politics
columns
- What Did Obama Learn in Iraq?
The senator hasn't shown us much yet.
John Dickerson
posted July 25, 2008 - McCain's Unhappy Warrior
Sloppy attacks are not the path to victory.
John Dickerson
posted July 22, 2008 - The Obama Road Show
The promise and peril of the Obama world tour.
John Dickerson
posted July 17, 2008 - One-Armed Vegetarian Live-In Boyfriends
The quest for this year's sexy swing demographic.
Christopher Beam
posted July 16, 2008 - Choose Your Own Running Mate
Our readers have voted. Here are the results.
Chris Wilson
posted July 16, 2008 - Search for more politics articles
- Subscribe to the politics RSS feed
- View our complete politics archive
Liberal Hawks Reconsider the Iraq War
to: Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, Fred Kaplan, Christopher Hitchens, George Packer, Kenneth M. Pollack, and Fareed Zakaria
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Posted Thursday, Jan. 15, 2004, at 5:04 PM ET


Paul Berman is the author of Terror and Liberalism and The Passion of Joschka Fischer, which is forthcoming in the spring.
Thomas L. Friedman is the foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times and most recently the author of Longitudes and Attitudes.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a regular contributor to Slate. His most recent book is A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate and is the author of The Wizards of Armageddon.
George Packer is a staff writer for The New Yorker, where his article about the occupation recently appeared. He is working on a book about America in Iraq.
Kenneth M. Pollack is a fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.
Jacob Weisberg is editor of Slate and co-author, with Robert E. Rubin, of In An Uncertain World.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International and the author of The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.
I'd like to bring the conversation back to the subject of the war's costs and benefits and the issue of whether the latter justify the former. Christopher Hitchens, in his post, asserts that such considerations are irrelevant. "One cannot know the price of anything in advance, but one can be determined to pay it no matter what, as in a struggle for one's own life or for the life of loved ones," he writes.
That seems to me an appropriate sentiment for a battle of national and moral survival, such as the fight against Nazism. But if anything is clear in retrospect, it's that the Iraq war was not a fight for our survival. The best arguments advanced for the invasion in this dialogue have been either bank-shot strategic or non-strategic humanitarian. Absent evidence of weapons of mass destruction or Iraqi sponsorship of al-Qaida, explicit self-defense doesn't come into it. And because choosing this war when we chose it was optional, a weighing of the costs and benefits is not merely appropriate, but the very heart of the decision.
Dare I make a comparison to Vietnam? I'm not sure where Christopher stands on that war today, but I would argue that there was a price worth paying to prevent Vietnam from falling into Communist hands. Unfortunately, the acceptable price—in American lives, Vietnamese lives, public funds, distraction from other problems, social division, and so on—was far less than what we paid short of achieving victory. If we could remake that decision with the benefit of hindsight, I hope we'd all agree Vietnam was a mistake—not on grounds of absolute principle, but because the costs were insupportable.
Of course, one does not simply stop fighting a war, even an elective one, because the profit-and-loss tally shifts from arguably favorable to marginally unfavorable—an implication of Christopher's I accept. Indeed, cost-benefit analysis can say we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, but that now that we're there, we should stick. We have already incurred most of the costs of going to war in Iraq and reversing course now would only serve to increase them—a point Mickey Kaus made the other day in his blog, in response to something Fareed wrote in Newsweek.
But that still leaves the question of whether our initial decision to support the war was wrong based on what we knew, or ought to have known, back in March. Most of you seem to believe we did not make a mistake. This afternoon, I'm leaning toward Fred's view that we did.
to: Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, Fred Kaplan, Christopher Hitchens, George Packer, Kenneth M. Pollack, and Fareed Zakaria
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Posted Thursday, Jan. 15, 2004, at 5:04 PM ETfeedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Can't Go Wrong With A Cheeseburger, Area Man Reports
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:00:21 -0400 - Courageous E-mail To Boss In Drafts Folder Since December
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:05 -0400 - Novak Hits Pedestrian With Corvette
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:00:45 -0400 - » More from the Onion
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
- Froomkin: How to Get Away With Torture
- Milbank: (Not an) Impeachment Hearing
- Achenblog: My Bias Against Media Bias
- Krauthammer: Maliki Votes for Obama
- Today's Headlines
- Poll: Hispanic Voters Back Obama by Wide Margins
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:04:26 GMT - Opinion: Germans See Themselves in Obama
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:52 GMT - How the Mosley Orgy Ruling Could Affect U.K. Media
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:34:59 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- Over the Rainbow: Angie and Jo
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:21:23 GMT - The New Tavis Smiley, Beware!
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:27:58 GMT - Go for the Bronze
Fri, 25 July 2008 4:18:27 GMT - » More from The Root

politics









