More "What Genocide?" Blogging

Matthew Yglesias doesn't agree with me when I say that Barack Obama's attitude towards Iraq -- withdraw even if it means genocide -- is stupid and wrong. Here's Yglesias' rationale:

Just because there's a very bad situation someplace doesn't mean you take action to halt it whether or not that action will work, makes strategic sense, or is likely to improve the situation. Occupying Iraq isn't working, and can't be made to work; the fact that more tragic days are likely ahead for the Iraqi people is no reason to stubbornly continue a failed policy.

Well, it depends on what he means by "whether or not that action will work or is likely to improve the situation". For example, Sen. Obama admitted that withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will likely cause a genocide. Yglesias has said similar things in the past. So, a continued U.S. troop presence will "work," if your definition of "work" is to prevent a genocide from occurring. But that's not what Yglesias and Obama mean. What they mean is that a continued U.S. military presence will not bring out a short-term solution to the underlying problems in Iraq, and it won't be able to stop all the violence. Therefore, in their view, we should pull out and allow the genocide to begin. In other words, they think that because the U.S. can't achieve objective "A" (say, relative peace and stability in Iraq) that they should therefore not pursue objective "B" (prevent a genocide from occurring by sustaining a military presence in the country). But that simply doesn't follow.

Preventing genocides from happening with a large U.S. military presence can "work". It's working now in Iraq. It worked in the former Yugoslavia in the '90s, when NATO and the U.N. finally put troops on the ground. In fact, it would be hard for me to imagine a scenario in which it won't work, since the U.S. military is clearly superior to any other force in the world in head-on combat. Small-scale bombings and killings will continue in Iraq for a while. But if we leave, that small-scale violence will turn into large-scale massacres. Instead of 50-100 being killed every day, it may be more like 500-1000. This is not something I'm willing to blow off as easily as Yglesias and Obama.

If they want to make the case that we should pull out of Iraq -- despite the fact that it will cause a genocide -- because we really shouldn't care about Iraqis and should only be concerned with the safety and well-being of our own troops, then they have my invitation to make the case. But they can't prove one point by denying another one; just because Iraq policy has failed so far in fulfilling its first objective doesn't mean that staying to prevent a large-scale genocide from occurring (and being fueled by Saudi Arabia and Iran) isn't a viable position. It is.

UPDATE: Thomas P.M. Barnett agrees with me:

Odd and bad argument for Obama to make, one that paints him in a corner. Citing the slippery slope argument that says, "If I don't do it everywhere, then I must not do it anywhere" is foolish and self-restricting. I can't believe Samantha Powers let's him spew that.