How Much Should You Know to Justify What You Advocate?

It is painfully obvious that the leaders of the government of the United States did not understand Iraq as well as they should have before invading that country. We now know that Iraq included tribal and urban cultures, different religious groups, different language groups, each with their own internal factions and rivalries, as well as complex networks of alliances crossing national, ethnic, organizational, economic, cultural and social borders.

The news is full of events in other complex environments -- Afghanistan, Darfur, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Congo, Colombia, China, India, Pakistan, and on and on. We all have opinions as to what Mbeki should do with to influence Mugabe, what Musharraf should do about Al Qaeda, what Bush should do about Ahmedejad. I suggest that we seldom know enough to warrant any action on those opinions. Lets not write to our elected officials recommending policies based on any opinion we might have formed, no matter how uninformed.

The quality of the information required to justify action would seem to depend on the situation. Once you understand that genocide is occurring in Darfur and that mass rape is being used as a military tactic to encourage ethnic cleansing, I don't think you need more to suggest strongly that those actions stop, and that the community of nations seeks to protect the victims.

Looking at Iraq, it seems clear that there is too much suffering. On the other hand, I don't think I understand the complex situation sufficiently to say how best to get out of it. Still, I have to vote for one of two candidates who will clearly have very different approaches. Perhaps the best way to do so is based on the teams that the candidates assemble and the character, knowledge, intelligence and leadership ability of the candidate himself. We might have a better chance choosing the man or woman and his or her team to make the decision than evaluating the alternatives that they describe in sound bites.