More on Milton Friedman, Libertarians, and Iraq

My post yesterday concerned Tunku Varadajan's WSJ interview of Milton and Rose Friedman.  I noted that I was pleased to learn about Milton's opposition to the Iraq invasion. 

In the next section of the interview, however, Milton says,

But, having said that, once we went in to Iraq, it seems to me very important that we make a success of it.

I find that statement puzzling, since the invasion is a sunk cost. The only relevant question now is whether our continued presence does more good than harm.  As I have written previously, I believe it does not:

What is the right policy toward Iraq?  That depends on what effect our presence has on the prospects for peace and prosperity.   

My view is that U.S. presence hurts those prospects, partly because our presence is one source of conflict in Iraq, partly because our presence delays the kinds of reconciliation that are necessary before peace and prosperity can develop on their own.   In particular, my best guess is that Iraq will dissolve (further) into civil war once we leave, whether that departure is in a year, or five, or fifty.  That civil war will be costly to the Iraqis, but it is an unavoidable part of the transition to a better situation.

If my forecast is accurate, our continued presence generates large costs to the U.S. while harming Iraq. So, under this scenario, cut-and-run is the right policy.

Moreover, any observers who share this perspective will raise their opinion of the U.S. if we display the intelligence and guts to admit our mistake and do what we can to correct it.

Now, I cannot prove that the scenario I have described is the correct one. It seems the most likely one to me, but only the future can say for sure.

But this is the right question, not whether withdrawal looks weak or cowardly.  Perseverance in a misguided cause can only lower the world's opinion.  We look smarter and more courageous if we save our resources for battles that can and should be won.

Comments

[Isocrates]

"But this is the right question, not whether withdrawal looks weak or cowardly. Perseverance in a misguided cause can only lower the world's opinion."

Professor Miron,

It doesn't matter if the French think a little less ill of us. What does matter is whether our enemies fear us because that fear is an invaluable deterrent.

Weakness invites aggression and your "cut and run" strategy would certainly embolden our enemies and demoralize our allies. Al Quaeda, North Korea and Iran would all conclude that the Unitd Stated doesn't have the stomach to see a fight through and our potential friends would learn that we cannot be relied on.

It is wishful thinking that, having gone into Iraq, we can just abandon it without disastrous consequences. It would become a safe harbor for terrorists, just like Afghanistan was, and we would have to go in again.

[Mike Huben]

I suspect that Friedman's idea of success is not "making Iraq better" in some way. I think he means that the oil should end up in the hands of western corporations rather than providing resources for a possibly hostile dictator or government. These corporations can then buy off threats to their oil revenues or hire their own local mercenaries to kill off threats.

The oil wealth going to western rich folks rather than serving public purposes: that would be Friedman's success. He wouldn't want another Venuzuela.

[James]

isocrates,

I agree with you re: deterrence, but why must the mode of deterrence be a costly and lengthy war in Iraq? Why not deterrence at the border, in aircraft, etc? Don't you think we could get more deterrence at a lower cost this way?