Comments on: No More Goal Posts http://larison.org/2007/10/31/no-more-goal-posts/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Thu, 24 May 2012 00:12:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: mkdelucas http://larison.org/2007/10/31/no-more-goal-posts/#comment-7996 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:23:10 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/10/31/no-more-goal-posts/#comment-7996 Mainstream withdrawal arguments do have this serious defficiency, it seems to me. Like those advancing continued occupation, arguments for withdrawal seem to be premised on the idea that the United States in Iraq is a neutral party, disinterestedly trying to achieve "what's best" for Iraqis. The problem is, aside from being incorrect, so long as this assumption is held, every decrease in violence--and reported violence will probably continue to decrease, in fits and starts--will necessarily be interpreted as to the credit of the occupation. And how will mainstream withdrawal opponents respond? By prognosticating future calamity? But every calamity is reason for further occupation, for the continued presence of the "good guys" who must remain and mitigate the calamity. What you've written above is undoubtedly correct. But it's not so much unpersuasive as lacking in argumentative force. Yglesias and Douhat (or Douthat and Larison) could go on and on like this forever, arguing for and against the possibility of a decent peace, whatever the facts (because, let's face it, the facts are immaterial). But no one will be moved. Until we withdrawal proponents establish and describe the "interestedness" of the American occupation, the war enthusiasts will remain rhetorically and morally comfortable, defenders of the Iraqi interest. Make Douthat, a nominal Christian, defend the occupation as it is--make him defend conquest. Mainstream withdrawal arguments do have this serious defficiency, it seems to me. Like those advancing continued occupation, arguments for withdrawal seem to be premised on the idea that the United States in Iraq is a neutral party, disinterestedly trying to achieve “what’s best” for Iraqis. The problem is, aside from being incorrect, so long as this assumption is held, every decrease in violence–and reported violence will probably continue to decrease, in fits and starts–will necessarily be interpreted as to the credit of the occupation. And how will mainstream withdrawal opponents respond? By prognosticating future calamity? But every calamity is reason for further occupation, for the continued presence of the “good guys” who must remain and mitigate the calamity.

What you’ve written above is undoubtedly correct. But it’s not so much unpersuasive as lacking in argumentative force. Yglesias and Douhat (or Douthat and Larison) could go on and on like this forever, arguing for and against the possibility of a decent peace, whatever the facts (because, let’s face it, the facts are immaterial). But no one will be moved. Until we withdrawal proponents establish and describe the “interestedness” of the American occupation, the war enthusiasts will remain rhetorically and morally comfortable, defenders of the Iraqi interest. Make Douthat, a nominal Christian, defend the occupation as it is–make him defend conquest.

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2007/10/31/no-more-goal-posts/#comment-7994 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 08:51:24 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/10/31/no-more-goal-posts/#comment-7994 Thanks, Mike. I had seen the link earlier tonight. I'm glad that you found the post persuasive. I hope that it might persuade many more, but I won't be holding my breath. Thanks, Mike. I had seen the link earlier tonight. I’m glad that you found the post persuasive. I hope that it might persuade many more, but I won’t be holding my breath.

]]> by: Mike Burgess http://larison.org/2007/10/31/no-more-goal-posts/#comment-7993 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:06:29 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/10/31/no-more-goal-posts/#comment-7993 Posted a link to this on our new site, Daniel: http://www.conservativedonnybrook.com/2007/10/31/nailed-it/ Posted a link to this on our new site, Daniel:
http://www.conservativedonnybrook.com/2007/10/31/nailed-it/

]]>