« John McCain Works Tirelessly -- For You! | Main | Introduction - Out of Order »

May 05, 2008

Comments

A vastly unpopular fringe of a 20% minority with limited resources can't take over a country when opposing groups have access to ample supplies of wealth and arms.

as anyone who reads righty blogs surely knows, once they take over Iraq, they'll be poised take over the US - with help from Nancy Pelosi, no less.

so, it's best not to take any chances.

Who exactly do they think will buy these condos? Although, the more I think about it, I'd be willing to donate to buy spots for Bush, Cheney, Kristol, et. al. if they'll promise to live in them...

I read about this, and thought: the only way I can think of to send a *worse* message to Iraqis would be if we provided security to the amusement park and condos (while not providing it to them.)

Every time I think that nothing can surprise me any more, the Bush administration proves me wrong.

(And welcome!)

come to the Green Zone Mall, where every store is a Target!

An expensive holiday in other people's misery.

cleek is the early front runner in the gallows humor 20K

Wait for the plans to make pig farming mandatory in Iraq ;-) [/sarcasm]

The new condos/luxury flats in scenic Baghdad come with highly trained Blackwater security. Their service is included in the rent* (if you choose to buy instead**, there will be free service guaranteed for 5 years with a discount rate on renewal). The 3 feet thick windows (plus titanium shutters) can withstand the impact of any ordnance grumpy natives have yet fielded with a safety factor of 3.5. Individual condos come with 2 heavy MG and a stash of portable firearms (choose from our catalogue). The complex has its own air and missile defence system, state of the art perimeter defences and enough stocks of food and ammo to withstand a lengthy siege. Within half a mile around the complex native-picking*** is permitted without special licence.

*spent ammo excluded
**preferred option, cash only (no US$)
***sniper rifles and ammo can be rented or bought from (we think) reliable suppliers on location, no background checks (if you can afford our service, you are kosher)

Maybe they'll look like the luxury hotels BLDGBlog so recently profiled.

I like the Kinks reference.

That's seriously awesome, Megan.

Megan.
Awesome.
Seriously.

Aren't those lovely? I wish I could go climb around on them.

Where on earth do they get all the water for that masonry?

It's getting hard to tell a real news story from a post at The Onion.

Well done Tom.

There's usually a musical allusion in each of my post titles for the curious.

I don't think #1 is so easily refuted. Al Qaeda becomes irrelevant, sure. But there are large, often regional, forces at work, and they're sitting on top of a polkload of oil. And we've already seen some "ethnic cleansing". And there are large outside interests as well (Iran, Turkey) that may not be so hesitant to get involved if we're not there.

None of this is a reason to stay indefinitely. But downplaying the possibility of civil-strife-level death and displacement makes me a little queasy.

David,

The point is that under our watch, 4 million Iraqis have been displaced as refugees (internally and externally).

Hundreds of thousands have died. Many, if not most, have died at our hands. Presently, we are racking up thousands of Iraqi dead (mostly civilians) and demolishing life-giving infrastructure in sprawling neighborhoods of Baghdad and elsewhere. Ask the Fallujahns how much they appreciate our protection.

So yeah, conflict could break out should we leave. It could very well intensify. But, er, conflict has had a persistent habit of breaking out with us there. In fact, we have been, and are, a major party to that conflict. Stay or go, the forces of civil war will play out as they will. We can slow some down for a bit, but then, we ourselves have become a party thereto.

Put simply: we are killing Iraqis for the ostensible purpose of protecting...Iraqis. We are staying in Iraq to prevent violence and disruption that has happened anyway.

"There's usually a musical allusion in each of my post titles for the curious."

What do you put in your post titles for the non-curious?

"Put simply: we are killing Iraqis for the ostensible purpose of protecting...Iraqis."

The classics are still classic: we have to destroy their neighborhood in order to save it.

We've done a lot of damage - there's no argument. But the fact that there's conflict while we're there is only one side of utilitarian moral equation. The question is, how much would the conflict escalate if we left? How many more (or less) people would be killed? Another couple hundred thousand? A few million? How many more would be displaced? Would it be more or less than if we stayed? Would there be regional instability? Would an eventual stable Iraqi government take decades to form, or would it happen quickly? To what extent would Iraq's infrastructure be harmed?

Have you seen any credible answers to these questions? Yes, we can ask the Fallujahns. We can also ask the Kurds.

Put simply, my point is that we have a moral responsibility to do the most good possible in Iraq. That might involve staying, leaving, installing a multinational peacekeeping force, installing a strong-arm puppet government, or any number of other things. We can't dismiss staying without having a decent understanding of the cost of leaving. The fact that things suck now doesn't mean that they wouldn't suck more if we left.

"The classics are still classic: we have to destroy their neighborhood in order to save it."

I'd argue that most of the really difficult moral problems we face involve situations in which harm can't be avoided.

but it's true that open italic tags can be avoided, with the judicious use of the preview button.

But david, you're ignoring a few important things:

While it is extremely difficult to determine if our presence is helping the Iraqi people, one thing is certain. It is enormously, mind bogglingly costly to the US in a number of ways. From lives lost, to trillions spent as our infrastructure rots/needs are neglected, to the breaking of the military, to the reputation tarnished, to providing a staging/training ground for militants and terrorists, to fueling anti-Americanism, to neglecting inumerable other foreign policy needs, etc.

Also: There is evidence that a majority of the Iraqi people want us to leave. So much so, that we've taken to targeting political movements that want us out so as to prevent the possibility of them making the political case. At the very least, we should consider fair national referendums.

So when faced with the specter of greater chaos if we leave, and the specter of greater chaos should we stay, how does that balance against the costs? Will of the Iraqis?

There are ways to withdraw that mitigate the potential for large scale conflict in our absence. I wrote an article on this subject for the Netroots Journal last summer, but their site is down. If it comes back up, I'll post the link.

In the meantime, if you're interested, I think Stephen Simon of the Council on Foreign Relations makes the best case:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12172/

You can download the pdf for free FYI.

"But david, you're ignoring a few important things"

I wouldn't say I'm ignoring them so much as that they're not really part of my argument.

I'm arguing that:

A) The reasoning in your post is not sufficient to refute the idea of staying in Iraq in order to protect Iraqis. To do that, you'd have to make the case that all in all, our presence there is not making them safer, or that leaving would not result in a huge catastrophe. The idea that we we're executing attacks "simply because the majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence" is unsupported.

B) I think that it's very important to recognize - in any discussion of staying in Iraq or leaving - that we have a tremendous moral responsibility to do as much good as we can for Iraqis. Anything other than a purely pragmatic argument with that as the premise gives me the jibblies deep in my soul.

By the way, Eric, I apologize for neglecting to welcome you aboard! It's good to have you here.

"B) I think that it's very important to recognize - in any discussion of staying in Iraq or leaving - that we have a tremendous moral responsibility to do as much good as we can for Iraqis."

I agree, and I'm completely open to, and feel it is required, to listen to all vaguely sensible arguments based on such a premise, but I question the assumption that our continuing the role, in even highly modified form, that we've played in Iraq for the last five years is a wise one.

The idea that we we're executing attacks "simply because the majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence" is unsupported.

I disagree. There is little else that distinguishes the Sadrists from others that we call allies.

What's your hypothesis.

(and thanks for the welcome!)

The comments to this entry are closed.