The Fallacy of Cut and Run vs. Stay the Course

Well we've heard the president speak again about the war on terror. A couple of days ago he addressed the National Endowment for Democracy about why we should continue the fight. His speechwriter did a good job smithing the words, but he wrote the whole argument based on a false premise. The premise comes in two parts: if we pull out of Iraq, we'll walk away from the war on terror, and if we want to prosecute the war on terror, we have to stay in Iraq.

Why don't the Democrats challenge Bush on this argument? Why won't anyone look closely at the false logic Bush uses to support his claim that we have to fight on in Iraq? Before we look at the premise, we need to get the terms right. Bush's favored phrase is the war on terror. But terror is a method, not an enemy. It's like saying the war on bombing, or the war on stabbing, or the war on subversion. Our enemy is Al Qaeda, not terror. Al Qaeda is a difficult enemy to fight, and it uses a lot of different methods. But at least we should be clear about who we're fighting, and what we're fighting.

Let's return to the president. He does get to set the terms of debate. This president, though, has had a lot of freedom. He's a fear mongerer and a panderer, and his opponents don't call him on it. All of his speeches set up choices and outcomes that make his opponents look terrible if they disagree with him. Rather than forcing him to change the logic of his argument, his opponents just keep quiet and hope people don't notice. They're not quiet all the time, but they don't speak loud enough or long enough. The White House's propaganda operation easily overwhelms the tiny squeaks that occasionally emerge from the opposition.

Having addressed those throat-clearing items, lets return to Bush's bad logic. What's wrong with setting Cut and Run against Stay the Course as the two options available to us now? Cut and Run means we admit defeat and give up the fight. Stay the Course means we show resolve and pursue the fight to the end. But those aren't the only choices, or the only outcomes. Cut and Run actually means we fight where we should be fighting. Stay the Course actually means we continue a futile and weakening struggle amongst a population that does not want us. Bush says that his opponents want to admit defeat, and that his policies are the only road to victory. If you look at what he's done, though, Bush led us into defeat and characterized the calamity as a long hard struggle for democracy.

Here's the problem: if you define your options too narrowly, you essentially operate with blinders on. If you misperceive the structure of your situation, you can't even start to think productively about the best strategy. That's what has happened to our thinking about Iraq. We can't get past timetables, defeat, retreat, morale, credibility, staying the course, and democracy for all in the region. We judge our options as acceptable or unacceptable based on the wrong criteria.

The most general criteria would be: What's in our interests? What's in the interests of the Iraqi people we'd like to help? What's in the interests of the entire region, from Morocco in the west to Pakistan in the east? What's in the interests of the smaller region, Iraq and its neighbors? What's in the interest of world peace and a good life for all of us? Now I know the Republicans say they are asking those questions, but they've had bad results with their actions. So we have to ask if their strategy is any good.

General Odom asks why we don't cut and run. What would be so bad about that? His article is a good one. You can find the link for it above this entry in the weblog. If I had more time, I'd like to summarize his points and offer my own comments on them. Right here, I'll distill the main strategy he suggests: withdraw from Iraq, repair relations with our friends, and fight the war we should be fighting. General Odom's strategy reveals the fallacy of Bush's current argument, that if we withdraw from Iraq, we stop fighting, and if we want to continue fighting, we have to stay in Iraq.

Success in the war against Al Qaeda does not require that we stay in Iraq. Success in the war against Al Qaeda requires that we scale down our operations in Iraq, regroup, and figure out the best way to prosecute the war against our enemies. Iraq has absorbed so much of our energy and resources that we don't even think about the war against Al Qaeda, except in connection with the conflict in Iraq. The administration thinks that winning the war in Iraq and winning the war against Al Qaeda amount to the same thing. But they're not the same thing. If we achieve our goals in Iraq, we will not have won the war against Al Qaeda. It's not clear now how we can defeat Al Qaeda, but we know from experience how not to do it. We know we can't do it by continuing our current operations in Iraq.

Here's a quotation, paraphrased from Einstein: The definition of insanity is to keep doing what you have been doing, and expect different results. It's time for a new strategy in the war against Al Qaeda. The beginning of a new strategy is recognition that the war in Iraq and the war against Al Qaeda are not the same thing. Victory in Iraq does not mean victory over Al Qaeda. We have to recognize that, at this moment, Iraq has to solve its own problems. That's what they want to do, and letting them do it serves our own interests. When we recognize that, we'll begin to see how to prosecute the war against Al Qaeda. Until we end this great diversion in Iraq, our blinders will prevent us from seeing the next steps we should take in the real war.