Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE WISDOM OF WITHDRAWAL.
As Matt says, it gets a bit tiresome pointing out the asymmetry in assumptions that infects the public debate about Iraq, but it's important. For some reason, staying in is always evaluated according to it best case chance for success (we fix everything!) and leaving according to the worst case scenario for failure (everyone kills each other!). But look, lots of things can happen. As Don Rumsfeld says, every instant we're in Iraq, we're at the mercy of unknown unknowns. One day, a soldier could shoots into a shrine, or mistake an imam for a threat, and suddenly there are massive riots aimed at killing our troops and ejecting us from the country. Or someday, the insurgents might figure out an attack that kills 300 American troops in one murderous blast. Will we run from the country? Will we exact bloody vengeance? Will either outcome enhance stability or achieve our tactical objectives?
The fact of it is, every day we're in there is one more day in which something truly unexpected and destructive could occur. Which is one more reason an American withdrawal makes sense: We can control it. The longer we stay in Iraq, the likelier it becomes that something catastrophic occurs to force us out. “What happens if the Ayatollah Sistani gets assassinated?” Larry Korb once asked me. “All hell will break loose. Or what if they shell the green zone and kill several hundred Americans? What do you think the Congress will do? If you set a date, you control your own destiny.” The longer we stay in Iraq, the less control we have, and the more likely it is that we'll eventually be driven from the country, or leave under circumstances not of our choosing, in which we're not able to set conditions for an orderly transfer of power. At this point, we're sitting at the blackjack table, and we're down, and we're not leaving because we're waiting for the big score. But the likelier outcome is that we go bust. At some point, you have to be willing to limit the magnitude and cost of your failure, even if it means giving up your shot at success.
(Image used under a Creative Commons license from Soldier's Media Center.)
COMMENTS (8)
We need to convince the average Joe that we won the war in 2 weeks but that this Bush nation building is a fools errand.
Make Bush admit that we won the war and need to bring the troops home.
Posted by: Floccina | March 20, 2008 4:12 PM
Just to be contrarian, I don't think we're "having a debate about Iraq." I think we have two entirely polarized points of view that refuse, really to discuss this anymore (a key point being, one side is smaller, more polarized... and less likely to prevail, in the long run). A debate, it seems to me, is kind of what we're having separately - conservatives over how to deal with war plans in a post-surge, post Bush environment; and liberals over an exit plan and the shape of a much reduced presence at some point in the future. But I don't see a lot of evidence that the two discussions have all that much to do with each other, but like so many discussions these days, it's easy, and easier, to find the discussion you like and not really engage with the other. I'm pretty sure that's not healthy; but unlike other issues, like, say, race... I'm not sure I care with the Iraq issue what conservatives want. I want us out and I want us t do what we need to in order to make that happen. And I tink, on this issue, there's more of me, more of us. But we can't really expect our side to take over until next year, at the earliest. Which is what I think makes where we are right now so frustrating. But a debate? I'm not really seeing it.
Posted by: weboy | March 20, 2008 4:44 PM
Funny, couldn't all those things happen in Afghanistan as well, so I guess we better get out of there...and our troops in Africa will need to leave because the same could happen there...and the 300,000 Americans that live on the Arabian Peninsula since one of them could stab, rape, kill a Muslim or take a gun into a mosque and start blowing people away...
Then we better get rid of Isreal, since you know they are going to kill an innocent Muslim while 'protecting' themselves...so they can all move to Arizona.
Then I guess we'd better leave Indonesia and the Phillipines and every other country that had a radical Islamic minority terrorizing innocent people.
then we also need tostop the Danes from drawing cartoons otherwise they'll get more Muslims steemed at us.
Why this could go on forever, or maybe we could recognize that the radical islamists will ALWAYS find a reason to hate us and attack us no matter how incoherent.
If you want to hate America, you can always find a reason - just ask Reverend Wright, he even makes stuff up to ahte America about.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2008 5:12 PM
I guess the biggest unanswered question for those that want to withdraw, to put it nicely, is what do they expect will happen if we leave? What does Obama or Hillary think Iraq will look like a year after America pulls out?
And if both Hillary and Obama are telling us they will still lauch attacks into Iraq wherever they have intelligence about Al Queda, you also have the same, if not more danger that we will blow up the wrong place/people.
And if the worst case scenario does occur, and radical islamists take over the country, stop the oil production and begin launching terrorist attacks on the gulf states with the same demand that America and Americans leave; what will you then do??
Would Obama or Hillary demand the military re-invade and have to retake the same ground they made them give up?
How many military resignations will we seen if that order is given?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2008 5:19 PM
Most apt gambling analogy I've seen in a long time.
Posted by: Keurig | March 20, 2008 5:22 PM
Weboy -
I really think this is how the neocons have muddled reality and common sense - they lie cheat and steal their way into doing the wrong thing for ulterior motives - then demand that this false and wrong point of view be given fair and decent face time. What they did what wrong and deserves jail time, not debate.....
Posted by: Zedd | March 20, 2008 5:27 PM
What is "success" in Iraq? For those who initiated the invasion, it's the PNAC version: a U.S.-friendly regime that will allow Iraq to be turned into a giant platform for U.S. military and economic purposes. For these people, leaving means failure. A hundred years in Iraq is SUCCESS! Even a Democratic administration will find economic and strategic reasons for staying. That's the nature of empire. With the global struggle for resources heating up, leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, much less the Russians or Chinese, is not something the new emperor is likely to agree to.
Posted by: mijnheer | March 20, 2008 8:26 PM
Or what happens if we blunder into conflict with Iran? The Green Zone and Camp "Victory" are inundated by Scuds, the Shiite toggle switch is moved to "on", and an uprising in Iraq forces us out.
Posted by: bob h | March 21, 2008 7:39 AM