Nothing Like Vietnam
I’m listening (why?) to the “debate” on the house floor over the non-binding resolution. It’s truly awe-inspiring to have watched the war’s supporters cycle through rationales for the war: WMD, Hussein’s operational ties to Al Qaeda, democratizing Iraq, etc. Now, apparently, the ratonale for an escalation and continued occupation is something akin to the old “domino theory” that kept us Vietnam. One after another Republican congressman has been braying about how if we withdraw from Iraq (something that’s not on the table right now), then somehow the terrorists will win and spread out across the middle east, conquering nation after nation and declaring a caliphate. This is insane. Withdrawal from Iraq is highly likely to result in a lot of death and misery, but the notion that somehow the war is going to be exported isn’t based on anything other than the exigencies of war-supporters need to come up with a reason to continue the war now all others have fallen by the wayside.
And while everyone, including myself, seems to think the result of leaving Iraq will be horrible (but less horrible than staying) Robert Dreyfuss in the Washington Monthly has an interesting counter-intuitive argument for why it just might not be so bad.