Bob Murphy Show Ep. 436 David R. Henderson Reminisces About His Case Against Invading Iraq
7 snips
Aug 20, 2025 
David R. Henderson, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and an emeritus economics professor, shares his firsthand insights on the misguided U.S. invasion of Iraq. He critiques the flawed justifications and parallels them with today's global tensions. The discussion dives into the complexities of political narratives influencing public perception and military decisions, revealing the risks of misinformation. Henderson also reflects on his blogging strategies, hinting at future premium content as he emphasizes community building around his platform.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Case For Not Invading Iraq
- David Henderson wrote a Hoover piece titled "The Case for Not Invading Iraq" and tested it on generals and admirals who found it persuasive.
- He argued Saddam would respond to incentives and that invading risked provoking worst-case uses of WMDs rather than preventing them.
Oil Scare Rebuttal From 1990
- Henderson rebutted 1990 Gulf War alarmism by calculating the economic hit from oil shocks at roughly 0.5% of GDP.
- He used the thief/TV analogy: occupying oil fields isn't to consume them, it's to sell them.
Incentives Make Intervention Risky
- Henderson framed the choice as binary: Iraq either had WMDs or didn't, and either case undercut the case for invasion.
- If Saddam had WMDs he would be incentivized to use them dramatically when threatened, making invasion riskier.
