you don't vote for a lizard then the wrong lizard might win."
Posted by: DK at Aug 4, 2006 8:31:07 AM
All the points about the inevitable failures and fiascos are well put, certainly. And still the polls of the Iraqis themselves find that extremely solid majorities approve of the overthrow of Saddam and state that they prefer the current situation to the former. (Not that foreign countries have the right to demand an invasion, but that certainly plays a part when judging if the casualties among foreigners are too great.) As far as observing a market goes, we can note that since the war there has been a great return of Iraqis to Iraqi, rather than the migration outwards that occurred all during Saddam's reign, which was quite a shock as many expected up to millions of war refugees. OTOH, there has been a recent upsurge intra-Iraq regional migration in response to the sectarian violence, which certainly bears watching.
It's no stretch at all to believe that the chance of disaster is very great and fiascos inevitable, but one still has to compare that option to the alternative reality, which may already be a disaster and a fiasco.
Posted by: John Thacker at Aug 4, 2006 8:31:31 AM
Alex,
You are correct that civilian deaths are an inevitable consequence of
war. You are correct that this is a reason that the bar should be set
high, before going to war. However, the reference you provided about
"routine" shootings of civilian is unsubstantive: for example it says
things like "there is plenty of evidence" of this on one hand, and then
says that no "body count" of such things is being kept by the US Military
(who, it says, is in a Vietnam-like "quagmire"). Isn't what makes the
civilian death and military blunders such "good" news stories the fact
that they are not routine? (Maybe not, it could just be the unthinking
hatred of Bush that many in the media seem to be driven by - Bush lied,
people died, blah, blah, blah, blah, oh no its a quagmire, blah, blah,
blah.) For sure we know that suicide bombing of civilians is not a
condoned tactic of our military (unlike our enemies). For sure we know
that kidnappings and televised decapitations of civilians are not tactics
of our military (unlike our enemies). For sure we know that military
courts punish wrong-doing by our troups (unlike our enemies). For sure
we know that Sadam and his Manson-like cult WAS routinely butchering,
raping, and torturing civilians in Iraq (that is why he is known as
the Butcher of Bagdad). For sure we know that Sadam used chemical
weapons on civilian Kurds (not in our military play-book). For sure
we know that Sadam was inciting terrorist to violence against Americans.
For sure we know that Sadam was making payments to the families of
suicide bombers who killed Jewish civilians in Israel. That is, for
sure we know that Sadam's Iraq was for Iraqi citizens more horrible
than the difficulties they currently confront because of the US
beneficent efforts to provide a chance for a brighter tomorrow. Say
what you want, but I am ON NET and IN TOTAL proud to be an American
(AT THE MARGIN, of course there are things to be both ashamed and
proud of).
Posted by: jim at Aug 4, 2006 8:47:35 AM
Of course not - but then what incentives does our government have to prevent abuse of foreign citizens? Democracy in this case provides no checks and balances because of anti-foreign bias, the ease with which the public can ignore the deaths of innocents abroad, and the fact that foreigners lack representation in our legislatures or the courts.
A paragraph which applies just as well to the policy of non-intervention. Except that the public can even more easily ignore the deaths and abuse of foreign innocents when they're caused by the foreign governments themselves.
Does democracy provide *no" checks and balances against war? Really? Anti-foreign bias would never contribute to desire for non-intervention, because it minimizes our own casualties while we can ignore the deaths of innocents abroad?
I'm sure we also don't want policy made by a "cabal of libertarians with rape fantasies reading The Fountainhead" who oppose intervention even when it would help foreigners because they're more concerned about how it would affect ourselves, both in casualties and in contributing to the worrying size of government. Vietnam is all very well; how did opposing Grenada and Panama turn out? What *does* the experience of Korea have to offer us? Curtis LeMay would have landed us in nuclear war; extreme pacifists would have had millions more suffering under Communism or Fascism.
