Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

That is the same dualistic thinking that gets Bush in so much trouble. Being against an invasion of Iraq does not mean one supported Saddam. There were options for getting compliance from Saddam and improving human rights and conditions in Iraq short of an invasion that turns Iraq into a real life Mad Max. Only in the dualistic world of good versus evil is there no moral choice for not starting a war.

You just need to understand his utility function:

http://www.faisal.com/images/figure-1.gif

Plan Iraq was a Pascal's Wager from the get-go.

Knowing that the well-known downsides of war are well-known, and knowing there are no mid-range benefits with mid-range probabilities on the board, you had to believe the Plan stood a chance of averting disaster so devastating that the odds and the stakes vanished into irrelevance, or that the Plan promised a conceiveable outcome so utopian that the odds and the stakes vanished into irrelevance.

I think that what Geras is saying is worse than that: "Unless you had been able to prove that invading Iraq would have ended up leading to a worse situation than the one which I claimed (without needing to prove it) that NOT invading Iraq would have led to, then you would have been morally obligated to support the Iraq invasion.

Rather like Pascal's scam: "The imaginary punishment that I claim unbelievers suffer is so much greater than any actual punishment here on earth, that it is only reasonable to gamble on belief,

Pascal's work is extremely interesting, but serves as something of an antidote to the idea that mathematical understanding leads reliably to wisdom.

Yo, Ron! Ya beat me by a minute.

So then we have a policy of war as first resort unless we can prove beyond a reasonable (or shadow of a?) doubt that something else is better. What a future that would be. Sounds like a nasty speed freak Coriolanus/Aufidius combo.

it's odd that when even Tony Blair talks of how he completely respects the position of those who disagree with him about the war, and talks of it in terms of being a very difficult judgement, Geras sees "no viable moral case against the Iraq war." Maybe TB should have employed Geras as an advisor in No. 10 to clarify his clouded judgement!

Invade all adversaries! Anybody who's not with us is against us, so everybody except Britain, Australia and Vanuatu (etc) is an adversary!

[1] The sole convincing moral case against the war would have had to demonstrate, either for a certainty or else as being highly probable, that the consequences of a regime-change war... must be a state of affairs even worse than the one the war was supposed to remedy.

- or -

[2] The sole convincing moral case for the war would have had to demonstrate, either for a certainty or else as being highly probable, that the consequences of a regime-change war... must be a state of affairs not as bad as the one the war was supposed to remedy.

Explain why peace needs a moral case but war doesn't.

I don't think Pascal arrived at his wager by mathematical thinking, he just expressed it that way to get a good quote in... Surely Pascal knew that an infinitismal value times an infinite value can be 0, infinity, or anything in between. Out of all possible worlds, only an infinitismal percentage could be of the monotheistic christian type...

Your response, "The right standard is, "More likely than not to make things worse--and perhaps much worse," is not strong enough.

In a war, people die, people are maimed and seriously injured: not just soldiers, but also civilians. War diverts resources from other uses. As we have seen, alliances are stretched to or past the breaking point, with a variety of long and short term costs that I won't list here. A common maxim is that truth is the first casualty in war. One thing rarely discussed is the brutalization that occur to the soldiers that make reintegration into civilian life so difficult: My Lai, Operation Pheonix and more recently, Abu Ghraib, are flagrant examples that come to mind without having to stretch the memory at all.

The proponents of war have to make the argument that, when all these costs are taken into consideration, the outcome of war is likely to be preferable to the alternative.

I think that Pascal was a smart, but very sick puppy. He and his sister were celibate, but agreed that parents should never cuddle their children, since that would encourage carnality. I think that Pascal internalized the terror of the religious wars (with the massacres, burning of heretics, etc.) and turned it into a cosmic principle.

Let's start going down the list of regimes around the world, analyzing whether we can demonstrate, either for a certainty or else as being highly probable, that the consequences of a regime-change war must be a state of affairs even worse than the status quo. Are we really certain, for example, that the world would not be a better place if we deposed John Paul II by force of arms?

Duly noted, but even taking Norm at HIS standard, the war was a bad idea.

Didn't the CIA say the only reasonably probable outcomes were civil war and/or partition -- i.e. disaster for US interests, not to mention for the poor Iraqis caught in the crossfire.

