Scott Adams on Libya

I enjoy Scott Adams' Dilbert cartoons. I usually like his posts on his blogs, but on occasion I get infuriated with this libertarian nuttiness. But this one today has me thinking. I'm one of the ones in the middle who think it was good to help the Libyans, but Scott Adams pretty well takes me down and rubs my nose in my weak reasoning. Oh well...

From Scott Adams' blog:

Remind me again why we're bombing Libya? Let's run through the possibilities.

Humanitarian Reasons: No one believes this is the most effective way to save lives in other countries, unless Libyan lives are somehow more valuable than, for example, other African lives. The price for missiles alone on the first day of attacks is estimated at $100 million. For that amount of money we could buy a lot of water purifiers, food, and vaccinations. When the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation starts attacking Libya, I'll believe that bombing is a good humanitarian investment.

Getting rid of a Dangerous Dictator: Isn't Libya the country that renounced nuclear weapons and apparently meant it? Gaddafi's Western-influenced son, who doesn't seem crazy, has apparently taken an increasingly active role in government. That was a good sign for sane leadership in the future. And compared to other Muslim countries in the neighborhood, Libya is relatively good on women's rights.

Supporting Democratic Movements: Sounds good in principle, but do the member states of the Arab League, who originally supported the military action, understand that they're next? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

Oil: You can never rule out oil as a motive for war. But if the military was doing the bidding of the oil companies, we'd be attacking Saudi Arabia.

Terrorism: You don't reduce terrorism by bombing a Muslim country that didn't start a fight with you.

My theory is that the military action in Libya is the first phase of war with Iran. It sends a signal to the young people in Iran that if they organize a popular uprising against their own regime, they will get military support of the same sort they are seeing in Libya. You might argue that we're sending that same message to every dictator in the region. But remember that the Arab League supported military action in Libya, and that group includes a lot of dictators. Iran is obviously not part of the Arab League, given that being Arab is sort of a requirement for the club. My conclusion is that the no-fly zone in Libya is intended as a message for the young people in Iran. The world has a far bigger strategic interest in Iran than Libya.

Here I remind you that cartoonists don't know much about world affairs. You'll see more insightful ideas in the comments below. I'm just getting the ball rolling.

I admit I hadn't thought of the Iran angle. I bought the "humanitarian" argument, but I also bought the "weapons of mass destruction" excuse for Iraq. I did realize that oil probably played a role and explained why Libya but not Yemen or Bahrain.

I hate to think I get suckered by these "causes" but it looks like I have been taken again. What Scott Adams points out is that I didn't do the necessary due dilligance and examine the "costs" of the humanitarian mission. He's right. There are lots of other missions that would save more lives much cheaper.

I admit that I'm a sucker for wanting to help people in need and I'm weak on the cold-hearted calculations. I'm like the guy who sees somebody drowning and even if I don't know how to swim I jump in to "save" the drowning person. It is just my impulse. It is built into me.

Scott Adams would see the person drowning and look around and see if he can get off the hook because somebody else will jump in. Failing that, Scott would check his billfold to see if he could maybe bribe somebody else to jump in -- and risk their life -- to save the drowning person. Failing that. Scott would made the trade-off of personal risk to benefits from saving the drowning person. I'm guessing that Scott would end up walking along the water's edge shouting encouraging words. His calculation would be "if I save the guy I get patted on the back and maybe get to shake the mayor's hand. but I risk paying in infinite penalty of dying, if I stand on the shore and shout encouragement then I get points for "helping" but I don't have any personal downside in terms of risk to myself". That kind of calculation is rational, but it leaves me cold.

The interesting fact is that Scott Adams plays a better evolutionary game than I do. I blindly run risks that jeopardize my ability to keep my germ line going. He rationally plans his actions to maintain a maximum genetic viability. I'm a branch on the tree of life that will end. He is a branch that will bear many smaller branches and reach far into the future.