Victory

Justin Logan notes neoconservative Eli Lake's Bloggingheadsed definition of "victory" in Iraq as "“avoiding a competitive, confessional genocide."

I continue to want to point out that there's no particular reason to believe that the alternative to an endless US military presence in Iraq is genocide. As Daniel Chirot & Clark McCauley point out in their excellent study Why Not Kill Them All? The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder, genocide is by no means the typical response to civil conflict between ethnic groups and the odds of a particular conflict avoiding a degeneration to that point can be significantly enhanced by outside actors without resort to direct armed intervention.

Comments

The reason that genocide is the only alternative to open-ended U.S. military occupation is that if it isn't the only alternative, it is impossible for war supporters to continue justifying our presence in Iraq. Other reasons to be there were invalidated early on (Saddam had WMDs, Saddam had Al Quaeda links) and subsequent reasons have fallen short as well (promoting democracy, nation building, creating a society without the terror that accompanied Saddam's rule). The only way to justify us being there is to say that if we weren't there, things would be much much worse (i.e., there would be genocide). So whether or not genocide is a likely outcome, it must be the only alternate scenario that war supporters can discuss.

But it's a risky political stance because if preventing genocide becomes your reason for military force, then an Iraq war hawk morally must support sending the military into Sudan.

Posted by RWB | August 10, 2007 10:35 AM

I've always been against the Iraq war, I'm not a hawk, I think the UN should (have) stop(ped) the genocide in Sudan by military means, I think genocide is a not unlikely outcome in Iraq (they're killing each other already, no?), I'm for withdrawal, but withdrawal alone cannot be the solution.

Posted by novakant | August 10, 2007 10:58 AM

So what is it you want the military to do in Sudan? Back the JEM? Back the SPLA? I don't see the point. Roll the Kartoum government and hang out and get shot at Iraq style? Faster, please. I really don't think the "Save Darfur" bombers have a handle on what is going on there, or they are just way too attached to the idea that the U.S. military can solve any problem.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 10, 2007 11:20 AM

I don't know that I want the U.S. military to intervene in Sudan, and don't claim to be wise enough to know what the right answer there is. What I was trying to say, however, is that if genocide prevention is a war supporter's justification for staying in Iraq, then that supporter should support something at least as forceful to stop the genocide in Sudan, with or without UN support. Whether that is a military invasion or something else, I don't know.

Posted by RWB | August 10, 2007 11:29 AM

Let's say we pull out and the Iraqis start killing eachother by the tens of thousands. Do we go back in or just let it happen?

Posted by Dave | August 10, 2007 11:47 AM

It's also worth noting that under that definition, we had achieved victory in February, 2003. It's only when Bush started the war that the possibility of loosing began.

Posted by Stephen Frug | August 10, 2007 12:29 PM

I really don't think the "Save Darfur" bombers have a handle on what is going on there

So what does your incredibly informed and nunanced view of the matter amount to - doing nothing? Swell!

Guess the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is not worth the paper it's written on.

Posted by novakant | August 10, 2007 1:30 PM

While you make a good point here, Matt, everyone should still ask themselves: IF a genocide does get started, should we take action to stop it, or let it happen? And how far will we be willing to go before giving up?

Posted by Adam Herman | August 10, 2007 4:46 PM

Want to prevent genocide in Darfur: pick a faction and then get about it.

Posted by Bob's your uncle | August 11, 2007 6:24 AM

Rwanda was FUBAR too - that didn't stop Romeo Dallaire and Phillipe Gaillard. Your cynicism on the other hand is completely worthless.

Posted by novakant | August 11, 2007 8:25 AM