« How to respond to Hillary Clinton | Main | A Boy Named Sue »
Department of unpalatable results
This new NBER working paper (ungated here) argues that media criticism of the U.S. war effort in Iraq leads to more U.S. troops being killed:
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an "emboldenment" effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.
Might Fox News be right after all? Still I am not yet convinced. First, I fear that the measurement of satellite TV access of different Iraqi districts is a proxy for some other measure of district quality and that the TV programs have no causal role in driving killings. Is news access across Iraq really so different? Can't one district simply send an email to another district: "now is time to kill some more of them?" Second, I worry that the authors decided not to include Baghdad in the results. Still, if you want a jolt to your system, right now this paper is the place to go.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 11, 2008 at 06:57 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Rahda Iyengar is a RWJ scholar. Her work on public defenders' responsiveness to pay structure was in the NYT back in July. She's also written extensively on things like three strikes and domestic violence. The papers always seem very careful.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Mar 11, 2008 8:27:54 AM
Interesting, Jason, thank you for the ungated version link; it seems to me that history is replete with examples of this as a military tactic. Inflicting high casualty rates on American forces to adversely influence public opinion was at least a secondary objective for both of Robert E. Lee’s invasions of the North during the recent unpleasantness, the German winter offensive in the Ardennes in 1944 and key to Japanese plans for the defense of the home islands against the planned invasion of late 1945. After Tet we should take it as a foregone conclusion any conventional and unconventional military opponent will adopt it.
Posted by: Dave Richardson at Mar 11, 2008 9:02:24 AM
Alternate explanation: Insurgents with access to foreign news can easily learn body counts, etc., and so have better feedback on the quality of their tactics.
Posted by: Cyrus at Mar 11, 2008 9:22:22 AM
Also, FYI, she uses the Iraq Body County (footnote 17, p. 9), which based on the Lancet study may be biased downward. As a left-hand side variable, though, measurement error will only be a problem if the downward biased is correlated with her instrument.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Mar 11, 2008 9:26:33 AM
Why would this be so surprising? Not to add yet another questionable parallel to Vietnam upon the heap, but internal discussions within North Vietnamese power circles showed a lot of attention paid to the U.S. Peace movement (especially during the Paris peace discussions) and supported the negotiating position of absolute intransigence.
Not that it's wrong. The conclusion can't be that news should not report casualties, but that nations should not fight wars for which they're not willing to suffer casualties.
Posted by: John Mondragon at Mar 11, 2008 10:20:59 AM
"Inflicting high casualty rates . . . to adversely influence public opinion" was surely also "at least a secondary objective" for Allied bombing of Dresden and other German cities in WWII.
Modern war is total war. All states fall into this.
George W. Bush entered Iraq knowing civilian casulties would number at least in the hundreds of thousands.
Posted by: John Kunze at Mar 11, 2008 10:37:48 AM
So what is the cost to the nation of having its political discourse crippled by a desire to avoid encouraging the terrorists?
Economists are biased towards confusing "measurable" with "important."
Posted by: Anderson at Mar 11, 2008 11:17:12 AM
It may be a real cost, but it doesn't matter. One of the assumptions we are all operating under is that we are free to criticize our officials in public. No sane person would make the trade of fewer war casualties at the expense of a free press.
Posted by: JasonL at Mar 11, 2008 11:32:41 AM
I'd say this was the department of duh.
Posted by: dave smith at Mar 11, 2008 12:23:56 PM
I think that there are somethings on the news that dont need to be. I think the general public should be informed, but there are details we can do without, because the people and militia overseas doesnt need to know this stuff. I think this issue should kind of be obvious, and there's an easy way to fix it, but I dont see that happening anytime soon with the way our media is today.
With all this being said, I'd like to take time to say that I support our troopsand I think others should too. Our guys knew what they were signing up for when they joined the military. I'm sure they'd love to be home, but Im also sure that they are proud to be over there doing their duty. Before you criticize, just remember that they enlisted in the military knowing something like this could happen and enlisted anyway. And they're also over there protecting us from anything coming OVER HERE.
