Underestimation

I don't really know how to respond to Jason Zengerle trotting out the hearty chestnut that proponents of withdrawal from Iraq such as myself are in danger of "underestimat[ing] the consequences of it." I had a draft of a long post written. I decided to delete it. I don't see a point in getting tied down in side issues about who is and isn't being too cavalier about what. I'll just say that my opposition to prolonging or escalating the American military deployment in Iraq has nothing to do with optimism about the consequences of withdrawal and everything do to with pessimism about the efficacy of either "surging" or staying the course.

If Zengerle -- or Joe Klein or whomever -- has an argument in favor of surging that he'd like to present, I'll happily respond to it but it's weird to just debate tone with people who are disinclined to reach a judgment on the substantive issue at hand.

Comments

"weird" is a rather generous way of characterizing the insipid argument that zengerle has put on display for us, and it's certainly way too generous for joe klein, who is an arrogant SOB who should thank his lucky stars that pundits still have tenure....

and yes, you were right to delete the longer post: phony debate points intended to prove that jason zengerle is serious and you're not don't deserve much more than the back-of-the-hand treatment.

Posted by howard | January 10, 2007 12:03 AM

My favorite part is this:

what withdrawal will mean? What will it do to our position in the world? What will it do to the national psyche? And what will it do to the people who fought in that war? (Yes, they'll be out of harm's way, but they'll also be left to conclude that all their efforts--and their sacrifices--were in vain.)

How many times do you think he's seen Braveheart?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 10, 2007 12:25 AM

"If Zengerle -- or Joe Klein or whomever -- has an argument in favor of surging that he'd like to present, I'll happily respond to it but it's weird to just debate tone with people who are disinclined to reach a judgment on the substantive issue at hand."

I don't disagree with this in the least.

That said, I do think it's worth keeping in mind that fundamental decisions about Iraq are out of our power until the next elections. And in the meantime, tone is the most important debate we'll have.

Posted by Petey | January 10, 2007 12:33 AM

petey, i'm not saying that tone is unimportant, but isn't your last paragraph a critique of the limitations of "tone?"

Posted by howard | January 10, 2007 12:57 AM

We've lost the war. Specifically, Pres. G W Bush took us into a war and lost it. There is no more need to discuss what will happen if we lose it, or how bad things will be for the national psyche if we lose it. Pundits who fail to recognize this should lose their "reality based community" cards.

Posted by Homechef | January 10, 2007 1:02 AM

By "hearty chestnut," of course, you mean "hoary chestnut."

Posted by bruballaska | January 10, 2007 1:08 AM

Or "hardy chestnut".

Posted by Vance Maverick | January 10, 2007 1:25 AM

No, no, unfortunately neither "hearty chestnut" or "hardy chestnut" is acceptable. :P

Posted by bruballaska | January 10, 2007 1:38 AM

Yes the consequences are BAD. And its too BAD that Bush and Rumsfeldt didn't consider the BAD consequences before rushing in with too few troops (despite Colin Powell's advice to the contrary). And its too BAD that Bush and Rumsfeldt didn't consider the predictable and BAD consequences before deciding to ignore riots, looting and chaos (Democracy can be messy).

Yes it's a horrible situation in Iraq. And every month we stay it gets worse for Iraquis and Americans. Mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake.

No one -- NO ONE -- can fix the damage that has been done. But we can damn sure limit the amount of additional damage. And if Bush and the Wingnuts don't have the intelligence or human decency to do that, then so be it. But if they want to try to blame someone else for their mistakes afterwards, I for one have not problem telling them to STFU.

Posted by Steve | January 10, 2007 2:14 AM

The point is that this "chestnut" is old, and whether we choose to express that by calling it durable ("hardy") or grizzled with age ("hoary") is of little moment.

Posted by Vance Maverick | January 10, 2007 2:34 AM

Google "hardy chestnut" -- 112 matches, almost all about how hardy chestnut trees are. "Hardy old chestnut" -- 35. "Hoary chestnut" -- 653. "Hoary old chestnut" -- 18,300.

If we care at all about the future of the English language, and I believe we do, we must reject all misinterpretations of "hoary chestnut." This issue eclipses whatever may happen to Iraq in its ultimate significance. Would we stand for it if MY started spouting stuff like "To every thing there is a seasoning?" If he decried our military's "periodic victories"? What if MY accused someone of committing the "two qua okay" fallacy? No, no, we must stand our ground here or risk looking week fourever moor.

Posted by bruballaska | January 10, 2007 3:13 AM

meh, both sides of the debate in the US are engaged in excessive navel-gazing, how about shifting the focus from 'staying the course', 'surging' or 'leaving' to this:

what can we do to prevent ethnic cleansing/genocide in Iraq

P.S. certainly it's "hairy chestnut" (Castanopsis concinna)

Posted by novakant | January 10, 2007 6:22 AM

Forget the chestnuts--I fear this surge will only lead to an empirical victory.

Posted by Kuz | January 10, 2007 8:12 AM

-> novakant

There you go again. Ethnic cleansing and genocide have ALREADY taken place in Iraq - while Bush was sleeping.

Nevertheless Sunnis are relatively safe in the Sunni portion of Iraq; Sheites are relatively safe in the Sheite portion and Kurds are relatively safe in the Kurd portion. Those groups will inevitably split Iraq into three separate countries (just as it used to be) once we leave. Bush won't let that be done so long as we are there.

Posted by Steve | January 10, 2007 8:19 AM

That said, I do think it's worth keeping in mind that fundamental decisions about Iraq are out of our power until the next elections. And in the meantime, tone is the most important debate we'll have.