Just to state the obvious, any evaluation of the projected outcome "state of affairs" must include the resources expended in the action as well, and some estimate of the value of using them for other purposes.

That includes, of course, intangibles like good will and credibility.

"The proponents of war have to make the argument that, when all these costs are taken into consideration, the outcome of war is likely to be preferable to the alternative."

Paul, even this standard is too low. If we are worried about the risk associated with the small probability of a really bad outcome, then even "likely to be preferable" may not be good enough to offest living in a less stable and more uncertain world.

Can anybody point me to one post on Norman Geras's blog indicating that he has read one serious work of history or political science about the Arab world? Can anybody give me one reason why this man's opinions on Iraq should be listened to with the respect that one would afford, say, a reasonably well-informed 19 year-old history undergraduate?

Oh, and is anybody else utterly, hideously embarrassed by the spectacle of a fifty-something Professor of Political Philosophy referring solemnly to Christopher Hitchens as (always using the capitals) 'The Dude'?

ISTM that the standard shouldn't be "More likely than not to make things worse--and perhaps much worse," but rather that going to war should be the alternative hypothesis in your standard null hypothesis v. alternative hypothesis scenario from freshman stats.

For one thing, the status quo is almost *always* the null hypothesis: you've got to make the case for change, not for continuing the present course. And for another, going to war is a pretty damned serious choice, with serious consequences even if the war's goals are achieved; if one doesn't have enough of a case to overcome a strong presumption that there are means short of war to accomplish one's needs, then one shouldn't go to war.

Zizka comments: "Pascal's work is extremely interesting, but serves as something of an antidote to the idea that mathematical understanding leads reliably to wisdom."

As a PhD mathematician, I can personally testify that the link between mathematical understanding and wisdom is tenuous at best!

i hate to admit this, but i have no idea who norm geras is, other, of course, than that he is a demonstrable idiot who shouldn't be allowed in the vicinity of an adult conversation about national security issues.

Dan helps me out a little, but can anyone explain (or do i have to google away?) why norm geras isn't, in coach parcells' immortal phrase, just another guy we should ignore altogether?

Geras ignores (as do all good Bushies) that there were many possible alternative solutions between not doing anything re: Iraq and invading Iraq the way we did. Some of those alternatives would almost certainly have yielded far fewer and less costly negative outcomes.

'can anyone explain (or do i have to google away?) why norm geras isn't, in coach parcells' immortal phrase, just another guy we should ignore altogether?'

Howard: Geras gets attention because there are basically only three or four 'Pro-war left' British blogs. The others are 'Socialism in an age of waiting'- which I find frankly unreadable- a mixture of left sectarianism, class chippiness and a frequently stated belief in the author's moral superiority to all who disagree with him; 'Harry's Place', which has all the above qualities plus the presence of an apologist for the Provisional IRA, 'Brownie'; Oliver Kamm, who actually has a surprisingly deep knowledge of a number of topics and writes interestingly, if sometimes over-emphatically; and Professor Geras.

Early on, Geras posted an essay on the concept of 'crimes against humanity', which I found rather interesting. Otherwise, reading his work one finds it as hard as one does with Glenn Reynolds to imagine that this is an educated man: a good proportion of it consists of linking to the latest profundities of Christopher Hitchens (always, cringe-makingly, referred to as 'The Dude') and, God help us, Mark Steyn. 'Read it. Read the whole thing. Mark Steyn gets it.' Thank you, Professor. The money spent on your education sure wasn't wasted.

I suspect that he's a pretty nice person in real life, as witness his posts on jazz and cricket, and his friendships with anti-war left bloggers like Chris Bertram explains some of his readership. But basically the attention paid to him just demonstrates the appallingly incestuous nature of the 'blogosphere' right now. He has demonstrably made no effort to inform himself about Iraq, military affairs, the economics or politics of the reconstruction effort, etc, but he pontificates about the Iraq war the whole day long, and clearly revels in his status as guru to a bunch of silly bloggers. Also, he was smart enough to post regular interviews with other bloggers, so there's quite a good reason for the rest of the blogosphere to like him. But as Howard notes, on Iraq at least, he's 'just another guy we should ignore altogether'.

