Caution

Jonah Goldberg's not happy that people are happy with the new National Intelligence Estimate:

The attitude among many people — like say, John Edwards — is that we dodged a bullet with this NIE. But that's only true if this NIE is right. Indeed, as a matter of national security, it seems to me one could make the case that it would be better for the NIE to be wrong the other way. That is to say, if the NIE is wrong, better it be wrong on the side of caution. Which would you rather: An NIE that says Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons when it really is? Or, an NIE that says Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons when it really isn't? How you answer that question probably says a lot about how you view foreign policy generally.

I think this kind of thinking was quite prevalent before the invasion of Iraq. Before 9/11, when contemplating starting wars with other countries, most people were inclined to err on the side of caution -- which is to say not starting wars. After 9/11, things looked different. Maybe the Iraq situation was a bit unclear, but best to err on the side of caution -- which was to say starting a war.

It's easy to understand how that happened, but surely the notion that alarmism is a form of caution should have died in the sands of Iraq.

Comments

The only reasonable thing to do is to cultivate paranoia, assume the worst, and kill as many people as we can.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 5, 2007 3:37 PM

but surely the notion that alarmism is a form of caution should have died in the sands of Iraq.

Dude, Jonah's not going to war.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 5, 2007 3:39 PM

The leap isn't all the way from exercising caution to starting wars. We could err on the side of suspecting Iran but not leap straight to invading the country. So I don't Jonah's point is that bad

Posted by Jeff | December 5, 2007 3:40 PM

Well, it is the same kind of thinking. It's just another variation of "if I can make up scary shit, you have to do what I say."

Feh.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 5, 2007 3:40 PM

Wow, the thinking of that troupe is really vile, and they don't even know it. Perhaps this is what evil truly is: wrong-headedness masked by self-assurance. So they feel assured in stating that they'd rather be wrong, and bomb the bejeezus out of a bunch of people they don't care about, than to be right but risk increasing the potential threat to people they DO care about. Wow, again.

Posted by DC | December 5, 2007 3:42 PM

Jonah's view is fine given a sane administration that is not looking for excuses to bomb people. Preparing for the worst in people is not a bad way to be cautious if it is paired with a cautious attitude towards killing people. It is when one is most ready to assume that people deserve killing, and at the same time most ready to kill people at the drop of a hat, that this alarmism loses touch with caution.

Posted by Lon | December 5, 2007 3:44 PM

I heard from some guy at the gym China has a secret plan to poison all of North America's water supply. Any report to the contrary should be discounted as suspect and insufficiently dubious of China's known animosity towards us. Do we really want to risk drinking poisoned water when we could nuke China 1st and hence be sure it doesn't happen?

Posted by steve duncan | December 5, 2007 3:46 PM

Okay, let's apply the same line of Goldbergian logic to another pressing threat:

Which would you rather, Jonah, a government that is acting to curb human causes of climate change when there is no global warming, or a government that's doing nothing when there IS global warming?

You seem to have come down on the latter side, Jonah, you dissembling tub of guts. Because, why, it pisses off libruls?

Posted by Jamey | December 5, 2007 3:48 PM

Jogoldnahbergs LIKE being alarmed, so when you're not, they feel superior.

Really, this isn't that difficult to figure.

Posted by bdr | December 5, 2007 3:50 PM

I think the basic issue here is a complete unwillingness to look at the ways in which the intelligence community get things wrong.

Conservatives have loved for several decades now to try to accuse the CIA, et al, of being too cautious, of not seeing threats, and so forth.

But any reasonable look at the CIA's work shows that their tendency is always to exaggerate threats. The CIA thought the Soviet Union was considerably stronger than it was - although they were not as wrong as Wolfowitz, et al. The CIA thought Iraq probably had some WMDs - although they were much more cautious, again, than the Neocons. If the CIA is now saying that Iran has no nuclear program, is there any real reason to think that they're erring on the side of complacency? Has the CIA ever erred on the side of complacency? Sure, Jonah, if this NIE is wrong then that's bad (although I won't say it's worse than the other way around). But does Jonah have any reason to believe this NIE is wrong? Why are we even talking about this?

