One of the potentially embarrassing things about the Internet is that once something gets posted, it’s almost impossible to make it go away.
The Bush administration has been relentlessly attacked for failing to anticipate the consequences of invading Iraq. So it’s instructive to compare the crystal ball of Team Bush with the crystal ball of the Cato Institute.
Unlike Moveon.org, the Cato Institute is a reputable think-tank. Note the very hit-and-miss character of its own prognostications:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3571
Here's a more recent commentary from CatoI:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tgc01112007.html
I don't think the "10" are hit-and-miss at all, myself. Nor do I think CatoI would self-characterize them as hit-and-miss.
1. Even if we assume that "casualties" are restricted to US personnel, one needs a statndard to measure "high". Is over 3000 US deaths in 5 years "reasonable"? "High"? And then there is the Iraqi tally. The figures (see the CatoI article for one figure as of Jan 07) are simply tragic.
2.-6. are basically spot-on predictions.
The further into the list, the longer-term the bullets get. Chronology being what it is, the specter of post hoc fallacy rises. Nevertheless, points 7.-8. are not without future potential. If the US invades or attacks additional countries, the probability of diplomatic isolation will rise appreciably.
9.-10. again, spot-on.
I think the CatoI and others opposing this adventure, paleo-conservatives and libertarians, have a right to be heard without being lumped in with the red-left fringe. After all, the latter are mainly big-government lovers, similar to the neo-cons, who only oppose this war because it's not theirs.
And, on a Christian blog, can we get a little sympathy for the Iraqi Christians--evangelical and nominal--who are watching their lives and families blown up in this disaster? You know, they had a duty to revere the "authority" over them too, even back under the dictator (little caesar that he was). Think any of them felt an obligation to defend their country v. invaders?
Food for thought...
bruce said...
ReplyDelete“I don't think the ‘10’ are hit-and-miss at all, myself. Nor do I think CatoI would self-characterize them as hit-and-miss.__1. Even if we assume that ‘casualties’ are restricted to US personnel, one needs a statndard to measure ‘high’. Is over 3000 US deaths in 5 years ‘reasonable’? ‘High’? And then there is the Iraqi tally. The figures (see the CatoI article for one figure as of Jan 07) are simply tragic.”
You’re reading very selectively. This is the actual reason (#1) you’re glossing:
“High casualties may result at home or abroad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admits that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons. Faced with destruction of his regime (and possibly his own death), Hussein would have every incentive to use them against U.S. forces, Israel, oil fields, or even the U.S. homeland. If rag-tag al Qaeda terrorists can operate on U.S. soil undetected over a number of years, then more highly trained Iraqi intelligence agents might be able to smuggle in chemical or biological weapons (and may be already doing so). The U.S. military has been unenthusiastic about undertaking an invasion of Iraq because of fears of high casualties from urban fighting or from such Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.”
How much of this is true?
i) Notice that it doesn’t challenge the assumption that Saddam had WMD. Do you agree?
ii) It then builds on that assumption to say we shouldn’t invade Iraq because Saddam would have every incentive to use them…”
Did that prediction come true? Did he use them against U.S. forces, or Israel, or the oil fields, or the U.S. homeland?
iii) Did the invasion result in high casualties at home (i.e. U.S. mainland)?
iv) Have the high casualties been due to WMD?
As to point #2, it’s true that Iraq has been a magnet for non-Iraqi terrorists.
That, of itself, doesn’t mean the operation is creating more terrorists. If they weren’t in Iraq, they might be in Israel or Afghanistan.
#3 assumes that Al-Qaida has no vested interest in Iraq.
#4 is partly correct.
#5 is myopic.
#6 is problematic on several grounds:
i) Before the international community opposed the invasion, it opposed the sanctions regime. International resolve was weakening. The sanctions were widely flouted.
ii) Was it successful? Remember the UN oil-for-food scandal?
Has #7 come true? Obviously not.
And if it were to occur, would it be the result of the invasion and occupation? It becomes difficult to attribute a delayed effect to a particular cause, as you yourself admit (the post hoc fallacy).
#8 is less of a prediction than a retrodiction.
i) Given the amount of international opposition to the invasion in the ramp up to war, this is really a description of the status quo on the eve of the invasion.
ii) It’s also irrelevant to whether the invasion was right or wrong.
#9 is a half-truth. The war has been costly. But it hasn’t thrown the US economy into a tailspin.
Has #10 come true?
i) Has the price of oil “skyrocketed” as a result of the invasion and occupation? Do you have any hard evidence for that connection?
ii) Has there been Iraqi attack on the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields using Saddam’s WMD?
“And, on a Christian blog, can we get a little sympathy for the Iraqi Christians--evangelical and nominal--who are watching their lives and families blown up in this disaster?”
Did I say I was making a case for the Iraq war? No, I didn’t take a position on that. Reread the stated intention of my post.
“You know, they had a duty to revere the ‘authority’ over them too, even back under the dictator (little caesar that he was). Think any of them felt an obligation to defend their country v. invaders?”
Sure about that? First of all, there’s a difference between defending one’s “country” and defending the regime of a military dictator. Surely a limited gov’t type like yourself doesn’t equate one’s country with the state apparatus.
And are Christians obligated to fight a futile battle with a militarily superior opponent? Or should they submit to the new authority?
"And, on a Christian blog, can we get a little sympathy for the Iraqi Christians--evangelical and nominal--who are watching their lives and families blown up in this disaster? You know, they had a duty to revere the 'authority' over them too, even back under the dictator (little caesar that he was). Think any of them felt an obligation to defend their country v. invaders?"
ReplyDeleteAnd do you also sympathize with Iraqi Christians who, according to you, were also duty-bound to fight Kurds, Iranians, Kuwaityes—and whoever else Saddam might wish to pick a fight with had he remained in power. And what about those delightful sons of his?
The only one that looks off is #1, but this is the one they trusted Bush on and the intelligence he decided to share. Now if they knew what Bush knew...
ReplyDeleteThe blind, irrational hatred of George Bush in the above comment...
ReplyDeleteAll anyone needs to know is that the war in Iraq was and is unconstitutional, and therefore unjust. Period. Only Congress has the power under the governing authority of this nation (i.e., the Constitution) to declare war. The "resolution" they passed merely pawned off their constitutional war-making powers to the president.
ReplyDeleteLee Shelton said:
ReplyDeleteAll anyone needs to know is that the war in Iraq was and is unconstitutional, and therefore unjust. Period. Only Congress has the power under the governing authority of this nation (i.e., the Constitution) to declare war. The "resolution" they passed merely pawned off their constitutional war-making powers to the president.
*****************
Does the Constitution specify a verbal formula that must be used in a war resolution?
Steve, what do you think of the Revolutionary War?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDelete"Steve, what do you think of the Revolutionary War?"
It might be argued that the Yankees has insufficient Biblical warrant to foment revolution. However, it's a little late in the day to give S. Carolina back to King George, although he's welcome to NYC.