Syria: overconfidence & tribalism

Almost everyone seems to have an opinion about whether (pdf) or not to bomb ISIL*. Are they really all experts on the complexities of Syrian military and political affairs?

Maybe not. There's another possibility: overconfidence. We tend to exaggerate our knowledge and under-estimate uncertainty. Daniel Kahneman has called this the most damaging of cognitive biases. It seems pervasive in economics, so why shouldn't it also be found in military affairs? Dominic Johnson writes:

There is...one thing that is predictable about war: overconfidence. Even if the outcome of war cannot be known in advance, the historical record shows a remarkable empirical regularity in that politicians, military leaders, and the public on both sides tend to believe they will win, with astounding repetitiveness. Nations around the world and over the centuries have repeatedly underestimated their enemies, overestimated their own capabilities, and exaggerated their ability to control what are inherently unpredictable events.

In today's Times, Matthew Parris echoes this, claiming that those who expect the Free Syrian Army to mop up ISIL after bombing "haven't the foggiest" about its actual composition.

For me, this creates a presumption - a Bayesian prior - in favour of non-intervention. Simple heuristics (pdf) can be good solutions to complexity. "Don't take part in wars in the middle east" is one of these: one could argue that this heuristic would have served us well in Iraq and Libya**. This practical position is amplified by a moral one. As Alex says, we in the UK won't be the biggest losers if things go wrong - and one must tread carefully when imposing burdens on others.

It is also a case for having a free vote on the issue. Cognitive diversity can be a good way of coping with complexity. I prefer Labour's disunity to SNP's uniformity.

I should, of course, caveat this. This presumption against bombing could be overturned if we had a strong enough signal that bombing would work - for example, if there were a clear and present danger of ISIL conquering a city which could be prevented by attacks upon specific targets. And Hopi was right months ago - that non-intervention also has costs.

All of this is to agree with Freddy Gray: if you look at Corbyn's actual words, his policy seems reasonable.

Herein, though, lies a paradox. For me, the argument against military action is, structurally, the same as the argument for free markets - that interventions in complex systems of which we have limited knowledge can have unintended consequences. From this perspective, we'd expect an overlap between attitudes to military intervention and free markets, with free marketeers opposing bombing and economic statists favouring it. However, except for a few consistent libertarians (I'm thinking of the likes of Bryan Caplan) and a few Labour pro-bombers, this is not what we see.

I fear this might be due to an even more pernicious bias than overconfidence - tribalism. Nick Cohen alleges that Corbyn isn't so much anti-war as anti-west, and Matthew Parris says of the pro-interventionists: "The point is to join our allies in a fight. Never mind on which side, so long as we're all in it together."

This mix of bounded knowledge, overconfidence and tribalism makes me fear that whatever decision we take about Syria has a very high chance of being wrong.

* Strictly speaking, this sentence is an example of selection bias.

** I say this tentatively because we don't know the counterfactuals.

Comments

[Luke]

"There is...one thing that is predictable about war: overconfidence."

The problem is that if you are going to war, you probably have to be (over)confident to win.

Ed Smith has been making a similar point in relation to sport recently - once a player decides on a shot/move, they have to believe in that and go for it. Though iirc, he was talking about the difficulty of necessarily self-confident sportsmen turning themselves into wryly sceptical commentators, and why Benaud was so exceptional.

[Adam]

Arguably, those people who are against military intervention due to Iraq are equally guilty of overconfidence. They over exaggerate their knowledge that military intervention will fail because it "failed" in Iraq.

As you quite rightly point out, the situation is exceptionally complex (as was Iraq) and there is no way to judge the counterfactuals. Leaving Saddam in place might have been worse - after all, his regime was already estimated to have been responsible for 250,000 to 1m deaths. So to think we can draw any reliable inductive inferences one way or another is very dangerous.

This implies that there is no presumption against intervention and those who claim there is (sorry Chris) could well be guilty of overconfidence themselves. However, I would say there is strong moral argument in favour of intervention. All things being equal, don't we have an obligation to do something rather than nothing?

[gastro george]

"They over exaggerate their knowledge that military intervention will fail because it "failed" in Iraq."

I don't think that's how the logic works. They look at the bullshit that was used to sell the Afghan and Iraq wars, and see the same bullshit from many of the same people this time. Cameron's 70k "moderate" fighters is a perfect example.

I'm more interested in two things. Firstly, the number of "independent-thinking" Tories who are against bombing. Secondly, how the media are handling the debate. Cameron, lest we forget, has a parliamentary majority, and the DUP on his side. But he can't guarantee a successful vote because of the number of Tory "rebels". Yet the story is apparently about the Labour Party.

[Vince Diaz]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/casualty-war-debate-syria-military-intervention

Pardon me saying so, Extremist, but it's not Dominic Johnson, is Peter Beaumont.

