If We Win, We Win (also: ponies)

Today's moronic rightwing talking point is that we should ignore the overwhelming majority of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that the White House was so eager to cover up (see declassified excerpts here) as a partisan plot undertaken by the notorious left-wingers at the CIA, while simultaneously citing the NIE's conclusion that "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight" as a decisive refutation of Democratic views on Iraq.

Seriously, people, think before you open your mouths and crack open your laptops.

Does anyone -- anyone -- on the right genuinely believe that those of us who favor withdrawal from Iraq do so because we don't think it would be a good idea to turn the country into a shining success? Of course we don't think that. We favor withdrawal because we don't believe that indefinite continuation of an open-ended military presence in Iraq is likely to generate success. The country has been doing this for three and a half years now and things aren't improving; they're getting worse. Nobody disputes the desirability of success; we dispute the notion that continuing to do the same things that aren't working now, and weren't working one year ago, and weren't working two years ago, are going to magically start working if we give it another year.

Comments

I'm sure that there are a couple of people out there who are so fed up with U.S. policy that they actually desire a failed outcome. Also, Michael Moore is fat.

Posted by dj moonbat | September 26, 2006 6:33 PM

I think the Corner post to which your refer is actually this one, not the one you linked (which doesn't say anything about Democrats).

Posted by Al | September 26, 2006 6:36 PM

As to the substance of your post, we think you are both (a) incorrect about whether the war "is likely to generate success" AND (b) undervaluing the value of such success. I think the Corner post is addressing (b), not (a).

Posted by Al | September 26, 2006 6:39 PM

But Matt, the terrorists can tell if you say you desire success but don't really, REALLY desire success. That's how they tell the difference between people with sufficient will, which totally scare them into lamb-like acquiescence, and people like you, with not quite enough will, which inspire them to keep fighting.

This is basic, dude.

Posted by Realish | September 26, 2006 7:00 PM

Yglesias sooo doesn't deserve to be a Green Lantern.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 26, 2006 7:10 PM

So let me get this straight: It's "naive" to think that the war in Iraq has inspired more jihadists to take up the cause, but perfectly reasonable to think that U.S. victory in Iraq (however we're defining it today) will make them abandon the cause?

Right.

Posted by M. Duss | September 26, 2006 7:16 PM

It's "naive" to think that the war in Iraq has inspired more jihadists to take up the cause, but perfectly reasonable to think that U.S. victory in Iraq (however we're defining it today) will make them abandon the cause?

Analogously, is it naive to think that violence on TV doesn't inspire people to behave violently, but that advertising on TV will inspire them to buy stuff? I know a lot of people who believe this, so why should we think that violence in Iraq will inspire terrorism while a US victory will provide incentive for them to give it up? Or is watching 24 really causing moral impoverishment?

Why are you looking at me like that?

Posted by modus potus | September 26, 2006 8:15 PM

Worse, it isn't just success we would have to obtain, but perceived success--as perceived by the jihadists themselves.

How can we stop jihadists from perceiving that they have succeeded? Some kind of mind control? It seem like if America pulls out of Iraq--no matter how stable the country is, no matter how liberal or democratic it is--jihadists can still claim to have "forced" America out. If that's how conservatives have defined success, then how can they possibly think it's achievable? What could we possibly do to force jihadists to admit that they've lost?

That's the ultimate pathos of this war and the one in Lebanon--victory is defined by the enemy's perception. And that's probably how wars with Arabs and Muslims in this region will always play out.

Posted by Consumatopia | September 26, 2006 8:20 PM

Nobody disputes the desirability of success;

Surely though a lot of people would dispute whether success is worth the further cost we would have to pay to achieve it, even if it was achievable.

I don't see how anyone could claim that any success achievable at this point was worth what we've put into the conflict thus far, the sunk cost--as silly as it is to cry over spilt milk, it's far sillier to pretend to enjoy the sour aroma.

Posted by Consumatopia | September 26, 2006 8:25 PM

Speaking of having been there 3.5 years, and thinking of the wingnuts' love of WWII analogies, we beat Hitler and Mussolini in less time than it's taken us to let a bunch of Ba'athist dead-enders turn Iraq into complete and utter chaos.

Like you, Matt, I don't understand how anyone can believe we're making progress. Iraq in September 2006 is clearly worse than Iraq in September 2005 which is clearly worse than Iraq in September 2004 which is clearly worse than Iraq in September 2003 which is clearly worse than Iraq in May 2003. And there's no evidence that, after all the corner-turnings of 2004 and 2005 and even 2006 (remember how, after a brief flare-up of violence, Zarqawi's death would somehow make a difference?), there are any more potential corners to be turned. It's all a downhill spiral into the toilet bowl from here.

Anyone who wants to 'stay the course' that's accomplishing that is more than a few flakes shy of a snow-globe.

Posted by RT | September 26, 2006 8:46 PM

Speaking of having been there 3.5 years, and thinking of the wingnuts' love of WWII analogies, we beat Hitler and Mussolini in less time than it's taken us to let a bunch of Ba'athist dead-enders turn Iraq into complete and utter chaos.

But surely that's a bad analogy. We beat Saddam's army in far less time than we beat Hitler/Musso/Tojo's armies. There just wasn't an insurgency after we beat the army, so there is no direct comparison to the insurgency in Iraq. I would note that we were able to stand up a government and have reasonably democratic elections in Iraq far sooner than the equivalents in Germany and Japan.

