ט Inspector David Kay's Self-Interest in Saying No WMD's Exist. Via Instapundit on January 26, I see that Dust in the Light has a good post looking carefully at what ex-weapons inspector David Kay has been saying. I want to make a different point: it is important for Mr. Kay's self-interest and self-esteem that people believe there are no WMD's in Iraq.

I haven't paid close attention, but here is what seems to be the situation. David Kay, employed by the Bush Administration to find gas, nukes, and such in Iraq, has recently reported that he didn't find any stockpiles, though there is lots of evidence of attempts by Saddam Hussein to develop such weapons and some evidence that he sent some materials to Syria. Mr. Kay says he thinks that Saddam Hussein himself thought he had weapons, and that George Bush thought so too, but in fact the Iraq weapons program leaders had fooled Saddam (and thus Bush). Mr. Kay also severely criticizes the CIA and other US intelligence services for giving Bush information that turned out to be wrong.

My first impression, like everybody's, was "Wow! Bush's own inspector says there weren't any weapons in Iraq." It soon becomes clear this isn't quite as dramatic as it might seem, because there was plenty of weapons development-- just not production-- which actually supports the Bush Adminstration claim that Iraq would soon become an imminent threat.

But my point here is different. A big lesson of public choice economics--perhaps *the* big lesson--- is that governments are not single individuals, but groups of people, each of whom has his own interests and incentives. The Bush Administration weapons inspector does not have the same incentives as the Bush Administration President or the Bush Administration CIA Director. In this case, imagine three things David Kay might have said:

1. I have found nukes in Iraq.
This is what Kay would like best to say, and what would help his reputation most, but he can't say it unless he has evidence, which he does not. So it's out.

2. I have not found nukes in Iraq, but I think they are probably there somewhere.
This may be true, but it makes Kay look incompetent because it is an admission that he has failed in his job.

3. I have not found nukes in Iraq, because they aren't there (though Saddam and Bush thought they were).
This too, may be true, but it doesn't make Kay look incompetent because nobody could have succeeded in the job he was given. Sending him out to do the job was a mistake, though. Whose mistake? If he says it is Bush's mistake, he is being ungrateful and ungracious, especially since he, Kay, took the job voluntarily and no doubt with as good information as Bush had. It must then be the fault of whoever had claimed there were nukes in Iraq-- the CIA.

Option (3) is thus what we would expect Kay to choose out of self-interest. Note that it also bolsters his damaged self-esteem, an equally important consideration. This of course does not at all mean that (3) is false. It just detracts from our tendency to believe (3) because David Kay said it, without additional evidence.

Options (2) and (3) are both plausible. Both of them explain why Saddam resisted inspections-- it was because he thought they might find something-- and why everybody thought there were WMD's in Iraq. And in a choice between an explanation that relied on CIA mistakes and the mistakes of a randomly chosen adminsitrator, I would bet on the CIA making mistakes, since it seems to be an ill-run agency.

There are two big problems with option (3), though. First, it seems we need more than CIA incompetence--we need other agencies and other countries' intelligence services to be wrong. Second, we need for Saddam himself to be fooled. I find it hard to believe that so durable a dictator could be fooled about this kind of thing. If he was that easy to fool, why wasn't he overthrown long ago? Consider two points that underly options (2) and (3).

2'. Saddam's weapons people were able to hide things well enough to fool David Kay for one year.

3'. Saddam's weapons people were able to hide things well enough to fool Saddam Hussein for six years.

There's just no contest: (2') is far more plausible than (3'), though both (2') and (3') are surprising. So I think I'd post some bets on WMD's still being found, at what must be rather favorable Las Vegas odds. Anybody know where I can bet on this?

[ http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/04.01.28a.htm .     Erasmusen@yahoo.com. ]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.