Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CAN TAKE THE BLOG FROM THE BOY...
The blogless life was going okay for Matt Yglesias until he ran across the Pollack, O'Hanlon, and Biddle op-ed from Foreign Affairs and got on Gchat:
10:51That guy should get a blog. Possibly at the Center for American Progress.
someone needs to note the illogic in this from O'Hanlon and Pollack:"It is worth noting that separation resulting from sectarian cleansing was not the chief cause of the reduction in violence, as some have claimed. Much of Iraq remains intermingled but increasingly peaceful. And whereas a cleansing argument implies that casualties should have gone down in Baghdad, for example, as mixed neighborhoods were cleansed, casualties actually went up consistently during the sectarian warfare of 2006. Cleansing may have reduced the violence somewhat in some places, but it was not the main cause."
10:52
OF COURSE VIOLENCE WENT UP DURING THE CLEANSING
10:52
!!!!!!
10:52
the ethnic cleansing consists of violence!
What's also weird about the Biddle/O'Hanlon/Pollack article is that the rationale for withdrawal has now flipped. So long as things are going well, they say, American has to sustain its presence, even if it slowly reduces its troop density. But "if an electoral crisis or some other event returns Iraq to civil war, it would be very hard to justify another troop surge to try to stabilize Iraq. Containment -- withdrawing all U.S. troops while working to prevent the chaos in Iraq from spilling over to the rest of the region -- would then become the United States' only realistic option." In other words, a few years ago, when everything was going badly, we couldn't leave because Iraq would collapse into chaos. Now we can only leave if Iraq collapses into chaos, but have to hang around in order to cement its gains. There's sort of a heads-we-stay, tails-we-never-leave thing going on. It would really be preferable if folks just came out with the underlying theory and simply said, as John McCain has, that we owe Iraq a troop presence in perpetuity, and that full withdrawal simply shouldn't be on the table at all.
COMMENTS (9)
So are you maybe a little embarrassed at including O'Hanlon in TAP's "Ask the Iraq Experts" piece now? I understand wanting to get dissenting views, but must they be from utter fools?
Posted by: Chris O. | August 5, 2008 12:09 PM
It would really be preferable if folks just came out with the underlying theory and simply said, as John McCain has, that we owe Iraq a troop presence in perpetuity, and that full withdrawal simply shouldn't be on the table at all.
Now, McCain's stated embrace of a "general time-horizon" or more to the point, time-table for withdrawal, is an attempt to imply to moderates that his plan may not be that different than Obama's plan. Another reversal of position or just pandering?
Posted by: Dan B. | August 5, 2008 12:38 PM
a few years ago, when everything was going badly, we couldn't leave because Iraq would collapse into chaos. Now we can only leave if Iraq collapses into chaos, but have to hang around in order to cement its gains.
What's "weird" about this? This has always been the plan. If things get worse, we stay. if things get better, we stay. And now the new McCain doctrine: We stay until casualties stop, and then we stay 100 years from that point.
Posted by: Daddy Love | August 5, 2008 12:49 PM
DL, you're right, nothing weird about it, just plenty of dishonesty. By not coming right out and saying that their is no scenario under which we can imagine a near-term withdrawal, they leave the door open and room to pivot as the argument has here.
Posted by: Dan B. | August 5, 2008 1:13 PM
It would really be preferable if folks just came out with the underlying theory and simply said, as John McCain has, that we owe Iraq a troop presence in perpetuity, and that full withdrawal simply shouldn't be on the table at all.
It isn't on the table. The smallest residual force I've read about is 30,000 soldiers. That's what's on the table.
Posted by: jayackroyd | August 5, 2008 1:42 PM
i just picked up someone else's dog-eared copy of the NY Times op-ed page and read a piece by this same pack of rocket scientists which starts: ALMOST everyone now agrees there has been great progress in Iraq. i threw the damn thing in the trash without reading another word.
Posted by: r@d@r | August 5, 2008 4:45 PM
If that crew admitted we need to leave before Iraq becomes a Middle Eastern Vermont, they would be admitting to making a mistake and damaging their reputations. O'Hanlon and company are just on a hunting expedition for continued professional relevance.
Posted by: Reality Man | August 5, 2008 6:52 PM
how long before you are reporting to yglesias?
Posted by: resign now | August 5, 2008 8:22 PM
i just picked up someone else's dog-eared copy of the NY Times op-ed page and read a piece by this same pack of rocket scientists which starts: ALMOST everyone now agrees there has been great progress in Iraq.
I notice it was an old, dog-eared Times--was that the 2008 "ALMOST everyone now agrees there has been great progress in Iraq" editorial? Or the 2007? 2006? 2005? 2004? 2003?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 5, 2008 10:23 PM