This new NBER working paper (ungated here) argues that media criticism of the U.S. war effort in Iraq leads to more U.S. troops being killed:
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an "emboldenment" effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.
Might Fox News be right after all? Still I am not yet convinced. First, I fear that the measurement of satellite TV access of different Iraqi districts is a proxy for some other measure of district quality and that the TV programs have no causal role in driving killings. Is news access across Iraq really so different? Can’t one district simply send an email to another district: "now is time to kill some more of them?" Second, I worry that the authors decided not to include Baghdad in the results. Still, if you want a jolt to your system, right now this paper is the place to go.
Here’s the ungated version.
Rahda Iyengar is a RWJ scholar. Her work on public defenders’ responsiveness to pay structure was in the NYT back in July. She’s also written extensively on things like three strikes and domestic violence. The papers always seem very careful.
Alternate explanation: Insurgents with access to foreign news can easily learn body counts, etc., and so have better feedback on the quality of their tactics.
Why would this be so surprising? Not to add yet another questionable parallel to Vietnam upon the heap, but internal discussions within North Vietnamese power circles showed a lot of attention paid to the U.S. Peace movement (especially during the Paris peace discussions) and supported the negotiating position of absolute intransigence.
Not that it’s wrong. The conclusion can’t be that news should not report casualties, but that nations should not fight wars for which they’re not willing to suffer casualties.
So what is the cost to the nation of having its political discourse crippled by a desire to avoid encouraging the terrorists?
Economists are biased towards confusing “measurable” with “important.”
I’d say this was the department of duh.
This is part of the price of the First Amendment. Soldiers often say things like part of the reason that they fight is to protect the rights of American citizens. It seems to me that the freedom to discuss public policy falls into that category.
“Scot – of course, we make limitations on freedom of speech if the speech puts others into physical danger. For instance, fire in a crowded theater.”
Argh. If the 1st doesn’t mean the press can criticize government policy, it doesn’t mean anything. Before going to war, this cost must be factored into the decision.
There is some kind of cost to criticizing violent sects of Islam, too. Should we not say things that have a cost?
Jason Voorhees wrote, “Scot – of course, we make limitations on freedom of speech if the speech puts others into physical danger. For instance, fire in a crowded theater. The first step is to study this paper and think if it passes muster. But if it does, I don’t think the findings are as easily waves away as simple appeals like that. Externalities are externalites, are they not?”
I wasn’t trying to waive the result. I agree with you that there *may* be reasonable restricions on the First Amendment. I guess I just processed through the argument and concluded that maintaining the freedom of the press to criticize policy wrt Iraq is worth the cost.
I think the question is where do you draw the line? If, for example a careful economic study showed that Barack Obama’s position and stump speeches on Iraq caused increase casualties should he be prevented from discussing his policy position? Or should he be able to hold the position, but the press be prevented from reporting it? I dunno.
If the original economic research is correct, the outcome *is* most unfortunate, but I’m not sure that abridging freedom of the press is the right answer.
I support our troops and I think others should too.
Support them how? By (a) sending them cookies and body armor, or by (2) not criticizing the specious casus belli and pathetically inept post-occupation “strategy”?
And they’re also over there protecting us from anything coming OVER HERE.
Surely. Saddam Hussein was a hair’s breadth away from storming the Outer banks and New York Harbor.
JasonL,
Rather than “No sane person would”, you mean to say is “I would not”…
Many people would, and historically have, restricted what they say. They feel they have both a right to speak, and a duty not to.
John Kunze—you are correct, the goal of the Allied Strategic Bombing campaign after the Casablanca Conference of January 1943 was, “†¦.the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic system and the undermining of the morale of the German people to the point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.”
You’ve lost me. Why is the word “infinite” fraudulent exactly? It certainly sounds like you’re saying that the marginal cost of discouraging certain types of speech in certain situations is infinite, since as a matter of principle you won’t even tolerate the notion that it should be refrained, even if there was evidence that shows it resulted in people’s deaths. What else does that mean if not that there is no price you could accept to refrain the words said in those instances?
(BTW, these are all just metaphors, so I don’t see why you’re losing your crud over me using economic jargon. All models are simplifications, and if they’re useful for analyzing something, then use them. As far as I can see, this is a case of an externality, and so I have no problem analyzing it this way. But you prefer to use the philosophical approach. It is after an economics blog, though, so why shouldn’t we analyze the problem using cost-benefit analysis? Is there something about this particular situation that makes it inappropriate?)
At the margin, there is a finite value to criticizing the war and a finite cost apparently, too. I don’t know how you are getting the idea that the finite value is as huge as it is, except that it makes you feel good. We do place restrictions on people’s speech, though, and some of it is embedded in the First Amendment itself. We also have statutes that make people legally liable for libel and slander. Here is a unique situation where stating something out loud may put a soldier’s life at risk. If this is an externality, and I don’t know if it is, then at the least the newspapers should have to bear some of these costs in some form. It’s not only efficient, it also seems equitable to me.
bartman, I’m going to play by Godwin’s card here and call foul, even if doesn’t technically fit. Seriously, though, my points seem to me like a natural line of thought, but I’m not necessarily advocating for anything. I don’t have a “belief” one or another. It does seem, though, like a potential problem – as far as I can tell, given the hypothetical possibility, my points deserve some consideration.
And one more thing. The whole concept is ridiculous from a tactical perspective. What our military can deal with is an active enemy. What they can’t deal with is a guerilla biding his time. So, if speech incites the enemy to action, that helps the military strategy. That may not be generally true, but it is true for the current third-rate wars we keep getting ourselves into.
The reporting itself may not cause the lead to more casuaties. The tone and narrative may have more to do with that. Same for critical reporting.
Most of this stuff can very easily be reported in a constructive way, including casualty reporting. Problem is it’s not.
Comments on this entry are closed.