If you take Norm's view seriously, that still isn't a creditable case for going into Iraq, even if it is the moral thing to do: "This is to mistake the very meaning of a standard of morals, and to confound the rule of action with the motive of it. It is the business of ehtics to tell us what are our duties, or by what test we may know them; but no system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty; on the contrary, ninety-hundredths of all our actions are done from other motives, and rightly so done, if the rule of duty does not condemn them." -- Mill, Utilitarianism

I think that Norm's confused here, like those Mill is replying to who claim that Utilitarianism demands that we work like fiends constantly to acquire money to send to starving people on the Chad-Sudan border (say) while spending only enough on ourselves to stay alive. Just because invading Iraq would not be an unjust war (by his standards, as well as mine, though not everybody's) does not mean we are compelled to invade Iraq.

Of course, a coherent consequentialist might say that this distinction is all hogwash... that if we're willing to swerve into a tree to avoid hitting a stranger crossing the street, wrecking out $25,000 car in the process, we ought to be willing to pay $25,000 and risk personal injury to help a random stranger who would otherwise be injured or killed -- say, a starving person on the Chad-Sudan border. That's a pretty radical view of morality, though, and one that goes against human nature at a very fundamental level.

It is interesting that there are two incompatible arguments made by Left supporters of the war, one advanced before the war and one after. The former being that such an awful regime needed to be overthrown on humanitarian grounds and only a war could do it. (I'm far from convinced that Sadam would've remained in power until his death.) The second, which is made after the war showed the deep weakness of the regime, is that the regime was on the verge of collapse and that the US had to go in to prevent an impending failed state--Hitchens makes both simultaneously.

I think for Geras and much of the other crowd that basis the pro-war claims on humanitarian, undoing-a-regime that-was-so-brutal-that-only-genocide-is-worse crowd, the problem, even if you buy the premise, is that only war by the US could remove the regime.

Speaking of Hitchens, anyone notice his return to The Nation, where he endorses Bush?

dan, much obliged. as a jazz fan myself, one of the greatest disappointments of adult life has been to discover that even jazz fans are capable of being jerks in other dimensions of their existence....

Historian Eric Bergerud describes Bismarck's approach to decision-making under uncertainty: "Bismarck in particular never thought that events could be predicted with precision. When a policy was pursued a range of outcomes could be expected. The trick was to develop policy where the minimum outcome (today we might call it a worst case scenario) was acceptable. If a triumph ensued great. If it was something in between, don't die of surprise."

Of course, Bismarck also described preventive war as "suicide for fear of death."

IIRC, Pascal never published his famous Wager. His notes inconclusively explored divergent constructions of the argument ... so I guess we'll never know how he bet.

It was interesting -- and potentially diagnostic of something important -- to see the arguments raised in defense of Plan Iraq before its execution. Folks (names withheld) who should have known better (and not just hawks) settled on reasoning like "there's no way to prove it might not do some good, so I guess we should go ahead".

It is interesting -- and again potentially diagnostic of something less interesting -- to see the arguments raised for it in retrospect.

mortgage leads

Geras is making a moral argument - it is more usual to apply a max min non expected utility representation (i.e. place all the weight on the worst outcome) to such a problem than the VNM expected utilty Brad seems to be suggesting.

So I'm marking in the descison making under uncertainty class, I have it Geras A-. De Long D+ so far.

Geras is making a moral argument – in such cases it quite normal to apply a max min non expected utility representation (i.e. all weight on the worst outcome). This Geras has done. De Long has simply applied the simple but unrealistic VNM decision making theory. Isn’t it a bit embarrassing when and economics professor displays a weaker understanding of decision making under uncertainty than a sociology prof? D-

As usual among Leftists, Brad doesn't bring himself to say it, to oppose booting Saddam.
His standard: "More likely than not to make things worse--and perhaps much worse."

and since the Leftist cheering squad doesn't seem to want to go to the links (advice: use Firefox as browser, and tabs, and open new tab while you continue reading; soooo much nicer), here's Jeff Weintraub quoting Juan Cole:
"John Kerry has been accused of 'waffling' on Iraq because he supported the war but has criticized the outcome. [....] I also sympathize with Kerry, because I declined to oppose the war. I felt that a) Saddam was a genocidal monster, and getting rid of him would benefit the Iraqis, and b) the 'dual containment' of Iraq and Iran as a policy was a fatal dead end that had just put the US in the position of denying needed medicine to Iraqi children (actually Saddam manipulated the system to rob the children and give to the Baath officials, but the US got blamed). Even the 'no-fly' zone for the Kurds probably couldn't have been kept up indefinitely, and if the US ever withdrew, Saddam would have massacred the Kurds all over again.

