Iraq Trip Sways Democrat Congressman Against Pullout

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) returned last week from a second trip to Iraq. He voted against authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2002, and in May, he voted in favor of Democratic legislation that would have required President Bush to bring U.S. troops home next year.

But after his recent visit, Baird has changed his mind. He now says he believes U.S. troops must stay in Iraq longer, and that a precipitous withdrawal could have catastrophic results for Iraq and the region.

Read More...

I heard this article while I was on my way to work and was a little surprised by it. The article summarizing the interview has a link to listen to the entire interview (which is worth a listen).

Online Video Game Gets an Economist

I found this article rather neat. An online game with a functional economy and a few tens of thousands of people online at a time ended up hiring an economist to fix financial woes within the game. Despite having perfect data and control over the game's markets (outside of what users did of course), the company managing the game suffered multiple economic disasters within the game. The economic disasters, much like in the real world, resulted in unhappy people. Unlike in the real world, unhappy players were able to simply stop paying their $15 / month and go play somewhere else. They hope that an economist armed with perfect data and a strong hand to manipulate supply and demand will be able to offer up a more stable in game market.

"We think Milton Friedman would definitely like this," CCP Chief Executive Hilmar Petursson said, referring to the American economist best known for his theory that money supply ultimately drives the boom and bust of the business cycle.

Guodmundsson is also looking into whether lessons learned in running a virtual economy can apply to real-world ones. It's a rich field that is drawing interest since experiments that would be impossible in real life can be arranged with a few software tweaks.

"We watch price bubbles happen in Eve Online. We are thus able to watch in rapid fashion, a mathematical simulation of those price bubbles. We then are in a position to extrapolate price bubbles in the real world and trade on that, in futures or whatnot," Petursson said.

Full article text...

A word from the economist in question...

A discussion on the article...

This is a letter between a socialist friend and opponent of the war. We discussed a claim made by David M. Kennedy, a professor of history at Stanford and the author of the Pulitzer-Prize winning "Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945," is working on a book about the American national character. My response is in blue italics and took place in July 2005.

Hello Bill

Kennedy makes a couple of excellent points that I have been promoting for along time (though not as eloquently as Mr. Kennedy):

"The implications are deeply unsettling: history's most potent military forcecan now be put into the field by a society that scarcely breaks a sweat when it does so [Remember that the USA is 28% of the world's GNP and 10% of its population, a level not reached by any society in history except possibly China at the end of the 18th century and the British at the end of the 19th century. An occupation of a nation that is economically equal to North Dakota and physically equal to Texas is not tough]. We can now wage war while putting at risk very few of our sons and daughters, none of whom is obliged to serve [What a wonderful achievement, kind of like growing cotton without slaves]. Modern warfare lays no significant burdens on the larger body of citizens in whose name war is being waged." [If we were to wage war on any of our contemporaries like the EU or Japan (rather than North Dakota), it might be necessary for the USA to resort the brutal practices of the past, like conscription and attacks aimed at civilian targets like factories and refineries. Fortunately, our contemporaries have followed the same path to prosperity that the USA has--free market democracy--so such practices will never need to be used again]. "Leaving questions of equity aside [Is Senator Kennedy implying that a voluntary armed forces is unequal?], it cannot be wise for a democracy to let such an important function grow so far removed from popular participation and accountability [Our form of government, which is composed of popularly elected politicians, decides on the use of our armed forces]. It makes some supremely important things too easy - like dealing out death and destruction to others, and seeking military solutions on the assumption they will be swifter and more cheaply bought than what could be accomplished by the more vexatious business of diplomacy. [The use of force by free-market democracies is an action of last resort that typically follows substantial public debate. All the major uses of force, in my voting life-time, were preceded--and sometimes succeeded--by public and political wrangling and discourse. On the other hand, can you think of any situations were regular forces were not used because public debate prevented it.......Nicaragua, Cuba, Lebanon, Iran.]

"I've long advocated that we should only draft white men over 40 making $80K/year or more (include other races and women if you want, but they need to be economically advantaged). It's not fair to have the middle class and upper classes benefit from America's world domination by sending our lower (economic) class to fight our battles. It's too easy because these people are too"expendable". Follow my draft strategy and we'd have a lot less wars. What do you think?

