May We Infer that Silence Speaks Volumes? And if so, What Exactly Is Going On?

by Liberty and Power

What’s up with Cato? The War in Iraq continues with its daily bombings and killings. Meanwhile there are many signs that some Democrats and Republicans in Congress are unhappy with the current situation and seek withdrawal. Yet the Cato Institute appears to have nothing to say.

Way back in December 2002, Cato published Why the United States Should Not Attack Iraq by Ivan Eland (now with the Independent Institute and a contributor to Antiwar.com) and Bernard Gourley. A year later Cato published Charles V. Pena’s Iraq: The Wrong War . Three weeks later Patrick Basham asked Can Iraq Be Democratic?. In June 2004 Cato published the Exiting Iraq: Why the U.S. Must End the Military Occupation and Renew the War against Al Qaeda , the report of a task force sponsored by Cato and directed by Christopher Preble. In January 2005 Preble published an article, How to Exit Iraq, in the National Post of Canada. Unfortunately, Cato’s link to the article doesn’t work but you can get a sense of what it’s about by reading Justin Raimondo’s remarks here . Since then, apart from a commentary on monetary reform, there has been complete silence—at least as far as I can tell.

It’s therefore not unreasonable to ask “Where Is Cato Now on One of the Most Important Issues of the Day?” I can’t believe they’ve run out of things to say. Perhaps someone from Cato reading this post would defend their decision not to say anything since January. May we infer that Cato is deliberately keeping quiet on this issue? And if so, why? Is this part of a grand strategy not to detract from Cato’s other policy objectives? And/or is this silence reflective of divisions within Cato itself? I’m genuinely puzzled and intrigued.

comments powered by Disqus

Dr. Palmer, I never "appointed [my]self Proconsul for Iraq, with the power to divide it into three regions." Nor did I "locate[] the power in the U.S. government to decide that Iraq will be three countries, and not one." What I said was:

"Iraq would probably be better divided up into three or more regions, as Ivan Eland has suggested."

The link is to a policy report by Ivan Eland, whom I've seen you cite as a respectful authority on foreign policy matters, and in it he does not recommend the US impose a three-country solution, and neither have I ever recommended this, either implicitly or explicity.

Now, you might be correct that if the US pulled out of Iraq immediately, there would be a lot of problems. This has been true of many places the US occupied or maintained an illegitimate military presence. It was arguably true of Viet Nam. That doesn't mean staying another second there would have made much a positive difference in the long-run.

To say that I am recommending immediate withdrawl with "no regard to the conserquences" is a bit harsh, don't you think? Or is the fact that you support the continuing occupation, until a "tolerable" government is set up, mean that you have "no regard to the consequences" of the continuation of the anti-US violence that this occupation is inciting?

Tom G Palmer - 7/20/2005

A quick note on an issue raised by Bill Woolsey that I had overlooked. The U.S., as the military power that initiated the war, has the positive legal obligation under military law to provide for basic security until such time as local or national authorities can do so. In that sense, simply coming in, smashing things up, creating chaos, and then leaving without providing for any security would, indeed, be illegal, as a matter of international law. Naturally, such doctrines cannot precisely answer the questions of how much security or for how long, but the principle is well established. Were the U.S. to withdraw precipitously and were the result an orgy of violence, the U.S. government would be in violation of international law.

On another matter, I wonder on what basis Mr. Gregory has appointed himself Proconsul for Iraq, with the power to divide it into three regions. That may be a good solution; it may be one that should be recommended to the leadership of the various Iraqi communities (as I have promoted robust federalism), but it seems remarkable that someone who so urgently -- and evidently with no regard to the consequences -- urges for immediate withdrawal also locates the power in the U.S. government to decide that Iraq will be three countries, and not one.

