The other day, Commenter DC mentioned this Michael Walzer piece on Afghanistan. One line in it was irritating enough to rouse me to write a letter to Dissent this morning:
Re: Is Obama’s War in Afghanistan Just?
In support of his position on Afghanistan, Michael Walzer remarks, “I also think that most of these people [that is, Afghans] would agree (they should be asked).” I would like to second Walzer’s proposal that Afghans be asked what they think. If any organization had bothered to conduct opinion polling in Afghanistan, Walzer might have been able to discover its results with a search engine, thirty seconds of spare time, and just a smidgen of curiosity. It is a shame that Walzer was forced instead to speculate about a matter of real importance to his position.
Paul | 09-Dec-09 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
I take it this is tongue in cheek, and that there *has* been polling data that Walzer could have found easily?
Paul | 09-Dec-09 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
Then again, I suppose I stand guilty with Walzer, since I could have answered my own question with the same amount of effort. Damn.
Chris | 09-Dec-09 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
Just a smidgen of curiosity, Paul!
Actually, I’m too busy to look into this now myself. But then it’s not my full time job to write articles on the subject. Or yours.
The other thing Walzer doesn’t bother to do is a bit of basic math when he’s weighing costs and benefits. After doing this hand waving to show how totally fair minded he is about the whole question of costs and benefits, he just moves on to the next question. But wait! He could have mentioned how much the current surge in Afghanistan is going to cost (like, in terms of money), and compared it to the costs of other things that the US is not doing, or could do. A genuinely honest look—even a quick one—at costs and benefits here would include a number of two.
It’s a fact free zone! Hey, we’re doing moral philosophy! We can just bracket empirical questions and move on!
Chris | 09-Dec-09 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
“a number OR two”
DC | 14-Dec-09 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
The opportunity cost point is one you have made before with regard to Iraq. I’m not sure if you ever addressed this question before, but where does “realism” come into such calculations. Is every sub-optimal policy a wrong policy? What if it’s more likely that resources not spent in Afganistant will be used to facilitate an attack on Iran?
This is sparked by watching Krugman debate Bjorn Lomberg on Fareed Zakaria. Lomberg said something like “sure climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed, but look at all the other problems that need to be addressed, e.g. global poverty.”
Krugman’s response was basically that that was BS because it wasn’t like the morning after Mitch McConnell defeated a climate bill he was going to propose using the resources saved to increase development aid to Africa.
Chris | 14-Dec-09 at 5:54 pm | Permalink
I think Krugman’s response has a lot to it. I very much doubt, though, that the Obama administration is going to attack Iran. If I thought that were going to happen unless the US was pinned down in Afghanistan then I would be a lot keener on war in Afghanistan, I think.
In any case, the cost benefit analysis also takes into account lives here, so even if the money saved by leaving Afghanistan were not well-spent, the lives saved (both combatants from a number of countries and civilians) on balance would count for a lot.
DC | 15-Dec-09 at 7:08 pm | Permalink
Oh sure, I don’t for a moment think Obama would attack Iran. Of that I’m very confident indeed. I was just using it as an example.
I was just wondering how expansive the category of “other things that the US is not doing, or could do” could be and still be relevant. A better example than attacking Iran might be “buying more fighter planes” or some other retention of Afghan war resources within the Pentagon.
Or to switch the topic one could say that the opportunity cost of the current US health reform proposals is increasing the USAID budget or for that matter a single-payer health system. These might indeed be better uses of the resources but if they are politically unrealistic I’m not sure I would accept them as good argument against the current proposals.