Think First, Speak Second

by publius

I know that O’Hanlon is the wanker du jour, but let’s not ignore this op-ed by relatively-liberal Democrat Brian Baird. Basic story -- Baird voted against the war, but recent events persuaded him to speak out for more time. As a result, the Washington Post gets to write lines like this: “[T]he administration indicated their belief that the political debate in Washington has moved in the administration's favor this month, pointing in particular to a number of Democrats who have spoken positively of some security improvements in Iraq.”

I have a veritable treasure chest of “wanker”-derived adjectives, but I’m not going to use them. Baird seems like a good guy, and frankly, I suspect many of his ideological fellow travelers might be having similar thoughts -- especially those who don’t read blogs. So rather than attacking him, I want to explain in the most substantive, non-snarky way I can the problem with Baird’s position (which includes his speaking out publicly).

1 – Understand that Bush will never leave. It’s clear that the administration will keep the maximum number of troops in Iraq until they are forced to do otherwise. As Josh Marshallsomeone I read explained [I think Josh Marshall, but I couldn't find the link], the administration's incentives are now distinct from the nation’s incentives. They are playing out the clock in hopes that something -- anything -- will turn their way before they leave. The good faith supporters of this strategy cling to the hope that something will change. The bad faith supporters (Kristol) see the writing on the wall and want to buy time to push the eventual withdrawal to a Democratic administration that can be blamed for “losing.” Both positions, however, are irresponsible, even if for different reasons.

2 – The debate is not stay or leave, but stay or start leaving. The political (and military) reality is that it’s not remotely possible to withdraw rapidly. Baird’s op-ed is doing a bit of strawman attacking. The most that could happen -- and only then with collapsed GOP support -- is that we can begin the process. That’s what the upcoming debate is about -- whether or not Congress can muster the numbers to force the beginning of a withdrawal. Bush, of course, will not budge unless forced.

3 – The only way to force Bush to start leaving is through political pressure to Congress. Democrats simply don’t have the numbers to force anything on this President. GOP support has to collapse. This will only happen if the GOP feels political heat on Iraq.

4 – There is a brief window of time to force Bush’s hand. Fall 2007 was gearing up to be the administration’s most vulnerable window. It’s not just the timing of the Petraeus report, but the very nature of the appropriations process that makes this a unique, if fleeting, opportunity. It’s pretty much now or never. If Bush can survive the next month or two, he’s home free and can dump our (admittedly humiliating) withdrawal off to the next President.

5 – Bush needs to buy time. All Bush needs to do is buy some time, primarily with congressional GOP members. He’s just got to squeak through. Accordingly, the plan is to seize on anything that can buy that time. What people like O’Hanlon and Baird don’t (but should) realize is that they’re playing squarely into the administration’s hand by providing Congressional Republicans cover. Their op-eds let Republican legislators go on TV (or go to a state fair back home) and say, “Even Democrats are saying we need more time.” It’s difficult to overstate the political consequences of Baird and O’Hanlon’s actions. At the very least, they’re creating doubt within the minds of the public (often busy people who don’t have time to read up on Brookings’ comings-and-goings) by generating unfavorable talk show debate agendas. And, even worse, they’re releasing steam from the political pressure cooker -- the one source of pressure that could actually lead to change.

Ok, fine, you say. But what if Baird and O’Hanlon really mean it? Are you asking them to be blind ideologues who should ignore facts and their deeply-held beliefs? It’s a fair question. After all, if it’s truly a bad idea to withdraw even one troop, then Baird and O’Hanlon are doing the right thing. Apparently, Baird and O’Hanlon really believe that we should keep them there for the indefinite future. So again, if that’s what they truly believe, what’s wrong with them saying so?

The first response is that, given the political ramifications (which are quite literally life-and-death for some people), you should only say such things if you are extremely confident about your position. If your words will shift the public debate (and reduce political pressure), you damn well better be sure that what you’re saying is correct.

And I mean this in two senses: First, you need to be sure that you are factually correct. For instance, you shouldn’t be citing calm in areas (1) that calmed pre-surge because of a political agreement and (2) that weren’t part of the surge to argue that the surge is working. You also shouldn’t say that casualties are down if you don’t know for sure whether they are. These high-profile statements are being used to justify indefinite extension of war. The bottom line is that people shouldn’t casually throw statements out there just to be contrarian, or just because they feel the pinprick of unempirically-supported principle in their heart.

