The Seattle Times, perhaps inspired by a strange New York Times editorial, calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
There is no good time to get out of Iraq, but once we know we must leave, there is no excuse to put off the decision. Delay is also a decision, the wrong one with enormous costs in human life.
But does not give us a single reason why immediate withdrawal would be a good decision, though they hint at one in the last line.
Here's a suggestion for the editorial writers at the Times: If you want serious people to take you seriously, make an argument and support it with evidence. Don't just tell us your conclusion. For example, if, as it appears, you believe that an American withdrawal would reduce the killing, tell us why you think so — and why you disagree with most experts on that point. Or, if you think that Iraqi deaths do not matter, be frank enough to admit that.
And while I am lecturing, I will go a little farther with my suggestions. Tell us what you expect to happen in Iraq, and around the world, if we do what you say we should. Support your predictions with examples from history, such as the success of the UN withdrawal from Rwanda. (Oops! That example doesn't work very well, does it? Though our withdrawal did help protect President Clinton's political viability.) Or perhaps you could use our withdrawal from Indochina, with all the wonderful consequences for Cambodia. (Oops, there are problems with that example, too.) Despite my failures on those two examples, I am sure that the editorial writers at the Times can think of some historical examples that support their argument — and I am even more sure that they should try.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Note to commenters: The topic of this post is rather narrow, the failure of the Seattle Times to even make an argument in an editorial. But because of the subject of the editorial I doubt whether every commenter will stick to that subject, so I am closing comments.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 17, 2007
04:44 PM | Email This