« The myth of poor Democratic performance in House races in the 2008 election | Main | The success of models predicting the election outcome from the economy »

Should We Bomb Iran?

Here is McCain. And here is Podhoretz. Now come three political scientists, Andrew Enterline, J. Michael Greig, and James Meernik, to provide a more rigorous answer. They translate Podhoretz’s argument into this testable hypothesis:

Considered collectively, the Podhoretz argument suggests the degree of militarized force employed by the United States and the period of peace following the application of force will be inversely related: The greater the military force applied by the United States, the greater length of post-hostility peace with an opponent state.

They conclude:

In fact, our model shows strong support for the idea that American military clashes reduce, rather than extend, the durability of peace following a use of military force.

Find the paper here.

Posted by John Sides on November 11, 2008 09:05 AM |

Comments

Bombing Iran is a very bad idea. Things we can expect if we do such a thing:

1) More terrorism.

2) Skiddish neighbors in the M.E. that will seek their own nuclear weapons for protection (i.e. Syria).

3) Annoying economic consequences (such as mining the Strait of Hormuz)

4) Political problems in Iraq (look who is in the Iraqi parliament; it is Iranians)

5) A relatively escalated conflict (the “surgical strike” metaphor is a very poor one.. this would be a pretty big engagement).

Bad idea all around.

Posted by: Scholar in Training | November 11, 2008 09:31 AM

Maybe it is a bad idea. However, the authors don’t seem to have resolved the endogeneity problem at all.

On average, conflicts that don’t heat up are different on unobserved characteristics (in this analysis) from the ones that do. Does anyone think the the decision for the initial application of force is a random choice?

Posted by: OneEyedMan | November 11, 2008 10:06 AM

The authors say:
“[T]he greater the number of fatalities resulting from a military interaction between the United States and an opponent, the less durable the peace between them afterward.
Undoubtedly, there is a selection effect at work here, such that the United States
is most likely to be involved in high casualty clashes with those states with which
it has the most hostile relationships. Nevertheless, this historical tendency runs in
direct contrast to Podhoretz’s argument.”

Welcome to using observational data. Better than using Munich ‘38 for everything, but not perfect.

Posted by: Talleyrand | November 12, 2008 05:05 PM