« RateMyCop.com | Main | What went wrong with the economy? »
Hayek Doesn't Stop at the Water's Edge
In the miasma (here and here) of people explaining why they got the war wrong here is Jim Henley explaining why he got it right.
I wasn’t born yesterday. I had heard of the Middle East before September 12, 2001. I knew that many of the loudest advocates for war with Iraq were so-called national-greatness conservatives who spent the 1990s arguing that war was good for the soul. I remembered Elliott Abrams and John Poindexter and Michael Ledeen as the knaves and fools of Iran-Contra, and drew the appropriate conclusions about the Bush Administration wanting to employ them: it was an administration of knaves and fools...
Libertarianism. As a libertarian, I was primed to react skeptically to official pronouncements. “Hayek doesn’t stop at the water’s edge!” I coined that one. Not bad, huh? I could tell the difference between the government and the country. People who couldn’t make this distinction could not rationally cope with the idea that American foreign policy was the largest driver of anti-American terrorism because it sounded to them too much like “The American people deserve to be victims of terrorism.” I could see the self-interest of the officials pushing for war - how war would benefit their political party, their department within the government, enhance their own status at the expense of rivals. Libertarianism made it clear how absurd the idealistic case was. Supposedly, wise, firm and just American guidance would usher Iraq into a new era of liberalism and comity. But none of that was going to work unless real American officials embedded in American political institutions were unusually selfless and astute, with a lofty and omniscient devotion to Iraqi welfare. And, you know, they weren’t going to be that....
What all of us had in common is probably a simple recognition: War is a big deal. It isn’t normal. It’s not something to take up casually. Any war you can describe as “a war of choice” is a crime. War feeds on and feeds the negative passions. It is to be shunned where possible and regretted when not. Various hawks occasionally protested that “of course” they didn’t enjoy war, but they were almost always lying. Anyone who saw invading foreign lands and ruling other countries by force as extraordinary was forearmed against the lies and delusions of the time.
More here.
The reasons why I opposed the war are given here.
Hat tip to Brad DeLong for the link.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on March 23, 2008 at 01:18 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I like this argument for its conciseness.
Posted by: TGGP at Mar 23, 2008 2:33:24 AM
First off, let's separate the invasion and the mission from what has actually happened post-invasion. The invasion, by all accounts, went smoothly. Saddam's government toppled fast. I'm not a military expert, but those who are can point out all sorts of mistakes that were made which allowed this situation to turn sour fast. The realization has to be made *by everybody* that none of this was the inevitable outcome of the mission.
Should we have gone to war with Iraq? Unlike what most people think, it's not a categorical decision, it's a marginal one, and it's a decision that has to be made in the aggregate. I personally thought, and still think, that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. But my opinion isn't the only one that matters. In a country where the political leaders have to answer to the citizenry, the aggregate opinion of people matters. IOW, morale must be kept up. If things are going well, and this information is conveyed accurately enough to the people, then morale stays at the level it needs to for the war to continue.
But when you are not fighting for your survival, as we did after Pearl Harbor, or after 9/11, political and even military leaders have less incentive to do what the job requires. If you are facing large enough opposition, regardless of the aggregate opinion: you will make mistakes. Out of "sensitivity" and "delicacy" we saw all sorts of mistakes like this which gave us the insurgency situation. Refusing to follow terrorists to their mosque hideouts, letting them use villages of people as shields, etc. Basically the war turned PC, and a war can't be PC or the other side starts winning.
In the face of negative information from Iraq, FUD and lies from militant anti-war types, aggregate opinion starting turning South.
The lesson? In a country where the leaders have to answer to the people, only a war for survival can be relied on provide the correct incentives to leaders and the people for the war to be successful.
Posted by: Jacob Oost at Mar 23, 2008 4:19:12 AM
it's not a categorical decision, it's a marginal one
So we should have gone to war with Iraq X amount but not X+Y? What you're saying does not make any sense.
lies from militant anti-war types
Their statements have been shown to be much more likely to be correct on the subject than their opposites.
Posted by: TGGP at Mar 23, 2008 5:07:09 AM
I don't suppose Bush ever read my letter, but I told him the invasion failed the test of realpolitik and would yield blowback for generations.
(My self-identity, at the time, was conservative and Republican.)
Posted by: odograph at Mar 23, 2008 5:31:08 AM
It's a marginal decision because there is a point where the benefits outweigh the costs. The problem is that we crossed that point *but we didn't have to*.
And I separate the well-meaning anti-war crowd from the militant, agenda-driven anti-war crowd that spreads lies. They are doing the same thing that happened in the Vietnam war, bringing the war home, to the living room. Without rear support, the war effort is hampered. People who fought *on the side of the Vietcong* will tell you that they were losing militarily but still winning the war because of sentiments expressed in the US on the media and in the streets.
