Matthew Yglesias wrote a piece yesterday criticizing the Washington Post for an editorial that expressed the idea that the Democratic plans for Iraq are unrealistic, that allowing the troops to leave will destabilize the country. The newspaper, which has developed a reputation as something of an apologist for the Bush administration (though it's hard to believe that it can be much worse than my hometown Chicago Tribune), does allow that the president's claim that the troop surge has clinched the deal is premature.
But Bush is still given credit for "forestalling an incipient civil war," whereas the Democratic candidates are lambasted for their proposals to withdraw quickly. If Obama or Clinton get their way, Iraq will explode into sectarian violence, what few troops they propose to leave there will be ushered out by betrayed Iraqi leaders, and the Middle East will be permanently destabilized.
At which point Matt writes one of the truest sentences yet: "over and over again we see withdrawal plans being judged by worst-case
scenarios whereas staying scenarios are judged by best-case scenarios."
Oddly enough, the one person who has broken through this dichotomy is John McCain, who has said staying may lead to our having a major presence there for 50 or 100 years (of course, he presents that as a best-case scenario, but we aren't really fooled by that, are we? Oh, he's the Republican candidate? Well, then, I guess we have been fooled by that.).
Let me tell you my biggest frustration with Iraq. Leave aside the decision to fight the war, the misleading intelligence, the itchy Administration even before 9/11. Just take Iraq as of, say, 2004. We're there, we're committed to improving the lot of the Iraqi people, Pottery Barn, yeah, yeah, yeah. What are our biggest challenges?
We need to tamp down violence in order to give the Iraqis time to create a stable multi-factional government with self-determination, pursuit of happiness, all the American stuff. We need to have time to train the Iraqi people themselves to take over internal security. And (this one's a little more quiet) we have to help Iraq establish a free-market capitalist system.
Now it's four years later. We've lost 4000 young men and women, spent anywhere from $600 billion to $3 trillion, money which could have been on "remaining competitive" in the world economy, and immeasurably hurt our moral standing in the world. The best strategic idea we've had is the surge, which has quite predictably reduced violence by throwing more people at the problem. And what are our current biggest challenges?
We need to tamp down violence in order to give the Iraqis time to
create a stable multi-factional government with self-determination,
pursuit of happiness, all the American stuff. We need to have time to
train the Iraqi people themselves to take over internal security. And
(this one's a little more quiet) we have to help Iraq establish a
free-market capitalist system.
If Canada came to Chicago and told Mayor Daley, "we'll take over your police duties for you, we'll bring officers who are better-trained than yours, and we won't charge you a cent," the mayor would be a fool not to take that deal. Chicago would save massive amounts of money, and likely have better-quality policing. The city would have a huge incentive to ensure that Canada stayed as long as possible.
Well, the U.S. is Canada - why should the Iraqis work to get a government, work to take over their own security? We're doing it for free. I'm not saying there is some kind of conspiracy to keep violence just high enough to retain the American presence; I'm just saying there is a horribly perverse incentive for doing so.
It's hard even to conceive of this as a war. In WWII, you could look at a map and see out troops moving across the Pacific Ocean, taking territory as we drew ever closer to Japan. The goal was clear.
In Iraq, the goals are not clear, the conditions for success arbitrary. Setting benchmarks and deadlines would not be a sign of weakness, it would be a sign that we understand that nothing is achieved unless you define the achievement. We can't really afford the "we'll know we've won when we see it" attitude. There are risks in staying and risks in leaving; what most Americans want is a president who will evaluate both sides and make a good decision, rather than looking only at one side and making no real decision at all.
But Bush is still given credit for "forestalling an incipient civil war," whereas the Democratic candidates are lambasted for their proposals to withdraw quickly. If Obama or Clinton get their way, Iraq will explode into sectarian violence, what few troops they propose to leave there will be ushered out by betrayed Iraqi leaders, and the Middle East will be permanently destabilized.
At which point Matt writes one of the truest sentences yet: "over and over again we see withdrawal plans being judged by worst-case
scenarios whereas staying scenarios are judged by best-case scenarios."
Oddly enough, the one person who has broken through this dichotomy is John McCain, who has said staying may lead to our having a major presence there for 50 or 100 years (of course, he presents that as a best-case scenario, but we aren't really fooled by that, are we? Oh, he's the Republican candidate? Well, then, I guess we have been fooled by that.).
Let me tell you my biggest frustration with Iraq. Leave aside the decision to fight the war, the misleading intelligence, the itchy Administration even before 9/11. Just take Iraq as of, say, 2004. We're there, we're committed to improving the lot of the Iraqi people, Pottery Barn, yeah, yeah, yeah. What are our biggest challenges?
We need to tamp down violence in order to give the Iraqis time to create a stable multi-factional government with self-determination, pursuit of happiness, all the American stuff. We need to have time to train the Iraqi people themselves to take over internal security. And (this one's a little more quiet) we have to help Iraq establish a free-market capitalist system.
Now it's four years later. We've lost 4000 young men and women, spent anywhere from $600 billion to $3 trillion, money which could have been on "remaining competitive" in the world economy, and immeasurably hurt our moral standing in the world. The best strategic idea we've had is the surge, which has quite predictably reduced violence by throwing more people at the problem. And what are our current biggest challenges?
We need to tamp down violence in order to give the Iraqis time to
create a stable multi-factional government with self-determination,
pursuit of happiness, all the American stuff. We need to have time to
train the Iraqi people themselves to take over internal security. And
(this one's a little more quiet) we have to help Iraq establish a
free-market capitalist system.
If Canada came to Chicago and told Mayor Daley, "we'll take over your police duties for you, we'll bring officers who are better-trained than yours, and we won't charge you a cent," the mayor would be a fool not to take that deal. Chicago would save massive amounts of money, and likely have better-quality policing. The city would have a huge incentive to ensure that Canada stayed as long as possible.
Well, the U.S. is Canada - why should the Iraqis work to get a government, work to take over their own security? We're doing it for free. I'm not saying there is some kind of conspiracy to keep violence just high enough to retain the American presence; I'm just saying there is a horribly perverse incentive for doing so.
It's hard even to conceive of this as a war. In WWII, you could look at a map and see out troops moving across the Pacific Ocean, taking territory as we drew ever closer to Japan. The goal was clear.
In Iraq, the goals are not clear, the conditions for success arbitrary. Setting benchmarks and deadlines would not be a sign of weakness, it would be a sign that we understand that nothing is achieved unless you define the achievement. We can't really afford the "we'll know we've won when we see it" attitude. There are risks in staying and risks in leaving; what most Americans want is a president who will evaluate both sides and make a good decision, rather than looking only at one side and making no real decision at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment