Our dollar auction in Iraq.

Posted byWaldo Jaquith 12 Comments on Our dollar auction in Iraq.

In the Rutland Herald, Berkman fellow Oliver Goodenough draws a clever comparison between the surge in Iraq and the economics game of a “dollar auction.” (Via Daring Fireball)

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

12 replies on “Our dollar auction in Iraq.”

  2. I am still sleepy, but my god. I have been looking for a good way to describe what I see as the strategic insanity of continuing our mission in Iraq.

    Yes, the need to save some shard of the original intentions to invade. Especially when we had another plan (though, one that would have admitted that Administration’s War was a complete failure), the other plan: The Iraq Study Group’s bipartisan conclusion.

    In grouping for analogies I have always thought of the French and British in WW1: at Somme, Verdun and pretty much the whole war, the allies clung to old doctrines, they kept throwing good after bad with the same predictable consequences: the French suffered a 75% casualty rate while the Germans had a 54% casualty rate.

    As I see it the larger “War”,– improving our position in the world so that American Ideas of liberty and freedom have a stronger gravitation affect than the “other side”, not to mention or ability to project necessary overwhelming force– is being sacrificed in a vain attempt to make a failed policy of neo-con fantasy imperialism bear some fruits.

  4. Liberals used to argue that the lives of US soldiers and marines was a small price to pay to prevent genocide in various hellholes around the world. Now, if I’ve got it right, genocide is a small price to pay in order to bring the soldiers and marines home.

  5. First of all Judge, a statement like “Liberals used to argue” is ridiculous, it doesn’t describe anything, because different Liberals in general believe different things.

    It would be a lot like saying “Conservative used to argue” . . . well conservatives like Warner, Lugar, Hagel (the original General Betray-Us as argued by Rush Limbaugh a couple of months ago) and George Will seem to see things a lot different.

    I wont even get into your apples orange argument, but needless to say some missions are more realistic than others.

    Simply put this strategy is not accomplishing its mission, its exacerbating the sectarian strife, giving more fuel to the inevitable Civil War, undermining any reason that either side should seek reconciliation as an alternative to war, and it is undermining our larger strategic goals in the region, not to mention or force preparedness.

  6. The left always supports the war we’re not fighting. Like “the real war on terror” in Afghanistan. But why is it they’re gung-ho for “peace-keeping” missions in, say, Haiti a few years back, where it strains credulity to argue the US has any significant strategic interests, but the same people always wanna bug out of places when obvious US economic, strategic, and security interests are at stake?

  7. I don’t know of anybody, liberal or conservative, who believes that the lives of US soldiers and marines was ever a small price to pay for any purpose.

    While there have been circumstances in which we’ve found it to be in our national purpose to sacrifice human life, such sacrifices are never a “small price”. I think it’s unfair to suggest otherwise.

  8. I think you’re right, Harry. If I had to write it over again I would have phrased it: “Liberals used to argue that sending US troops abroad is a small price to pay…” Of course, implicit in that phrasing is the danger that some of them are going to die. But you’re right, and I shouldn’t have treated it so cavalierly.

  9. Liberals used to argue that the lives of US soldiers and marines was a small price to pay to prevent genocide in various hellholes around the world. Now, if I’ve got it right, genocide is a small price to pay in order to bring the soldiers and marines home.

    This statement takes as a given that continuing to fight in Iraq and having soldiers die will avoid genocide. If I agreed with that premise, I’d be arguing to stay in Iraq, because I think the US and its people are morally responsible for what’s happened in Iraq. As it is, I and many other liberals are left scratching our heads about what the best course of action is. However, if previous performance is any indication of what’s to come, six more months is probably not the answer.

    I should of course mention that I believed then as I do now that it was a colossal mistake to invade in the first place, and it’s been mismanaged beyond my wildest nightmares, so it would be rather painful to advocate staying longer, but unfortunately, I’m just not convinced that’s the answer anyway.

    I’m not trying to excuse the actions of many people (liberal, moderate, and conservative) who just want out because the war’s not going well. I think there are a lot of people who got squeamish once things started heading south, and want out, consequences be damned, and it honestly sickens me.

  10. I understand your frustration with the situation. Afterall, liberals, broadly speaking, were in my view right in 2003 – we shouldn’t have invaded. It must be galling to have been proven right by events and then have the same people who got it so wrong say, “Hey, just give us another another 30,000 guys and 2 more years and we can fix it.” They don’t have a lot of cred.

    Still, I believe cutting troops and redeploying (evacuating and retreating work there too) is a terrible idea. Someone would move into the vacuum, and it probably wouldn’t be anyone with our best interests at heart.

  11. Someone would move into the vacuum, and it probably wouldn’t be anyone with our best interests at heart.

    Hey, if we can’t keep people out now, why should we allow them to kill more Americans if it going to be that way anyway?

    ‘Moving into the vacuum’ is a 2004 statement. The time to wonder if the country is going to be stable once we leave has long since passed.

Comments are closed.