Paul Krugman today says that it’s time to leave Iraq. He may be right or wrong but his reasoning seems suspect:
And time is running out. With some military units on
their third tour of duty in Iraq, the superb volunteer army that Mr.
Bush inherited is in increasing danger of facing a collapse in quality
and morale similar to the collapse of the officer corps in the early
1970’s.
That collapse in the 70s, umm, didn’t it come from lefties at home insisting that the Army were a bunch of murderous fascists who had been beaten in battle?
Telling warriors to come home for their own safety ain’t quite the way to build morale either.
He also flirts with the vilest of ideas:
Mr. Bush never asked the nation for the sacrifices — higher taxes, a bigger military and, possibly, a revived draft
A draft? Conscription? That gross and disgusting idea that the lives of the citzenry are for the State to dispose of? No, far better a voluntary military. If retention and recruitment levels do fall, below the numbers needed, then the citizenry will have decided themselves that it is not worth fighting. You remember that line, what if they held a war and no one turned up? Volunteers can do that, helots enslaved by the State cannot.
Tag paul krugman
Not long ago wise heads offered some advice to those of us who had
argued since 2003 that the Iraq war was sold on false pretenses: give
it up. The 2004 election, they said, showed that we would never
convince the American people. They suggested that we stop talking about
how we got into Iraq and focus instead on what to do next.
It turns out that the wise heads were wrong. A solid majority of
Americans now believe that we were misled into war. And it is only now,
when the public has realized the truth about the past, that serious
discussions about where we are and where we’re going are able to get a
hearing.
Representative John Murtha’s speech calling for a quick departure from
Iraq was full of passion, but it was also serious and specific in a way
rarely seen on the other side of the debate. President Bush and his
apologists speak in vague generalities about staying the course and
finishing the job. But Mr. Murtha spoke of mounting casualties and
lagging recruiting, the rising frequency of insurgent attacks, stagnant
oil production and lack of clean water.
Mr. Murtha — a much-decorated veteran who cares deeply about America’s
fighting men and women — argued that our presence in Iraq is making
things worse, not better. Meanwhile, the war is destroying the military
he loves. And that’s why he wants us out as soon as possible.
I’d add that the war is also destroying America’s moral authority. When
Mr. Bush speaks of human rights, the world thinks of Abu Ghraib. (In
his speech, Mr. Murtha pointed out the obvious: torture at Abu Ghraib
helped fuel the insurgency.) When administration officials talk of
spreading freedom, the world thinks about the reality that much of Iraq
is now ruled by theocrats and their militias.
Some administration officials accused Mr. Murtha of undermining the
troops and giving comfort to the enemy. But that sort of thing no
longer works, now that the administration has lost the public’s trust.
Instead, defenders of our current policy have had to make a substantive
argument: we can’t leave Iraq now, because a civil war will break out
after we’re gone. One is tempted to say that they should have thought
about that possibility back when they were cheerleading us into this
war. But the real question is this: When, exactly, would be a good time
to leave Iraq?
The fact is that we’re not going to stay in Iraq until we achieve
victory, whatever that means in this context. At most, we’ll stay until
the American military can take no more.
Mr. Bush never asked the nation for the sacrifices — higher taxes, a
bigger military and, possibly, a revived draft — that might have made
a long-term commitment to Iraq possible. Instead, the war has been
fought on borrowed money and borrowed time. And time is running out.
With some military units on their third tour of duty in Iraq, the
superb volunteer army that Mr. Bush inherited is in increasing danger
of facing a collapse in quality and morale similar to the collapse of
the officer corps in the early 1970’s.
So the question isn’t whether things will be ugly after American forces
leave Iraq. They probably will. The question, instead, is whether it
makes sense to keep the war going for another year or two, which is all
the time we realistically have.
Pessimists think that Iraq will fall into chaos whenever we leave. If
so, we’re better off leaving sooner rather than later. As a Marine
officer quoted by James Fallows in the current Atlantic Monthly puts
it, ”We can lose in Iraq and destroy our Army, or we can just lose.”
And there’s a good case to be made that our departure will actually
improve matters. As Mr. Murtha pointed out in his speech, the
insurgency derives much of its support from the perception that it’s
resisting a foreign occupier. Once we’re gone, the odds are that
Iraqis, who don’t have a tradition of religious extremism, will turn on
fanatical foreigners like Zarqawi.
The only way to justify staying in Iraq is to make the case that
stretching the U.S. army to its breaking point will buy time for
something good to happen. I don’t think you can make that case
convincingly. So Mr. Murtha is right: it’s time to leave.
Leave a Reply