The polls of the Iraqi people are a strong signal. As well, for all the anti-foreigner bias you cite, people seem to care a lot more about Iraqi casualties now that we're there than they ever did before. I think it's imprudent to suggest that it would only cut one way.
Posted by: John Thacker at Aug 4, 2006 8:52:05 AM
"Say
what you want, but I am ON NET and IN TOTAL proud to be an American
(AT THE MARGIN, of course there are things to be both ashamed and
proud of)."
Very well said, jim. Now I can easily explain the ambivalence I feel toward my country... to economists, anyway.
Posted by: Jason at Aug 4, 2006 9:22:31 AM
There are many issues in Alex's post, but I disagree on at least some of them. In particular, when it comes to foreign policy, we are usually comparing one set of government agents to another, rather than market vs. government. So a generally low opinion of government need not slant the case against a foreign policy intervention. For instance maybe the US botched the Korean War but North Korea is even worse. I will also note that Alex is a cosmopolitan when it comes to immigration, but an extreme nationalist when it comes to foreign policy...
Tyler
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Aug 4, 2006 9:56:20 AM
John Thacker:
Getting rid of Saddam and his regime was indeed a net benefit to mankind, assuming that what ultimately replaces his regime isn't worse. But Saddam's been out of power for quite some time. Perhaps we've done what we could efficiently do (a foreign army isn't really going to build a viable, respected government for Iraq, but it can sure blow stuff up and kill people).
This post seems to me to be connected to the earlier one about a government's obligation to its citizens vs. to everyone else. Because an invading, occupying army is a very blunt instrument for doing good in a foreign country, we should be deeply skeptical of claims that we can do X amount of good for Iraqis at the cost of Y to Americans.
Building a liberal democracy, or even a moderately stable, moderately well-run multi-ethnic country with some democratic trappings, is hard. If we could turn Iraq into something like Turkey, we'd all declare victory, and skeptics of the Iraq invasion (like me) would happily eat crow. What do you suppose the odds of that are? Because those odds look really long to me....
Posted by: albatross at Aug 4, 2006 9:57:21 AM
I like the U.S. constitutional democracy experiment--results have outperformed the rest of the world for a couple of centuries now. Lots of frustrating flaws, to be sure, and some fraying at the edges.
But let's not conveniently ignore the ugly things that helped birth the Constitution, nor nurse it through infancy. Specifically, I am thinking about the Calvinistic theology that passed through the Scottish Enlightenment to us. Also, the exogenous miltary aid of France and Spain during the Revolution.
Democratic capitalism does not reach the tipping point without these historic realities. And on what other system can libertarianism flourish?
Posted by: caveatBettor at Aug 4, 2006 10:25:35 AM
Jim said: Say what you want, but I am ON NET and IN TOTAL proud to be an American
What does this even have to do with anything?
Posted by: disaggregated at Aug 4, 2006 10:32:41 AM
Jason,
You wrote: "Very well said, jim. Now I can easily explain the ambivalence I feel toward my country... to economists, anyway."
Thanks; one of the most valuable insights offered by economics is the distinction between marginal and total (and also average). Probably the best single example of how useful these distinctions can be is in contrasting the difference between capitalism, communism and socialism: probably the best discussion of this for undergraduates can be found in the classic text of Alchian and Allen entitled "Exchange and Production" in the chapter entitled "Production by Firms". In that chapter, A&A present the example of a equalitarian paradise island where everyone who works has an income of 4 fish per day; then, a fishing boat (a technological advance) becomes available to the islanders. The chapter explains the very different ways in which the boat is used depending upon whether the insitutions on the island are capitalist, communist, or socialist. Great chapter!
Posted by: jim at Aug 4, 2006 10:37:04 AM
Tyler says "Alex is a cosmopolitan when it comes to immigration, but an extreme nationalist when it comes to foreign policy..."
