Idiotic foreign policy and the incentives it creates

Megan McArdle wonders aloud what bad things might have happened if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq:

They are particularly outraged because they see that in certain cases, such as Iraq, their prescription would have produced a better outcome.

But of course, that doesn't mean that it necessarily works as a system--that Bill Gates gave billions to charity is not a vindication of communism. Having gotten it so dreadfully wrong on Iraq, I am seduced by the easy by-the-numbers approach posed by a non-interventionist foreign policy. But I wonder what I am not seeing--the wars that don't happen in the Middle East1, or Central Europe, because all the participants know that it would be a foolhardy invitation to US intervention. I take this to be the foriegn policy defense of their position; and it's a pretty compelling one.

I suppose the link between private charity and communism is one that's extremely clear if you're a libertarian. But never mind that. Let's talk about the netroots. The netroots are upset because... well they're upset for a lot of reasons. They're upset because the Bush administration has--in bad faith and from behind a veil of secrecy--vastly increased the probability of U.S. military action in the world for a host of unwise and self-serving reasons. They're upset because, as opponents of the president, they have been ridiculed, marginalized, and accused of everything from idiocy and weakness to treason. And they're upset because they know that on the specific question of Iraq they've been fairly well vindicated and yet they must continue to watch as deeply misguided people maintain control over the levers of power. They are emphatically not upset that the United States isn't an isolationist power (just as Bill Gates is emphatically not upset that his successes combating malaria in Africa haven't resulted in the emergence of a communist America).

Megan's main point, however, is that, if the United States hadn't intervened twice in Iraq and once in the Balkans, reactionary forces might have run amok across the Middle East; that America's willingness--even over-willingness--to use its military in the Middle East might counterintuitively create some positive incentives. I'll leave aside for now the fact that very few people on the left advocate for anything like isolationism--most of us just think this particular type of intervention is flawed at its core.

But humoring the question: If 25 or 50 years ago the United States had adopted and fixed an isolationistic military approach to the Middle East... well it's hard to know what would have happened--that would obviously depend heavily upon when you started the clock. I imagine that, by exchanging one complicated set of regional incentives for a different, also complicated set of regional incentives, we would have watched as different wars were fought between different enemies and different alliances emerged between different countries. I can't say for sure that "things" would have been "better" on the whole. But the idea that our recent, incoherent policy history--that has included, but not been limited to, backing the Shah, backing Saddam Hussein, opposing the Islamic revolution in Iran, fostering war between Iran and Iraq, sending marines to Lebanon, making an enemy of Iraq, going to war with Iraq, deposing Slobodan Milosevic, ignoring human rights abuses when our allies committed them, striking up a civil war in Iraq, leaving 160,000 troops in the middle of it, providing millions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia to use as they see fit, giving billions of dollars in military aid to Israel without imposing any restrictions upon how they use it, and escalating hostilities with Iran while selling nuclear technology to India--has left the Middle East better off than it would have been if we'd instead done nothing strikes me as pretty far-fetched.