Today in Wild Overstatements
To may a long story short about a bad way to make the case for war in Afghanistan, if you take any situation (say the war in Afghanistan) then you assume that failing to apply maximum effort will lead to the worst possible consequences, then you assume the worst possible next stage consequences, and then you assume the worst possible next stage after that, then you easily generate an argument for maximum effort. But this is a serious fallacy. You could also do the same worst-case scenario mongering for other possible courses of action. Benjamin Friedman shows that we’ve got a lot of this fallacy running loose:
[Richard] Cohen calls Obama soft for letting McChrystal run amok, ignoring the fact that both the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser publicly rebuked him. Cohen approvingly cites Obama’s foolish claim that Afghanistan is a war of necessity. One can’t say enough that this is senseless; even wars of pure self-defense aren’t strictly necessary, and Afghanistan, at this point, isn’t that. He then drops the dominos. Should we leave, he says, the Taliban will take over Afghanistan and then Pakistan, grabbing nukes. India then invades Pakistan, and we get 1947, but nuclear. He doesn’t say how the Taliban columns advancing on Kabul will suppress our airpower. The widespread Afghan and Pakistani hostility to the Taliban — especially among the non-Pashtuns who support and dominate both governments — doesn’t impress him. He doesn’t mention the fact that the Pakistani military keeps close hold on its nukes, no matter who is officially in power. One could go on, but suffice it to say that there is an equally plausible worst-case scenario that results from following Cohen’s advice and expanding the war.
To be fair though, Cohen is a clear-eyed realist compared to Daniel Twining, who writes for Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government blog. Twining sees the war in Afghanistan as a means to keep Russia in a box, China down, India up, world trade humming, and the current international order, whatever that is, intact. I’m not going to bother to explain how all this works, but I picture the causal diagram as somewhat psychedelic. It’s almost like a parody of Jack Synder’ work on imperial myths, like he missed the part of the story where it says these aren’t theories you copy but BS people use to sell wars.
The fact of the matter is that in the modern world everything is sort of connected to a bunch of other stuff and it all, in the end, kind of links together. So you can start anywhere on the chain and start speculating about falling dominoes. It’s really true that an India-Pakistan nuclear war might start. And the fact of the matter is that a variety of different scenarios in some sense “could” lead to that happening. On another level, such a war would always be unlikely to result under any scenario since it would be suicidal. But the only reliable way to fundamentally mitigate India-Pakistan nuclear war risk would be to work on the fundamental issue of the India/Pakistan conflict. Beyond that there’s no real reason to think that Taliban military successes in Afghanistan makes an India-Pakistan nuclear war more likely.
You can spin a scenario in which a total victory for Karzai constitutes a strategic win for India and makes Pakistan feel vulnerable, leading them to increase support for anti-India radical groups leading to a war and staggering numbers of casualties. It’s just an inherently dangerous region of the world.
25 Responses to “Today in Wild Overstatements”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
The general plan is to kill everyone over there. After all those people won’t surrender and that’s what we require. America requires and demands unconditional surrender. The sad fact is that the last total surrender we got was from Japan 64 years ago and Americans are not going to take it anymore.
Our enemies won’t surrender. Our competitors won’t surrender. Even our allies won’t surrender to us even though we are God’s chosen nation.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
It’s really true that an India-Pakistan nuclear war might start. And the fact of the matter is that a variety of different scenarios in some sense “could” lead to that happening. On another level, such a war would always be unlikely to result under any scenario since it would be suicidal.
Taylor Branch has a new book out called the Clinton Tapes which contains edited transcripts of taped interviews he had with his friend Clinton during his time in the White House. One of the few revelations is that Clinton was thoroughly freaked out, as was the CIA etc, when in 1999 Pakistan and India came very close to nuking each other. Of course the news media did a bad job of reporting it at the time.
Matt is very blaisé about foreign affairs just as Wall Streeters were blaisé about the bubble before it burst.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDB1A9WcDoI
October 6th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Matt is very blaisé about foreign affairs just as Wall Streeters were blaisé about the bubble before it burst.
