I take a certain grim pleasure in watching official Washington realize--exceedingly slowly, but nonetheless--that egg can't be unscrambled, that the tender maiden, once screwed, can't re-attain her Vestal purity. Here: look at Anne Applebaum doing her best John Miltion: "Farewell happy fields, / Where joy forever dwells: hail, horrors!"
I'll actually advise you to follow the link and read the article in its gray entirety. Rarely are all the miserable aspects of the sunk costs fallacy so energetically invoked at a columnist's Ouija. The author reviews briefly a series of bogus politicians' bogus plans for Iraq, finds them all lacking, and prescribes that since we're already soldiering, we must therefore soldier on.
Anthony Bourdain, the Brasserie Les Halles executive chef-turned-writer, has a chapter in Kitchen Confidential called "Owner's Syndrome" where he amusingly, acidly notes the long convolutions that follow the first whiff of doom. The failing Italian place goes French Provençal, then American Videogame, then Sushi Fusion, ever hemmorhaging money, friends, respect, until at last the poor owners, imagined impressarios who only wanted the chance to pick up tabs for their friends and bring the world their special, artisinal styling of meatloaf, face the prospect of ruin. A smart operator runs from impending loss: he grimaces, loses his pound of flesh, sells off what he can to save his seed money, and gets the hell out before the Titanic sucks him down in its undertow. The novice, the fool, changes his concept.
The argument for staying because things might--will--"get worse" is no argument at all. The illusion here is that a failure is not a failure, a loss not a loss, the dead not truly dead and gone. Yes, things in Iraq are bad and will get worse--at very least in the short run. That outcome is totally inevitable, whether we stay or go. Applebaum lists a series of mighty disasters proceeding from an American departure, then says:
Perhaps these things would never have happened if we hadn't gone there in the first place--but if we leave, we'll be morally responsible.We're already morally responsible. We did something wrongly, and we don't have the power to put it right. It cannot be rectified, remediated, or forgiven. The practical, tactical, strategic, ethical, and moral failures are ours already. We can't take them back, but we can leave and stop implicating ourselves ever further in their unwinding.
9 comments:
Perhaps we are all wrong, though, Ioz. The longer we stay in Iraq (or expand to Iran), the bugger our debt burden, the more broken our army, the less likely local elites will be to listen to our offers of hope. If you want the empire to crash, then staying the course is the proper approach. It wouldn't be nice for US living in the good ol heartland of the Empire, but we perhaps deserve it. We continue to vote for Megampire vs. Empire Lite. Our children continue to sign up for military service to "defend our freedom." So...we get what we deserve. Those who said no will get screwed, too, but the majority love Empire.
I meant "bigger" not "bugger," although....perhaps
Brian, there's no chance that sinking deeper into moral squalor will effect an end to incessant aggression. The most likely outcome is a change of concept that allows greater excesses or different applications of means to realize the same bankrupt ideas. Unlike the meatloaf entrepreneurs, either savvy or cretinous, the fortunes and status of the Decider class can't be touched. There's no such thing, for them, as an inherently bad idea. There are inexplicable errors along the way and treacherous personnel.
Ah, I know Mr. Scruggs. I am head of Misanthropy Unlimited, don't you know., But you're right. Even in a Mad Max Distopia, Humungous and the Tina Turner character live pretty well.
You may be misanthropic now, but just wait until you've tried Scruggs Own® brand artisan meatloaf.
aw, don't be gloomy gusses. things will brighten as soon as the US Military rolls out its new rebranding effort.
"we will help you". catchy, no?
I'm sure it'll turn Iraqi frowns upside down once they know our boys are only there to "help".
-dan
God. EVERYTHING is a marketing concept these days. We've just leveled your house, raped your 12 year old daughter, and boiled your grandpa alive, but a new ad campaign will teach you to love us, don't you know?
Maybe they assume everyone is like Americans?
About the "it will get worse if we stop fighting" argument.
Consider the Trojans at year 9.
If they fight on they live under pretty frightful conditions, but not so bad that suicide is the smart option.
If they stop fighting the city will be completely destroyed, all the men and boys will be slaughtered, and the women and children all raped and killed or carried off into slavery.
Mightn't they be perfectly right that, for them, even war without end is better than stopping?
It can be perfectly sensible to fight on and on, with no end in sight, rather than quitting.
Many seem to think the Israelis are in just such a position.
The War Party claim the Iraqis are in such a position.
This is less credible.
The War Party claim that we are in such a position vis-a-vis the fighting in Iraq.
That is not very credible, at all.
If they want to make it stick they need to be precise on how the results of walking away would be worse for the US than going on indefinitely.
They don't even seem to try very hard.
Apart from "Al-Qaeda will come and get us," I don't really know what they would say.
the inability to reassess one's own views suggests an emotional/psychological block. in context, traders call it "falling in love". that ain't nothin' new.
Post a Comment