"Could bombing Syria kill more civilians than it saves?" --Ezra Klein

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. Sloppy Research....

I'm not weighing on the issue at hand, just commenting on the quality of the research cited in the Washington Post column.

The authors are ultimately claiming that military intervention causes regimes to resort to more aggressive (and more lethal) measures to put down an insurrection, meaning that the "Law of Unintended Consequences" might cause more civilians to be killed than saved. But their research ignores the rather obvious conclusion that it's not the intervention that triggers this behavior, but rather the regime's perception that it's losing control. The more lethal response is triggered by a sense that "holy shit, we losing," which would occur regardless of any intervention.

A wounded and cornered animal is dangerous, regardless of how it became wounded and cornered.

Furthermore, the research only studies cases of direct military intervention, which I have to assume includes both "boots on the ground" and airstrikes (the authors could have been more clear on this subject). It excludes cases of intervention where the only external assistance is funding, supplies and intelligence.

To have included those cases would have been enlightening. It would have given an indication as to whether there is a difference in reaction by the regime when the intervention is direct or indirect. If there's no difference, and we're already providing indirect support to the rebels in Syria, then it would indicate that there would be no additional adverse consequences by ratcheting up our involvement.

As it is, we're left with an enormous gap in what we know.