Posted by: Jacob Oost at Mar 23, 2008 5:58:46 AM
Jacob.. is it necessarily a 'good thing' to win the war? Don't you think that 'walk away' may be better solution? It seems to me appropriate to stop fighting when most people don't want to continue... why fight for the sake of winning - when you don't lose, if you cease fighting?
Posted by: andy at Mar 23, 2008 6:11:28 AM
I think Henley's arguments, or for that matter Alex's in the post of his he links to, are far too general and indiscriminating. American intervention in Yugoslavia (another "war of choice") was, all things considered, a good idea and should have happened sooner. Iraq of course turned out to be different, but if the proffered explanation can't distinguish between these two cases, be suspicious of it!
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Mar 23, 2008 7:45:15 AM
To understand the above comments readers should of course know that only one of the bloggers at Marginal Revolution opposed the war.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Mar 23, 2008 7:56:31 AM
Did you (Alex) oppose or favor the action in Yugoslavia? We have yet to hear on this. At the time I opposed it, but in retrospect that was a mistake.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Mar 23, 2008 9:03:43 AM
"War is a big deal, it isn't normal." True, but then what was normal about our policy between the wars? No-fly zones. Frequent bombings of such. A military presence in Saudi Arabia which inflames our enemies. Sanctions which enrich the dictator and his European enablers, while we are slandered with "500,000" starving Iraqi children and Albright tells the world we think "the price is worth it."
The status quo had many of the same negatives the war does. It had to change long before 9/11. Clinton thought so, too.
Posted by: David at Mar 23, 2008 9:32:50 AM
You hardly needed Hayek to reject the argument for this war. Much better authors have made cogent arguments about these sorts of wars; Twain, Russell, Chomsky, Orwell, etc.
If libertarians need to hear it from one of their own, fine. But the real problem is the masses who will not read or accept any of those.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Mar 23, 2008 10:03:29 AM
This is more a "police action" than a "war". I laugh every time I hear about how "the job isn't finished" because the job is a policeman's job, not a soldier's job, and a policeman's job is never done. This also isn't a war because there are no victory conditions. There is no one who can surrender on behalf of the terrorists.
Wanting to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan is reasonable, but there will be an economic cost. Due to our police actions in the region, we've ensured that oil and other goods can be safely sold to any buyer. I should point out that all the international talk about us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan has basically stopped. I think the reason is that we've shown we can be a good source of stability, which is helping everyone. The price of oil jumps every time a Nigerian oil facility is attacked; imagine what the price would be like if that were common across the Middle East. On a similar note, what would the situation for shipping be like if Somalia's pirates were able to roam freely? I'd have to think that prices for many goods would be higher, and the political situation worldwide would look much worse.
If you don't like America being the world's policemen, I can understand that. Just realize that there will be a cost, and that any group that fills the void might not be as altruistic as we are.
Posted by: kdp at Mar 23, 2008 10:29:17 AM
"Due to our police actions in the region, we've ensured that oil and other goods can be safely sold to any buyer."
That's just absurd. It's far more accurate to state that we've ensured that the nation which supplied most of the personnel and essentially all of the ideological and financial support for 9/11 not only got off scot-free, but is getting wealthier and wealthier due to our police actions in the region.
Posted by: M1EK at Mar 23, 2008 10:56:59 AM
"...national-greatness conservatives...spent the 1990s arguing that war was good for the soul..."
Is this actually true? Can anybody provide a link to anything by a leading "national-greatness conservative" that says that "war is good for the soul?"
I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by: steve burton at Mar 23, 2008 11:12:49 AM
In a related event, last weekend in Vegas I hit 15 with the dealer showing a 4. I got a 6. See how smart I am.
Posted by: dzot at Mar 23, 2008 11:56:20 AM
Refusing to follow terrorists to their mosque hideouts
Residents attacking a foreign occupying army are not terrorists. In "Red Dawn" they were called "patriots", in WWII France they were called "resistance."
What would you do if, hypothetically, the Ruskies invaded, toppled the Bush government, installed a puppet government and hung W and his conies after a show trial? Would you take up arms against the foe, or decide to "collaborate" with them? Even if they were absolutely convinced that what they were doing was right and just?
Hint, Jacob: by definition, attacking military targets cannot be terrorism.
Posted by: bartman at Mar 23, 2008 12:01:30 PM
Yeah, I'm surprised more people don't get Iraq II as Red Dawn "inverted."
Without the WMDs, and the direct threat to ourselves, we were invading to replace a government that the natives created with one we like better. Is that so different than Cubans thinking Americans would really, if they had the chance, be happier under socialism?
It goes back to whether you really believe in self-determination.
