Sending more troops in Iraq and other thoughts

The Iraq war is not what the doves on the left would have one believe. Obviously, Iraq remains dangerously unstable. But even if, for the sake of argument, one concedes that the war is an abject disaster, it doesn't necessarily follow that the hawk's prescription was wrong. Complaints about mismangement of the war center on the lack of troops in Iraq. Nearly every expert thought more would be necessary to cary out an orderly occupation. Could more troops have made a difference? Yes, because all wars are governed by "tipping points" rather than any type of proportional returns. A sufficient number of troops would likely have provided enough security to carry out reconstruction projects, which would have reduced supply of unemployed, desperate males, which in turn would have created more political stability. Instead, Iraq has endured a vicious cycle of insecurity, failed reconstruction, economic stagnation, and political instability.

Many have dismissed this alternative as wishful thinking. Obviously, we cannot know for sure how a competently executed occupation would have fared. Yet, history is filled with examples of occupations -- Roman's conquest of Brition, East Timor, postwar Germany, and Japan -- that had sufficient troops and did not lead to the sort of chaos in Iraq.

I wish to end with this point -- where does the true base of the dove view come from? There are a small core group of far left who want nothing to do with any war. They include left-wingers like George Lakoff and Michael Moore, who, unlike virtually the entire Democratic party, opposed the war in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. They see the Iraq war not as a departure from the broader struggle against terrorism but as its apotheosis. (The Nation would fall into this category, including one writer, Ari Berman). In Iraq they can probably justly crow. Yet, their general record of foreign policy predictions is not exactly stellar. Simply take The Nation as an example. It overplayed the Afghanistan invasion: "airstrikes and other military actions may not accomplish the ends we endorse and may exacerbate the situation." In addition, it fiercly denunced the war in Kosovo: "Naton's war on Yugoslavia has failed catastrophically" has not stood the test of anyone's thinking. Finally, its take on the 91 Gulf War: "Sanctions have a much better chance of forcing Iraqi concessions in a shorter time and with much less misery than war.... The death toll [from fighting] could rise to Korean War levels, or higher" really did miss the mark. Maybe people who do oppose war should rethink basing their foreign policy views on those who have a somewhat better prediction accuracy.