Nonsense. I am an extreme individualist.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 4, 2006 10:42:56 AM
Prof. AT,
Apart from low poll ratings and a slow economy, what else would motivate the military ventures that we have seen recently? Is there any ideological basis? If corporate interests are served by war and government is the conduit, then isn’t the market driving these operations?
Iraq is in civil war and on the brink of breaking up. Many analysts have long known how fragile the unity of this failed state is. The U.S. made a deliberate decision to let Iraq’s army dissolve completely, leaving a power vacuum. Did markets have any chance to develop within this void in a nation with no independent civil society?
We are now confronted with disturbing patterns of ‘ethnic homogenization’ and people relocating based on religious affiliation. None of Iraq’s neighbors favor this – the threat of a Kurdish state threatens at least three of them.
Should Iraq be forced to stay together? Do we need another strongman/dictator?
The whole thing appears to be a mess. However, this result was hardly a surprise to most experts. The long-term objectives are unknown to the public (promotion of democracy is a laughable excuse) and this war may be part of the government’s ‘big plan’ for the region. Let’s not forget that Iran remains a ‘threat’ and the oil sheikhdoms are hardly bastions of democracy and free enterprise.
The manipulation of the Middle East by the global powers is taking the region on a dizzying roller coaster ride.
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Aug 4, 2006 10:48:44 AM
Jim said he's proud to be an American ah la Jim Greenwood, but, so what? We are all Americans because of where our parents were when we were born. The English are proud to be English, the Japanese are proud to be Japanese...and so forth. That most of us are now appalled at what is taking place in the middle east doesn't mean were ashamed, but it does mean that we need to work our tails off to curb the excesses that this administration has wrought. I mean, they think the simple answer to this is to find the red heifer (thanks Molly) and start the rapture. Rush and his ilk are cheering on the war, actually advocating WW 4, or 5, or whatever the hell they want to call it.
Does that make Jim proud also?
Posted by: dickrylee at Aug 4, 2006 10:49:48 AM
Joan, I too like our Post Office
Posted by: dickeylee at Aug 4, 2006 10:55:05 AM
War is more or less 100% externalities, particularly in a democracy in which the invaded foreigners don't get votes (that "consent of the governed" bit in the Declaration of Independence is hardly practical, is it?). The only way for decisionmakers to make anything like efficient decisions about war is for them to somehow internalize the costs, but nobody has yet figured out how to do this.
Perhaps every time a civilian dies, a member of the executive branch should be shot at random as well; this would probably help somewhat.
Posted by: Grant Gould at Aug 4, 2006 10:57:59 AM
Joan: During the Abu Ghraib uproar someone pointed out that torture to obtaine information when lives were at stake was natural, and only training and discipline in the military kept it from happening as a common pratice.
I'm not sure what your standard for "common practice" is, but from my persective, institutionalized, routine torture in three (arguably 4, and that doesn't count the "black prisons") countries counts.
Likewise the urge to kill the outsider preceived as a threat does not need a government i.e. hezbolla is a private voluntary organization.
Hezbolla is now a government, in my view, and Israel is reinforcing that view daily.
I agree the that US government use our fear and lack of information to gain support for both the vietnam and iraq wars, but it is the imperfection in the human condition that makes it possible. At least in a democracy people eventually catch on and it is stopped. I would also note the economy was very good during the vietnam war and until the war blew up Johnson was very popular.
I feel like I want to pick nits with some of this, but I wasn't alive then, and lack enough study on the topic to comment.
PS I like the post office.
You must not live in a large city. In both San Francisco and NYC, interacting with the post office is like going to the DMV. Expect to spend at least half the day there, waiting to interact with rude, disinterested people. The only reason I go there is because my mother insists on shipping me gifts through them; otherwise, I use FedEx.
Posted by: fishbane at Aug 4, 2006 11:11:10 AM
dickrylee,
I'm not sure that you understand the marginal versus total distinction that I made.