Two, assuming you have the facts right (a very big assumption), you need to be close to 100% sure that you’re making the right normative call. In other words, even if you're right on the facts, you need to be confident that you’re making the right judgment call given the consequences.

If, after all that, they’re extremely confident about both the facts and their own judgment, then yes, by all means. Speak away.

My gripe, though, is that it’s simply incomprehensible to me that they feel this confident in light of history and in light of the verifiable metrics we do have. That’s what’s so infuriating about it. These people probably went on a dog-and-pony-show tour, had some doubt, and decided to write high-profile op-eds without carefully considering the consequences of what they’re saying. Lawyers call it recklessness. If I’m wrong about all that, fine. But I don’t think I am. I just don’t believe that they have the level of confidence necessary to justify these types of statements.

Taking a step back, I also think they’re just flat wrong on the merits. Our continued presence is making things worse. I’m certainly not the first to say this (Yglesias in particular has been hammering this drum), but I reject completely the humanitarian argument for staying.

We have 160,000 troops in Iraq. Assuming they perform at the highest possible level (which I’m confident they do), you’re still going to have airstrikes and raids that kill a lot of innocent people and piss off a lot of families, towns, tribes, etc. The more troops we have, the more people will get killed. Also, the more troops we have, the more troops that will get killed. On top of that, we’re arming and training both (or all) sides, making the eventual sectarian fight even more nasty. Every day that we’re there, we're also radicalizing extremists and drawing them to Iraq -- like germs to an open wound. Once there, they will of course kill more people, either immediately or years down the road. Our continued presence is also destabilizing the region (the opposite of stabilizing) by hardening the regional sectarian divide. Further, having all those troops in Iraq increases the chances of accidents or small events that might spiral into big regional wars (see, e.g., World War I). And finally, our presence there -- in particular, our failure to start withdrawing -- prevents us from leveraging withdrawal to our advantage (i.e., by creating a sense of urgency among bordering nations and sectarian leaders).

Now, you may agree with that last paragraph, or you may not. But if you’re a high-profile Democrat and you just don’t know for sure, then there's a working presumption that you keep quiet until you do feel confident. That's not because I believe in suppressing free speech or am a blind ideologue, but because I recognize the political consequences of these statements. So if they’re going to be said, at least do us all (particularly our troops and the Iraqi people) the basic courtesy of thinking very hard about it first.

Comments

[Martin]

Here's Marshall.

[publius]

Thanks -- some days it all runs together. I literally only read the last part of the post so I didn't know what it was about AND i was ctrl-F'ing using "incentives" rather than "interests."

I will keep you all apprised of these and other important developments in my life.

[rilkefan]

Good post. But I'm not sure (very late, very tired) you address the subject of my infuriation, namely that the security situation is even being discussed when the political situation is so much more problematic and our ability to keep 160k soldiers etc in the field so limited. It's the Social Security debate all over again, except this time with less discipline on the Democratic side.

[Geoduck]

Speaking as one of Baird's constituants, there is another factor to consider: this district (SW Washington state) covers literally the whole spectrum of political opinion, from actual non-joking communists and anarchists to a rural right that's so hard it's fossilized. (Reading the letters-to-the-editor page in the local rag is always a treat...) Baird's general record tends to reflect this, as he bounces around from position to position. I wouldn't be surprised if he's launched this broadside, not because of some deep personal belief, but to shore up his rightist credentials.

[Equal Opportunity Cynic]

The first response is that, given the political ramifications (which are quite literally life-and-death for some people), you should only say such things if you are extremely confident about your position. If your words will shift the public debate (and reduce political pressure), you damn well better be sure that what you’re saying is correct.

Sorta like how we shouldn't say anything bad about the war, no matter how strongly we believe it, because it emboldens the enemy, right?

To be fair, your points about the importance of empiricism and being very sure you're correct are reasonable. But I think you've got to be very careful about lamenting how the Republicans shut off reasoned debate on one side and then bordering on doing the same.

The real problem isn't that some individual Democrat here, there, or yon happens to be pro-surge. The real problem is the media dynamic by which a couple of dissident views become the CW of "the Democrats." That's the dangerous part, because it does make people less likely to engage in good faith debate.