Cheers, V

[Jon Abrams]

Why Hawks Win
BY DANIEL KAHNEMAN, JONATHAN RENSHON

"Why are hawks so influential? The answer may lie deep in the human mind. People have dozens of decision-making biases, and almost all favor conflict rather than concession. A look at why the tough guys win more than they should."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/13/why-hawks-win/

[Dave Timoney]

I think this is about more than overconfidence. We're not going to war in Syria, rather we're going to do a spot of drive-by shooting. If there was any risk to us (aka "boots on the ground"), there would be a lot more opposition to intervention, indicating that this is cynical calculation rather than cognitive bias

We're going to bomb Raqqa - and probably kill innocent civilians along the way - because we can get away with it, and because the media demands tit-for-tat. The objective is gestural (do something to sate public demand) and political (gain some credit with the French, or at least avoid discredit, ahead of the EU negotiations).

[Bob]

The whole post seems to be avoiding mentioning the obvious.

Wrong? Wrong for whom?

At bottom is Realpolitik, I.e., "national interest," which really means the interest of the ruling class — "follow the power and money."

Set on top of that is "international law," which is subject to interpretation by the parties and counterparties involved.

Laid on top of that is justification, rational and moral.

Rational and moral justification intersect in rhetorical presentation, that is, propaganda.

Contemporary propaganda is usually a mix of liberalism, nationalism, and tradition as a historical effect on culture and institutions that is often religious in origin.

So basically it always comes down to cui bono — to whose benefit

The principal forces involves are political (geopolitical and geostrategic) and economic.

[Bob]

"For me, the argument against military action is, structurally, the same as the argument for free markets - that interventions in complex systems of which we have limited knowledge can have unintended consequences."

But there has always been government 'intervention' in 'free markets.'

The argument for 'military action' and 'free markets' are the same - the rich and powerful will benefit.

[Bob]

The proper comparison is efficiency and resilience.

I'll say it again:
Free markets -
"The model, based on perfect competition, supposedly "proves" that capitalism is the most efficient system for allocation scarce resources, increasing productivity through innovation, rewarding incentive and distributing by just deserts. That's all based on specious assumptions. The reality is that it is a highly inefficient system as chronic unemployment, boom-bust cycles, and high inequality owing to maldistribution go to show. Squeeze out the rent and the ownership and management classes squeal because they can't extract rent as easily. So they use every means in their power to avoid this.

The real issue is effectiveness, that is, achieving desirable outcomes. It's about ends. Efficiency is about means, essentially getting the most from resources without compromising other vital factor like effectiveness and resilience. Militaries know this, for example. Efficiency is not tops on their list. Being resilient enough to handle contingencies and winning conflicts is way ahead of efficiency.

Militaries are there to protect society. So is the economy, which is a society's life-support system. It's there to support life not make some individuals and families wealthy as the rich presume."

"We're going to bomb Raqqa - and probably kill innocent civilians along the way - because we can get away with it, and because the media demands tit-for-tat. The objective is gestural (do something to sate public demand) and political (gain some credit with the French, or at least avoid discredit, ahead of the EU negotiations)."

Right. It will bring in thousands of radicalised reinforcements to finish the job with even more malice.

Using simplistic thought devices might be appropriate for five year olds to make decisions, but not for adults contemplating killing people.

Perhaps time to get out of Chris' black and white world and 'consistency' into the real one with nuanced shades of grey.

[Bob]

"The Bush family, the Saudi Royal family, Osama Bin Laden’s family, Donald Rumsfeld’s inner circle, former British premier John Major – these are just some of the high profile figures who have played a direct role in the rise of one of the most powerful, influential and secretive firms in Washington.
That company is called The Carlyle Group. And in the wake of the events of September 11th and the proliferation of war throughout the Middle East, its power and influence have grown significantly stronger.
The company operates within the so-called iron-triangle of industry, government and the military. Its list of former and current advisers and associates includes a vast array of some of the most powerful men — almost always men — in America and around the world. As Naomi Wolf writes, Carlyle is one of a select group of private investor clubs whose raison d’etre is to foment war wherever it’s most profitable:
We have to stop thinking that many events are driven by nation-states and national ideologies. That time is over. A small group of investors (see Aschcroft’s lobbying group, see Cheney’s oil company in the Golan Heights, see the Carlyle group, see Academi/Xi etc, see the Iron Dome contracts, see Delek, see American Noble Energy, the latter two wanting the Gaza 7 billion gas reserves) just plain profit from conflict.…"
http://ragingbullshit.com/2015/11/28/the-carlyle-collection/

[Deviation From The Mean]

"It is also a case for having a free vote on the issue."

A free vote to bomb someone else's country! Never has the word free been so misused.

[Luis Enrique]

I think you're right about the free vote - it's also a case for not hysterically denouncing those who disagree with you. Political parties should be able to handle internal disagreement over issues like this.