Whereas sociopaths are always up for another round of “slaughter the innocents.”
What bugs me about the so-called “realists” is that they never seem to be bothered by the cost in innocent lives of their adventurism.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Yeah, McChrystal took his lumps, and he deserved em. Jumping levels in the chain of command is acceptable going down, not up. He knew he would take em, too, but he felt is was necessary. He got dressed down properly, by Jones and Gates. Well done, everyone, including Obama.
MY “India-Pakistan nuclear war…would always be unlikely to result under any scenario since it would be suicidal”
Is a Pakistan/India nuclear war viewed as suicidal by the players? I honestly don’t know. I thought both sides might believe they had first strike capabilities. Proximity lessening the response times below critical levels, and all that.
Re: Maximum effort and dominoes
To hell with maximum effort. The whole idea is minimum effort. What is the minimum amount of effort needed to achieve something. Like, does giving McChrystal this 40 grand help us to get our asses out of there in the easiest and fastest way possible. That is the great unanswered question.
And to hell with dominoes. Sometimes you knock one over, and they all go. Sometimes you knock one over, and that domino is the only one to fall. Basing a theory on dominoes is like believing you can anticipate how dice will fall on a crap table.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Richard Cohen is a twat.
No more needs to be said.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
What bugs me about the so-called “realists” is that they never seem to be bothered by the cost in innocent lives of their adventurism.
Well, it’s not their own lives on the line, which is the important thing.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Pakistan is definitely in the weaker position though. With their capabilities, their nukes get into a use ‘em or lose ‘em situation very quickly. Which is something I hope India takes into account.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Ryan
Well, it’s not their own lives on the line, which is the important thing.
It depends on who you’re talking about. If Pakistan and India exchange nukes, Matt’s life wouldn’t be on the line, which is why he doesn’t really know about the situation there. How it almost happened in 1999 and how he thinks it would never happen.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
It took only a few hundred American troops, backed by air and sea power, aligned with the Northern Alliance to drive the Taliban from power.
And now, with “our Afghans” so much stronger than they were in 2002, we’re supposed to believe that the Taliban could not just hold power, but actually retake it, if we don’t have 100,000+ troops on the ground?
That’s just nonsense.
But let’s say that’s all true: Pakistan is a great deal larger, richer, and more powerful than Afghanistan. Let’s spot the Taliban Afghanistan – they still wouldn’t have a ghost of a chance of taking over Pakistan. With what? The Afghan Air Force? I hear they bought a cargo plane.
Pakistan, mighty Pakistan, is going to nuke Delhi…but they’re helpless – HELPLESS – to fight off the Taliban. Uh huh.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Poptarts reads this statement, and concludes “he thinks it would never happen.”
Poptarts looks at the fact the India and Pakistan backed down from a nuclear war, and concludes that India and Pakistan are likely to go to nuclear war.
This is how nuclear deterrence WORKS, Poptarts. Countries that are just about to go to war STOP. Because of the nukes. Pointing out that India and Pakistan STOPPED a brewing war from turning hot doesn’t demonstrate that they are likely to nuke each other; it demonstrates that they are NOT. Do you have any idea how many times we backed down from a nuclear war with the Soviets?
October 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
(In reply to Poptarts)
The bluster from Pakistan (and India) during the Kargil War proved to be just that: bluster. I think that this supports Matt’s contention that nuclear war between India and Pakistan is “unlikely.”
In any case, the issue is not how likely such a was is, but whether, “Taliban military successes in Afghanistan” makes it more likely. Matt correctly points out that you can’t demonstrate this just by coming up with one possible scenario in which Taliban military success leads to a nuclear war, because you can come up with other possible scenarios in which the opposite occurs.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
If I had seen Joe’s response (#11) before I posted mine, I could have saved myself the trouble. “This is how nuclear deterrence WORKS, Poptarts. Countries that are just about to go to war STOP.” Exactly.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
If I had seen Joe’s response (#11) before I posted mine, I could have saved myself the trouble. “This is how nuclear deterrence WORKS, Poptarts. Countries that are just about to go to war STOP.” Exactly.