[hilzoy]

E.O.C.: There are lots of cases in which you shouldn't say X, for some value of X, without being very, very sure. E.g., "I saw your spouse coming out of a motel with another woman": seeing someone out of the corner of your eye and thinking it sorta kinda coulda been him is really not enough. I don't think recognizing this is shutting off debate.

[publius]

That's a really good analogy -- and yes, that's the point i was going for. NOt that we should shut down speech

[rilkefan]

I would guess though that the calculation is being done the other way - think of the risk of not speaking if you're right.

[rilkefan]

This is more generally a problem from Bayesian statistics - you have to get your priors from _somewhere_.

[G'Kar]

It is a case of Type A and Type B errors. What are the risks and benefits of speaking up/remaining silent if you're right? If you're wrong? There is no perfect answer to the question. But I think it is unfair to suggest publius is attempting to shut down speech. He is merely suggesting that the risk in this case of speaking out and being wrong is high enough that Democrats are probably wiser to remain silent unless they are privy to better evidence than the rest of us.

Apologies to publius if I have misstated his point.

[publius]

precisely -- well put g'kar. And frankly, given that you have a much better sense of this stuff than i do, i'd love to hear your thoughts. Even if -- especially if -- you disagree 100%

[Nell]

If there were an actual political contest going on, in which the majority of Republicans and the ruling clique are determined to stay in Iraq with as many troops as possible until the end of Bush's term and the Democrats determined to force a real shift in policy toward withdrawal, then it would be incumbent on the leadership to set the terms of debate. They'd do everything possible to avoid Democrats echoing administration/Republican talking points, etc.

But that political contest is not going on. The Democratic leadership has long since made a calculation that the best thing to do is drift along, letting Bush do what he wants but appearing to fight back, in order to make the argument in 2008 "elect us, we just need more Democrats to get out of Iraq."

Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton, random Democratic members of Congress are echoing the "yes, there's undeniable progress from the surge" garbage; the only basis on which they're willing to frame withdrawal is that those unworthy Iraqis don't deserve to be occupied and/or the military is breaking under the strain. Levin's even in the tank enough to be part of the slow-mo coup effort against Maliki.

So it's hardly surprising that random Dem members of Congress from unstable districts would feel free to mouth whatever they think covers their rear ends.

That was the pattern on FISA as well.

The problem is not with Brian Baird; it's with Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, their major funders, and the permanent shadow government of the Washington Consensus.

[Becky]

There's a problem with your premise, Publius. Geoduck (above) is right: Baird frequently engages in DINO behavior. He voted for the execrable bankruptcy bill, and for the invasion of Terri's Schiavo's medical care. My husband and I used to support him (we live in WA, though not in his district, and all 3 of us are psychologists), but we got disgusted years ago. My view is that this is just more DINO wankerism from him, tossing some red meat to the wingnuts in the district (Linda Smith, a certifiable Christian theocrat type, was Baird's predecessor).

[Barry]

Publius: "What people like O’Hanlon and Baird don’t (but should) realize is that they’re playing squarely into the administration’s hand by providing Congressional Republicans cover."

If they don't realize it, then (a) they're fools *and* (b) they aren't listening to anything that anybody not on the right says to them.

Therefore, it's reasonable to rule that out. They know what they're doing.

I second Nell on the failure of the Democratic leadership.

In addition, note the Brookings is supporting hacks like Pollack and O'Hanlon, *and* participating in events with wells of elemental liardom like AEI.

It's pretty clear the community of 'Serious People' contains almost no people who wouldn't perjure themselves against their own mothers (assuming they have any). So far, pro-war liars and frauds have suffered no penalties worth speaking of - Feith is at a nice faculty position, Wolfowitz got a golden parachute after sh*tting where he ate after his previous golden parachute.

If you want to hear what the standard mass media elites who promised us a sweet war back in 2002 are saying now, you go to the exact same channel, program or publication today; they're still there.

There are no penalties for being wrong, so long as you're pro-war wrong.

That fact is the dominating feature of our present political system.

[tescht]

I live in Brian Baird's district.
Last week, in the local paper, there was an article about how Congressman Baird had just come back from Iraq warning of the dangers of
a "precipitous withdrawal".
I wonder how many others in his district, other than me,
found it appalling that their congressman had
morphed into the likeness of Joe Lieberman.