George Packer

He was wrong about getting into the war and then did an about face, criticizing the administration for getting into the war and failing to execute it. Now we have part two. Packer's position is a pretty good representation of the Lieberman wing of the nutbar party. "Iraq's a mess but if we leave it will be a mess too! So let's stay until it's not a mess".

The liberal blogosphere jokingly calls this wishing for ponies. Packer, appropriately, tears down some of the simplest arguments for withdrawing for Iraq. Indeed, anyone promising that stability will rein after the U.S. withdraws is also pony wishing. As I've ranted before, it's a disaster either way. But what politician in their right mind can say, "hey, we need to withdraw from Iraq so it can be a disaster!". If you'll remember, when we withdrew from Vietnam, there was a distinct period of "disaster" and "cleansing" that went on before the nation was able to settle into a new stability. Indeed, Bush of all people, actually hit on this wisdom in his recent visit proclaiming that Vietnam was an example to be modeled in Iraq. Of course in his stupidity, he had no idea that he was making the case for those advocating withdrawal.

Any plan put forth will have to at least publically offer a promise for "success", while the proponents (if they have their heads on straight) know that success is not gonna happen. ALL plans currently put forth will have that same flaw ... promising some opportunity for success ... lending them to widespread appropriate criticism because there simply aren't any ponies to be had in Iraq.

The only solution is to take our medicine. We fucked up the entire region and are powerless to do anything about it. Maybe someday when the U.S. is no longer radioactive we can be a factor, just like we're exploring with Vietnam. Staying will only prolong the agony that is inevitable now and postpone that future. The Iraq "leaders" and the regional leaders who are very local to the scene and politics will have to solve the violence. The need for this will not become clearly apparent until the West is out.

So Mr. Packer, you were wrong at first and you continue to be wrong now. Stop looking for ponies, break down your denial, and accept your medicine.

Note: Interestingly, as soon as I put this post up, I went to read William Arkin who is discussing the same topic. He reaches the same conclusion, but from the point of view that the math simply won't work for deploying more forces to Iraq. We simply don't have the manpower and it wouldn't work anyway. Maybe Packer needs the link.

Update: Josh Marshall asks an interesting question. How does it affect our international standing to double down on a losing proposition?