Well, that's something that I wouldn't have expected.
Really? It seems pretty reasonable to me. A resistance group will stop resisting once the force they're resisting leaves?
The story is a bit too neat, though, perhaps I was expecting a different point (why suicide terrorists rather than just terrorism). I'm also not sure it's entirely accurate -- what changed in September 2000 when the bombings started up again in Israel?
And I'm not sure that 'get out' is the right answer; If it's us they're resisting? Probably will do some good. If it's any American businesses? Maybe not. If it's an Iraqi democracy that they don't like?
The correct response just can't be to cut and run in the hopes that all the bombings will stop.
Drezner (via Drum) raises an interesting point--that there are two morals that might be drawn from this. One of them is that it's necessary to reframe the equation, by refusing to withdraw in the face of suicide attacks, so there is no longer an incentive to use them; another is that it's necessary to make it possible to withdraw so the suicide attacks don't take place. This seems to me a lot like the debate over free-rider problems; if there's an action that, ideally, everyone would do, but that puts costs on each individual who does it, is it rational to do it or not? Or: Should we try to change the equation, all on our lonesome, if no one else is?
(You could also ask: Should we continue with stupid policies just to spite the terrorists? Which policies these are I leave up to you.)
Drezner's comments are a true piece of work. I can't tell whether the first one is just calling for genocide against Muslims, or against France too. He's a big Laurie Mylroie fan, in any case.
"He's a big Laurie Mylroie fan" = "Tom Holsinger, the first commenter and a piece of work, is a big Laurie Mylroie fan." Drezner gets Mylroie's mass e-mails but doesn't seem to respect her much.
Matt,
I had similar thoughts about the dilemma we are in. There are questions about short term gain versus long term gain. Saving face versus saving lives. Knowing what we can control and what we can't.
From the start I did not want us invading Iraq. There was no strong compelling reason, and it would lead us to exactly the position we are in, where there are no good options, just a choice of bad options.
My personal opinion is that we need to withdraw - the sooner the better. The only way we could stay long enough for a chance at success is with a draft, and that is simply NOT going to happen. Bush has nowhere near the guts required to implement a draft.
We've lost. No sense throwing good money after bad.
I pretty much agree. Just because some bad people may want us to withdraw from Iraq doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. (I'd like to say, we should do it only once we've managed to help the government become self-sustaining, but I don't see much progress on that front.)
One thing to note is that Pape and Scheuer (links in Drum's post) talk about how trying to install democracies via invasion will be counterproductive, because it'll lead to occupations and those will be problematic. But promoting democracy without invading countries wouldn't be counterproductive.
This is all assuming that Pape is right. I'm a little put off by his point about how there are no Iranian Al-Qaeda terrorists; are Shi'ites even welcome in Al-Qaeda?
The correct response just can't be to cut and run in the hopes that all the bombings will stop.
Many Americans seem to think that there is always a good answer if you just look hard enough.
Withdrawing will not 'fix' Iraq, but we could not fix Iraq anyway. Withdrawing will not fix the Israel-in-the-Middle-East problem, but staying would not fix that either.
Withdrawing preserves what is left of our military and stops the hemorrhage of money we are losing.
Let me just second Cala's point. If we believe that violence serves a political end, it's no surprise that violence will stop once that end is achieved. And while I am at it, I'll second Matt's as well: what works in a single instance may or may not be the best long term solution. E.g., giving the bully your lunch money and he will stop hitting you, this may or may not be the best long-term solution for combined lunch money/bruise optimization.
Jim Henley is of course correct that it seems like Spain has little to fear from terrorists until there is some immediate objective that terrorists think Spain is standing in the way of. I expect that few advocates of the Jingoist Catechism, like me, regard a return to Muslim rule in Spain as a near term goal of Al Queda. Preventing the success of a pro-American govenrment in Iraq, however, clearly is.
If we believe that violence serves a political end, it's no surprise that violence will stop once that end is achieved.
This is already quite a concession in the debate over Al Qaeda. It's certainly not the administrations ("they hate our freedom") position. Particularly if you further concede, as you seem to, that the end isn't re-establishing the Caliphate, but getting foreign troops out of their home territory.
And I don't think the bully analogy is helpful here. If they are after a political end, they're like any other actor on the world stage: using what power they have to draw concessions from others. A bully just beats on you because he feels like it, and can.
Tripp, I didn't support the initial invasion either, and I don't know whether staying or leaving is the best course of action right now. We should only stay if we have a hope of stabilizing Iraq, and I'm not qualified to judge that.
All I'm saying is that we should pick what is the best course of action, all things considered (including the suicide bombings), and not hang our hopes on a study out of Chicago that theorizes that bombings go away if you just give them what they want, and that what they want is Ami Go Home. If what they want is No Shi'ites in Iraq Government, then Going Home isn't going to make the bombings go away. If what they want is A Second Taliban, we damn well better not leave too soon else we'll have to go back in later.
I am uncomfortable with foreign policy that is predicated on making sure no one wants to hurt us, largely because I think that's unrealistic for a country of this kind of economic power.
Matt, I noticed the Shi'ite thing, too. And I'm not sure England's response to the IRA is a good parallel, but only because I vaguely remember hearing that the IRA's demands were a lot more specific.
giving the bully your lunch money and he will stop hitting you, this may or may not be the best long-term solution for combined lunch money/bruise optimization.
I note that this almost certainly the precise argument being made by the other side about "giving in to American occupation." AFAIK, that's pretty much the reason you launch suicide bombers - to make sure the "bully" realizes you're not going quietly.
I thought the bully analogy was meant to show that the best way to make the bully go away isn't always to hand over your lunch money. That might work on the playground today, but maybe tomorrow the bully also wants your juice box AND your pudding. And maybe you're better off learning to hit the bully back. Or call the teacher. (Is the teacher the U.N.? How far can we mangle this analogy?)
I'm not sure the bully analogy is right, but it's certainly consistent with thinking that the bully has some goal in mind.
Ok, in that case, we need to draw a distinction between a bully with a discrete, achievable goal, and one who wants an open-ended confrontation. I took Pape's point to be that Al Qaeda is probably the former kind of bully.
The whole bully thing is stupid because right away it frames the situation as right/wrong and about some resource external to bully and victim.
In the real world who is the big tough bully and who is the victim? Both sides see the other side as the bully. bin Laden saw us as the bully trespassing in his home, Arabia.
It is amazing to me that the US has about a zillion times the resources of bin Laden and yet we see ourselves as the poor little victim that has to stand up to the mean powerful bully.
To your earlier point, ogged: does anyone seriously (i.e., anyone smart) believe that "they hate our freedom" is meaningfully true? Not just rhetorically as a way to calm down panicky homeowners... but even my conservative friends don't think that al-Qaeda is honestly just jealous of a society chockful of Wal-mart and McDonald's. They'll link it to different causes than a liberal group would, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks that it's just freedom-hating.
Is this not a they-hate-our-freedom argument?
ogged,
Yes, that is a they-hate-our-freedom argument and more. It claims Moslims want to take over the world.
The problem I have with this and the bully analogy is that is assumes all Moslims feel the same way as some Moslims do. All of them are the "bully." All of them are the nutcase that killed van Gogh.
I have no doubt some Moslims want to take over the world and some of the bombings and attacks reflect that.
But not all the attacks. It is a matter of degrees and maybe we could get things down to the McVeigh level. We will never eliminate all the kooks and psychos.
In the late 1990s there was a series of bombings (not suicide) in the Paris Metro. Does anyone know how that was campaign was brought to a halt?