Playing the odds

Conservative columnist/pundit Jonah Goldberg had a column yesterday accusing liberals of turning their back on genocide in Iraq when they call for our troops to be pulled out of the country, and further accuses them of hypocrisy for supporting intervention to prevent genocide in the 1990's, but "flipping" on it now.

Of course, this argument makes the assumption that pulling our forces out would lead to genocide in Iraq, but Goldberg addresses that:

Of course, some advocates of withdrawal try to maintain the moral high ground by arguing that there won't be genocidal slaughter -- though that usually sounds like self-delusion to me. Most close observers of the situation believe that if the U.S. were to sail out of Iraq, it would be on a river of Iraqi blood.

"The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom," a new report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution concludes, "is 135,000 American troops." Rapid withdrawal, the report says, could bring "a humanitarian nightmare" in which we should expect "hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die."

There are a couple things wrong with the above, however. The "new report" Goldberg cites is, in fact, neither particularly new nor a report. It is, instead, an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post last August, nearly a year ago. Also, it's not as if this opinion is universally shared within the Brookings Institute. A truly recent article (as in, from two days ago) from the same institution argues the US must withdraw now to contain civil war in Iraq. Furthermore, while the Brookings Institute as a while may be "liberal-leaning", it's questionable (at best) either author of the piece, Kenneth Pollack or Daniel Byman, fit that description in regards to their views vis-a-vis the Iraq war, at least as one can best conclude from perusing their publications.

Further, in considering what "close observers of the situation" have to say about what might happen if US troops withdraw from Iraq, Goldberg apparently doesn't think actual Iraqi citizens qualify. If he did, he would be aware the large majority those who might be most expected to fear genocide if left to fend for themselves actually think their security situation would improve.

Fair enough -- what's a little mischaracterization, disingenuousness and outright dishonesty between pundits after all? That doesn't mean Goldberg's underlying claim that pulling out from Iraq could lead to genocide. So lets examine his record as an Iraq prognosticator.

Perhaps most famously, in a debate from 2005 Goldberg said:

Let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now).

Well, those two years were up this past February, and Goldberg at least had the courage to do something which the current administration is chronically incapable of doing -- admit he as wrong.

That's not the only one, though ...

"Some pro-war arguments are very strong, some less so. But you have to add them all up together and look at the final tally. So: Is Iraq a brutal totalitarian regime? Check! Is it a proven threat to its neighbors? Check! Is it a proven threat to its own people? Check! Is it a proven threat to our allies? Check! Is it willing to export terrorism abroad? Check! Is it likely that if it got weapons of mass destruction, it would use them recklessly? Check! Is it working very hard to get weapons of mass destruction? Check! Would Saddam's people be better off without him? Check! Would we and our allies be better off without him? Check! Do we have the power and capabilities to get rid of him without paying too high a cost? Check! And, would getting rid of him make it less likely that another September 11 would "happen again"? Check."

And another ...

"I don't care if you hate George W. Bush; it's not like I love the guy. And I don't care if you opposed the war from day one. What disgusts me are those people who say toppling Saddam and fighting the terror war on their turf rather than ours is a mistake, not because these are bad ideas, but merely because your vanity cannot tolerate the notion that George W. Bush is right ... "

I actually spent a fair bit of time looking up statements by Goldberg on Iraq, and have yet to find one of any significance which has actually turned out to be correct. I imagine one such example must exist somewhere, but finding that needle-in-a-haystack is going to take more effort than I am willing to put in.

It's not just Goldberg of course -- nearly all well-known predictions made by conservatives regarding the course of the Iraq war have turned out to be wrong. Have you seen any Iraqi civilians greeting us as liberators and throwing rose petals at our tanks recently? Neither have I.

A common warning for prospective investors is "past performance is no guarantee of future results". Just because Goldberg and company have been wrong on nearly every single claim they have made regarding Iraq over the last 5 years is no guarantee they are wrong this time. If you had to trust someone on this matter, who would you choose? Conservative pundits or Iraqi's themselves?

Yes, a genocide may begin if we pull our troops out. If it does, we can revisit the situation - no one wants to see a genocide occur. If nothing else, were we to leave, then find ourselves having to go back to prevent a genocide situation, we would be likely to have more support from all quarters, home, abroad, and within the Iraqi populace itself ... and who knows, it's also possible form will hold, and Goldberg and Co. will be wrong on Iraq yet again.

I know which way I would bet.