Yglesias: The Hand-Wringing Gap

Matthew Yglesias (here) quotes George Packer here:

Obama offers Iraq as the bad war that we have to end if we want to win the good war in Afghanistan and turn around the economy at home. There’s more than a little truth to this, but I can’t help wishing that his speech on Iraq in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on Wednesday, had anything close to the level of complexity and depth shown in his historic speech on race the day before, in Philadelphia. There was no deep consideration of the fate of more than four million displaced Iraqis, the specter of growing Iranian influence in Iraq, the likelihood of a return to terrible levels of violence as American combat brigades are withdrawn, the border tensions between Iraq and Turkey, the future of Kirkuk, or a strategy for preserving the very fragile improvements of the past six months. Instead, the speech presented what sounded like a fairly cost-free, win-win plan.

Yglesias uncharitably characterizes Packer's point like so:

Obama's key contention, as underscored by Packer, is that Iraq is "the bad war that we have to end if we want to win the good war in Afghanistan and turn around the economy at home." Now obviously if you don't buy that analysis, you're not going to like Obama's Iraq policy. But Packer doesn't seem to disagree with it. Instead, he says "there’s more than a little truth to" what Obama is saying. But so if Obama's right, then he right. Packer doesn't see it that way. He seems to think that Obama should have gone in for some more showy hand-wringing. But why should he do that? Packer's upset that Obama doesn't have a viable plan for Kirkuk, but that's just the point; Obama recognizes that nobody has a viable plan to solve Iraq's problems so he wants to put our resources where they can do more good.

Seems to me this is so uncharitably snarky as to be pretty seriously misleading--and I don't care that it's Obama who's at issue (though I'm even more impressed by him now than I was before the race speech). I've had concerns similar to Packer's. Nobody wants to see the hand-wringing per se, of course. Rather, those of us who think that questions about withdrawal are serious and difficult questions should, of course, look for signs that the candidates also see them as serious and difficult. If a candidate is too breezy or enthusiastic about either staying or leaving, it's a strike against them in my book. Needless to say, I could be wrong, but this position isn't stupid, and, so, it's not stupid to look for signs that the candidates agree with it.

Yglesias is sort of right about Obama's main point, but he states it imprecisely (which is o.k. in such a context). The view, as I understand it, is more like this:
Afghanistan is a "good" war (roughly, a war that needed to be fought). This is true. Iraq is a "bad" war (roughly: a war that should never have been initiated. This is true. By ending the bad war, we raise the likelihood of success in the good war. This is true. Special bonus: ending the bad war will also help our staggering economy. Also true.

But none of that makes the conclusion that we should end the bad war now clearly true. The mere fact that the war shouldn't have been started and has made us less good and less safe doesn't mean that the best thing to do is stop it now. Indeed, stopping it not might make us even less good and less safe. We've virtually destroyed Iraq, and, thus, have some moral and prudential obligation to not just abandon it. Almost the entire decision here turns on the answer to a pair of empirical questions: what is likely to happen in Iraq if we stay, and what is likely to happen in Iraq if we go? If going is more likely than staying to make Iraq more peaceful and stable, then we should go; if staying is more likely to do so, then we should stay. The problem seems to be that no one seems to be sure what the answers to those questions are. If anybody knows them, they haven't tricked down to our level yet, that's for sure. What reasonable person can face this decission without wringing his hands?

And as for the allocation of resources point: the fact that we aren't sure what will happen in Iraq if we go means that we don't know how the relevant resources are best spent. If Iraq will descend into chaos, then our resources are best spent there, preventing that. If not, not. Again, it's uncertainty about the empirical questions that drives the "hand-wringing" here.

Incidentally, I haven a tendency to find Clinton's position most congenial on this issue, though not by much. Unlike some, I was heartened when Obama's campaign acknowledged that his position might have to change if the facts warranted a longer stay. And, if I thought McCain really thought that a hundred-year stay would be just peachy, he'd be out of the running in my book.

Part of what's really at stake here, I think, is inclinations. Seems to me that the Dems are inclined to get out and McCain is inclined to stay, though all are sensitive to new developments. I used to favor McCain's position, but about a year ago I started favoring the other one. Now I prefer to get someone who is generally oriented toward the door, but not dead set on it. How's that for a vague position?

Anyway, this "oooh, not enough hand-wringing for you, eh?" kind of criticism pops up sometimes in the leftosphere, and I find it rather annoying. So let's stop with it, o.k.?