Posted by: Suzanne Jones at Mar 11, 2008 12:46:50 PM
This is part of the price of the First Amendment. Soldiers often say things like part of the reason that they fight is to protect the rights of American citizens. It seems to me that the freedom to discuss public policy falls into that category.
Posted by: Scot at Mar 11, 2008 12:49:59 PM
Scot - of course, we make limitations on freedom of speech if the speech puts others into physical danger. For instance, fire in a crowded theater. The first step is to study this paper and think if it passes muster. But if it does, I don't think the findings are as easily waves away as simple appeals like that. Externalities are externalites, are they not?
Posted by: jason voorhees at Mar 11, 2008 1:16:56 PM
"Scot - of course, we make limitations on freedom of speech if the speech puts others into physical danger. For instance, fire in a crowded theater."
Argh. If the 1st doesn't mean the press can criticize government policy, it doesn't mean anything. Before going to war, this cost must be factored into the decision.
There is some kind of cost to criticizing violent sects of Islam, too. Should we not say things that have a cost?
Posted by: JasonL at Mar 11, 2008 1:41:05 PM
I always giggle at the "fire in a crowded theater" phrase, given it's source and context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Posted by: affe at Mar 11, 2008 1:49:54 PM
Jason Voorhees wrote, "Scot - of course, we make limitations on freedom of speech if the speech puts others into physical danger. For instance, fire in a crowded theater. The first step is to study this paper and think if it passes muster. But if it does, I don't think the findings are as easily waves away as simple appeals like that. Externalities are externalites, are they not?"
I wasn't trying to waive the result. I agree with you that there *may* be reasonable restricions on the First Amendment. I guess I just processed through the argument and concluded that maintaining the freedom of the press to criticize policy wrt Iraq is worth the cost.
I think the question is where do you draw the line? If, for example a careful economic study showed that Barack Obama's position and stump speeches on Iraq caused increase casualties should he be prevented from discussing his policy position? Or should he be able to hold the position, but the press be prevented from reporting it? I dunno.
If the original economic research is correct, the outcome *is* most unfortunate, but I'm not sure that abridging freedom of the press is the right answer.
Posted by: Scot at Mar 11, 2008 2:10:17 PM
JasonL - Fine. I don't put an infinite price on the freedom of the press at the margin, but apparently you do. Or you're confusing totals with margins. Either way, it sounds like your position is ideological and I can't argue with that.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Mar 11, 2008 2:28:53 PM
I support our troops and I think others should too.
Support them how? By (a) sending them cookies and body armor, or by (2) not criticizing the specious casus belli and pathetically inept post-occupation "strategy"?
And they're also over there protecting us from anything coming OVER HERE.
Surely. Saddam Hussein was a hair's breadth away from storming the Outer banks and New York Harbor.
Posted by: bartman at Mar 11, 2008 2:37:51 PM
Nice strawman, Vorhees. Jason L. said no such thing. Firstly, he is talking about putting a *value* on press freedom, not a price, and that value is clearly not infinite. If one argued that the press should be free to divulge pending operational tactics, troop placement and state secrets, then they are valuing press freedom as near infinite. He (we) are not - we are speaking of the freedom to criticize policy and to (ex-post-facto) report the number of troop deaths, both things that are of value to anything approaching a "free" society. You're the one who seems like the militarist ideologue.
Do you think the press should instantly go into "unquestioning boosterism" mode everytime some idiot in the White Huse decides to drop bombs on brown people half a world away?
Posted by: bartman at Mar 11, 2008 2:49:42 PM
JasonL,
Rather than "No sane person would", you mean to say is "I would not"...
Many people would, and historically have, restricted what they say. They feel they have both a right to speak, and a duty not to.