Posted by John | December 5, 2007 3:51 PM

"alarmism is a form of caution should have died in the sands of Iraq."

Doood! Brown people are so SCARY! We're all about to die from The Greatest Threat EVAH!

If we can't hate people, can't (send others to) kill people, what meaning does life have??

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 5, 2007 3:52 PM

The leap isn't all the way from exercising caution to starting wars. We could err on the side of suspecting Iran but not leap straight to invading the country. So I don't Jonah's point is that bad

Well, taken in this form, I would agree. But Jonah poses the test: would we rather have an NIE that was inaccurately pessimistic or inaccurately optimistic. In today's political climate, I'd prefer the latter. I think the threat of Bush going to war with Iran and the potential to improve the election chances of Guiliani is worse than the threat of Iran going nuclear. But that pretty much summarizes the problem with the CW in foreign policy these days: the solution is usually worse than the problem.

Posted by mpowell | December 5, 2007 3:53 PM

Come on, you are talking about the guy who would be the stupidest person at The Corner if it weren't for K-Lo. When The Doughy Pantload isn't shilling for wars he wont take part in because he can't take the paycut, he's blogging about something stupid like Battlestar Galactica or cueing people to some assinine Flash game. What do you expect?

Posted by calipygian | December 5, 2007 3:57 PM

I guess I'm more interested in a point that IOZ and Arthur Silber often make, which is that we rarely use intelligence for truth-seeking purposes but to confirm our own delusions or desires. We can tie ourselves in knots all we want about how accurate the intelligence is, but the main question is a judgment call: is Iran worth engaging diplomatically, or should we rain boms on them and kill lots of folks? I choose the former, and my call on that isn't wedded to whether (this week) Dick Cheney and co. weren't able to cook the books.

Posted by scott | December 5, 2007 4:09 PM

Two points.

First, give his witless choices, don't we agree with him? "Which would you rather: An NIE that says Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons when it really is? Or, an NIE that says Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons when it really isn't?"

But that's kinda the Grand Unifying Theory of Conservative Governance: choosing between two wrong answers.

What if there were -gasp- four choices. Which do you prefer?

a) NIE says 'no nukes' and there are no nukes.
b) NIE says 'no nukes' and there are nukes.
c) NIE says 'nukes' and there are no nukes.
d) NIE says 'nukes' and there are nukes.

I imagine how you prioritize those -really- tells you something about your view of foreign policy. And plenty more, besides.

I imagine that, almost without exception, liberals would prefer a, c, d, b in that order.

Conservatives, however, would prefer what?

Posted by gussie | December 5, 2007 4:19 PM

Jonah's so-called "cautious approach" is one that will most likely to lead us to war. One would think that the cautious approach would be one that leads us away from war.

Posted by Llyonnoc | December 5, 2007 4:28 PM

Since the NIE says that Iran isn't developing nukes and hasn't since 2003, which means this whole time President Cheney has been advocating for bombing a non-existent program without knowing where the targets are, conservatives prefer e) NIE says bomb the living shit out of brown people indiscriminately since they must be doing something wrong.

Posted by calipygian | December 5, 2007 4:31 PM

What if there were -gasp- four choices. Which do you prefer?

a) NIE says 'no nukes' and there are no nukes.
b) NIE says 'no nukes' and there are nukes.
c) NIE says 'nukes' and there are no nukes.
d) NIE says 'nukes' and there are nukes.

I imagine how you prioritize those -really- tells you something about your view of foreign policy. And plenty more, besides.

I imagine that, almost without exception, liberals would prefer a, c, d, b in that order.

Conservatives, however, would prefer what?

This is a good question!

I think the answer is c,d,b,a in that order.

In case c, we get to attack without any risk of nuclear retaliation. Double plus good!