Finally, concerning Mr. Shaffer's point:
"Yet you admit my point, that US forces may precipitate at least as much terrorism as they prevent, might be valid and should be considered. I made the point not to say that it is true, but that there is great uncertainty here. Certainly enough uncertainty to prevent the humanitarian argument from simply dominating any discussion on a US withdrawal."
I admit that it may be true, not that it is true. It's one of the grounds on which a decision ought to be made. One can say that one is quite convinced that X or Y will happen if a policy is implemented and still be open to evidence showing the contrary. That's what debate is about. The alternative position, which seems to animate many who write on the topic, is that if one supports policy Z, then it is simply unthinkable that there could be any evidence to the contrary, so why bother looking for it. Instead, let's have a discussion of the evidence, which means looking to such things as the stated announcements of the various combatants, the nature of their targets, and the like. Some of the insurgents may be amenable to peacemaking; which ones and on what terms? (It's likely to be mainly the tribal fighters who have not in fact carried out suicide bombings, but mainly hit-and-run attacks and hijackings of valuable cargo; bringing them over is difficult, but possible, whereas it is unimaginable that the hard-core Ba'athists who want a return to full, tyrannical power are amenable to anything less, and similarly for the Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia group.) Such matters are the meat and potatos of serious debate and to invite a discussion of the evidence is not to "admit the point" that the contrary of my conviction is true, but to ask for evidence that it is not.

Mark Brady - 7/19/2005

My remarks concerned just the Cato Institute. David Beito raised the question of Volokh.com.

“By the standards that Mr. Brady sets out, the Cato Institute has been far more outspoken on the issue of the war in Iraq (and the possibility of it widening) than any other institution in the classical-liberal/libertarian universe.”

Here is link to Prebles January article
It worked for me.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-17-05.html

It calls for withdrawal by Jan. 2006

Here is an article by Preble from last month. While it reiterates support for withdrawal, it is pretty friendly to Bush.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3819

"The current crisis in manpower did not begin with the occupation of Iraq, but it was made worse by it. The handover of security responsibilities to the Iraqi government should continue, and the Bush administration needs to make firm its pledge to reduce and eliminate the military deployment in that country."

Maybe Brady got Preble to get busy today:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3992

"Lindsey's "upper bound" has already proved not high enough. The U.S. Government has spent over $200 billion in Iraq, and the Department of Defense is now spending an additional $5 billion every month. According to the Congressional Budget Office, war costs might reach $600 billion by 2010."

"Today, over two years after President Bush declared that major combat operations were over in Iraq, the United States has almost 140,000 troops in Iraq. Many observers believe that is not nearly enough, and most Americans assume that U.S. forces will be in Iraq for at least several more years. Perhaps Gen. Shinseki had it right? "

"When George Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley, he declared, "This law says to every American: there will not be a different ethical standard for corporate America than the standard that applies to everyone else." But America's chief executives are in fact held to very different standards. What remains to be seen is whether the standards are too high for company CEOs, or whether they are too low for the nation's Commander in Chief. Or both."

Of course, neither of the two more recent articles really emphasized policy regarding Iraq.

David Timothy Beito - 7/18/2005

Why is to late to stop the war (in the sense of U.S. involvement) any more that it was too late to stop the Vietnam War (U.S. involvement) in 1968?

I know that the folks at Cato must be very frustrated. If Gonzales is appointed, I suspect that this will lead to a general depression (and for good reason).

David Timothy Beito - 7/18/2005

My comments were primarily addressed to Volokh, not Cato. I don't really know about Cato's current position to comment intelligently.....except to say that Iraq does not appear to be much of a priority and that I am disappointed by this. Don't misunderstand me, however. I think that Cato is an excellent organization which contributes in a major way to the advancement.

Bill Woolsey - 7/18/2005

There is an heading on the Cato Website called "Exiting Iraq."

I would figure that Cato's position is unchanged. They still think the U.S. should never have invaded Iraq. They think the U.S. should be out of Iraq already (as proposed a year ago.) They think the U.S. should leave rapidly (Which was Preble's point in his op-ed last January. To late to have left by January 2005, but we should get out rapidly.)

I find the title of Beito's comment inappropriate. While it might accurately describe the Volokh Conspiracy, I see a suggestion that Cato's failure to repeat its long standing position is some kind of "conspiracy of silence." Nothing has changed in the last six months that should make Cato change its position (or at least, I don't think so.)

