A Consequence of Withdrawal

Reading William M. Arkin's blog at the Washington Post and his thoughts on withdrawing from Iraq, I see mostly the same arguments that others favoring withdrawal are making, along with some intriguing arguments that I'm not sure how much weight to give to. However, despite our opposite opinions (he supports immediate steps to withdrawal), there is one argument that neither he nor I give much credence to:

"Will the withdrawal from Iraq be another Somalia, where we signal to bad guys that we don't have the stomach for combat? With a stronger military not bogged down in go-nowhere operations in Iraq, we would be able to focus our counter-terrorism efforts. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should pack up and go home. But we just need to frankly admit to ourselves that the Iraq war -- justified or not -- has lit a flame that is inspiring thousands to take up arms. We are building the ranks of those who want to fight America because we are a physical and real military target. It is the uniform that calls out for war-making."

Whatever my arguments for staying in Iraq, I do not want anyone to think that I believe that our leaving will "embolden" the enemy, or that it is "cutting and running." Such an argument, used by those who propose we stay, is a sham. For one, our enemy in Iraq is utterly opposed to us, whether we announce tomorrow that we're leaving as soon as we can, or announce tomorrow that we're staying for another hundred years. They cannot be anymore opposed to us then they already are, and they will not be anymore motivated to fight or not to fight regardless of whether we're staying or leaving. Second, if I am wrong and we cannot hope to stabilize Iraq, then we are quite simply, defeated. We will have lost, the insurgents will have driven us, and of course they will be "emboldened" by that, as the victors always are by their victory. And lastly, this is no Somalia. We have stayed long enough and bled long enough, and would be leaving because we've admitted to ourselves and the world (whatever we say) that we cannot do anymore to help. In the process we will have conquered the country, levelled a city and killed thousands if not tens of thousands of insurgents and terrorists and God only knows how many civilians. No one who does so can be accused of cutting and running. The argument that we did so in Vietnam is absurd. When you lose over 58,000 of your men and kill over two million enemy and civilians, no one really thinks you're running out. The same will hold true in Iraq.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that, in case someone thinks I might be taking a position I actually disagree with by implication of the other things I've said.