In case d, we get to attack. There is some risk, but we are manly men and can bear the thought that millions of other people might die.

In case b, we don't get to attack this time, but eventually the truth will come out, the pacifist liberals will be exposed as liars, and we will get to attack every time in the future.

In case a, we don't get to attack, but we continue to emphasize what a great threat Iran is and hope somebody will still buy it.

Posted by peep | December 5, 2007 4:34 PM

Jonah is mostly right here -- you're probably better off with intelligence reports that overestimates the enemy than ones that underestimates the enemy. Being ready to fight a 300lb goon and running into a 98lb weakling is much better than the alternative. (Let's grant for the sake of argument that Iran is, and should be, an enemy).

Well guess what, the intelligence community isn't stupid. They understand that. You want to be right, but when you're not sure, err on the side of over-estimating your opponent.

That's why John is right:
But any reasonable look at the CIA's work shows that their tendency is always to exaggerate threats.

Put the two things together and what is the obvious conclusion? That the 16 intelligence agencies *really* don't think Iran is likely to have an active nuclear program.

Posted by b1ff | December 5, 2007 4:43 PM

Which would you rather: An NIE that says Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons when it really is? Or, an NIE that says Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons when it really isn't?

Presumably the rhetorical "you" in this question is an American, not an Iranian. An Iranian might prefer to avoid a pointless US bombing campaign, seeing as how it would be kind of annoying to die, suffer economic hardship, and/or be rounded up in the Iranian government's inevitable wartime crackdown on real and imagined dissent.

And presumably the rhetorical "you" in this question is not an American soldier serving in a Shiite area of Iraq (e.g., most of Baghdad and most of its southern and eastern outskirts). For the past few months the Iranians have been limiting the flow of weapons from Iran into Iraq and reining in elements of Shiite militias over which they have some control. That's one important reason casualties have been so low for the past few months compared to the level of the past few years. Presumably the Iranians would react to a bombing campaign by inflicting as much pain on the United States as possible; it's obvious where they have the greatest opportunity to do so.

Of course, hundreds or thousands of dead and imprisoned Iranians and dozens or hundreds of dead and maimed American soldiers is of little consequence when weighed against something that is infinitely bad. But Goldberg needs to actually provide some evidence that the infinitely bad outcome is possible, let alone likely, before using it as part of a hare-brained rhetorical point.

Posted by JB | December 5, 2007 4:53 PM

An added benefit of Jonah Lucianne's approach would be to save a lot of money, as the retired Aunt Edna and Unle Ned sitting a dark cold room somewhere in Oshkosh can quickly produce such NIE estimates that invariably err on the side of caution. The money thus saved could be useful for starting more wars.

Posted by gregor | December 5, 2007 4:55 PM

"Err on the side of caution" is a great heuristic--if applied consistently. Nothing could be more at odds with that precept than starting a war at the very moment when international inspectors are about to prove that the ostensible reason for the war is mistaken.

Posted by kth | December 5, 2007 4:56 PM

I'm not sure if my wife is running around on me. My friends and neighbors assure me there is no current reason to suspect it. She denies doing it when I confront her. I think I'll divorce her anyway rather than believe all evidence to the contrary.

Posted by steve duncan | December 5, 2007 5:06 PM

The .00001% doctrine

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | December 5, 2007 5:14 PM

The .00001% doctrine

To paraphrase JFK: in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of minimum danger.

Posted by JB | December 5, 2007 5:28 PM

Come on, you are talking about the guy who would be the stupidest person at The Corner if it weren't for K-Lo.

Lopez is dumber than Goldberg? Really? How is that is even possible?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 5, 2007 5:34 PM

Is it supposed to be newsworthy that the Momma's Boy reacted in precisely the manner that anybody familiar with his android programming would have expected? What's next, Podhoretz gassing about how the NIE is **exactly** like Munich 1938?

Posted by sglover | December 5, 2007 5:53 PM

Maybe the Iraq situation was a bit unclear, but best to err on the side of caution -- which was to say starting a war.