My comments in no way were meant to suggest that I embrace "Rush and his ilk" or the way that you say they are "cheering on the war, actually advocating WW 4, or 5, or whatever the hell they want to call it."
It appears that you have had an emotional reaction to my comments; well that is fine, but I was hoping to elicit more of an intellectual response.
If you want to understand the marginal, total, average distinction please see the Alchian & Allen textbook that I discussed above (in a previous posting on this track).
Posted by: jim at Aug 4, 2006 11:25:58 AM
Alex,
The argument that war/exporting democracy is so likely to fail that we should be extremely careful before deciding to engage in it is valid. But: it is a very different argument than your original claim that we should consider this a case of GOVERNMENT failure, as you yourself provide no indication of believing that this job could be executed more competently through some other means. So, I don't see how your statements about competition are relevant in this particular case. If anything, your argument suggests that this is a failure in the decision-making process (a political failure), perhaps a failure of our particular set of democratic institutions to constrain politicians effectively.
Posted by: zaoem at Aug 4, 2006 11:53:45 AM
For those of you defending the U.S Postal Service, I once worked there, and you don't have a clue to its inefficiencies.
It only survives thanks to the Private Express Statutes which make it against the law to compete with it in the delivery of First Class Mail (letters). That legalized monopoly gives it the ability to leverage 'junk mail' advertising revenue.
Where it is not against the law to compete, as in small parcel delivery and overnight delivery, there are several competitors, and the Postal Service has very little of those markets. Evidence of its inherent inefficiency.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Aug 4, 2006 12:31:59 PM
The claim that Iraq is a fiasco is a version of the 'Ted Williams was a bad baseball player' argument. I.e., he failed to hit, twice as often as he succeeded.
However, when we take a look at what other people accomplished in THE SAME GAME, we find that he was one of the greatest players ever. Judging against other human endeavors gives a much different picture than judging against perfection (impossible in human affairs).
And I wonder how many of you would have liked it if we'd taken a Harry Trumanesque approach to Iraq. Drop a couple of atomic bombs on Iraqi cities to discourage any resistance first, then sent in the occupation troops.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Aug 4, 2006 12:39:02 PM
But let's not conveniently ignore the ugly things... Specifically, I am thinking about the Calvinistic theology that passed through the Scottish Enlightenment to us.
That's an...odd...statement. Care to explain this?
Also
Is it a surprise that wars are much more likely to be started when the economy is doing badly and the President is low in the polls?
When the US invaded Iraq (March 2003) Bush's poll numbers were pretty good, actually.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
Posted by: bob montgomery at Aug 4, 2006 12:43:54 PM
When I order books online the dreaded letters are UPS and the good letters are USPS. There are inefficiencies in any large bureaucracy whether private or public. Perhaps by acknowledging them in the USPS they build in mechanisms to deal with them in ways private firms do not.
Posted by: am at Aug 4, 2006 1:01:03 PM
disaggregated,
The distinction between marginal and total (and average) is worth understanding; since you seem not to understand the distinction I was making try reading the Alchian and Allen textbook chapter I discussed above on this track.
Posted by: jim at Aug 4, 2006 1:24:55 PM
Much of the debate on Iraq reminds me of the debate on healthcare. Proponents of universal health care are fond of pointing to the numerous shortcomings of our health care system thinking that this makes their case for universal health care. Opponents of the Iraq war seem to think all that is needed to make their case is to point out the myriad of problems with the occupation. Both arguements neglect the basic question good economists ask: "Compared to what". The current situation in Iraq is a fiasco compared most countries but is it a fiasco compared to the alternatives? An example is that it was said the embargo lead to the death of 5,000 Iraqi children a month. In the past three years that would have added up to 180,000 dead children. However these deaths were not covered in the media to the same extent as the current violent deaths in Iraq, but shouldn't unseen costs factor in as well as the more obvious costs?
Posted by: sourcreamus at Aug 4, 2006 1:46:29 PM