Posted by Al | September 26, 2006 9:07 PM

"There just wasn't an insurgency after we beat the army, so there is no direct comparison to the insurgency in Iraq. I would note that we were able to stand up a government and have reasonably democratic elections in Iraq far sooner than the equivalents in Germany and Japan.
Posted by: Al on September 26, 2006 09:07 PM"

Except democratic elections in West Germany and Japan were actually about issues instead of just voting for your tribe like in the first Nigerian republic, which later led to genocide in Biafra. Basically we just gave legitimacy to bigotry at the voting booth, similar to what happened in many states that democratically elected fascists, like how Weimar Germany led to Nazi Germany. When has that turned well? If you use WWII as your basis for historical analysis, our invasion was just WWI, which set the groundwork for Hitler and the Japanese fascists to rise to power, which means our allies are our enemies. The comparison collapses on itself. That really says something that we were able to beat the Germans and the Japanese (and the Germans without the atom bomb being dropped) without having to fight an insurgency. How does this help your point?

Posted by Reality Man | September 27, 2006 12:14 AM

Plus, considering how important WWII analogies have been to conservative talking points, it's amazing how vapid a road it is for a movement in a superpower to follow.

Posted by Reality Man | September 27, 2006 12:15 AM

incorrect about whether the war "is likely to generate success"

And as Matt said, after 3.5 years we're not making any progress. On what basis do you see success as "likely".

Posted by gswift | September 27, 2006 3:36 AM

As to the substance of your post, we think you are both (a) incorrect about whether the war "is likely to generate success" AND (b) undervaluing the value of such success. I think the Corner post is addressing (b), not (a).

Shorter Al: Ditto.

Posted by DMonteith | September 27, 2006 3:57 AM

If you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting. Who gives a flying fuck what some jihadis perceive? If beating your head against the wall isn't knocking the wall down and is giving you a concussion, you should stop beating your head against the wall because some looney will think you're rational rather than resolute?

Posted by CJColucci | September 27, 2006 11:39 AM

that should be "you should NOT stop beating your head against the wall..."

Posted by CJColucci | September 27, 2006 11:40 AM

So, how long did it take us to beat down the German and Japanese insurgencies?

Posted by calling all toasters | September 27, 2006 12:10 PM

Basically, everything I've seen in the last week or so (plus a background as a company grade Army officer) leads me to conclude:

1) Iraq has gelled radical islamist attitudes from a regional (and primarily Isreal) hostility orientation to a global (and primarily US) hostility orientation.
2) If we were to succeed in Iraq, that may well take some, though not all, wind from radical islamist sails.
3) In order to win in Iraq we need at least 100,000 more troops (to reach Gen. Shinseki's quarter million or so troops) on the ground on a sustained basis for a not insignificant number of years (say 2 to 3 minimum).
4) We don't HAVE enough troops to add 100,000 troops.
5) The Army is not meeting its needs in recruiting, although it is meeting its stated goals, said goals having been set for political needs, not staffing needs (for those who wonder at that, we are now turning deployed years into deployed 15 to 18 months...which means we don't have enough ready formations to replace or maintain even the inadequate 140,000 troop level).
6) We do not have enough troops to properly staff Iraq NOW, and we certainly do not have enough troops to meet any other regional threat, up to and including Iran.
7) Since we can't win in Iraq without more troops, and we can't get more troops, we can't win Iraq.
8) Since we can't win in Iraq, Republicans saying "If we win in Iraq, all these neat things will happen," is functionally equivalent to saying "If Santa comes through with those 5 extra Divisions, things will be great."

The only realistic short circuit possible is a draft and that probably wouldn't fix the problem, since a draft would take two or more years to really get going, and the Army doesn't HAVE two more years of combat effectiveness in my (admittedly company grade) opinion, even IF it were politically feasible, which it is not.

In order to win Iraq, we needed to radically expand the Army starting not later than 2000, or rather, 3 or more years before starting Iraq, since Iraq was entirely on our timetable.

Posted by Doug | September 27, 2006 12:58 PM

Wasn't there that one guy running around in the Philippines until the '70s?

Posted by daveNYC | September 27, 2006 12:58 PM

I contend that the Iraqi conflict, as well as the prevailing Middle East tensions, will be lessened in equal proportion to the success we achieve in providing for a Palestinian state. Given that the NIE assessment posits that, "If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives", then it would be reasonable to conclude that any progress with the Palestinian issue will greatly enhance the speculative potentiality of the NIE report. Absent the Palestinian effort, I'm of the opinion that the NIE timeframe is overly optimistic and dependent upon a relatively static progression without the prevalence of unforeseen events and escalations...which seems unlikely at best.

Frankly, I doubt that the existing Republican approach or the alternative of withdrawal supported by a number Democrats will serve to alleviate the existing conditions and bring relative stability to the troubled region. Neither approach has the wherewithal to alter the prevailing sentiment. Conversely, a voluntary effort that would demonstrate our ability to discern the profound importance of a successful Palestinian state would, in my opinion, yield exponential goodwill. Given the current conditions, such an effort has little risk.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by Daniel DiRito | September 27, 2006 1:29 PM

Does anyone — anyone — on the right genuinely believe that those of us who favor withdrawal from Iraq do so because we don’t think it would be a good idea to turn the country into a shining success? Of course we don’t think that.

You're pretty close here - what they (right wingers) think is that we (liberals) want to withdraw from Iraq because we are driven by hatred of George Bush, and withdrawal is desirable to us because it would deny George Bush the inevitable glorious victory that is rightfully his.

You think I'm kidding, but I'm not. This really is what a lot of them think.

Posted by spencer | September 27, 2006 1:41 PM

Here's a good breakdown of the logic breakdown in the attacks that the Bush administrations levels on its' critics...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Posted by gene | September 27, 2006 6:02 PM