[personally I lean towards don't bomb, because the lesson I took from Iraq is that it's always possible to make a bad situation worse and the only question that really matters - what happens next? - doesn't appear to have a compelling answer. But I could wrong - perhaps merely killing these people tilts events in a better direction]

[Niall Murray]

Do we not also see the "availability heuristic" at work here in framing our decisions on whether or not to use force? The unknowable and messy consequences of action (as with Iraq) are forever in our minds, but not the consequences or responsibility for inaction. The SNP and many of Corbyn's supporters make much of their "principled" opposition to Iraq, and we remember the consequences of that engagement. OK, but what of their "principled" objections to helping the people of Kosovo as they faced genocide? Alex Salmond went from studio to studio, repeating his line that is was "unpardonable folly" to intervene. He wanted to wash his hands of these far away people and leave them to their fate - far better than a messy foreign engagement with unknown lives lost. And yet, that engagement worked. It did save lives, and the people of Kosovo are for ever in the dreaded Blair's debt.

We neither remember this, nor call on those who wanted to leave people to their fate to account. If it didn't happen, it isn't in our minds - even if actions by British politicians stopped it from happening. Rather as a recession can affect behaviours for years afterwards, a disastrous military campaign (Iraq, Suez) can shape thinking for decades to come - but not necessarily in a good way.

[Karen Eliot]

Regarding the claim that NATO's bombing campaign "saved lives": Violence in Kosovo increased markedly after NATO started intervening, and this was even expected by the professionals:
"As the bombing campaign began, U.S.-NATO Commanding General Wesley Clark informed the press that it was “entirely predictable” that Serb terror would intensify as a result." (http://chomsky.info/200005__/)

[An Alien Visitor]

Apparently ISIS took a free vote on whether they should bomb Paris.

Which way did you lean on that Luis?

[Luis Enrique]

AAV

um, against bombing Paris?

I know you are in a hurry to think up a dig every time you see my name, which creates some quality control problems, but what's your point here? I am insufficiently certain of my views on this? This is a post about the high degree of uncertainty involved in these questions - why not have a pop at Chris about that?

Otherwise I cannot tell if you think I ought to be strongly against or strongly for

[An Alien Visitor]

You have given us your humble opinion on whether the people of Syria should be bombed or not, thanks for that.

I was just wondering what your views were on the attack on Paris. I can't remember you offering an opinion.

The fact you don't get the point IS THE POINT!

[Luis Enrique]

you are deranged.

[TZH]

Although the arguments re economic / military intervention may be structurally similar, the stakes are not. The first concerns poverty vs. prosperity; the second concerns life and death. That's a big enough distinction to negate any structural similarities

[Niall Murray]

@ Karen Elliot - if you are going to cite evidence on Kosovo, you should probably find a better source than Chomsky, whose despicable support for genocide deniers in that conflict is well documented.

[Keith]

We can all agree that Religious Fanaticism is a bad thing as when it leads to terrorism in Paris or elsewhere. But how does bombing brown people constitute a rational response? You do not persuade people they have wrong beliefs by bombing them. Air campaigns lead to innocent victims just as terrorism does. How is that any different to what happened in Paris a few weeks ago? War is about power politics not morality; and who thinks that will be productive of good results? The USA and UK are allied with regimes such as Saudi Arabia who are vile dictatorships and carrying on proxy wars which only benefit arms merchants and oil companies. Voting for bombing is merely building their profits and lining the pockets of the MPs in their pay. It is deeply corrupt as we should all know after Iraq.

[Mike S]

Corbyn has chosen to allow Labour MPs to vote with their conscience. So what do people's consciences tell them and on what foundations does the associated morality lie? To this end, I think the work of social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, can be useful. He identifies 6 foundations of morality for which there is evidence in most cultures around the world. These include

1. care/harm
2. fairness/ cheating
3. loyalty/betrayal
4. authority/subversion
5. sanctity/ degradation,
6. liberty/ oppression

What strikes me in trying to apply this framework to the current crisis in Syria, is the seeming neglect of the first item in this list as I explain here
http://mikesinterface.blogspot.co.uk/

[Lindsay Berge]

I think Adam has a flawed argument.
Historical evidence strongly suggests that the proponents on military intervention have demonstrated overconfidence. There is no equivalent evidence that the opponents have demonstrated excessive caution. The uncertainty with respect to military action is not symmetric.
The implication is that arguments that the action will be beneficial and worth the costs must be overwhelming.
There is no moral justification for an intervention which is likely to make things worse.

[Lindsay Berge]

I think Adam has a flawed argument.
Historical evidence strongly suggests that the proponents on military intervention have demonstrated overconfidence. There is no equivalent evidence that the opponents have demonstrated excessive caution. The uncertainty with respect to military action is not symmetric.
The implication is that arguments that the action will be beneficial and worth the costs must be overwhelming.
There is no moral justification for an intervention which is likely to make things worse.

[Karen Eliot]

@Niall Murray: I gave an (unfortunately broken) link to chomsky.info (http://chomsky.info/?p=1353) on the assumption that
- citing at least one source is better than citing none, as you have done
- outside your intellectually constricted bubble Chomsky is usually regarded as being almost always right. The reflexive and tedious non-arguments structured like "he is a holocaust deniers so bombing serbia must have been right" rather support that point.
For a different source see eg.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/30/kosovo-where-nato-bombing-only-made-the-killing-worse/
or p. 113 of
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/NATOhumanitarian.pdf