Kerryspot - IS A 'PRAGMACON' A FAIR-WEATHER HAWK? I DON'T THINK SO... [12/30 03:52 PM]
Mike, a reader of this site, asks, "Isn't it at least 30 days too early to be giving up on the original mission in Iraq? Where are your Pragmacons if we seem to be winning in six months?"
The short answer to his first question is, "Yes." However, just because it isn't too early to give up on Iraq doesn't mean that people will begin to look past it, or begin to look for "lessons" to take away from it. (Obviously, people give up on causes too early all the time. Iraq was a quagmire to the New York Times by... what, day three or four?)
I think you will see a distinction between what I am calling a "pragmacon" and a fair-weather-hawk.
One can support the mission in Iraq and still be"
A) pretty darn frustrated that the CIA is capable of botching a call as big and important as the status of Iraq's WMD program, and wary of taking further action regarding other countries' programs until we know our intelligence-gathering systems are up to the task,
B) frustrated by how slowly the Iraqis are coming to understand that it's their country now, and their reluctance to take action to defend it, and
C) something of a skeptic - or perhaps a worrier - about preemptive action against Iran.
If Iraq is going well in six months, the Pragmacon response will be, "great... but we still have the same problems. We have an intelligence-gathering system that doesn't meet our needs. Getting democracy to take root in among the societies ruled by hostile regime is a slow, difficult, and complicated process that sounds suspiciously like "nation-building," a task the U.S. military isn't really built to do. And taking the "pre-emptive regime change" option against Iran still includes a whole bunch of big risks and questionable benefits.
Secondly, I think - or perhaps hope - that much of this discussion will be held with a tone of "we want the same goals as the neocons, but we think there has to be a better route to get there." It would be disappointing if it descended to the whining, carping, and fairly unserious second-guessing that Tim Cavanaugh diagnosed.
UPDATE: Scylla & Charybdis offers another take: "If we’re going to get all practical, let’s be practical. A unified Iraq is a four-run homer, accelerating the Mideast peace process by years. But a one-run homer is all we need, and perhaps all we can afford. To wit: A balkanized Iraq with working democratic zones, territories or countries (Kurdistan; Shia’stan) satisfies the basic strategic objectives of the Plan (establishing and supporting an Islamic democratic zone in the region)."
My one immediate problem with that: I like having Turkey as an ally, and the Turks would be livid at the creation of an independent Kurdistan. |