I'm sympathetic to this acknowledgement, but I think the biggest tonal issue that we have is forming a united front. If the Democrats and the left can make clear that this surge is a political ploy, that it is Bush's idea, that's good for the Democrats, and right now, good for hte Democrats == good for the troops and good for America.

Thus, if we've got a group of leading Democrats who won't even oppose this cravenly political escalation of an unwinnable war, the most important tonal issue is winning them back into the camp, so that they don't give "bipartisan" cover to the escalation.

Now, one could say that Zengerle and TNR are hardly the most important targets in such a fight, and TNR is gonna stick with the crazed, barfing neocon horse what brung 'em, but I think that on issues of "tone", making clear that escalation is political, partisan, and an expression of the Bush/McCain doctrine is the most important goal.

Posted by DivGuy | January 10, 2007 8:22 AM

I think he had a point with respect to your giving Gen. Petraeus the career advice to stay out of Baghdad despite your belief that Petraeus is the best commander for the job.

Of course, that would be moot unless you believe the "surge" is capable of having positive consequences.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | January 10, 2007 9:53 AM

Remind me again why anyone should care what Zengerle (let alone Klein) thinks about anything?

He's increasingly Althousian. (Speaking of which, WTF was Yglesias doing talking with Althouse? Aren't there better things to do? Trim one's nose hair or something?)

Posted by Anderson | January 10, 2007 10:05 AM

(Speaking of which, WTF was Yglesias doing talking with Althouse? Aren't there better things to do? Trim one's nose hair or something?)

Maybe he was trying to influence American public opinion.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | January 10, 2007 10:25 AM

I'd like to add to DivGuy's comment by saying that the left also needs to continue to hammer John McCain for his own support for the "surge" (as John Edwards is doing).

Posted by Barringer | January 10, 2007 10:25 AM

TNR is part of the group that's been lying and bullsh*tting us about this war, beforehand, and which has been lying and bullsh*tting us about how this war has been going.

They will continued to lie and bullsh*t us until they have a change of heart, or the end of time.

I know which one I'd bet on.

Matt, TNR is probably a place that you've had your eye on for several years, in terms of your career. Right now, they're an also-ran to the AEI. Give up on them, unless and until Peretz sells it.

Posted by Barry | January 10, 2007 10:38 AM

It seems to me the likeliest outcome of withdrawal over there is more of what is already happening.

But not so many people seem to be talking about what might happen over here.

Some kind of crisis of the state can't I think be ruled out entirely.

Posted by Linus | January 10, 2007 11:56 AM

Maybe he was trying to influence American public opinion.

Because MY has no other way of doing that, besides comparing his credibility to that of Althouse. Now I understand.

Posted by Anderson | January 10, 2007 12:35 PM

Yes, when the American forces pull out, Iraq will probably quickly go to Hell in a handbasket. But it has been slowly going to Hell in a handbasket for the last three years. I don't see any point in continuing to lose American lives and tax dollars just to slow the descent.

Is there a chance that the surge will bring about victory? Well, isn't there a chance that faced with a withdrawl of American forces, the Iraqis will start taking seriously the job of providing security to their own country? The latter seems to me to be more likely than the former.

Posted by Dennis_D | January 10, 2007 1:07 PM

Steve, you ain't seen nothing yet

Posted by novakant | January 10, 2007 3:47 PM

novakant -- You obviously have no idea what is actually going on in Iraq. I think you would find that most Iraqis would strongly disagree with your characterization of the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing as "nothing".

The bottom line on any plan is that only the Iraqis, themselves, can stop their civil war. There are proposals to minimize the ethnic/civil war bloodshed by splitting Iraq into three countries. Those proposals have a chance to succeed. Committing 20,000 additional troops to an existing force of 135,000-140,000 is only a minor troop increase (~15%) and clearly can only make a minor difference in stopping the Iraqis from killing each other.

If you just want to whine that Democrats won't be able to fix the ongoing Bush-created civil war in Iraq (which cannot be completely "fixed" by any stretch of the imagination), then you are part of the problem. If you have a solution, then let's hear it.

Posted by Steve | January 10, 2007 4:24 PM

"Matt, TNR is probably a place that you've had your eye on for several years, in terms of your career. Right now, they're an also-ran to the AEI. Give up on them, unless and until Peretz sells it."

I thought he had already sold it, or most of it, to a couple of rich right-wingers, and was only the front-man now. Is this so?

Posted by Henderstock | January 10, 2007 9:04 PM

Steve, stop putting words into my mouth, it's neither very kind, nor very honest or constructive

The situation in Iraq is awful, I never said anything to the contrary. It's a civil war in which civilians are displaced and killed because of their ethniticity and religious affiliation and the situation isn't improving. Yet it is not yet on the scale of Nazi Germany, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia or Darfur, but that might well change if the US simply leaves without having launched an effort to reach a political solution involving the conflict parties, the regional powers and the international community. I see no indication at all that the Iraqis themselves would stop the civil war in any forseeable future.

Posted by novakant | January 11, 2007 7:15 AM

shompnb slcvpqby fhnpuoaj acnwbom lmonh reabky hbnfg

Posted by ulnmcjk rsehjmwkl | June 11, 2007 8:10 PM

cpvsxn icqzukyhn jnlafb denit cdmqw eflubrz nqzyad http://www.cdswuoij.tzmy.com

Posted by zhfqm gjdibfpx | June 11, 2007 8:11 PM