Tossing Towels

Before the release of the ISG report, Spencer Ackerman predicted its real impact would be turning withdrawal into a "respectable" point of view. I don't think it's quite happened yet, but we do see more and more folks throwing in the towel. Andrew Sullivan stands for nothing if not the elite consensus, and he's had enough:

The moral cost of withdrawal is huge. We should do all we can to provide amnesty for any Iraqis who have been loyal to us. (It does not surprise me that we shamefully haven't. This is the Bush administration.) But the moral cost of plowing on is also exponential. It may merely delay the day of reckoning. It risks sending young Americans to die in order for a president to save face, not in order to win. The truth is: we have lost this battle, if not the war.

Escalation, at this point, is just throwing good money after bad. The good news, for hawks, is that it's not their money that they're throwing, not their lives that they're ruining.

Comments

I think you forgot to close an italics tag up there, Mr. Yglesias. Though it does add extra forcefulness to your posts...

Posted by James F. Elliott | January 2, 2007 7:39 PM

The point about extending refugee status to Iraqis who have thrown in their lots with the US has to made forcefully and publicly, over and over, and it has to find both a popular constituency and figures in Congress committed to pushing it on the agenda. It will be the final filthy indignity if we betray those Iraqis who did bet on the US and stand up for secular democracy, and allow them to be slaughtered.

Imagine the US in 1975 turning its back on the South Vietnamese who had fought with us for 20 years, or turning away the Vietnamese boat people in the late '70s. Surely there must be some people in America who can't bear to see this final humiliating act of moral squalor take place.

Posted by brooksfoe | January 2, 2007 8:57 PM

Throwing good money after bad, metaphorically speaking. The "money" includes many lives.

Posted by epistemology | January 2, 2007 9:01 PM

Andrew Sullivan stands for nothing if not the elite consensus,

Really? Elite consensus did a 180 on the war because Bush decided to oppose gay marriage? Who knew?

Posted by Al | January 2, 2007 10:35 PM

Well, Al - how about Tom Friedman? Fareed Zakaria? David Ignatius? As far as I know, these are important centrist "elite consensus" pundits who once supported the war who have expressed the same view.

Posted by Ben P | January 2, 2007 11:47 PM

"Really? Elite consensus did a 180 on the war because Bush decided to oppose gay marriage? Who knew?"

How in the world is the subject related to the predicate? What is the relation of this statement in the form of a question to the premise of the blog entry. Is this an "argument?" How are Sullivan/Yglesias wrong? What facts and/or conclusions have they made that are incorrect?

At first, I thought Al was an idiot, but in reality, he is pretty wily. He does not even bother to argue the issue at hand..rather, he just throws up some weird "inflammatory" (to him) assertion of some unrelated ancillary "librul" issue and walks away as the crowd responds in a lather to the issue Al raises.

Here is an assertion for you, Al. You are a traitor. You are harming this country by supporting policies that are not just "wrong," but in most rationally moral people, objectively evil. You are doing it by throwing up metaphorical "smoke screens" to prevent the "people" from discussing the choices of their leaders and holding them accountable. Good luck with that.

Posted by Jack | January 3, 2007 2:04 AM

I have to agree - Andrew is not part of the elite consensus. He's still getting published (a little), but he never was that big compared to the guys who have to juggle TV appearances. Those guys still support the war - most likely because it costs them nothing to do so, no matter how wrong they are, and those who turn against the war jeapardize their elite status. Remember, it's not being wrong that gets one shunned.

Posted by Barry | January 3, 2007 9:30 AM

> I have to agree - Andrew is not part of
> the elite consensus.

Sullivan is a Useful Idiot for the Radical Right. Whenever they need a "house liberal" or "house gay" that they can point to to prove how open and inclusive the Radicals really are they use Sullivan - who never fails to disappoint by producing a backstabbing column on cue.

But the idea that Sullivan has that he is "one of them" and will some day be accepted by the DC elite, much less the Republican elite? Laughable.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 3, 2007 9:35 AM

The short (and unfortunate) answer to the arguments over the costs associated with withdrawal from Iraq is -- (1) The Bush Administration should have considered those obvious problems before getting into this mess (after all, the same problems were obvious to Bush Sr.); and (2) it was clear to anyone who bothered to look, that the Iraq situation was deteriorating at numerous instances over the past years, but the Bush administration consistantly ignored the growing problems even though the problems might have been fixable at those times.

Stated differently, the whole thing boils down to an arguement as follows -- If the US doesn't fix the unfixable mess that the Bush administration has gotten us into, there will continue to be bad consequences for the US.

The answer? Yes, and it's a damn shame too. But that's where we are. Everyone knows that the "personal responsibility" buffs aren't about to take responsibility for their mistakes, so its up to the rest of us to minimize the growing damage of a horrible situation that is getting worse by the day.

Posted by Steve | January 3, 2007 9:45 AM

Well, Al - how about Tom Friedman? Fareed Zakaria? David Ignatius? As far as I know, these are important centrist "elite consensus" pundits who once supported the war who have expressed the same view.

Oh, I agree that there are plenty of "elite consensus" types that used to support the war and now want to get out. People like Friedman and Zakaria really are good examples. I think supporters of the war are down to the true believers (myself among them), and not the go-along-to-get-along crowd any more.

I just disagreed that Sullivan is an "elite consensus" type. He's not into trying to fit in to the consensus; the only thing he's for is (as the Corner puts it) The Party of Andrew. Taking Sullivan seriously for any foreign policy discussion is foolish, IMO - anybody who would change his views on foreign policy because Bush opposed gay marriage is not worth listening to.

Posted by Al | January 3, 2007 9:57 AM

anybody who would change his views on foreign policy because Bush opposed gay marriage is not worth listening to

Taken as a general claim, that's certainly plausible. Taken as an accusation against Sullivan, it's ridiculous. Do you have even one shred of evidence that Sullivan's current stance on the war is motivated by Bush's position on gay marriage?

Posted by live | January 3, 2007 11:39 AM

Someone remind me, why does Al think he's worth listening to?

Posted by Barry | January 3, 2007 1:03 PM

I've read a lot of Andrew over the last few years and although I think he writes a lot of crap (mainly wrt economic policy), and that he can be a pompous blowhard at times, I do give him props as an independent thinker. He has his own compass and, agree with him or not, is often very interesting.

To say that he stands for the elite consensus is way off.

To say that he changed his mind on the war because of gay marriage is a typical Republican ad hominem attack.

Posted by miguel | January 3, 2007 1:08 PM