I disagree with Senator Kennedy "too easy" claim. I think that our nation does debate and wrestle with the use of force and that the politicians are held accountable. I assume you agree that folks in the armed forces are already held accountable for the use of force since you advocate forcing "advantaged" people into the military (i.e. drafting wealthy 40+ year old males). I also disagree with your claim that a lower economic class goes to war. Our armed forces are not disproportionately made up of the "lower economic class". Where do you get that idea? Remember, 95% of all officers in the armed forces have baccalaureate college degree (with 45% having advanced degrees) and officers make up more than 12% (my guess) of the armed forces. Because of the entrance requirements, armed forces members have greater high school graduation rates and higher average scores on aptitude tests than the civilian population. Only the black minority group is over represented in the armed forces (22% military vs. 14% civilian) while women and Hispanics are under represented. All but women are proportionately represented (to the general population) in the officer corp. The all volunteer military has successfully eliminated the injustices and disproportions experienced with the draft military.

It is hard for some people to believe that for many in the Armed Forces, membership was a first and not a last choice. I think part of the issue that Kennedy is experiencing is that he does not understand why the general population is not raising up in protest over the violence that is occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. He remembers the public protest during the Vietnam War and probably believes that if the draft was in place then people would protest the war. Many people believe that popular protests ended the Vietnam War and that a similar movement should be occurring today. Where are rallies, the protests, the marches, and the veterans against the war?

I hear several explanations for why a popular protest against the war has not occurred. The most common excuse I hear is that the media is not presenting what is truly happening in Iraq and Afghanistan—that is, the embedded reporter is biased. This thinking follows that if the American public knew what was truly happening, protests would erupt. The other is this “too easy” argument that Senator Kennedy has presented.

I believe the reason that protests have not occurred is because the US military has been successful in Iraq and Afghanistan where as in Vietnam they were not. The goal of the weaker force in an asymmetrical war like Vietnam and the Middle East is to inflict enough losses on the bigger force to encourage them to negotiate an end to hostilities or to leave. The goal of the bigger force is to prevent the losses and create local allies that will force the smaller force out. The North Vietnamese were successful in their efforts and the US military failed in theirs in Vietnam. If the US forces in Vietnam had successfully isolated the South from the North in 1965 or 1966, the war protests would never have occurred because 55,000 Americans would never have died. The US was successful in Korea and Taiwan in isolating the Communist from their local Allies and thus those nations prospered. South Vietnam probably would have turned out the same way if the US had been willing to build a massive wall (like the Iron Curtain, Berlin Wall, or Korean DMZ) around South Vietnam, a strategy easily within the US’s capability (and one the Israelis are pursuing today).

Moreover, America’s local allies are making significant progress toward establishing a viable government in Iraq. In several years the Iraqi National Forces will be quite powerful, the Americans and their allies will be gone, and the country will be busy achieving the same miracles that the South Koreans and Taiwanese have achieved.

The Winner's Curse

Here is a letter to my brother James on April 7, 2004, about the time the first battle of Fallujah was taking place. I titled it at the time as The Winner's Curse.

Hello James:

Yes I did get your response and I thought it was very insightful. I posed the “What country best describes…” question at work to several of my colleagues at lunch and got the following response:

3 Balkans
1 Vietnam
2 Turkey

Personally, I don’t know how this is going to turn out. In my view, this is one of those events in history where the passage of time is needed to provide perspective. I hope that Turkey is the final outcome in a 3 to 5 year timeframe and I see only Vietnam as a defeat. In fact, I would consider a Balkan through to Pakistan as acceptable outcomes. Let me explain it this way.

We are experiencing the “Winner’s Curse” in Iraq—that is, the difficulties associated with being the winner. Uprisings, insurgents, and the frustrations of trying to build a stable consensual government in a region of the world that is inherently unstable are difficulties that we face. It has a cost in terms of money, lives, and diverted resources. What alternative do we have? In Iraq, we probably have none. We cannot leave because our opponents would certainly take over and kill any friends that we have made. Plus our military power would be seen as a façade in the face of weak political and social resolve.