No, we’re just extremely lucky, just as we are extremely lucky we just dodged Great Depression II. Because of this I agree with Obama and Matt that stopping nuclear proliferation is very important.
People in the know like Clinton were FREAKED OUT because they felt as you did that there was no chance of war and they came within a hair.
Another close call that you don’t hear about is Israel in ‘72. They were losing and threatened to go nuclear and probably would have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
On the afternoon of October 7, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that “this is the end of the third temple”. He was warning of Israel’s impending total defeat, but “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons.[104] Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of “last resort.”[105] Meir on 8 October authorized the assembling of 13 20-kiloton atomic bombs. Nuclear-capable Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and F-4s at Tel Nof were prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets;[104] the preparation was done in an easily detectable way, likely as a signal to the United States.[105] Kissinger learned of the nuclear alert on the morning of October 9. That day, President Nixon ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, an American airlift to replace all of Israel’s material losses.[106] Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kissinger told Sadat that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to “going nuclear.”[104]
October 6th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
If the Taliban was only power hungry, like a dictator or in a more complex way like the Serbs were in Kosovo, then force of arms would be meaningful to them and could hold them back.
Instead, the Taliban are genuinely religious. Killing will not change their beliefs. Instead, killing them during the course of a 2nd American administration will likely make them conclude America itself is the problem, and not Bush.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
You sound like the anti-SABR people in “Moneyball.”
When a pattern holds for 50 years, it’s not luck.
Stopping nuclear proliferation IS important, but not for the reason you put forth. Rather, for the reason Matt Y., Barack Obama, and I put forth: because the potential for non-state nuclear terrorism. The problem isn’t state actors staring down each others’ ICBMs and saying “Screw it.” Those people are predictable and reliable. No, the problem is the screwballs, who’d never come within 1000 miles of controlling a state’s nuclear arsenal. They’ve changed the equation.
Not really relevant, since it was the Israelis’ knowledge that they weren’t facing a nuclear deterrent that made such a consideration possible. If the outcome of such a strike was a radioactive Jerusalem – an actual analogue to what we’re talking about in India and Pakistan – they never would have considered it.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
So you can start anywhere on the chain and start speculating about falling dominoes.
====================================================
Jeebus! Not a new Domino Theory!
October 6th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
We don’t want any failed nuclear states. That’s a mess. So helping Pakistan stay secure is important, but the domino thing is stoopid. The U.S., Russia, India, China—who wouldn’t help Pakistan secure their nukes? Unless someone supplies the Taliban with tanks and fighters and bombers, and training and practice, they ain’t gonna get control of nuclear sites.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:07 am
What IS the fundamental issue? India oppresses it’s Muslims in Kashmir and Pakistan things Muslims are being oppressed in lands rightfully theirs?
October 7th, 2009 at 12:41 am
People in the know like Clinton were FREAKED OUT because they felt as you did that there was no chance of war and they came within a hair.
Americans were also freaked out about the undeterrable madman Saddam.
Indo-Pak nuclear war is scary and certainly one wants the world community to try and keep things in check. But the idea of the US getting “serious” about the problem is even scarier in a guy-with-hammer-sees-problem kinda way.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:47 am
If the outcome of such a strike was a radioactive Jerusalem – an actual analogue to what we’re talking about in India and Pakistan – they never would have considered it.
And everyone seems to forget that these are two countries who have repeatedly shown the sense to limit the theater of operations in their previous wars. Anybody remember the devastation visited on Delhi and Islamabad during the Kargil war? The cluster bombs? The MOABs? Napalm?
October 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Ah, the victim complex! The ultimate absolver of all sins!
October 7th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
That’s Snyder not Synder
Jim not Jack Snyder not Synder.
Sheesh. Get it right, guy!
Thank you.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of nuclear warfare.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Очень приятно, что остались ещё такие как вы!
October 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Весь день в поиске.. Но лучше поздно, чем никогда! Спс.