Contrary to some of the replies to Bieto, there has been a good bit about Iraq and the War on Terror on Volokh. Yes, most material there is the sort of thing one might expect from libertarian constituional lawyers, but sometimes they go far afield. Generally, they were pro-war. Generally, they took the line that the Islamo-fascists hate us for our freedom and that we must defeat them all. I found little difference between the positions on the Volokh Conspiracy and some of the more extreme neo-conservative positions. If changing conditions in Iraq have caused them to change their mind, perhaps they should say so.

All that said, apparently most Americans believe Iraq is the most important issue facing the nation. Something like 63% want all troops out within a year. Those favoring "as soon as possible" is in the mid-forties. I have seen figures between 37% and 13% for immediate widrawal. I would think some Op-eds by Cato experts on why a time line is a good idea (or not.)

The Libertarian Party came out with what I think was a slightly amateurish exit plan for Iraq. When I first read it, I was thinking, why didn't they just adopt something from Cato. Low and behold, the last detailed work by Cato was a year ago. Hopefully, something will new will appear soon.

I would note that within the context of believing that the U.S. shouldn't have invaded Iraq and that it should already have withdrawn, and that it should withdraw quickly, there is possible for debate about what to do exactly right now. Stay in bases? Move to "safer" areas in Iraq? Draw down numbers and do what is being done now with progressively fewer U.S. soldiers?

And there is possiblity for debate regarding what Cato should propose--should it endorse a time line pointing to the future? (What a large majority of Americans appear to support?) Or should it stick to its position that the U.S. should have already withdrawn and now it should go as soon as possible. (Something a substantial minority supports?)

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I read Brady's initial post as being one of those attacks on Cato by Mises Institute partisans. Cato deviationism from the true libertarian plumbline, selling out to the government.

And Beito's "conspiracy of silence" title, reinforced that impression.

David Timothy Beito - 7/18/2005

I disagree. Volokh focuses on law but the range of topics which the conspirators discuss are very wide ranging. Look at the current postings, for example. They include musings on Harry Potter, evolution, Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, an exploration on how Winston Churchill's insights can shed light on the motivations of suicide bombers, a discussion of the recent poll of Arab countries on Bin Laden.

I don't think that Iraq (daily headline news) is on the same par with dolphin-safe tuna.

Jason Kuznicki - 7/18/2005

Really, it's a bit late to stop the war, or even to criticize someone for failing to be antiwar enough. I know I'd certainly fail by this standard, though every single day I find myself saying, "I told you so..." and shaking my head.

Seems to me the only thing that can be done--barring time travel with a current issue of any daily newspaper--is to channel the harm, make the suits think they've accomplished something, and get us out as fast as possible. Does this mean rebuilding Iraq? Here's another question entirely, and one where the boundaries clearly don't fall quite where the pro- vs. anti-war line once fell.

And speaking as an outsider, the folks at Cato must be really frustrated these days. In theory, Republican administrations are supposed to listen to them, at least once in a while. Here, and unfortunately, they probably realize that they haven't got a chance.

Jonathan Dresner - 7/18/2005

I can't speak to the Cato institute, but the Volokh blog is a bunch of libertarian constitutional lawyers. They never have anything to say about foreign policy, that I've noticed, and I wouldn't care a whit if they did. You want to pin them down on something, look at what they've said about the USA PATRIOT act, but this is like criticizing L&P for not taking a stand on dolphin-safe tuna.

William Marina - 7/17/2005

Yes, David, there have been a number of Americans and organizations rather silent on Iraq, I don't mean on daily specifics, although that is also the case, but rather with respect to some larger critique of American Imperialism
Contrast this, as you are well aware, with the Anti-Imperialist response after 1898.
The United States has become the world's great counter-revolutionary power, as virtually the rest of the world recognizes.
Can you imagine the response today of the great historian, Mercy Otis Warren, who, in 1805 published a history of the American Revolution becasue she thought the post-revolutionary generation was too preoccupied with the quest for wealth and had abandoned republican ideals? She even criticized her cousin Abigail's husband, John Adams, for his monarchist pretensions, and they discussed this in an exchange of letters.

David Timothy Beito - 7/17/2005

Cato is not alone. The Volokh Conspiracy can also be called the Volokh Conspiracy of Silence when it comes to Iraq.