Posted by: odograph at Mar 23, 2008 12:16:33 PM
Just to note, this is an alternate-universe Jim Henley explaining why he was right to oppose Iraq. In this universe, Henley originally supported the war, though he came to oppose it pretty early (like 2004 or so). The essay is "Why I Would Have Been Right, If I Had Been Right".
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Mar 23, 2008 12:45:30 PM
The intervention in Yugoslavia (Serbia, really) was not only late, but it was made in the face of overwhelming evidence of NOW massacres and with broad support.
@Jacon Oost: The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and 9/11 was not even close to "fighting for your survival." It seems that you have drunk deep of the cool-aid.
As for my opinion, I saw 9/11 as the result of years of stupid foreign policy. When I traveled in the middle east and Pakistan, I was constantly confronted with the dichotomy of "land of freedom" and "supporter of dictators", and I am even more ashamed of the turn of events we have seen with Bush. Bad bad bad and it will take a decade to rebuild things -- even with good (Obama) leadership.
Ditto on Chomsky, et al. Add George Carlin to that list...
Posted by: David Zetland at Mar 23, 2008 12:57:59 PM
I assume Joshua Holmes is joking, but for those of you not in the know, Henley was opposed back in 2002 before the invasion.
I disagreed with the decision to intervene in Yugoslavia, and I have not changed my mind on it. Then again, I also think Charles Lindbergh was right in the 40s.
What's the difference between Iraq and Yugoslavia? Iraq is bigger and more dangerous, I suppose.
Due to our police actions in the region, we've ensured that oil and other goods can be safely sold to any buyer.
We were getting more oil and for less money under Saddam. We have caused massive violence and instability, which decreases the flow of oil. Iraq is more like Nigeria now than it was before the invasion.
Posted by: TGGP at Mar 23, 2008 5:04:19 PM
Joshua Holmes: Henley never supported the war. I don't know where you got that from.
Also, if "but what about Kosovo?" is the best argument against "Hayek stops at the water's edge," then the argument against liberventionism is even better than I thought it was, and I already thought it was pretty good.
Posted by: Gene at Mar 23, 2008 7:19:05 PM
People like Zetland and bartman are why you can't have a real debate about this war, only an argument. They have a black and white, categorical view of things, and assume that if you hold to one component of the "pro-war" position then you hold to whatever any "pro-war" person has to say. Like many positions, it is an assemblage of positions that don't necessarily require that you believe all of them to believe one. For instance, I never said 9/11 had a connection to Iraq, and I believe it was erroneous of Bush et al to try to make that connection. I also never believed for sure that Iraq had WMDs, but what can't be denied is that if they weren't they were working on them. That is factual. There is also the position that the WMDs were secreted out of the country, for which there is actual evidence.
Stop relying on pundits and ideology, stick to the facts, consider other viewpoints, weigh up the pros and cons, look at the causes and effects.
Posted by: Jacob Oost at Mar 23, 2008 8:18:14 PM
"but what can't be denied is that if they weren't they were working on them. That is factual. There is also the position that the WMDs were secreted out of the country, for which there is actual evidence."
It's especially hard to have a discussion with people, like you, who will parrot bald-faced lies like those.
It can be denied. Many people, including many people who were right when you were wrong, have in fact denied "it". It's not factual. Likewise, there is no real actual evidence that WMDs were secreted outside the country.
HTH.
Posted by: M1EK at Mar 23, 2008 8:47:10 PM
Tyler's reference to Yugoslavia is peculiar, to say the least.
The case for Iraq was a string of maybes - maybe they have WMD, maybe the WMD are a threat to the U.S., maybe containment can't work - multiplied by a string of fantasies - we can remake Iraq, we can remake the Middle East, it will be cheap.
Yugoslavia in contrast involved first, an ongoing war, second, a NATO operation, third, no attempt to centrally plan the new Yugoslavia and indeed, fourth, no troops put on the ground.
As to what I thought at the time about, I don't remember. I do remember being quite frightened when we bombed the Chinese embassy killing several Chinese citizens - unintended consequences can quickly push events out of control.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/the-law-of-unin.html
Nevertheless, it is clear that the principles that I referred to in my earlier post would certainly take all these differences into account and would not necessarily arrive at the same conclusion in all cases.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Mar 23, 2008 9:16:59 PM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_war
Remember what Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my opinion." We must do the same. As I said, nobody, either "pro-war" or "anti-war" can use facts to prove their case. They must weigh up the pros and cons from the available facts and come to their own conclusions, and not be guided by ideology or politicians.
As I said, I personally believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but my own opinion doesn't decide, the aggregate opinion of the people decides.
Posted by: Jacob Oost at Mar 23, 2008 10:16:58 PM
