Risk and Reward

Rich Lowry quotes some of George Tenet's book and argues that the Iraq debate "was always fundamentally about how much risk we were willing to tolerate in a post-9/11 environment." Or, as Tenet says, Iraq "was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise." Two points in response. One is that while this was, indeed, one of the debates taking place within elite circles that has almost no resemblance to the public debate playing out in the media which was a demagogic scare campaign designed to convince people that the country faced an imminent threat from Iraq.

The other is that it's staggering how wrongheaded that Tenet/Lowry framing of the issue was. The underlying presumption was that achieving the goals of the campaign -- replacing Saddam's regime with a stable one congenial to American interests -- would be basically unproblematic. Perhaps somewhat costly in terms of money or achieving secondary diplomatic objectives, but basically something we could achieve if we just decided to. To not invade was to tolerate a certain level of risk, whereas to invade was to proclaim the risk intolerable. Off the Lowry/Tenet tables was the basic reality that the downside risks involved in engaging in preventive war are actually enormous.

Comments

One is that while this was, indeed, one of the debates taking place within elite circles that has almost no resemblance to the public debate playing out in the media which was a demagogic scare campaign designed to convince people that the country faced an imminent threat from Iraq.

What is Matthew talking about??? That's quite wrong. Take, for example, Rice's mushroom cloud quote:

That is EXACTLY what Tenet is talking about: how much risk we are willing to take.

The idea that the Bush Administration was promoting Saddam as an imminent threat is an utter myth. (And we know very well that they never said that at all.) One applauds the Left's success at promoting this particular myth, including in this post - it has certainly helped in the Left's primary goal of hurting the Bush Administration. But it is now, and always was, completely false.

Posted by Al | April 30, 2007 1:12 PM

Having signed the Conservative Exodus Project, I simply refuse to vote for any candidate who continues to support the illegal neocon/neoliberal war in Iraq.

http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

.

Posted by Right-Winger | April 30, 2007 1:12 PM

Huh. Can't use Blockquote in the comments here. Who knew?

Anyway, here's Rice's quote: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Posted by Al | April 30, 2007 1:13 PM

Indeed, both on common sense grounds and from a more formal
point of view (decision theory) if you have two possible courses
of action (such as start a war or maintain the status quo) it is
wise to consider the consequences of both possible actions.

This is blindingly obvious but seems to be missed completely by
our masters in Washington. It is for example what is wrong intellectually
with Cheney's "one per cent doctrine". If there is a one per cent chance
that doing nothing will lead to catastrophe but a 5 per cent chance that
the only countermeasure will lead to an equal or worse catastrophe a wise
man will do nothing. In addition, advocates of "preventive war" invariably
assume more knowledge of the future than is possible. In the 1950s there were
those who were sure war with th Soviet Union was inevitable. Today some advocates
of war with Iran are sure that Iran will attempt to destroy Israel. The future is
uncertain and as Truman said:
"You don't 'prevent' anything by war except peace".

Posted by Nick Patterson | April 30, 2007 1:21 PM

Please. The idea that a debate was taking place at the highest circle over Iraq's threat level is nonsense. Iraq was no threat, then or in the future, and they all knew it.
"Saddam could hand weapons over to terrorists who would use it on us!" Right, except he (and we)knew terrorists would have been more likely to use it on him than us.
We wanted a quick and easy win and a quick and easy ally, so we did it.

Posted by bg | April 30, 2007 1:45 PM

Ah, count on Al to relive the halcyon days of 2002-03 for us...yes, Al, the Bush administration did characterize Saddam's regime as an imminent threat. Perhaps not in those words exactly, but by any reasonable human, non-propagandist definition of imminent threat. Here you go:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html

And nice to see Matt active in combating retroactive attempts to pretend that there was something, you know, reasonable and well thought out in our invasion of Iraq.

Posted by mq | April 30, 2007 1:48 PM

Time for a new thesaurus Matt. That's the third time in less than 10 posts you've referred to someone's thinking as "wrongheaded."

Otherwise, good post.

Posted by right | April 30, 2007 1:49 PM

What the Iraq War ought to teach us is the fallacy of framing questions about war and peace in terms of "how much risk we're willing to tolerate."

This type of discussion always becomes a race to the bottom, where the risk of a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack, however unlikely, is always going to be presented as intolerable.

The risk of a surprise attack remains uncertain regardless of the policies we pursue overseas. The risks inherent in launching a war, on the other hand, can be reliably avoided by not launching a war. Serious policy analysis needs to err on the side of not going to war and it's impossible to do this when we're discussing matters in terms of how much risk we're willing to tolerate, rather than in terms of what price we're willing to pay to eliminate a risk.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 30, 2007 1:52 PM

"Risk" seems to be the GOP talking-point-buzzconcept of the week. I recall Newsweek editor Jon Meacham flatulating the other Sunday about Iraq being a "big bold gamble" or some such. The implication here is, as Matt says, that those responsible aren't to blame for how it turned out because the end result was more-or-less-randomly determined from a number of possible outcomes.

This is, of course, a bullsh*t attempt to avoid responsibility. These guys all remind me of Dungeons and Dragons players, telling me that Iraq failed its saving throw against sectarian violence and it's all the fault of the dice.

Posted by James Gary | April 30, 2007 2:20 PM

theCoach:
TheCoach says, "testing a new comment template."

Posted by theCoach

Posted by theCoach | April 30, 2007 2:25 PM

The "debate" was a rigged. Evidence was exaggerated and even manufactured.

Had there been an actual debate, the Admin would have told us that the totality of their evidence for chemical weapons was a crock, that the nerve weapons we were fearful of would have degenerated, that the aluminum tubes were pooh-poohed by people in the know, that we were looking at forgeries in the Niger yellow cake world, that all of Niger's uranium was essentially under lock and key, that we were trusting liars and funding scoundrels, that biological "weapons" are gibberish. Instead, we got crap.

It's too bad pushing discredited stories won't get you in the dock at The Hague.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 30, 2007 3:11 PM

In August 2002 (7 months before the war) Brent Scowcroft wrote an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal that presciently detailed all that would happen as a result of this endeavor (and the costs to succeed). He argued strongly against the war and was branded an appeaser by the usual crowd. It is worth remembering that at least his voice was out there before the war.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Posted by Mark Close | April 30, 2007 4:07 PM

Is the venerable Atlantic sure they want Al adorning their revamped online presence?

Posted by novakant | April 30, 2007 4:17 PM

We're winning!

Posted by ed | April 30, 2007 4:33 PM

Great post.

Posted by Armando | April 30, 2007 6:44 PM

http://boingboing.net/2006/11/05/iraq_invasion_sim_fr.html

the "risks" of invading were known (or at least strongly hinted at) beforehand also.

Posted by dflidliv | April 30, 2007 9:00 PM

I'm too lazy to source right now, but we should also remember Rumsfeld's assurances that we'd be in Iraq "six days, six weeks, maybe six months", and no more, and also the promise that Iraq's oil would may the operation self-financing (I never believed that one for a minute, myself)

Posted by jonathan | April 30, 2007 9:36 PM

Ah yes, American-style Bolshevism, thy name is conservatism. Oh Trotsky, where art thou? Appeasers!

Posted by Reality Man | May 1, 2007 3:18 AM

After 9/11 americans were primed for vengeance. Bush Co. knew this and knew they could do just about anything they wanted. They f'd up in not asking for a sacrifice from the population and for sticking around way too long in Iraq. Everyone's re-writing now, especially the right.

Posted by judson | May 1, 2007 1:23 PM