History will someday answer a fundamental question, “Is it possible for the US to build a democracy in the Muslim or Arab world?” Right now it does not look promising. I can only hope that we are winning a great military and strategic victory in this current wave of violence and that our opponents will be too weak to mount a major campaign again. Then we can get down to the business of building a nation.

If we are not capable of building democracies in this part of the world, and this is another failed attempt like Vietnam, then what course of action should we take? How should we use our immense power to protect ourselves against the Fundamentalist until their people experience their own Enlightenment?

One possibility is to let them win so that they experience the winners curse. Consider this, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have reacted to our display of power even though they are our opponents. In a sense, the Neoconservative Bully Plan appears to be working (the bully plan is that we bully one or two nations and the others in the region fall in line). The reason the others fall into line is because their leaders appreciate their positions of luxury, power, and authority and do not wish to give it up in the face of American soldiers ransacking their palaces. Additionally, these nations do not want to be erroneously invaded because evidence from a terror attack against the West leads back to their country.

So if organized governments are fearful of American invasion and our new strategy of focusing on the political and military leaders, why don’t we us it to our advantage. Well organized, carefully planned, and direct military invasions by American armed forces work to our strengths and always leads to the destruction of our opponents’ armies and governments. We appear to have a problem after we defeat the government and armies and attempt to build a nation. Maybe we should just avoid the nation building. Maybe we should achieve the destruction of the enemy government and armed forces, and then withdraw, leaving the region to fester in its own turmoil. No doubt that any theocracy or dictatorship has its own internal enemies, and after its armies are destroyed, they will then be burdened with reasserting their power and position.

Let’s take Syria as an example. Suppose we approached the Syrians on ending the supply of insurgents into Iraq and destabilizing the region. Imagine we told them to stop or we would invade and destroy their palaces, government buildings, and army. We would arm their enemies and then we would leave. Survivors could pick up the pieces. I think Bashar al-Assad of Syria prefers his current position to hiding and running from American aircraft and AFVs. Just an armored thrust across the desert towards Damascus might be enough for him to tell his negotiators to assent to American demands. Particularly if we have made it clear to the world that we are not there to “rebuild” Syria, simply change its anti-American policies and throw terrorist out.

If indeed it is not possible for the US to build democracies in the Arab or Muslim world, then I think this is the only policy that we can take. If Vietnam is the likely outcome for Iraq, we should evacuate our friends and allies, and retreat to the Kurdish regions.

I think this current period of violence is actually an accident. I believe the bad guys were planning an offensive sometime in the summer to interrupt the elections in America, and that shutting down the paper, fingering Sadr as a criminal, and the grisly death of Americans in Fulluja was unexpected. The offensive by Sadr’s followers and the Marine invasion of Fulluja, I hope, interrupted their plans and has thrown them off guard. Hopefully we will inflict enough casualties to deter future violence and a government can be formed. The big question is “Is an attack on the US planned (like Spain), and if it is successful, how will American respond to the violence in Iraq?”

Take care,

Bill

Posts from the Past

Recently I completed an intriguing book by Nassim Taleb titled The Black Swans: Impact of the Highly Improbable. Taleb describes black swans as rare and unexpected events that are extremely consequential yet are explainable by experts after they have occurred. He points out that the experts rarely predict the event in time to take action before the event has occurred. The term black swans comes from the original European idea that black swans did not exist because they had only experienced white swans--that is, until explorers found Australia. The American Statistician journal is featuring Taleb's book in their August edition (I am a member of the American Statistical Association). I look forward to their analysis.

A point that Talib makes in his book is that we lack the ability to make predictions based on the data at hand, especially in regards to history and how it unfolds. To make his point he describes how William Shirer, the definitive author who wrote The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, also published his diary covering the period from 1934 to 1941 when Shirer was a journalist in Europe. Taleb points out that the diary in no way clearly predicts that a massive event like WWII was unfolding.

With that in mind, I thought I would publish on this blog some of the observations and predictions that I was making as the War in Iraq was unfolding. In effect, I have chosen to expose my failed attempts to predict the future about the war on this blog. Throughout the course of the War in Iraq I wrote several letters and essays but kept the writings to myself. I did clearly express my views as any reader that has spent time with me will see as they read the material. There are five or six works and I will post them over time with their creation date.