MyDD :: Josh Marshall is wrong on Iraq

Josh Marshall is wrong on Iraq

by Alan S, Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 04:45:50 PM EST

Josh Marshall has a thoughtful piece on Iraq up here. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_26.php#003532

But he is wrong when he says, "Unfortunately, I don't think we're in a position to just pull up stakes and leave the place. We're in a position something like that a surgeon might face if he started an operation only to realize once he'd cut the patient open that the operation should never have been attempted. But now the patient's gone critical and he's got to stabilize him and close him up without having him die on the operating table."

While an analogy in which Iraq is a sick patient and the U.S. is a skilled surgeon is highly questionable to begin with, to be somewhat accurate, it should go like this.

We're in a position a surgeon might face if he started an operation only to realize every organ and piece of flesh he touched became infected with virulent bacteria, and every time he tried to clean it up, he only spread the infection and made it worse. He realizes, after a while, the only thing he can do is step away and hope someone else can save the patient's life.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 9 Comments :: Post a Comment

Incomplete analogy (none / 0)

The surgeon's choice is quickly sew up the patient or to perform the surgury anyway. We should pull out the instruments and suture.

by Terp on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 05:00:02 PM EST

Radical options needed (none / 0)

It is very clear that nothing will improve if we just keep on doing what we been doing. We have no ability to extend security and authortity into areas currently beyond our control without the risk that we are merely trading one small violent ciry for another. In fact, instability and violence are spreading rapidly, and may even overtake the election.

There are only two courses of action:
(1) admit failure and leave
(2) conjure at least another 150,000+ troops from somewhere to make a new effort at stabilization.

Shinseki and the rest of the experienced nation-builders said we'd want at least 250,000 troops on the ground. We probably need more than that now since we lost our best opportunity to incompentence immediately after to war. But at a minimum, we need to demonstrate that we are committed to providing security in the areas already under our nominal control. Some of these troops may come from our allies, but the large majority will have to be Americans.

Without that kind of committment, there is simply no way for things to get better. The Iraqi economy won't grow, there won't be jobs for the insurgents or the general public, there won't be any substantial oil revenue while contractors are getting killed and pipelines sabotaged...

When we leave, there will be a civil war. Tens of thousands will die in the fighting, in the tribal vendettas and ethnic cleansing, and in the aftermath as the victors impose order and the remaining insurgents refuse to give up. The country will split into at least two, maybe three pieces. There may be wider regional wars involving Syria, Iran, Turkey, and the Kurds.

Because the cost of pulling out is so high, I think we need to make a serious attempt to provide security. It's not a good solution, but then there are no good solutions.

by Silent E on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 05:29:16 PM EST

Re: Radical options needed (none / 0)

Curse you, Kevin Drum!

In Iraq alone, there's virtually unanimous agreement that we're too undermanned to successfully fight the growing insurgency there, which means there are only two realistic options: pull out or increase troop levels. "Staying the course" is a recipe for defeat.

by Silent E on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 05:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A power vacuum would be filled.... (none / 0)

by likely the our worst possible enemy sitting on top of the largest oil reserve known.

It was entire reason for NOT going to war. If we screwed the pooch (which we are) the results will be much worse than Saddam.

I hate to disagree with people on my first dd post (I'm a kos transplant), but we are committed. We need some help in Iraq, but pulling out would be catastrophic.

by Zubalove on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 06:52:58 PM EST

Win or lose, (5.00 / 1)

this worries me.

If we win this election, many on our side will seek to withdraw -- which, I agree with you, would create a greater national security threat and haven for terrorists than under Saddam. This isn't support of the President -- it is the responsible course of action, even though I opposed this invasion to begin with.

Meanwhile, if we win, I suspect that the GOP will face pressure from some in the grass roots to nominate a quasi-isolationist nominee. Before you laugh, remember that 1) those instincts have favor in the GOP (Buchanan) and 2) they will reflexively be opposed to anything John Kerry, including his internationalist foreign policy.

If we lose, well, there's lots to worry about. This Admin. seems to think that burying one's head in the sand, provided it is topped by an American flag, is an adequate solution.

But what about us? Where does the Left go? Do we become isolationists just in response to Bush's remarkable incompetence? I hope not, but I have a feeling that may be the case.

Whatever happens, I worry that the tradition of both parties acceptance of an internationalist foreign policy is gone. One party might shed it, as soon as four years from now.

by ChrisR on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 07:48:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Win or lose, (none / 0)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant to say staying "is the responsible course of action, even though I opposed this invasion to begin with.

by ChrisR on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 07:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Get over it (none / 0)

I'll say here what I always say on this topic: the US is going to leave Iraq. The issue is only whether that happens sooner (less dead people, US and Iraqi, who will be charged to our fault) or later (more dead people, US and Iraqi, who will be charged to our fault.)

There aren't any winning options -- the sooner we understand that, the better.

Let's get Kerry elected and then we'll have to pummel him on this, as he'l be afraid to "lose Iraq," something Bush has already accomplished.

Can It Happen Here?

by janinsanfran on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:30:22 PM EST

Re: Get over it (none / 0)

Exactly right, which is why I objected to Josh's arrogant analogy. As if we are expert surgeons, able to cure the patients in the world. This is exactly Bush's delusion.

by Alan S on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get over it (none / 0)

Don't forget that, in fact, we could have done a LOT better in Iraq than we did. There WERE plans for reconstruction and security. There WERE assessments predicting looting, violence, and widespread hostility, and that also offered policies to prevent or reduce them. There WERE thoughtful, experienced, career military officers and policy wonks who knew what it would take for a successful rebuilding and how many troops we'd need.

Failure was not a foregone conclusion. It only occurred after the plans were discarded, the intelligence assessments ignored and massaged, and the military officers fired or ridiculed.

War to depose Saddam Hussein was not an intrinsically bad idea.
But THIS war, at THIS time, by THIS president, with THIS defense-security gang of idiots... was a bad idea.

by Silent E on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 09:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.