Don’t Misunderestimate the Anti-War Movement

20Mar08

Here is Matthew Yglesias discussing a Washington Post editorial earlier today.

Today’s Washington Post editorial on Iraq dedicated to slamming Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is really baffling. Their big point is that Democratic plans to withdraw troops from Iraq are somehow unrealistic or based on “fantasy” which seems to simply miss the contours of the argument. Expeditious departure of American forces from Iraq isn’t some counterintuitive plan to stabilize Iraq; rather, grounded in recognition that an open-ended U.S. military presence isn’t stabilizing Iraq either, it’s based on the strategic calculation that the nation’s resources and manpower should be deployed elsewhere.

That’s a point you could dispute, but Hiatt & co. don’t even acknowledge that this is the debate we’re having.

That, in a nutshell, is what’s so frustrating about the current state of debate regarding Iraq withdrawal. The whole pro war case is based on series on unstated assumptions that few people believe and often sound self evidently absurd. If you were in a debate club would you be excited about defending the idea that there is absolutely nothing better the US could expending its resources on then fighting in Iraq?

The occupation of Iraq only has tangible benefits when compared to counter factual doomsday scenarios.  Of course I don’t know what would happen if we leave Iraq. Nobody knows really knows what would happen under counter factual scenarios.

I suppose reasonable/intelligent people might believe that the most likely counter factual scenarios lead to worse outcomes then if we stayed. It would be nice if pro endless war folks could acknowledge that reasonable/intelligent people might not think the most likely scenarios for leaving Iraq are better then the alternatives.

Filed under: Politics, United States   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: Foreign Policy, George Bush, Iraq, Iraq War, Iraq Withdrawal, Matthew Yglesias