You're forgetting that a majority of the country was opposed to the war until it became a fact on the ground. Americans erred on the side of not starting a war unnecessarily, even immediately after 9/11. It was pundits and politicians who had the calculus backwards.

Posted by Jinchi | December 5, 2007 6:14 PM

Also, there are SEVERAL THINGS TO BE SIMULTANEOUSLY ALARMED ABOUT, and the real questions are: (1) how we prioritize them militarily (will we have the resources for the sudden kinds of military actions we may have to take if Pakistan's or North Korea's nuclear capabilities lead to a crisis?); and (2) exactly how we deal with them individually (are there strategically better ways to put the brakes on Iran's nuclear program than an immediate military attack, given that they are apparently not charging forwards as rapidly as we thought? -- which of course, has been one of Matt's major points all along).

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 5, 2007 6:48 PM

"That is to say, if the NIE is wrong, better it be wrong on the side of caution."

From "preventative wars" to "just in case war", and probably to "what the heck wars".

"A war each year keeps Islamofascists away."

Posted by piotr | December 5, 2007 6:50 PM

I heard from some guy at the gym China has a secret plan to poison all of North America's water supply.

I hope you gently pointed out that if the Chinese want to take us out, they need only call in a few loans...

Posted by Roddy McCorley | December 5, 2007 7:15 PM

Thus we have Goldberg's theorem:

Intelligence which is consistent (inconsistent) with your preconceived policy prescriptions is reliable (unreliable).

Posted by kafka | December 5, 2007 8:12 PM

The key issue with Iran is whether or not it is violating international treaties by secretly conducting a nuclear weapons program. Jonah is basically saying we should err on the side of falsely accusing Iran of breaking international law (and thus posing a danger to the U.S.), rather than err on the side of falsely proclaiming that Iran is in accordance with international law.

For clarity's sake, let's apply Jonah's logic to the criminal justice system. Jonah is basically arguing that it's better to rule guilty when the person is innocent than to rule innocent when the person is guilty. Of course, this proposition is directly at odds with the criminal justice system, which (at least formally) presumes innocence. The goal of the criminal justice system is to minimize the chance of a false positive, due to the potentially dire consequences of convicting an innocent person, up to and including the death penalty. While it's true that a false negative also carries risks - such as letting a killer go free - the criminal justice system regards the false positive as a greater risk.

So why wouldn't the logic of criminal justice apply directly to international law? Erring on the side of caution should logically mean erring on the side of NOT falsely accusing Iran of violating international law. Of course it is true that a false negative carries risk (since Iran would be allowed the opportunity to further develop its nuclear weapons program). However, the consequences of erring on the side of a false positive are even more grave for the U.S. and Iran than they are for a single individual accused of a crime. The belief that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear bomb despite non-military international pressures would very likely lead us down the road to the deaths of lots of innocent people due to war between the U.S. and Iran. In light of this it seems better that we should accept the risk of the false negative for now and allow the intelligence agencies to continue monitoring the situation, rather than act on the basis of a false positive that puts our country on the path to war. The dangers of the false positive outweigh those of the false negative, in both foreign policy and criminal justice.

Of course, Jonah Goldberg is probably in favor of putting more innocent people in prison rather than more guilty people on the streets, so it's a good thing he is not in charge of either the criminal justice system or American foreign policy.

Posted by Isaac Speer | December 5, 2007 10:06 PM

Of course, Jonah Goldberg is probably in favor of putting more innocent people in prison rather than more guilty people on the streets, so it's a good thing he is not in charge of either the criminal justice system or American foreign policy.

Needless to say, this same logic is applied to the torture debate. (If only there were a debate on torture in this country...)

Posted by Voice of Reason | December 5, 2007 11:34 PM

As I've said, the NIE is a case of "Iran has stopped beating his wife" - without really establishing whether Iran ever in fact was.