Posted by: Laserlight at Mar 11, 2008 2:57:20 PM
I'm a militarist ideologue for suggesting there may be trade-offs to be made between certain types of speech limitations, because certain words may cause people to die? Point is, bartman, you are putting an infinite price on the marginal benefits of certain types of speech. Somehow, at least, those costs have to be internalized by the original speaker. Maybe not through regulation of what speech can be said, necessarily, but it sounds like the words are too cheap as it stands.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Mar 11, 2008 3:06:43 PM
John Kunze—you are correct, the goal of the Allied Strategic Bombing campaign after the Casablanca Conference of January 1943 was, "….the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic system and the undermining of the morale of the German people to the point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened."
Posted by: Dave Richardson at Mar 11, 2008 3:47:55 PM
There we go with the fraudulent use of "infinite" again.
The short version: practicing self-censoring deference to government today means more dead soldiers in the future.
Longer: there is a finite value to criticizing war. There is a finite cost. I think the value (far) exceeds the cost because I think that robust criticism of foolish wars lessens the probability that more of them will be fought in the future. It appears that concerning the deaths of soliders, you have a personal discount rate of near infinity: the value of one soldier's life today is worth more than all of the deaths avoided in the future.
That's the utilitarian consequentionalist amswer. But I also believe, philosophically, that a society where the people, via the press, are free to vigorously criticize the government is healthier and a better place to live.
Let's not even begin to add the financial benefits of avoided future wars.
Posted by: bartman at Mar 11, 2008 3:55:27 PM
You've lost me. Why is the word "infinite" fraudulent exactly? It certainly sounds like you're saying that the marginal cost of discouraging certain types of speech in certain situations is infinite, since as a matter of principle you won't even tolerate the notion that it should be refrained, even if there was evidence that shows it resulted in people's deaths. What else does that mean if not that there is no price you could accept to refrain the words said in those instances?
(BTW, these are all just metaphors, so I don't see why you're losing your crud over me using economic jargon. All models are simplifications, and if they're useful for analyzing something, then use them. As far as I can see, this is a case of an externality, and so I have no problem analyzing it this way. But you prefer to use the philosophical approach. It is after an economics blog, though, so why shouldn't we analyze the problem using cost-benefit analysis? Is there something about this particular situation that makes it inappropriate?)
At the margin, there is a finite value to criticizing the war and a finite cost apparently, too. I don't know how you are getting the idea that the finite value is as huge as it is, except that it makes you feel good. We do place restrictions on people's speech, though, and some of it is embedded in the First Amendment itself. We also have statutes that make people legally liable for libel and slander. Here is a unique situation where stating something out loud may put a soldier's life at risk. If this is an externality, and I don't know if it is, then at the least the newspapers should have to bear some of these costs in some form. It's not only efficient, it also seems equitable to me.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Mar 11, 2008 4:06:21 PM
Jason, I have clearly defined a varied set of "values" to the reporting of certain things. In some cases (i.e, reporting on operational information), the cost of allowing the speech is higher than the value from speaking. In other cases (criticism of government) the cost is not higher than the value.
I am talking about finite costs versus finite benefits, yet you keep bringing up the notion of "infinity". Does this sort of thing make you feel clever?
Since you're choosing to ignore my words and merely restate your position over and over and over again, there is clearly little value to further discussion.
BTW, your belief that newspapers should "pay" for the loss of life they allegedly cause (by merely criticising government) to be facistic in the extreme.
Posted by: bartman at Mar 11, 2008 5:12:18 PM
bartman, I'm going to play by Godwin's card here and call foul, even if doesn't technically fit. Seriously, though, my points seem to me like a natural line of thought, but I'm not necessarily advocating for anything. I don't have a "belief" one or another. It does seem, though, like a potential problem - as far as I can tell, given the hypothetical possibility, my points deserve some consideration.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Mar 11, 2008 5:53:19 PM
