Know When to Fold 'Em

"There is a broad consensus, from McCain/Lieberman, to Friedman/Pollack, even to Zinni/Batiste, that the consequences of an Iraq withdrawal, precipitate or otherwise, are profoundly dismal," writes Gregory Djerejian, "But would quitting Iraq, over 20 months, say (logistics likely require such a protracted time-frame), be so terrible, unleashing regional conflict, genocide and other horribles?" His answer is "perhaps not" and I'd recommend his entire post.

Another way of making the point is, as Atrios suggested yesterday, with reference to the concept of "sunk costs." Most of the bad consequences that will or might follow from withdrawal are, in fact, costs that have already been incurred. It's true, for example, that our credibility will take a hit, but there's genuinely nothing we can do to avoid that. Clearly, deploying our Pony Locator would avoid it, but had we a working model it would have been deployed long ago at this point. Moving to withdraw our forces as soon as that's practical, by contrast, lets us move as swiftly as possible to damage control and trying to rebuild our assets (military, diplomatic, etc.) around the world.

Comments

I don't care for this post because you buy into the idea that it is the withdrawing that brings the cost. Indeed, it it NOT the withdrawing. The catastrophe already occurred.

As you write:

"Most of the bad consequences that will or might follow from withdrawal are, in fact, costs that have already been incurred."

All we are doing now is PRETENDING we have not ALREADY incurred those costs and now some will pretend that it will be the withdrawing thst causes the catatrophe.

It is disappointing to see you buy into that type of thinking. Consider your next line:

" It's true, for example, that our credibility will take a hit, but there's genuinely nothing we can do to avoid that."

What credibility Matt? Do you seriously think the US will have any credibility as long as Bush is President?

Frankly, I find this to be one of your poorest posts in some time. I can not explain what you could be thinking here.

Posted by Armando | July 21, 2007 1:26 PM

Armando... Making counterarguments does not equal "buying into" the arguments you're countering.

On another point, it's nice that people who argued forcefully for the war and didn't consider the possibility of horrible consequences are now arguing about purported horrible consequences of getting out but not the positive (or at least less bad) consequences of regrouping and rebuilding our military. How "Serious" of them.

All but the mosgt wingnutty seem to have decided that whatever consequences will come of us staying in, Iraq will still be a disaster for the US and the region.

Armando is right that the US won't have credibility as long as Bush is president (and for long thereafter). Still, at least Bush should be made to clean up his friggin' mess for once in his life, rather than leaving a difficult and arduous withdrawal to his successor.

Posted by blatherskite | July 21, 2007 1:45 PM

Blatherskite:

I did not see counterarguments developed by Matt. Certainly not in an effective eway. I did noy care for Djerjian's piece precisely because he did not accept that the catastrophe has already occurred. I think matt's recommendation implies a level of agreement that is erroneous.

Let me put it bluntly, as someone who comments here with more frequency than just about at any site than my own, TalkLeft, who links to Matt a great deal, because of his excellent work, I expected better.

Consider my comment constructive criticism.

Posted by Armando | July 21, 2007 1:57 PM

The prediction that the Iraqis will be worse off if we withdraw than if we stay is like the "domino theory": the prediction made during the Vietnam War that if we withdraw from Vietnam, South East Asia will turn communist. It is like the domino theory in three ways: (1) It is the establishment view. (2) It is justified by slogans and anecdotes, not by analytic arguments. (3) It entails that we won't leave for a very long time. If we did withdraw we might learn that it's like the domino theory in a fourth way: It's false.

Posted by PeterE | July 21, 2007 2:26 PM

I think the mood in the country, at least, has already shifted the question, which should be about ways and means of withdrawing. Staying is not a serious option. You can't continue spending 100 billion dollars a year on a project that is opposed by the vast majority of the citizenry. It hasn't happened yet, at least, in the U.S.

The idea of 20 months seems way too spaced out. It should be 12 to 16 months, clearly. There are major problems that include what to do about the executive branch. Bush clearly will try to block any withdrawal. He will also clearly try to set up conditions that will make withdrawal more difficult - for instance, he will try to stir up al qaeda in Iraq, he will try to draw a more aggressive response from Iran, etc. His strategy is to trap the American forces in Iraq, and this has to be confronted squarely. The one and only advantage I see to the idea of Impeaching Bush is that it would seriously limit his ability to make trouble in Iraq. Are there other ways to block him? He has to be blocked before anything constructive can happen in terms of political negotiation.

Posted by roger | July 21, 2007 2:38 PM

roger, given, Deborah Tornello's ("litbrit") post at Ezra Klein, we may be at the point of no return on impeachment. See Impeachment Matters - Even More at: http://tinyurl.com/24yd6x

Posted by mk | July 21, 2007 2:58 PM

Before the war, we were told we couldn't stay out of Iraq without dire consequences. Now we're told we can't leave Iraq without dire consequences. Sheesh!

Funny the $12 billion per month we're borrowing from China and the troops whose lives are being snuffed out every day don't count as dire consequences.

If bad things happen after we leave it will be the doing of the Iraqi people, NOT ours. Enough with the guilt trips!

Posted by kafka | July 21, 2007 3:08 PM

Arab Iraq is going to be dominated by Shiites, who have no truck with Al Qaeda, and as Arabs, are not going to submit to domination by Persians. I don't see how Al Qaeda is going to get a sanctuary out of our withdrawal. The only question is how many more innocents die as the Shiites crush the Sunnis.

Posted by bob h | July 21, 2007 4:28 PM

Matt's argument might be persuasive were it not for pesky details like Petreus is making demonstrable progress on the ground. I do not think the center of political gravity in this country is willing to tolerate helicopters on the roof of our embassy if the Lieberman/McCain/Zinni group can plausibly say we are finally on track to in someway partially salvaging this screw-up. And for those that don't think it can get any worse, review what happened when Israel pulled out of South Lebanon a month before scheduled, not to mention Gaza...the weak horse in that part of the world attracts vultures that want to get in on picking it's carcass...

Posted by wayne s | July 22, 2007 7:58 AM