The House Always Wins

I keep hearing that the US can't pull out of Iraq, because it would suffer an enormous strategic defeat, give encouragement to terrorists, etc, etc.
When I hear this I am always reminded of the guy sitting at the casino tables saying "I can't leave now - I'm ten thousand down! I need to win it back!".

The US has already suffered a major strategic defeat. What was supposed to be an invasion lasting months (remember "Mission Accomplished"?) and a reconstruction that would pay for itself, has turned into a campaign of years, thousands of US lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars. The terrorists have already been enormously encouraged - the efforts of a few thousand of them have tied down the world's biggest military power for four years, and distracted it immensely from attacking Al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan.

There is a human bias against crystallizing losses that keeps people in the casino, but the important question is not "how much will I have lost", but "what will I gain by staying"?

The sad thing is that the real consequences of pulling out seem likely to be a vicious, genocidal war followed by a destabilizing partition. Worse, these consequences are likely to be merely delayed while the US military stays to keep the peace (such as it is).

I think the US could have prevented this, if it had put enough effort in to start with. That seems to be a widespread opinion (along with "they completely failed to plan for it"). I doubt that it can improve the situation now, although they are trying. It would be nice to see it work. If they really can sort things out, then it's worth staying. From my armchair, I can't see far enough into the future to tell.

But "avoiding a strategic defeat" is not a reason to stay. "Recovering from a strategic defeat" might be. "Avoiding another strategic defeat" might be a reason to go.