As such, it's a CYA NIE - almost worthless.

The "fact" (if it IS a fact) that some Iranian military were interested in learning how nuclear weapons are designed - which is, after all, the military's job - does not in itself establish that the leadership of Iran had authorized a nuclear weapons program. All the evidence points the other way.

What is worse is that everyone except Seymour Hersh is assuming that this kills chances for an Iran war.

Far from it. In fact, it provides cover for starting the war. Everybody now BELIEVES that Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program. All you have to "prove" now is that Iran actually never stopped it. That is an easier thing to "prove" (assuming you don't care what actually constitutes "proof".)

Meanwhile, Cheney, as Scott Horton points out, has been assumed to have lay down before under fire but came roaring back. He still has the Israeli card to play. The Israelis are not happy about the idea that they start the war, but they'll do it if the US won't.

The end result will be the same.

And of course the Head Chimp hasn't changed his mind one bit, as he explicitly said.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 6, 2007 2:54 AM

"It's easy to understand how that happened..." only if you value easy over accurate.

Goldberg is clearly wrong, but so is Matt to try drawing too many parallels between the oft-made decision to attack Iraq, and the never-made decision to attack Iran.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 6, 2007 4:23 AM

"Jonah's so-called "cautious approach" is one that will most likely to lead us to war. One would think that the cautious approach would be one that leads us away from war.

Posted by Llyonnoc | December 5, 2007 4:28 PM"

From the point of view of the American and Iranian nations as invidual human beings and tax-payers, yes. From the point of view of a careerist like Jonah Goldberg, who depends on his violent fantasies be taken seriously by enough people, no. This is self-interest at work here folks. If Iran had a liberal, lasting and popular revolution tomorrow that ended up ending Hezbollah, etc., would that actually make people like Jonah, Podheretz and Bolton happy? I doubt it. What else would they do with their worthless lives?

Posted by Reality Man | December 6, 2007 4:51 AM

Why is it that the same people who want to promote nuclear energy for the future - are often the same people who sound alarmist when it comes to nuclear WMD?

Come on - it is either or. As the NIE makes clear - it is due to the civilian nuclear energy program that Iran is only 1-2 years away from enriching enough... to.. build.. a... etc.

Make up your minds folks - either we promote nuclear energy AND hence BOMBS everywhere or nowhere.

PS: why is it that those who have no problem with the $280 billion in livestock subsidies do have a huge problem with a $50 billion dollar CO2 emission policy - claiming that it will bankrupt us?

How comes that those who believe in a literal Jesus are those who take his words the least literally? eg pro death penalty and torture of adults vs anti-abortion of matter that cannot even be called alive???

Why is it that Mat is against the state handling liquor and gambling but he is fine with the state taking over health care completely?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | December 6, 2007 8:04 AM

On the one hand, Petey says MY is against universal health care. On the other, Hugo says MY wants the government to take over health care completely. Funny world we live in.

Posted by Reality Man | December 6, 2007 9:14 AM

I get where Jonah is going with this paragraph, but the logic probably sounded more forceful in his head than on paper.

In matters of policy debate, and not just trivial "what if" conversation, the hypothetical he proposes is of little use. Of course we would want to know for sure whether Iran is or isn't building nuclear weapons. But that is impossible. One can't prove a negative absent a complete search of every corner of the country - something which is obviously beyond our present capabilities.

No, the issue is whether one values intelligence at all anymore. Given Jonahs writing here, and the revelations of the 1% percent doctrine, I think it is safe to say the conservative attitude toward intelligence is: "If it supports me, then great. If it doesn't, than bomb to be safe." Such a view naturally values intelligence only as a matter of political insurance.

The NIE is not a reason to celebrate wildly; yes, it could be wrong. But it represents the best information we possess at the time. Its a dim, imperfect torch, to be sure, but its the only one we have at our disposal. Personally, I trust it more than the torch of gut-feelings.

Posted by Neal Murray | December 6, 2007 12:05 PM