Letting Go of Iraq

Recently I've been trying to come up with a clear and consice summary of my views on why we need to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. As if right on cue, The Atlantic's James Fallows has done the heavy lifting for me:

So the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse. The terrible decision is just to begin leaving, knowing that even more innocent civilians will be killed and that we’ll be dealing with agitation out of Iraq for years to come. The worse decision would be to wait another year, or two, or three and then take that terrible course. If we thought a longer commitment and presence would lead to a better outcome, then the extra commitment might be sensible. But nothing occurring in Iraq in the last year has given rise to any hope that things are getting better rather than worse. (This, by the way, is the reason I have changed my mind: the absence of evidence that the chances for a “decent” departure will improve.)

In refutation of this view, a vociferous chorus of neocons and liberal hawks are arguing that we need to make a last ditch effort to save Iraq by plugging another 20,000-50,000 troops into the cyclonic shitstorm that is Baghdad. This is of course ridiculous and doesn't deserve serious consideration. First, in terms of American domestic politics, it simply ain't gonna happen. Second, and more importantly, it naively assumes that all our problems in Iraq can be chalked up to a lack of security. The unrelenting cycle of blood-letting between Sunni and Shia, however, has taken on a life of its own. Adding more troops now isn't likely to ameliorate the fundamental social and political divisions that are tearing Iraq apart. In fact, given that not even the Iraqi Shia want us in their country anymore, it seems more likely that an influx of Amerian troops would only serve to exacerbate the situation.

Hat Tip: Matt

Posted by Kingston