When Is It Smart to Cut and Run?

The Senate this weeks takes up debate on U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.  The House last week rejected a call to set a specific timetable, and the Senate will probably reject any measure that encourages or requires troop reductions.

Opponents of "cut-and-run" claim withdrawal now will lower world opinion of the U.S.; it would show we do not have courage of our convictions.   This view is not trivially dismissed; the world should think badly of the U.S. when it makes bad decisions.

But that merely begs the question: what is the right policy toward Iraq?  That depends on what effect our presence has on the prospects for peace and prosperity.   

My view is that U.S. presence hurts those prospects, partly because our presence is one source of conflict in Iraq, partly because our presence delays the kinds of reconciliation that are necessary before peace and prosperity can develop on their own.   In particular, my best guess is that Iraq will dissolve (further) into civil war once we leave, whether that departure is in a year, or five, or fifty.  That civil war will be costly to the Iraqis, but it is an unavoidable part of the transition to a better situation.

If my forecast is accurate, our continued presence generates large costs to the U.S. while harming Iraq. So, under this scenario, cut-and-run is the right policy.

Moreover, any observers who share this perspective will raise their opinion of the U.S. if we display the intelligence and guts to admit our mistake and do what we can to correct it.

Now, I cannot prove that the scenario I have described is the correct one. It seems the most likely one to me, but only the future can say for sure.

But this is the right question, not whether withdrawal looks weak or cowardly.  Perseverance in a misguided cause can only lower the world's opinion.  We look smarter and more courageous if we save our resources for battles that can and should be won.

Comments

[Telnar]

The problem with that model is that it isn't always clear whether a strategy will work.

I agree with you that credibility isn't advanced by investing in clearly unproductive policies.

There's an in-between case, though, where reasonable people can disagree about whether the policy will work. Since many real situations fall into that category, cutting and running from a policy which might or might not work risks creating the impression among observers that any policy of debatable merit won't be sustained if it's opposed with sufficient vigor.

That risks creating a situation where policies which would almost certainly succeed at little cost if opponents of the US knew that they would be pursued doggedly end up requiring great effort. That's a bad result whether or not we supply the necessary great effort.

I think that Iraq falls into that in-between case, and because the result will be important, it is worth maintaining effort not just while we're sure that we can win, but as long as it's plausible that we might.

[Mike Huben]

I'm amazed at the myopia that produces a dichotomous choice between staying and going.

The obvious third choice is to find an international solution, such as the UN. But that's ideological anathema to libertarians and other conservatives. They'd rather innumerable Iraqis died.

[James]

"The obvious third choice is to find an international solution, such as the UN."

What good would that do? If the UN were to get involved, they'd draft some resolution and want U.S. troops to stay around indefinitely enforcing it and there would be a handful of troops from other countries. We have the same thing now, just minus a new resolution.

"But that's ideological anathema to libertarians and other conservatives. They'd rather innumerable Iraqis died."

Bull. No libertarian wants the death of innumerable Iraqis. The people who want Iraquis dead are terrorists operating as footsoldiers for organizations that aspire to be come states.

[Mike Huben]

Ah, rebuttal by lack of imagination and lack of historical background.

The point is that Miron, Bush, and similar ilk will not bring up this alternative. Not because it is impractical, but because it conflicts with their ideological demands.

[Alan Brown]

Its ironic to me that Bush and company believe enough in democracy to force it upon others, but not enough to actually participate in an international with others on an equal footing.

Not that the UN is a democratic institution. Most of the real power is concentrated in the hands of very nations, one in particular.

The truth is that Bush and company are for corporate rule, both at home and abroad. Just look at their contributors. Not that the Democrats are that much different.