But I disagreed almost completely with the *way* the war was carried out... " (On Norm's site
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/10/was_there_any_m.html
(his original is already in archives)

Brad, do you think that booting Saddam was of real benefit? If not, any costs are too much; but if so, the value of booting him becomes crucial.

What Norm really said: "the most powerful reason in its favour was a simple one: the regime had been responsible for, it was daily adding to, and for all that anyone could reasonably expect, it would go on for the forseeable future adding to, an immensity of pain and grief, killing, torture and mutilation. It's been said before, including by me, and so I won't labour the point too much here; but this was not merely an unpleasant tyranny amongst many others - it was one of the very worst of recent times, with the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on its hands, to say nothing of the lives torn and wrecked by it. Other things equal, there is no other moral option than to support the removal of such a regime if a removal is in the offing."

And again, Brad, your comment was lazy shorthand. The right standard includes the status in the future. By your stated standard, no "risky" operation should ever be performed, because the likely worse condition isn't included. Try, for instance [the moral case against the war is that it]:
"More likely than not will make things worse in the future--and perhaps much worse--than they would be without the war".

And please, tell me you beleive that Bush's war will (or has?) made it, Iraq's likely 2005 status, worse than under Saddam. And you've always thought it would.

By the way, perhaps you might like to state your idea on the chance of Iran getting nukes in the next 4 years? For me, 50% under Kerry; 10% under Bush ... since I'm terrified of terrorists getting nukes from Iran.
But I just wrote that Israel attacks Iran if Kerry wins...
see http://tomgrey.motime.com/1098468465#361577

8974 http://www.i--cialis.net
Offering Cialis with overnight delivery. Also, If your looking for generic cialis this is a good site to visit.

2649 http://www.blackjack-1000.com
PlLAY the best blackjack-1000.com
debt consolidation only.

Dan Hardie, if Norm is not worth listening to, why are you here wasting your time on him? You know what books he has read? why should we listen to you and not him, you have more insight somehow? you're nothing but a fool playing a fool's game.

This I assume is the same Dan Hardie who keeps making a damned idiot out of himself in the comments window over at Harry's where he continously claims Brownie to be an "IRA apologist" and after he has been proven wrong time and time again he keeps spreading the same lies around and even suggests a fight at his boxing gym to settle the score! stellar intellect. great thinking. fine argumentation. the world needs more people like Dan Hardie, that's for sure. what else would we laugh about?

Norm Geras calling Hitchens "The Dude" (come on, you must know where this reference comes from!) isn't your biggest problem right now, know what I mean?

btw Norm has now commented on Brad's shall we say dubious interpretation on the post in question.

RonK said, "It was interesting -- and potentially diagnostic of something important -- to see the arguments raised in defense of Plan Iraq before its execution. Folks (names withheld) who should have known better (and not just hawks) settled on reasoning like "there's no way to prove it might not do some good, so I guess we should go ahead"."

While I opposed the war from the first, I remember how inviting it seemed if you accepted Bush's claims. Remember, in Gulf War I for awhile it looked like we were killing hundreds of thousands of iraqis while almost all of our own casualties were training accidents and friendly fire. It was embarrassing, it was utterly one-sided, people were starting to say we ought to give them a chance to surrender or something. Then by coincidence one (1) iraqi SCUD hit a bunker and we lost over a hundred troops and it wasn't totally a massacre.

There was strong treason to think that the iraqi army wouldn't fight at all and we would have no casualties whatsoever -- and maybe very few iraqi casualties. And Bush implied that it would cost almost nothing. It was only very late that he suggested it might cost as much as $87 billion.

I'm sure to a lot of people it didn't seem like it would be a war at all. More like swatting a mosquito that might carry malaria. Better to simply swat it, or better to keep waving it off every time it got ready to bite? Go in, get Saddam, wave to the cheering crowds, and go home. Piece of cake.

If you believed Bush then the moral argument against war turned kind of abstract. "If you could wave your hand and get rid of a brutal dictator at no cost to you or anybody else except the dictator, should you? Or is it better to respect the dictator's right to be brutal?"

