1 I don't think you can necessarily use "what ifs" to justify war after-the-fact. In fact, it sounds more akin to trying to cover one's ass to suggest other reasons for invasion when the primary reason turns up fruitless. The Bush administration may not have "lied" per se, but when you have Condi, Cheney, Rummy, and Bush going before committee after committee and ally after ally (not to mention the UN) with their documented "proof" of quantities, locations, and types of WMDs...well, you have to wonder who lied to who. Did they lie to the above, or did someone lie to them (and, if that's the case, why and how - after the tragedies of September 11th - could information-gathering be so incompetent)? Either way, it doesn't leave one being very confident of this administration.

2 I don't think you can necessarily use "what ifs" to justify war after-the-fact. In fact, it sounds more akin to trying to cover one's ass to suggest other reasons for invasion when the primary reason turns up fruitless. I don't understand. In what sense am I using "what ifs" to justify the war after the fact? I'm simply using, as has Posner, a rational calculation of expected value to suggest that waiting until the probability of attack is 1 is a synthetic and irresponsible standard. Do you understand the concept being used here? Expected value involves a combination of the costs of certain resultants combined with their probability of occurrence. It's a decision methodology intended for use ex-ante. However, looking at how it could have been used ex-poste is a way to justify the use of the decision method in the future, not the past war itself. The Bush administration may not have "lied" per se, but when you have Condi, Cheney, Rummy, and Bush going before committee after committee and ally after ally (not to mention the UN) with their documented "proof" of quantities, locations, and types of WMDs...well, you have to wonder who lied to who. The error in your thinking is to assume that "proof" implies certainty, and that certainty is required in order to act. Both assumptions are wrong, which is what the "expected value" argument is attempting to clarify. In other words, it is unacceptably expensive to use either a "wait until attacked" or some other ad hoc decision rule. Did they lie to the above, or did someone lie to them (and, if that's the case, why and how - after the tragedies of September 11th - could information-gathering be so incompetent)? Either way, it doesn't leave one being very confident of this administration. You have a valid point here. If I might tease it out a little... In the case of the soviets we had a fairly good idea of what the probabilities actually were, associated with a particular venture, because we had excellent intelligence. If you don't know whether the probability of attack is 0.5 or 0.05 then you have a problem, because you have to assume the higher number for the sake of security (especially if the consequences of being too cautious are catastrophic). And that means the odds of making a wrong, or too-costly, decision is higher. In retrospect we now know who was actually lying about Saddam having WMD. It was Saddam, who thought it a tactical advantage with respect to the Iranians that they think he probably had them. He wasn't trying to deceive us, but his closest geographical and historical enemy. His parochially flawed judgment was a bigger problem than we thought. But that doesn't really change my argument, because I don't think the decision to attack was really based on whether he actually had WMD. Had we known with greater certainty, however, we might have been able to adjust the rationale for the war... or (ideally) have found some way for him to make the first aggressive move (such as to shoot down a UN U2, which he had threatened to do). We would have taken a different, and presumably less costly, route to the solution.

3 "I don't understand. In what sense am I using "what ifs" to justify the war after the fact? I'm simply using, as has Posner, a rational calculation of expected value to suggest that waiting until the probability of attack is 1 is a synthetic and irresponsible standard. Do you understand the concept being used here?" Actually, I do. But I think you could make the case that any country's future probability for invading the US is 1, given a long enough period of time. In any case, I think it's highly unlikely that the Bush administration used this "highly scientific" approach to evaluate the threat of Iraq, considering that if they had, the threat from other nations such as North Korea probably had (and continue to have) a greater probability of attacking the US. "The error in your thinking is to assume that "proof" implies certainty, and that certainty is required in order to act." No, that's true, "certainty" isn't necessarily "required" to act, but having it definitely helps when you're sending people's sons and daughters into harm's way. And when they're making the case all over the world about Iraqi WMDs, they're basically giving the impression they know what they're talking about. Why put in so much effort around the world to bolster their case, only to then say afterwards "well, we never said for certain that WMDs are there." C'mon, even you can see that they were aiming for unequivocable concrete evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Proof or certainty, they basically told the world that they existed, and they made their case that these WMDs warranted an invasion.

4 I think I am getting light headed ... must keep it togeather. All joking aside I can say that a majority of the people who disagree with the Iraq Invasion argue the fact that Afghanistan was allowed with no arguements against the administration, even all out support. Even though I dont agree with the administration on Iraq and contend that it was a botched abortion, I still support the Armed Forces in accomplishing their mission. They have accomplished their mission to date with hard work and valor, regardless how empty the reasons were behind the orders given to the Armed Forces, they have followed them to the "T". Its a lame arguement to attack anyone who disagrees with the administration as "not supporting the troops", a hollow arguement akin to wanting to excommunicate parishiners for questioning the faith of priests who participated in sexual misdoings.

5 Even though I dont agree with the administration on Iraq and contend that it was a botched abortion, I still support the Armed Forces in accomplishing their mission. They have accomplished their mission to date with hard work and valor, regardless how empty the reasons were behind the orders given to the Armed Forces, they have followed them to the "T". Well, that's an important distinction. The troops almost certainly appreciate your support, even though you may not agree with their mission. Its a lame arguement to attack anyone who disagrees with the administration as "not supporting the troops", a hollow arguement akin to wanting to excommunicate parishiners for questioning the faith of priests who participated in sexual misdoings. Well, at least it's an argument I'm not making. I'm not so sanguine about the others who might disagree with the Administration, especially those like Ted Rall and Michael Moore who tend to characterize the people who constructed the Fallujah slaughterhouses as "freedom fighters." I tend to think those folks aren't supporting the troops, and in fact are probably traitors.

6 Do any businesses use present value calculations for thigns this big? In school they taught us to also take into account risk (variance).

7 The Law and Economics movement often looks as if it were a whole lot of thinking based a few completely uncited factual assumptions. Like this one and the .5 chance of attack.

8 Actus: I don't think they expect you to buy their 0.5 estimate. What they're proposing is a certain clarity about the decision process, primarily because many of the arguments against the war simply omit much of that process. (For instance, they assume you should only act on certain knowledge.) o any businesses use present value calculations for thigns this big? In school they taught us to also take into account risk (variance). Well variances (betas) are simply estimates of the level of certainty or uncertainty combine with estimate of monetary benefits or costs. Essentially this is what risk is all about. So, yes, businesses use precisely this method... the only difference being that they apply a specific timeline for a project, with a discount rate that is supposedly produced by a market that incorporates all of these risk calculations into the rate. Since we don't have a market to tell us the rate, however, we have to use formal methods to derive it.

9 'Well variances (betas) are simply estimates of the level of certainty or uncertainty combine with estimate of monetary benefits or costs. Essentially this is what risk is all about. So, yes, businesses use precisely this method' Really? they're precisely risk neutral when it comes to things like war and the middle east? surprising.