Bets on Iraq Capital Influx has responded to an email I sent her about predictions for Iraq. In the end, testable predictions matter far more than words, and the best way to encourage accountability is to state predictions publicly. Here's my (slightly edited) bet:

• 1) We will go to war with Iraq on 9/11 or thereabouts, or failing that, right around election time.
• 2) Victory will be swift, though less swift than the defeat of the Taliban.
• 3) An international television broadcast of Hussein's nascent arms program will make clear to all that the US was "in the right", and our preemptive strike will experience little criticism after that.
• 4) Amidst periodics spurts of violence in suppressing ethnic tensions, the post-war Iraq will be a stable gas-station like area. It will be a refueling ground for military and oil companies. Certainly not paradise, but good enough to silence humanitarian idiots.
• 5) There will be no Muslim street uprisings after Hussein is defeated. If anything, the trend will be for the collapse of Iran's theocracy, though this is uncertain.

Her comments:

Re: #2 - If, by "victory," you mean a regime change (for a handful of people at the top,) then yes. If, by "victory," you mean the instant creation of the liberal democratic United States of Iraq, then, um, no. Re: #3 - I think you misunderstand the concept of jus ad bellum here. The acknowledged existence of a Iraqi nuclear program doesn't equal "just cause." If by, "in the right" you mean people will be happy that Hussein is disarmed, then I don't disagree. If by "in the right" you mean "morally, ethically, and legally justified," then I do. Re: #4 - The pre-emptive strike may not heavy criticized immediately afterwards, but if another party launches a pre-emptive strike using the U.S. invasion as precedent - and it *will* happen eventually - *then* you'll hear criticism. Re: #5 - No muslim street uprisings? HA! I'll take you up on that one, GC. I'm not expecting any sort mass Islamic backlash because the *myth* of Pan-Islamism has historically proven to be just that, but local rioting, domestic problems? Those happened after we invaded Afghanistan. They're still happening. Pick up a non-U.S. newspaper. Collapse of Iran's theocracy? I wish. But I don't think so. (To be honest, I don't even understand your logic here. You say something about Iran being increasingly unstable, and point to recent popular protests against the current regime, but I don't think they're so unstable, or that the protests have reached such a critical mass, that Iraq would just push them over the edge.)

Clarifications:

• By victory, I mean military victory.
• By no muslim uprisings in the streets, I mean less serious uprisings than the ones caused by the attack on Afghanistan.
• By the US being shown to be "in the right", I mean that outspoken criticism will be largely stilled by the revelation that Hussein was pursuing nukes (as he was during Gulf War 1, as described in Muller's article in the MIT Tech Review). I care little for "morals or ethics" [1] and even less for international law. All that matters from the US's perspective is whether the world paints America as an imperialist or as the "good cop" who saved the Middle East from nuclear blackmail.
• Many pundits (US, UK, and Iranian) have talked about the instability and public uncertainty of Iran's theocracy, as well as the possible collapse amidst an Iraq war: see here, here, here, and here. Perhaps, Elizabeth, you should "read a non-US newspaper for a change"...

Conditions

• If I lose, I can't bring myself to lie; Murtaugh is never right. I will, however, publicly acknowledge that I was wrong and you were right. Perhaps I'll fork over some IP too.
• When I WIN, however, I expect you to
• Do some homework on genetic differences between the sexes. Matt Ridley's Red Queen and Kimura's Sex and Cognition are good starting places.
• Publicly admit your folly and acknowledge that your vaunted "Scowcroftian realism" is bankrupt in an age of non-deterrable non-state actors.

Elizabeth: Um, when I said "non-U.S. newspaper," I wasn't referring to the Guardian or Agence France-Presse wire articles. Was thinking more along the lines of local *non-Western* newspapers. You also left off *my* conditions : If you lose, you have to chose between ending your subsequent 10 GNXP postings with "Murtaugh is RIGHT. I am WRONG." Or you can just sign over the IP to your next little multimillion dollar biotech invention to me. Your choice. (GNXP readers can probably guess which of the two would be more torturous for GC.) Godless: It's not just the Guardian speculating about Iran's collapse - one of the above links was to Iranian news. Read the Iranian or MEMRI's Iran section if you don't believe me... [1] I put "morals and ethics" in quotation marks for a reason. I was referring to Elizabeth's concept of "morals and ethics", as defined by the standards of international law and the stomach of the UN. Do I think that morals and ethics exist in some absolute sense, as if we could measure 15 units of "good" as we can 15 kilograms? No. But "morals and ethics" are a useful shorthand for "societal conventions that are to some degree universal and have their roots in biology and game theory". In that sense, as a pragmatist, it's foolish to insist that moral or ethical considerations should never come into play when formulating policy. My objection was to Elizabeth's contention that such considerations are important constraints here, as I think they are not.