If that had been the choice, I would have waved my hand. The trouble was, Bush was misleading, and he misled us into whatever we have now.

Tom Grey said, "Brad, do you think that booting Saddam was of real benefit? If not, any costs are too much; but if so, the value of booting him becomes crucial."

I'm not Brad, but I say the question isn't just booting Saddam or not booting Saddam, unless the issue is whether to punish Saddam for his sins. Unless Saddam's welfare is the issue, then it matters what Saddam gets replaced by.

How much would it be wroth to replace brutal Saddam by almost-as-brutal Allawi, with say an 80% overlap in the personnel of their secret police?

That wouldn't be worth a whole lot to me. There's some value in having a brutal dictator who's utterly dependent on the USA versus a brutal dictator who feels independent, but that isn't nearly worth a quarter-trillion dollars of deficit to me. It isn't worth the hours I've put into discussing it. YMMV.

"By the way, perhaps you might like to state your idea on the chance of Iran getting nukes in the next 4 years? For me, 50% under Kerry; 10% under Bush ... since I'm terrified of terrorists getting nukes from Iran."

My guess is 90% by March 2005 in either case. Iraq needs nukes to keep israel and the USA from attacking. For that they don't need nukes 4 years from now, they need them *soon*. Why do the very thing that would guarantee an attack if they can't get results quickly enough? Maybe they're stupid, but more likely they have a technical trick we don't predict, that puts them ahead of schedule. But I could be wrong. Maybe they're just stupid.

If you're terrified of terrorists with nukes, consider this logic: If you had 20 nukes would you let a terrorist get his hands on one of them? How about if you had 10,000 nukes? Why are you less terrified of terrorists getting nukes from russia?

"But I just wrote that Israel attacks Iran if Kerry wins..."

When you think about it, isn't it absurd that we let israel have nukes? Think about it. If iran gives a nuke to terrorists, we're likely to nuke iran. If israel gives a nuke to terrorists, we're likely to nuke iran. Which is more likely?

A stellar contribution, Swift. Bereft of factual evidence and written in semi-hysterical prose.
Yes, I am, oddly enough, the 'Dan Hardie' who has accused 'Brownie' of being an IRA apologist on the 'Harry's Place' site- the name is a bit of a giveaway, but well spotted. I cut and pasted a number of 'Brownie's own statements and analysed their content to prove that argument, and offered to pay £50 to anyone capable of backing 'Brownie's counterclaim that I am a 'liar'. The £50 is safe, and you are a fool.

'Norm Geras calling Hitchens "The Dude" (come on, you must know where this reference comes from!) isn't your biggest problem right now, know what I mean?'
Re Geras calling Hitchens 'The Dude', I said, and I repeat, that that is an embarrassing affectation for a fifty-something professor.
But correct, his silly prose isn't my biggest problem now, know what I mean? My biggest problems right now would be the project I'm working on in my professional life; the fact that I'm learning Arabic, which is one hell of a hard language;the fact that I am meant to keep myself up to a good level of fitness and spend a large number of my weekends running round in military uniform; and finding the time to do all of these each week.
What are your biggest problems, Swift? Deciding which pro-war website to mouth off on? If there's a campaign medal for chickenhawk blog-posters, I hope it gets posted to you soon.

refinance mortgage

5297 Kona Coffee Starbucks Coffee Jamaica Blue Mountain
Coffee
coffee maker gourmet coffee green mountain coffee kenya coffee organic coffee specialty coffee folgers coffee coffee brewers costa rica coffee Tullys Coffee Millstone Coffee coffee grinder http://www.coffee-delivered.com

8693
directv
direct tv directv satellite direct tv satellite directv dvr direct tv dvr direct tv tivo directv tivo directway
direcway
directway internet directway satellite direcway internet direcway internet free hbo free cinemax free dvd player satellite radio http://www.satellitetvboutique.com

directv
direct tv
directv satellite direct tv satellite directv dvr direct tv dvr direct tv tivo directv tivo directway
direcway
directway internet directway satellite direcway internet direcway internet free hbo free cinemax free dvd player satellite radio http://satellite-tv.cjb.net

Love is everything it`s cracked up to be…It really is worth fighting for, being brave for, risking everything for.

6104 http://www.top-texas-hold-em.com

texas hold em