no logical problem, but it does require discussion. The only sensible approach to policy dilemmas such as this one is some kind of cost-benefit analysis based on one's assessment of the expected outcomes of different courses of action. With respect to Iraq, that means you are comparing the likely consequences of continuing the present policy with the likely consequences of various alternative policies. Pollack thinks that the likely consequences of continuing the current policy suck, and few would disagree. The question at hand, therefore, is just how much they would suck, and whether the consequences of changing policy would be even worse.
During the 1990s Pollack supported containment, because he thought that it was doing enough to keep Saddam in check to make it less bad, on balance, than other alternatives. Now that containment is eroding, he favors invading--but in a certain way, and with certain kinds of follow-up. In his mind, a screwed-up invasion, or--possibly--a successful invasion followed by a screwed-up aftermath, could conceivably be even worse than continuing our present course. So his backing of a policy change is not unconditional, but rather dependent on what other policy would be put in place in its stead.
The way I sum it up for students is with what I call "[tekboy's] first law of foreign policy"--all policies suck, but some suck more than others. The task of policymaking, therefore, is figuring out whether there's a course of action that sucks a bit less than the present one and is practically and politically feasible. If so, then you have a case for changing course. If not, then what you have is a comment on the tragic nature of reality, in which suckiness must unfortunately be coped with.
tb@lifeisfun,no?.com |
