That's clearly not true. The United States can choose to withdraw, or it can choose not to. The loss of eight hundred soldiers a year may be a better or a worse choice for us than the consequences of a withdrawal. It kills our soldiers, and injures many more, and that's something that should never be asked without reason. It may be more than the people of the US are willing to pay, or than it should be asked to. But it's not, in itself, an existential threat to the US military.
So it's not just a question of comparing a peaceful order (presumably not just "order"-- I'd imagine that if we reestablished Saddam's rape rooms, prisons for children, and mass grave-filling infrastructure we could get that kind of order set up under a likely-looking dictator; and frankly, isn't that the sort of thing we expect to see in the wake of our withdrawing, if/when the civil war ends?) with the present. We need to compare what's currently happening, or what we can reasonably hope might happen if we can apply the lessons we've already learned, with the plausible post-withdrawal situation. (Including, of course, the secondary effects from what our enemies will make of our withdrawal; Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon and Clinton's from Somalia in the face of soldiers' deaths-- both places of less demonstrated interest to the US than Iraq-- having been factors in incurring as many casualties on one day in 2001 as Iraq has thus far cost us.) We need then to compare one projected price in money and lives that the US will have to pay with the other.
Maybe that will mean withdrawal. But if it does, withdrawal is still a decision that we will make, not an inevitability that will passively occur. Is it the right decision? Is a United States that has been driven from Iraq better off than one still there? Is an Iraq free to pursue a civil war (and to be a battlefield, proxy or actual, for its neighbors) without American interference better off than one with American troops present?
That's clearly not true. The United States can choose to withdraw, or it can choose not to. The loss of eight hundred soldiers a year may be a better or a worse choice for us than the consequences of a withdrawal. It kills our soldiers, and injures many more, and that's something that should never be asked without reason. It may be more than the people of the US are willing to pay, or than it should be asked to. But it's not, in itself, an existential threat to the US military.
So it's not just a question of comparing a peaceful order (presumably not just "order"-- I'd imagine that if we reestablished Saddam's rape rooms, prisons for children, and mass grave-filling infrastructure we could get that kind of order set up under a likely-looking dictator; and frankly, isn't that the sort of thing we expect to see in the wake of our withdrawing, if/when the civil war ends?) with the present. We need to compare what's currently happening, or what we can reasonably hope might happen if we can apply the lessons we've already learned, with the plausible post-withdrawal situation. (Including, of course, the secondary effects from what our enemies will make of our withdrawal; Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon and Clinton's from Somalia in the face of soldiers' deaths-- both places of less demonstrated interest to the US than Iraq-- having been factors in incurring as many casualties on one day in 2001 as Iraq has thus far cost us.) We need then to compare one projected price in money and lives that the US will have to pay with the other.
Maybe that will mean withdrawal. But if it does, withdrawal is still a decision that we will make, not an inevitability that will passively occur. Is it the right decision? Is a United States that has been driven from Iraq better off than one still there? Is an Iraq free to pursue a civil war (and to be a battlefield, proxy or actual, for its neighbors) without American interference better off than one with American troops present?
Reply
Leave a comment