Winning in Iraq

One of the regular Friday night pool players at our local bar, Johnny, served in Iraq. He's a youngster -- 24 -- and a super nice guy. As pool and politics don't mix, and because I'd never risk offending someone who has voluntarily put their life on the line for their country, we've only discussed Iraq in the vaguest ways. But last night after a few beers he made a passing reference to an experience he had there and I took the opportunity to ask him, "Do you think we'll win?"

He looked down and shook his head. "It's different over there now," he said. "It's gotten bad."

We let it drop after that.

I've thought about Iraq a lot over the past few months, trying to decide where I stand on troop withdrawal. For so long I've thought we had to stay and finish the job, that to leave before Iraq was stabilized would be a disaster for everyone involved. And I still think it would be a disaster if we left... but now I'm unconvinced that it won't be a disaster if we stay, or that it won't be a disaster the day after we leave ten years from now. There are no good options going forward... it seems like a total mess. And while the insurgents pick off our troops and the Iraqi police at a steady clip, it's the sectarian violence that's killing the majority of Iraqi's -- to the tune of nearly 1000 a month.

There's a term used in business called "sunk cost". The definition of sunk cost is "cost already incurred that cannot be recovered, regardless of any present or future decision." A similar more common phrasing is "throwing good money after bad." Sunk cost often becomes an emotional (and absolutely pointless) consideration for people when they're trying to decide what to do. I think a lot of people want to "stay the course" because we've invested so much in Iraq already but to make a go-forward plan based on that is bad strategy.

I caught the clip of Bill O'Reilly on David Letterman via Crooks and Liars. I never watch David Letterman's show so I'm not terribly familiar with his position on anything but it was an interesting contrast to see them face off. I, of course, hate Bill O'Reilly.

According to Bill, the loss of American support for the war is because Americans don't like seeing bad news on their TVs everynight and would rather be watching Dancing with the Stars. That is a pretty nakedly condescending view, isn't it? We're all just stupid Americans... thank goodness we have Bill around to tell us what's important.... like the War on Christmas.

But the clincher was when Bill exasperatedly asked Letterman, "Do you want America to win or not?" As if questioning the war effort is the same thing as wanting us to lose. Or as if all it really takes to win a war is to robotically support it.

Letterman's answer was something like, "It's not that easy, Bill... I'm a thoughtful person." Which is a pretty good answer, really.